

Tesla Model 3
Resistance to EVs: Legacy auto history shows pushbacks are nothing new
It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone in the auto industry these days that future cars will need to produce either zero or low emissions. Even if customers aren’t yet demanding all-electric vehicles at the same level as gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles, they certainly aren’t demanding poor fuel efficiency and high levels of tailpipe emissions, either. So, why is there pushback against regulations that demand better transportation products for both people and the environment?
The California Emissions Standard
In the United States, a primary driver of new vehicle emissions standards comes from California’s Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) and Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) standards. California has unique, critical pollution problems which led to a special exemption in the federal Clean Air Act allowing the state to regulate its own car emissions rather than be limited to (lower) national regulations. While other states can’t write their own laws, they can opt into following California’s standards. So far, 14 states have adopted the LEV standards, and 10 of those have adopted the ZEV standards.
California’s current standards place caps on tailpipe emission levels and mandate a certain number of cars produced each year by manufacturers to be ZEVs and/or plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) on an increasing scale through the year 2025. The number required is calculated by a percentage of credits issued based on electric driving range – the more range the more credit received. In 2018, for example, 4.5 percent credits of new cars produced by a car maker must be ZEVs/PHEVs, and that amount increases to 22% in 2025. When other states adopt California’s emissions standards, the ZEV/PHEV numbers usually come with them.
Auto manufacturers’ history of standing against regulation
The primary objection of the major players in the auto industry to meeting these requirements is the time allotted. Specifically, automakers only have seven years to transition almost a quarter of their fleets to a completely different power source than they’ve been using for decades. At first glance, this seems fair. After all, most car makers have huge bureaucracies and systems in place that take a lot of effort to change in major ways. However, using history as our guide, this reasoning falls flat. The current regulatory environment facing car manufacturers isn’t something new, and neither is the lack of merit in their pushback against it.
In the 1960s, California attempted to implement automotive pollution controls via a passive approach which waited for emissions-reducing devices to be developed before regulating them. This was market-centric and took heavy consideration of the financial impact these devices would have on manufacturers to create in-house, and the auto industry claimed it couldn’t develop the tech needed for years to come. However, when third party devices were brought to market rather quickly (i.e. devices not produced by the car makers themselves, thus requiring purchase and/or licensing), the manufacturers quickly modified their engines to meet the emissions requirements. By doing this, automakers rendered the third party devices moot and wasted their time, effort, and resources. More importantly, car makers’ speedy response to the regulations once enforcement set in led to questions about industry collusion against emissions innovations.

This type of behavior by car makers led to what’s called “technology-forcing” regulations. In other words, because the auto industry has historically been resistant to improving their products purely for safety or environmental reasons on their own, the government has changed its regulatory approach to force the issue with penalties. It’s not that the government is trying to totally control the direction of tech development in the auto market, but rather that the industry has historically used monopolistic-type behaviors to stifle innovations that were in the public interest, which is the government’s job to protect.
Controlling what cars release into the air we breathe isn’t the only thing the auto industry has pushed back against, either. A 1983 US Supreme Court case involving restraint system requirements in cars described the auto industry’s resistance to mandatory airbags as “the regulatory equivalent of war.” Since the addition of air bag systems was costly and required certain redesigns in vehicles, car makers in the 1980s were motivated to prevent their requirement. Myths were spread including that they might cause accidents by going off inadvertently, they are too expensive, and that the public doesn’t want them. Sound familiar? Swap out accidental airbag deployment for Tesla car fires and the three myths sound just like the ones we hear about electric vehicles.
Today’s pushback by car makers
As natural as things like air bags are to us today as basic safety devices in our cars, their merits took time (and regulations) to justify standard installation. Despite visibly thick clouds of smog and high air pollutant ratings in many cities across the U.S. today, automakers still continue to make excuses for meeting low emissions standards in their vehicles and resist ramping up ZEV developments.
In Colorado, for instance, the Colorado Automobile Dealers Association (CADA) actively lobbied against the adoption of California’s emissions standards in the state, saying that customers don’t want electric cars yet, thus making the aggressive ZEV schedule an undue burden on the industry. They argued this while spreading long-busted myths about electric cars and also failing to mention their other lobbying efforts which hamper car makers from selling directly in the state. The irony, of course, is that this is the sales method of the best-selling electric car brand in the world – Tesla. Similar direct-sales restrictions and dealer lobbying efforts exist in several other states across the country.
Prob with Colorado Automobile Dealers Association (@DriveColorado) saying ICEing is not a problem is they've consistently communicated they do not support EVs. Worst of all they do sophomoric things like exclude @Tesla EVs from site. See @KDVR story here: https://t.co/PWWtZjXKjR pic.twitter.com/PhgfhntG9N
— Sean Mitchell (@seanmmitchell) April 23, 2019
Perhaps the most stunning display of resistance to change put forward by legacy car makers is their behavior after the US changed presidential administrations in 2017. After working closely with the last administration to create “harmonized” fuel-economy standards at the federal and state levels, automakers petitioned the incoming administration to re-review the final rule agreed to in 2012. In their letter, they argued the existing rule “over-projects technology efficiencies and inadequately accounts for consumer acceptance and marketplace realities”, while especially complaining about the ZEV mandate adopted by ten states. No mention of Tesla’s success or self-reflection over why they were failing to replicate it, of course.
After the administration moved forward with the changes requested, California stood its ground on the issue and indicated it would mount a legal challenge against the loosened regulations and entangle automakers in an “extended period of litigation and instability.” Seeing the headaches and financial hits on the way, automakers have urgently asked for more negotiations and compromise between California and the federal government over the issue, but it’s unlikely to happen at this point. Actions have consequences indeed.
But even after all this, the industry may be coming around anyhow.
The way forward
California’s emissions standards are quickly becoming the new normal as customers are demanding more environmentally sustainable (and cleaner) options for their vehicle purchases. Implementing technology-forcing regulations has helped result in a variety of ZEV choices being offered already. It’s unfortunate that the auto industry has a history of resisting beneficial changes to its products, but we’ve finally hit a potential turning point.
Rising ZEV sales over the last few years have been entirely market driven, and the spread of California’s regulatory framework for cars hasn’t happened at the behest of the federal government. It has been consumers voting both at the ballot and with their wallets that are leading the charge to bring ZEVs to the mass market. Most major car manufacturers now have plans to transition their fleets over to battery-powered operation over the next ten or so years, and as the industry continues its incredible growth, automakers may finally come to realize that when their customers benefit from their products, they will as well with new sales.
News
Tesla is bringing back something it took from the Model 3…for a price
“Modify your Model 3 by replacing the turn signal buttons on your steering wheel with turn signal stalks. This modification is included in the purchase price and is installed by a Tesla Service Center.”

Tesla is bringing back the Model 3’s turn signal stalk in China after removing the part with the refresh of the all-electric sedan early last year.
However, it is going to cost you.
In 2024, Tesla launched the Model 3 “Highland,” a refreshed version of the vehicle that included several large-scale changes. One of the most noticeable was the lack of a turn signal stalk, something the company chose to remove and instead implement turn signal buttons on the steering wheel.
The buttons were met with mixed reviews, as some drivers complained that it was too difficult to get used to them. Others had no problem with the change, noting that it was slightly more convenient for them or that they enjoyed the minimalistic look.
Now, Tesla is offering Model 3 owners in China the opportunity to replace the stalk for a price of ¥ 2,499, or about $350:
“Modify your Model 3 by replacing the turn signal buttons on your steering wheel with turn signal stalks. This modification is included in the purchase price and is installed by a Tesla Service Center.”
Tesla notes on its website that the service is available for Model 3 vehicles without stalks manufactured after February 7, 2025. Any car without a stalk that was manufactured before that date will have the service available to them in the future.
Installation can be performed at a Service Center or by the owner. However, Tesla notes that it is not responsible for any damages resulting from self-installation and recommends that the part be put in by an employee.
The cockpit of the Tesla lineup has been under intense scrutiny by the company in recent years. After a few changes to things like the stalk, steering wheel shape, and others, Tesla has usually given drivers the chance to have things reverted back to their preferences if they want.
They did this for the Model S and Model X a few years ago after implementing the yoke steering wheel.
Tesla Steering Wheel Retrofits have started, and it’s easy to get rid of your yoke
The stalk was not supposed to be removed from the Model 3 and Model Y, but Tesla chose to do so with the refresh last year.
It seems the minimalization of the cockpit, overall, is a move that prepares drivers for autonomy, as eventually, Teslas will be void of pedals, steering wheels, and any other apparatus that are used to control the car.
News
Tesla offers new deal on used inventory that you won’t want to pass up
Tesla opened up lease deals on used Model 3 and Model Y inventory in California and Texas on Tuesday, marking the first time it has launched the option on pre-owned cars.

Tesla is offering a new deal on its used vehicle inventory that consumers looking for a great deal won’t want to pass up.
Traditionally, Tesla has not allowed potential car buyers to lease its used inventory. The only two options were to buy with cash or finance it through Tesla or a bank.
However, with the elimination of the $7,500 new and $4,000 used EV tax credits, Tesla is breaking its own rules and is now offering lease deals on its used vehicle inventory, but only in a couple of states, as of right now.
Tesla is ready with a perfect counter to the end of US EV tax credits
Tesla opened up lease deals on used Model 3 and Model Y inventory in California and Texas on Tuesday, marking the first time it has launched the option on pre-owned cars.
The deals are tremendous and can cost as little as $0 down and under $225 per month for some vehicles.
Lease a Pre-Owned Model 3 or Y
As low as $0 down & $225/month
Now available in CA & TX https://t.co/LRYRIZP8VZ
— Tesla North America (@tesla_na) August 19, 2025
Tesla also allows customers to buy the vehicle at the end of their lease deal, which enables some really great ways to end up an owner of the car you plan to drive for the next two or three years.
The lease deal also helps Tesla rid itself of older vehicles that might not be of future use to the company. It formerly planned to use leased vehicles in its eventual Robotaxi fleet, but many of the cars in its used inventory have Hardware 3, which is less capable than Hardware 4, which is installed in the new Model 3 and Model Y.
More importantly, Tesla is giving people yet another way to be in the market for a Tesla before the tax credit ends on September 30.
News
Tesla offers tasty Supercharging incentive as Q3 push continues

Tesla is offering a tasty Supercharging incentive on inventory Model 3 units in Canada as it continues to push sales in the third quarter.
In the United States, Tesla is preparing for the end of the $7,500 electric vehicle tax credit. While it is offering a multitude of incentives in the U.S. to help push sales of its vehicles before the credit goes away, it is not saving the deals for Americans exclusively.
Yesterday, the company announced it is now offering Free Supercharging for life on all Model 3 inventory in Canada, a massive incentive for those who would use the vehicle as a daily driver:
Unlimited road trips through Canada
Free Supercharging now on all Model 3 inventory 🇨🇦
— Tesla North America (@tesla_na) August 15, 2025
The deal would normally only apply to Superchargers located in Canada, meaning if a Canadian drove over the border into the United States and Supercharged, they would have to pay for it.
However, Tesla also confirmed that the charging deal would extend to the U.S. Canadians will be able to drive across the U.S. and Supercharge for free for the life of the vehicle.
Free Supercharging is such a great perk because the money an owner saves on charging factors directly into what they are saving if they were to own a gas car. While Supercharging and home charging are, on average, cheaper than filling up with gas, the savings are not massive.
When Supercharging is free, it can save consumers hundreds of dollars per month, especially if they plan to use the Tesla for their daily commute. Some people could fill their gas cars up two times a week to get to work, spending $80-$100 every five days on gas.
Tesla has been using incentives like this to push vehicles into customers’ hands. Q3 could be one of the best three-month spans in recent memory with the push it is making.
-
Elon Musk2 days ago
SpaceX Starship Flight 10 was so successful, it’s breaking the anti-Musk narrative
-
Elon Musk1 day ago
Elon Musk reveals when SpaceX will perform first-ever Starship catch
-
News1 day ago
Tesla launches Full Self-Driving in a new region
-
News2 days ago
Tesla appears to have teased a long-awaited Model Y trim for a Friday launch
-
News5 days ago
Tesla makes big change to encourage Full Self-Driving purchases
-
News2 days ago
Tesla Semi earns strong reviews from veteran truckers
-
News1 day ago
Tesla Robotaxi rival Waymo confirms massive fleet expansion in Bay Area
-
News2 days ago
Tesla China working overtime to deliver Model Y L as quickly as possible