Connect with us

News

Tesla Model Y taxi service might be required to buy gas cars before it can deploy EV fleet

Credit: Revel

Published

on

Revel, a startup that unveiled its plans to launch a Tesla Model Y-based rideshare service in New York back in April, recently met a rather bizarre roadblock — one that could result in the company actually buying 50 gas cars before it could deploy its EV fleet.

The aspiring Model Y taxi service expected to win approval for its operations in the city because a 2018 cap on new rideshare and taxi vehicles included exemptions for electric vehicles, as well as cars that are accessible to handicapped individuals. The TLC later noted that it was pondering the elimination of the EV exemption, citing traffic concerns and congestion. 

On Monday, June 21, the New York TLC issued a notice stating that it had voted to stop issuing new for-hire licenses for electric vehicles. There was a catch to the TLC’s notice, however, as the commission noted that “A public hearing was held virtually by the TLC and the rule was adopted by the Commission at the June 22, 2021 Commission meeting.”

That’s right. The New York TLC posted a notice stating that it had made a decision in a meeting that has not happened yet. 

Allan Fromberg, a spokesperson for the New York TLC, simply noted that posting a final version of a planned rule change online is required by the City Administrative Procedure Act. He also dismissed concerns that the commission had already made a decision, citing issues about the past tense used in the notice as a “red herring.”

Advertisement

Interestingly enough, New York TLC Chair Aloysee Heredia Jarmoszuk, during an interview with the New York Post last week, stated that the agency would not bar Revel of any similar companies from entering the rideshare market in the city. She also stated that if Revel does face an unfavorable ruling, the aspiring Model Y taxi service could still launch its EV taxis if it bought 50 gas-powered vehicles, took them out of service, and replaced them with Teslas instead. 

“Just because a car is electric doesn’t mean that adding more cars and more congestion is good for the environment. This is a simple math issue. This is not about targeting a group or saying you can’t enter the marketplace or we don’t like you,” she said. 

Revel CEO Frank Reig, however, expressed his disapproval of such a suggestion. In a statement to the media outlet, Reig noted that requiring Revel to purchase gas cars to launch an electric taxi fleet would be the “very definition of limiting market competition.” He also stated that he is confident the company’s Model Y taxis would hit New York’s streets. 

“We are going to be on the streets because we know the law is completely on our side. Never in Revel’s history have we operated illegally,” he said. 

It’s not just the Revel CEO who has expressed his reservations about the TLC’s notice. Arthur Goldstein, a former city council legal staffer, remarked that the commission’s use of past tense for a meeting that’s yet to happen “makes no sense.” If they’re using a phrase like ‘was adopted’ and it’s being published today, it is just not accurate. Anyone reading it would think, ‘This is a done deal. Why should I even put forth an argument to change it?’” he said. 

Advertisement

Bruce Schaller, a transportation expert and former staffer at the TLC and Department of Transportation, had similar misgivings, noting that the TLC’s notice was simply bad optics. “It looks bad. They should not finalize the rule until they’ve had the hearing and heard from the public. It makes you very suspicious. You just intuit that there’s a rationale behind this that’s been kept invisible and you don’t know what it is,” he said. 

Do you have anything to share with the Teslarati Team? We’d love to hear from you, email us at tips@teslarati.com.

Simon is an experienced automotive reporter with a passion for electric cars and clean energy. Fascinated by the world envisioned by Elon Musk, he hopes to make it to Mars (at least as a tourist) someday. For stories or tips--or even to just say a simple hello--send a message to his email, simon@teslarati.com or his handle on X, @ResidentSponge.

Comments

News

Tesla robotaxi test details shared in recent report: 300 operators, safety tests, and more

Tesla has launched an initial robotaxi service for its employees in Austin and the San Francisco Bay Area.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

During the Q1 2025 earnings call, Tesla executives reiterated the idea that the company will be launching a dedicated robotaxi service using its Full Self Driving (FSD) Unsupervised system this coming June.

A recent report from Insider, citing people reportedly familiar with the matter, has now provided a number of details about the preparations that Tesla has been making as it approaches its June target date.

Remote Operators

As noted by the publication, about 300 test operators have been driving through Austin city streets over the past few months using Teslas equipped with self-driving software. These efforts are reportedly part of “Project Rodeo.” Citing test drivers who are reportedly part of the program, Insider noted that Tesla’s tests involve accumulating critical miles. Test drivers are reportedly assigned to specific test routes, which include “critical” tracks where drivers are encouraged to avoid manual interventions, and “adversarial” tracks, which simulate tricky scenarios.

Tesla has launched an initial robotaxi service for its employees in Austin and the San Francisco Bay Area, though the vehicles only operate in limited areas. The vehicles also use safety drivers for now. However, Tesla has reportedly had discussions about using remote operators as safety drivers when the service goes live for consumers. Some test drivers have been moved into remote operator roles for this purpose, the publication’s sources claimed.

While Tesla is focusing on Austin and San Francisco for now, the company is reportedly also deploying test drivers in other key cities. These include Atlanta, GA, New York, NY, Seattle, WA, and Phoenix, AZ.

Advertisement

Safety Tests

Tesla reportedly held training events with local first responders as part of its preparations for its robotaxi service, Insider claimed, citing documents that it had obtained. As per the publication, Tesla had met with the city’s autonomous vehicle task force, which include members of the Austin Fire Department, back in December.

Back in March, Tesla reportedly participated in about six hours of testing with local first responders, which included members of the fire department and the police, at a close test track. Around 60 drivers and vehicles were reportedly used in the test to simulate real-world traffic scenarios. 

Interestingly enough, a spokesperson from the Austin Police Department stated that Tesla did hold a testing day with emergency responders from Austin, Williamson County, as well as the Texas Department of Public Safety.

Reported Deadlines

While Tesla has been pretty open about its robotaxi service launching in Austin this June, the company is reportedly pursuing an aggressive June 1 deadline, at least internally. During meetings with Elon Musk, VP of AI software Ashok Elluswamy’s team reportedly informed the CEO that the company is on track to hit its internal deadline.

One of Insider’s sources, however, noted that the June 1 deadline is more aspirational or motivational. “A June 1 deadline makes a June 30 launch more likely,” the publication’s source noted.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Atty who refused to charge six-time Tesla vandal sparks controversy

Despite the multiple offenses, Moriarty opted to enter Adams into an adult diversion program instead.

Published

on

Pilottap, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons

Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty, who made the decision not to charge 33-year-old vandal Dylan Bryan Adams after he keyed six Teslas around Minneapolis last month, has found herself in the middle of controversy

The controversy came amidst her decision to press charges against a 19-year-old first-time vandal who keyed one vehicle at the White Castle in Brooklyn Park.

The Tesla Vandal

Moriarty’s decision not to charge Adams after he keyed six Teslas was met with widespread criticism. Adams’ actions resulted in more than $20,000 worth of damages, more than $10,000 of which was to a single vehicle, as noted in a New York Post report. Yet despite the multiple offenses, Moriarty opted to enter Adams into an adult diversion program instead.

The fact that Adams is a state employee who works for the Department of Human Services as a program consultant triggered allegations that his dismissal might be partly influenced by Gov. Tim Walz. Walz is a staunch critic of Musk, previously stating that the falling price of TSLA stock gives him a “boost” in the morning.

As noted in a report from The Minnesota Star Tribune, Moriarty’s decision was so controversial that she was asked about the matter on Wednesday. In response, the attorney argued that her office made the decision outside of any political consideration. “We try to make decisions without really looking at the political consequences. Can we always predict how a story will be portrayed in the media or what people will say? No,” Moriarty stated.

Advertisement

Actually Charged

As noted by the Tribune, Moriarty has made arguments around the fact that Adams was a first-time offender, even if he opted to deface six separate Teslas. But even this argument has become controversial since Moriarty recently charged a 19-year-old Robbinsdale woman with no criminal record with first-degree felony property damage after she allegedly keyed a co-worker’s car. The damage incurred by the 19-year-old woman was $7,000, substantially less than the over $20,000 damage that Adams’ actions have caused.

Cases surrounding felony first-degree property damage are fairly common, though they require the damage to be over $1,000. The 19-year-old’s damage to her co-worker’s car met this threshold. Adams’ damage to the six Teslas he vandalized also met this requirement.

When Moriarty was asked about her seemingly conflicting decisions, she noted that her office’s primary goal was to hold the person accountable for keying the vehicle and get restitution to the people affected. She also noted that her office tries to avoid convictions when possible since they could affect a person’s life. “Should we have treated this gentleman differently because it’s a political issue? We made this decision because it is in the best interest of public safety,” she noted.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla faces emission credits tax in Washington state

House Bill 2077 taxes emissions credits, mainly hitting Tesla. Lawmakers expect $100M/year from the taxes.

Published

on

(Credit: Tesla)

Washington state lawmakers are advancing a bill that would tax Tesla’s emission credits, targeting profits under the state’s clean vehicle policy. Lawmakers who support the bill clarify that the Tesla credit tax is unrelated to Elon Musk.

HB 2077, introduced in mid-April, seeks to impose a 2% tax on emission credit sales and a 10% tax on banked credits. The bill primarily affects Tesla due to exemptions for companies with fewer credits.

In 2022, Washington’s Department of Ecology mandated that all new cars sold by 2035 be electric, hydrogen-fueled, or hybrids, with 35% compliance required by next year. Carmakers selling more gas-powered vehicles can buy credits from companies like Tesla, which sells only electric vehicles.

A legislative fiscal analysis projects taxes on those credits would generate $78 million in the 2025-27 biennium and $100 million annually thereafter. About 70% of the taxes will be allocated to the state’s general funds, and the rest will help expand electric car infrastructure.

Advertisement

HB 2077 passed the state House eight days after its introduction and awaits a Senate Ways and Means Committee vote on Friday. At a House Finance Committee hearing, supporters, including union and social service advocates, argued the tax would prevent cuts to state services.

House Majority Leader Joe Fitzgibbon emphasized its necessity amid frozen federal EV infrastructure funds. “We didn’t have a budget crisis until this year. And we didn’t have the federal government revoking huge amounts of federal dollars for EV infrastructure,” he said.

Tesla’s lobbyist, Jeff Gombosky, countered that the proposal “runs counter to the intent” of the state’s zero-emission policy. Rivian’s lobbyist, Troy Nichols, noted a “modest” impact on his company but warned it could undermine the EV mandate. Kate White Tudor of the Natural Resources Defense Council expressed concerns, stating, “We worry it sets a dubious precedent.”

Fitzgibbon defended the tax, noting Tesla’s dominant credit stockpile makes it “one outlier” that is “very profitable.” “That’s the kind of thing legislators take an interest in,” he said. “Is it serving the interest of the public for this asset to be untaxed?”

With the legislative session nearing its end, the bill remains a key focus in budget talks in Washington.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending