News
Why Tesla Model Y tax credit inclusion is good for some and bad for others
The Tesla Model Y complete lineup was recently added to the IRS list of qualifying vehicles that will give buyers a $7,500 tax credit. While it may seem like the company’s huge price cuts coupled with the tax credit would be good for everyone, it spells bad news for competitors that offer comparable EVs in the same category.
On Friday, the Model Y’s entire lineup was added to the list of qualifying vehicles after the U.S. Department of Treasury said, “The change will allow crossover vehicles that share similar features to be treated consistently.” The Model Y’s five-seat configurations did not reach the weight requirement to be considered SUVs and were put in another category that included “All Other Vehicles.” The price limit to qualify for the tax credit differs by $25,000: $55,000 for All Others, and $80,000 for SUVs.
Tesla Model Y’s complete lineup now qualifies for EV tax credits through Inflation Reduction Act
The inclusion is obviously a good thing for consumers, and events that transpired afterward are good for the investors. With Tesla’s $13,000 price cut on Model Y configurations in early January, the automaker had quadrupled the vehicle’s addressable market. At the same time, it had offered a substantial discount to some who could already justify the purchase, and if they were on the fence, there’s no denying that this inevitably won them over.
Lower prices mean more sales. The Model Y was already making waves in terms of Tesla’s total concentration of sales by model, and it has routinely competed with the Model 3 in various markets and won in many of them. However, the cuts meant Tesla would have to eat some of its margins, which were incredibly high, trailing only Ferrari and BMW in that category. Analysts and more hellbent investors who are obsessed with the company making as much money as possible may not have loved the price cuts, and Tesla obviously will not be making as much of a profit per vehicle. However, on Saturday, following the Model Y’s inclusion to the qualifying vehicles list, Tesla bumped up prices by $1,500.
Is it the $13,000 the automaker trimmed in January? No, absolutely not. But Tesla is already making considerable money on each unit, and the company’s industry-leading tech and Supercharging network are inevitably what will win consumers over, especially as the vehicle is still vastly more affordable than before. With Tesla reaching 1.313 million deliveries last year in 2022, the company has pulled out all the stops to get sales figures off to a fast start in 2023, with various discounts and other programs to push vehicles out the door.
Credit: Tesla
The old saying goes that one’s trash is another’s treasure, and in this instance, the competition is getting the trash while consumers are getting the treasure. Tesla’s massive price cuts and now qualifying tax credits make it a pretty simple choice for consumers. Without a doubt, one of the biggest issues with EV ownership, or at least in the broad consensus of the average consumer, is “Where will I charge my EV?” While this question still makes me chuckle to myself and want to say, “That thing you live in can do it. You know? Your house?” It’s much more complex than that.
A charging network is really what sets Tesla apart from the others. Some consumers may have been willing to spend a little extra to have the confidence that they could be surrounded by charging options, and Tesla is really the only automaker that has such broad options in terms of charging that it really doesn’t have a current competitor. If Tesla does end up opening up its network to other EVs, then this conversation changes. Of course, other companies out there have a robust infrastructure that is quickly growing. Still, these companies are often plagued by maintenance issues, rising costs, and a less-than-desirable experience.
Tesla is already controlling a majority of the U.S. market for electric vehicles, and there are worthy competitors. Volkswagen, Ford, and General Motors all have a wide variety of strategies in their plans to dethrone Tesla. Meanwhile, Polestar, Rivian, Lucid, and other startups are still working through their issues, which are usually money-related.
Tesla is well ahead of the curve, especially as it has already figured out mass production and launched a lineup of competitive vehicles with plans of more styles and applications to come. The inclusion of the Model Y, which CEO Elon Musk believes will be the best-selling car in the world one day, to the tax credit program only spells disaster for the companies attempting to catch up. Meanwhile, Tesla sits comfortably in the driver’s seat, and there does not seem to be any true comparison in current sight.
Disclosure: Joey Klender does own Tesla stock.
I’d love to hear from you! If you have any comments, concerns, or questions, please email me at joey@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @KlenderJoey, or if you have news tips, you can email us at tips@teslarati.com.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
