News
As OK’s anti-Tesla bill moves forward, its author believes a compromise is possible
The electric vehicle community in the United States took a collective gasp earlier this month when a proposed House Bill in Oklahoma unanimously passed a committee vote. The bill in question, HB 3994, aims to update and change parts of existing Oklahoma statutes related to the state’s auto industry. Now, this may sound harmless enough, but a look at the 70-page bill shows that companies like Tesla could lose out heavily if HB 3994 becomes law.
Tesla is already not allowed to directly sell its cars to consumers in Oklahoma, but HB 3994 could give the company even more headaches. What is particularly alarming with HB 3994’s language is the fact that it could be interpreted as a means to prevent automakers like Tesla from delivering and servicing vehicles in the state. This may result in Oklahoma-based Tesla owners being required to travel out of state just to have their vehicles serviced.
Tesla takes the bill very seriously, with the company urging owners on its Engage page to vote “No” to HB 3994. “If passed, this bill could force Tesla to close its existing locations in Oklahoma and prevent Tesla from shipping cars to anyone in the state, which would force locals to travel out-of-state to service their cars or pick up their new Tesla vehicles. Oklahoma should focus on increasing revenue and jobs in the state, not stifling competition and limiting consumer choice,” Tesla noted on its Engage page.
Oppositions and Risks
To state that Oklahoma-based Tesla owners are passionately trying to prevent HB 3994 from progressing further would be an understatement. Tesla owners are currently lobbying against the bill, with some even heading to the capitol last week to speak with the bill’s author, Representative Mike Dobrinski, who has an extensive background in the state’s auto sector. As per Dobrinski’s LinkedIn page, he was the Owner/Dealer of Dobrinski Chevrolet, Inc. until March 2017, and he was the Dealer/Owner of Dobrinski of Kingfisher, Inc., a Chevrolet-Buick-GMC dealership, until October 2018.
The Tesla owners’ talk with the Representative at the capitol last week was brief, according to information shared with Teslarati. Dobrinski highlighted the idea that HB 3994 is a way to protect Tesla owners in Oklahoma because if the EV maker refuses to cover its customers under warranty, then consumers will have no backup. Such a scenario seems unlikely, however.
Senator Mary B. Boren (Credit: Oklahoma Senate)
It’s not just Tesla owners in the state who are against HB 3994. Oklahoma Senator Mary B. Boren, who drives a Tesla Model 3 herself, has openly criticized the bill. In a short conversation with Teslarati, Senator Boren noted that Oklahoma must let the product and the market decide if the state wants innovation to flourish. Initiatives such as HB 3994, which could result in automakers with no dealerships getting the short end of the stick, are counterproductive.
The Senator’s statements could very well ring true. Just recently, reports emerged that Tesla battery partner Panasonic has decided to acquire a factory site in the United States for the production of high-capacity lithium-ion batteries. Panasonic has reportedly shortlisted its preferred US locations to Oklahoma and Kansas. Senator Boren remarked that the presence of bills like HB 3994 could potentially discourage companies like Panasonic from investing in Oklahoma.
“If you have capitalistic laws being passed to protect a particular industry and their business model and to insulate them from the market demands that require them to adjust, then any innovative industry related to EVs will notice that — and they will notice that cronyism is at play. They will find friendlier environments,” Sen. Boren said.
Insights from HB 3994’s Author
The fact that HB 3994 unanimously passed a committee vote earlier this month shows that the bill is also seeing substantial support, despite its harsh repercussions on companies like Tesla and its local electric vehicle owners. When asked by Teslarati about the rationale behind the controversial bill, Rep. Dobrinski explained that HB 3994 is a request bill from the Oklahoma Auto Dealer Association.
“A request bill from the Oklahoma Auto Dealer Association, it seeks to strengthen the position of franchised dealers from the ever-increasing demands and requirements of their legacy manufacturers. Doing so requires addressing Direct Shippers, including Tesla, that are not currently regulated by the Oklahoma Motor Vehicle Commission like franchised dealers are. Proper legislation and regulation will ensure that existing service facilities may remain open and consumers will have additional protections,” Dobrinski noted.
Representative Mike Dobrinski (Credit: Oklahoma State Legislature)
Interestingly enough, the Representative admitted that while HB 3994 includes provisions that may be used to force Tesla into closing its service centers in the state, he does not expect that part of the bill to make it to HB 3994’s final iteration. “I do not expect that provision to be included in the (bill’s) final language,” Dobrinski later stated.
The Representative deserves praise for his honesty with HB 3994, though one may wonder why the controversial bill’s most heavy-handed provisions were included in the first place. When confronted by Tesla owners online, Dobrinski has maintained that HB 3994 is far from finished, but it has already opened the doors for communication among automotive businesses in the state.
“This bill, as introduced, is far from the finished product. It is forcing engagement from franchise auto dealers, legacy manufacturers, and new EV manufacturers, including Tesla. These folks are all talking now for the first time ever to work on a plan of regulation going forward that ensures competition and improves customer satisfaction under the purview of the Oklahoma Motor Vehicle Commission,” Dobrinski wrote.
A Price for Compromise?
Considering the statements of HB 3994’s author, it appears that the bill could partly be seen as a way to achieve a compromise of sorts between companies like Tesla, electric vehicle owners, and the state’s franchised auto dealerships. However, existing Tesla owners in Oklahoma fear that if HB 3994 passes into law, it could adversely affect not only their ownership experience but also their daily lives.
Cristen Winter Huber, a Tesla owner and a foster mother, is one of them. Being a foster mother, Huber is unable to take her foster children outside Oklahoma without a judge’s permission. According to Huber, the harsher portions of HB 3994 could effectively disrupt her family dynamic, and it might motivate her to leave the state.
“It’s not feasible for my family to drive out of state frequently. I’m a parent and foster parent. I have to get approval from a judge to take my foster child out of state. If I have to leave the state to service my car, I might as well move to a state that welcomes growth and innovation,” Huber said.
Jochen Hoppert, the President of the Tesla Owners Club of Oklahoma, noted that HB 3994 is not only a step in the wrong direction — it can have repercussions far beyond Tesla. The Tesla Club President also stated that so far, the EV maker’s service centers in Oklahoma City and Tulsa are proving that Tesla is serious about supporting its customers.
“Tesla is still not permitted to sell or deliver vehicles from those locations. We hope that will change in the future, yet this anti-competitive bill is clearly a step in the opposite direction. It’s worth noting that this move would not only negatively affect Tesla and the local Tesla community but other up-and-coming electric vehicle manufacturers wishing to do business in the state.
“Rep. Mike Dobrinski, the creator of this bill… has shared his perspective, which includes the notion that this bill would provide benefit to the consumer by allowing the state to manage the presence of warranty, service, and other such things for the consumer as required features of the electric vehicle marketplace. The Tesla service centers in Oklahoma City and Tulsa already demonstrate Tesla’s desire to provide its customers with such services,” Hoppert said.
Following its unanimous committee approval, House Bill 3994 has now advanced to the House Floor. But before the bill could become a law, the Oklahoma Governor would have to approve it first. With this in mind, Tesla owners and electric vehicle advocates still have some time to fight against the bill, or at least lobby for significant changes. Rep. Mike Dobrinski himself has been consistent with the idea that HB 3994 is still open for edits, so it may be a good idea for Tesla owners in the state to push their efforts even more from this point forward.
Those interested in speaking up and supporting Tesla’s efforts against Oklahoma’s HB 3994 could click here.
A copy of Oklahoma HB 3994 could be viewed below.
Hb3994 Int by Simon Alvarez on Scribd
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
Elon Musk
SpaceX just forced Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile to team up for the first time in history
AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon just joined forces for one reason: Starlink is winning.
America’s three largest wireless carriers, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon, announced on On May 14, 2026 that they had agreed in principle to form a joint venture aimed at pooling their spectrum resources to expand satellite-based direct-to-device (D2D) connectivity across the United States in what can be seen as a direct response to SpaceX’s Starlink initiative. D2D, in plain terms, is technology that lets a standard smartphone connect directly to a satellite in orbit, the same way it connects to a cell tower, with no extra hardware required.
The alliance is widely seen as a means to slow Starlink’s rapid expansion in the satellite internet and mobile markets. SpaceX’s Starlink Mobile service launched commercially in July 2025 through a partnership with T-Mobile, starting with messaging before expanding to broadband data. SpaceX secured access to valuable wireless spectrum through its $17 billion deal with EchoStar, paving the way for significantly faster satellite-to-phone speeds.
SpaceX was not shy about its reaction. SpaceX president and COO Gwynne Shotwell responded on X: “Weeeelllll, I guess Starlink Mobile is doing something right! It’s David and Goliath (X3) all over again — I’m bettin’ on David.” SpaceX’s VP of Satellite Policy David Goldman went further, flagging potential antitrust concerns and asking whether the DOJ would even allow three dominant competitors to coordinate in a market where a new rival is actively entering.
Weeeelllll, I guess @Starlink Mobile is doing something right! It’s David and Goliath (X3) all over again — I’m bettin’ on David 🙂 https://t.co/5GzS752mxL
— Gwynne Shotwell (@Gwynne_Shotwell) May 14, 2026
Financial analysts at LightShed Partners were blunt, saying the announcement showed the three carriers are “nervous,” and pointed to the timing: “You announce an agreement in principle when the point is the announcement, not the deal. The timing, weeks ahead of the SpaceX roadshow, was the point.”
As Teslarati reported, SpaceX’s next generation Starlink V2 satellites will deliver up to 100 times the data density of the current system, with custom silicon and phased array antennas enabling around 20 times the throughput of the first generation. The carriers’ JV, which has no definitive agreement, no financial structure, and no deployment timeline yet, will need to move quickly to matter.
Elon Musk’s SpaceX is targeting a Nasdaq listing as early as June 12, aiming for what would be the largest IPO in history. With Starlink now serving over 9 million subscribers across 155 countries, holding 59 carrier partnerships globally, and now powering Air Force One, the carriers’ joint venture announcement landed at exactly the wrong time to look like anything other than a defensive move.
Tesla just raised Model Y prices for the first time in two years, with the largest increase being $1,000.
The move signals shifting dynamics in the competitive electric vehicle market as the company continues to work on balancing demand, profitability, and accessibility.
The new pricing affects premium trims while leaving entry-level options unchanged. The Model Y Premium Rear-Wheel Drive (RWD) now starts at $45,990, a $1,000 increase.
The Model Y Premium All-Wheel Drive (AWD)—previously referred to in the post as simply “Model Y AWD”—rises to $49,990, also up $1,000. The top-tier Model Y Performance sees a more modest $500 bump, bringing its starting price to $57,990.
Tesla Model Y prices just went up:
New prices:
🚗 Model Y Premium RWD: $45,990 – up $1,000
🚗 Model Y AWD: $49,990 – up $1,000
🚗 Model Y Performance: $57,990 – up $500 https://t.co/e4GhQ0tj4H pic.twitter.com/TCWqr3oqiV— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) May 16, 2026
Base models remain untouched to preserve affordability. The entry-level Model Y RWD holds steady at $39,990, and the base Model Y AWD stays at $41,990. This selective approach keeps the crossover accessible for budget-conscious buyers while extracting more revenue from higher-margin configurations.
After years of aggressive price cuts to stimulate volume amid slowing EV adoption and rising competition from rivals like BYD, Ford, and GM, Tesla appears confident in underlying demand. Recent lineup refreshes for the 2026 Model Y, including refreshed styling and efficiency gains, have helped maintain its status as America’s best-selling EV.
By protecting base prices, Tesla avoids alienating price-sensitive customers while improving margins on the more popular variants.
Tesla Model Y ownership review after six months: What I love and what I don’t
For consumers, the changes are relatively modest—under 3% on affected trims—and still position the Model Y competitively against gas-powered SUVs in the same class. Federal tax credits and potential state incentives may further offset costs for eligible buyers.
This marks a subtle but notable shift from the deep discounting era that defined much of 2024 and 2025. As the EV market matures into 2026, Tesla’s pricing strategy will be closely watched for clues about production ramps, new variants like the rumored longer-wheelbase Model Y, and broader profitability goals.
In short, today’s adjustment reflects a company that remains dominant yet pragmatic—willing to test higher pricing where demand supports it. It is unlikely to deter consumers from choosing other options.
Elon Musk cannot be fired from SpaceX, and there’s a reason for that.
In a blunt post on X on Friday, Elon Musk confirmed plans to structurally shield his leadership at SpaceX, ensuring he cannot be fired while tying a potential trillion-dollar compensation package to the company’s long-term goal of establishing a self-sustaining colony on Mars.
Yes, I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars, not pandering to someone’s bullshit quarterly earnings bonus!
Obviously, IF SpaceX succeeds in this absurdly difficult goal, it will be worth many orders of…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 15, 2026
The revelation stems from a Financial Times report detailing SpaceX’s intention to restructure its governance and compensation framework. The moves are designed to protect Musk’s control and align his incentives with the company’s founding mission rather than short-term financial pressures. Musk’s reply left no ambiguity:
“Yes, I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars, not pandering to someone’s bullshit quarterly earnings bonus!”
He added that success in this “absurdly difficult goal” would generate value “many orders of magnitude more than the economy of Earth,” though he cautioned that the journey will not be smooth. “Don’t expect entirely smooth sailing along the way,” Musk wrote.
The strategy reflects Musk’s deep concerns about how public-market expectations could derail SpaceX’s core objective. Founded in 2002, SpaceX has repeatedly stated its purpose is to reduce the cost of space travel and ultimately make humanity a multiplanetary species.
Unlike Tesla, which went public in 2010 and has faced repeated battles over Musk’s compensation and board influence, SpaceX remains privately held. Musk has long resisted taking the rocket company public precisely to avoid the quarterly earnings treadmill that forces most CEOs to prioritize short-term stock performance over ambitious, high-risk projects.
By embedding protections against his removal and linking any outsized pay package to verifiable milestones—such as a functioning Mars colony—SpaceX aims to insulate its leadership from activist investors or board members who might demand faster profits or safer bets.
Musk has referenced past experiences, including his ouster from OpenAI and shareholder lawsuits at Tesla, as cautionary tales. In those cases, he argued, external pressures risked diluting the original vision.
Critics may view the arrangement as excessive, especially given Musk’s already substantial voting power and wealth. Supporters, however, argue it is a necessary safeguard for a company pursuing goals measured in decades rather than quarters. Achieving a Mars colony would require sustained investment in Starship development, orbital refueling, life-support systems, and in-situ resource utilization—technologies that may deliver no immediate financial return.
Musk’s post underscores a broader philosophical point: true breakthrough innovation often demands tolerance for volatility and a willingness to ignore conventional business wisdom. As SpaceX prepares for increasingly ambitious Starship test flights and eventual crewed missions, the new governance structure signals that the company’s North Star remains unchanged—humanity’s expansion beyond Earth.
Whether the trillion-dollar package materializes depends on execution, but Musk’s message is clear: SpaceX exists to reach the stars, not to chase the next earnings beat. For investors or employees who share that vision, the protections are not a perk—they are a prerequisite for success.
SpaceX just forced Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile to team up for the first time in history
Tesla Model Y prices just went up for the first time in two years
