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 axed one of the Model Y’s best features in ‘Standard’ trims: here’s why
Lars Moravy explains why Tesla chose to go with a glass roof in the new Standard trims, despite it not being visible.
Tesla chose to implement a glass roof on the new Model Y ‘Standard’, despite the fact that you won’t be able to see it from the inside.
In the new Model Y ‘Standard’ configuration, one of the biggest changes is the lack of a glass roof, which is one of the more unique features Tesla offers.
How Tesla’s Standard models will help deliveries despite price disappointment
The entire roof of the Model Y’s ‘Premium’ and Performance trims is glass, giving everyone in the car an astounding view of the sky.
However, Tesla chose to cover this up in the new ‘Standard’ trim level. Here’s a look at it:

Credit: ItsKimJava | X
Despite it not being visible from the inside, the roof is still made of glass. It is only visible from the outside. Even if you removed the headliner in the Model Y ‘Standard,’ you would not be able to see the outside, because the glass is opaque:
Fun fact about the Standard Model Y closed glass roof. A Tesla engineer told us that the glass is opaque, so even if you removed the textile lining on the inside, you would not see the outside. 😔 More details to come on our first drive video this Friday. pic.twitter.com/N4uZFlblBB
— Kim Java (@ItsKimJava) October 8, 2025
Tesla’s Vice President of Powertrain, Lars Moravy, commented on the use of glass in the Premium models and how it differs from the glass in the Standard trims:
“All glass is NOT created equal. Remember, the Model Y Premium glass is laminated with silver IR reflective coatings to make it super comfy and reject solar load… the standard is not… plus LOTS of people wanted a closed headliner, always trying to listen (and improve road noise at the same time).”
The decision to cover up the glass while still using it was an efficiency choice. Moravy said Tesla chose to keep the glass for the new Standard models due to “cost, supply chain, and manufacturing efficiency.”
Cost, supply chain and manufacturing efficiency in our factories
— Lars (@larsmoravy) October 9, 2025
Tesla launched the Standard models on Tuesday. The cars were effectively a counter to the loss of the $7,500 EV tax credit.
News
How Tesla’s Standard models will help deliveries despite price disappointment
“What a giant miss,” one person said.
“With all due respect, no way is this what y’all have been hyping for 6 quarters…” another one claimed.
“So…where are the affordable models?” another reply read.
When Tesla unveiled its Standard versions of the Model 3 and Model Y this week, reactions were mixed. Many liked the addition of two new models, but they were also concerned about the price.
“What a giant miss,” one person said.
“With all due respect, no way is this what y’all have been hyping for 6 quarters…” another one claimed.
“So…where are the affordable models?” another reply read.
Tesla launches two new affordable models with ‘Standard’ Model 3, Y offerings
There’s no arguing it: $36,990 and $39,990 for the Model 3 Standard and Model Y Standard were not what consumers had in mind.
But, despite Tesla getting its new offerings to a price that is not necessarily as low as many expected, the two cars still have a chance to assist with quarterly deliveries.
Here’s how:
First-time Tesla buyers will lean toward Standard models
Tesla owners have become accustomed to expecting all the bells and whistles in their cars. Heated seats, ventilated seats, acoustic glass, vegan leather, industry-leading performance, world-class range, and a glass roof are all expected by current or past owners.
But what about new owners?
New owners do not have these high expectations, so to many of those who have not sat in a Tesla or driven one before, they are going to be blown away by the minimalistic looks, capabilities, and features of the Standard models.
The Premium models will feel like the high-end offerings that other automakers also have for sale, except they’ll only be a few thousand dollars more than Tesla’s base models. With other companies, the price for these higher-end trims is $10,000 or more.
The more affordable Standard models will be there, but if buyers want the extra features, they’ll likely be able to justify the extra few thousand dollars.
Tesla’s Standard Models fall under the U.S. Average Transaction Price
Kelley Blue Book releases a new report each month showing the average transaction price (ATP) of all vehicles sold in the U.S. for that month.
The latest report, released on September 10 for the month of August, revealed an ATP of $49,077. This was up 0.5% from July ($48,841) and higher year over year by 2.6%.
Technically, Tesla’s new Standard models fall well under that ATP, meaning they technically do qualify as “affordable.” However, realistically speaking, affordable does not mean “under the national average.”
It means accessible for low-income families, single-parent households, and other groups. This would likely be under $30,000.
Déjà Vu with the Cybertruck Rear-Wheel-Drive
When Tesla offered the Cybertruck RWD, it stripped out many of the best features of the Cybertruck, such as the adjustable air suspension, powered tonneau cover, and interior materials, just to name a few.
It was $10,000 less than the Cybertruck AWD, but many people essentially viewed it as a way to push consumers toward the more expensive variants, since the discount was a better value than missing out on features.
Tesla released the Cybertruck RWD to make the AWD look like a deal
Something similar could happen with the Standard models. With it only being a few thousand dollars less than the Premium Model 3 and Model Y, some consumers will see it as a better option to go with the more expensive trim levels.
Even if they don’t, many car buyers will see it as a deal to grab the Standard versions.
News
Tesla will let you bring back this removed Model 3 part for a price
It will cost $595 and is available on Tesla’s website. You will have to have a Model 3 on your Tesla account to purchase the stalk retrofit kit.
Tesla is now letting Model 3 owners in the United States bring back one part that the company decided to remove after it refreshed the all-electric sedan last year. Of course, you can do it for a price.
With the Model 3 “Highland” refresh that Tesla launched last year, one of the most monumental changes the company made was to ditch the turn signal stalk altogether. Instead, Tesla opted for turn signal buttons, which have been met with mixed reviews.
The change was widely regarded as Tesla preparing for more autonomous driving in its vehicles, especially as its interiors have gotten even more minimalistic.
The lack of a stalk in the new Model 3 was just another move the company made to adjust drivers and passengers to seeing less at the steering wheel column.
However, many drivers did not prefer the use of buttons and wanted the stalk reinstalled. Tesla allowed it in several regions, launching a retrofit kit. It has now made its way to the United States:
🚨 If you really want a stalk on your Tesla Model 3, you can pay $595 for the retrofit kit in the U.S. pic.twitter.com/dyhw4LyQX7
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 8, 2025
It will cost $595 and is available on Tesla’s website. You will have to have a Model 3 on your Tesla account to purchase the stalk retrofit kit.
It is interesting to note that despite Tesla’s strategy to remove the stalk with the new Model 3, which was released in early 2024, the company did not choose to make the same move with the new Model Y.
The new Model Y launched in the United States in early 2025, and Tesla chose to install a stalk in this vehicle.
It seemed as if the turn signal buttons were too much of a polarizing feature, and although the company technically could have given orderers an option, it would not have been the most efficient thing for manufacturing.
-
Elon Musk2 weeks agoSpaceX posts Starship booster feat that’s so nutty, it doesn’t even look real
-
Elon Musk2 weeks agoTesla Full Self-Driving gets an offer to be insured for ‘almost free’
-
News2 weeks agoElon Musk confirms Tesla FSD V14.2 will see widespread rollout
-
News2 weeks agoTesla is adding an interesting feature to its centerscreen in a coming update
-
News2 weeks agoTesla launches new interior option for Model Y
-
News2 weeks agoTesla widens rollout of new Full Self-Driving suite to more owners
-
Elon Musk2 weeks agoTesla CEO Elon Musk’s $1 trillion pay package hits first adversity from proxy firm
-
News1 week agoTesla might be doing away with a long-included feature with its vehicles

