News
Tesla direct sales in New Mexico gains ground as “Tesla Bill” gets approved
A piece of New Mexico state legislation to amend local automotive franchise laws through a “Tesla Bill”, specifically allowing vehicle manufacturers like Tesla to operate as a dealer and sell direct, was approved by the Public Affairs Committee last Thursday.
Similar to other states with dealership protections, car makers wanting to do business in the “Land of Enchantment” must sell their vehicles through a franchise dealership network, and efforts to amend those requirements are always met with significant resistance from lobbyist groups whose members stand to be impacted most. After facing a party-line vote, Democrats ‘for’ and Republicans ‘against’, the law (Senate Bill 243) passed the state’s Public Affairs Committee and advanced to the Corporations and Transportation Committee. After another review and vote, the bill will advance to the Senate floor for a final vote if successful. Given the state’s balance of power – Democrats are in the majority in both houses of the state’s legislature as well as the governorship – Tesla may be well on its way to a full victory in New Mexico.
Prior to the Public Affairs Committee vote, a panel was held wherein advocates both for and against amending the state franchise laws voiced their positions. Overall, supporters (particularly those focused on Tesla’s desire to do business in the state) argued that the bill in question aims to work within the dealership model, not eliminate it. According to Meredith Roberts, senior policy adviser and counsel representing Tesla, “We’re not here to upset (the franchise model)…It’s only additive,” she said in the panel hearing. The language of the bill supports this position via its narrow applicability, allowing direct sales only if the following conditions apply:
- The business does not have any existing franchises in the state.
- The business sells and services only vehicles that it manufactures.
- The vehicles sold must be electric and powered by batteries or fuel cells.
Despite the estimated $4800 tax income New Mexico would gain per average electric vehicle sold, 15-50 new jobs per store opened, and $1 million dollars local economic impact gain from a direct-sales manufacturer like Tesla would bring to the state, those in opposition to the bill maintained that changes to the existing franchise laws would not be beneficial. During the hearing, Charles Henson, president of the New Mexico Automotive Dealers Association, cited the millions of dollars already invested by dealerships, arguing that Tesla’s sales model would create unfair direct manufacturer competition. Another state senator, Jacob Candelaria (D-Albuquerque), likened EV manufacturers’ direct-sales models to giant tech company monopolies. To be fair, with the popularity of the direct-sales model increasing, as all-electric fleets come into being (a stated goal of many current ICE vehicle makers), franchises may end up becoming a thing of the past as the future of clean energy transportation sets in.
While the hand-off from one committee to another is a good step towards the end goal of in-state, brick-and-mortar sales presence for EV manufacturers, the bill still may face an uphill battle despite the political leanings of the state’s legislative majority for reasons outside lobbyist efforts. Specifically, some legislators are a bit put-off by Tesla’s history in New Mexico. A manufacturing plant was announced in 2007 (to be succeeded by the current Fremont factory) and a Gigafactory was teased in 2014 (to be succeeded by the current Sparks, Nevada factory). Since neither of those projects came to fruition within the state, it seems there may be some leftover sour grapes. However, given Tesla’s current inability to do normal sales business in New Mexico, it’s understandable that the all-electric car maker may have based part of their location decisions on their customers’ purchasing abilities in the states where they set up shop, thereby limiting potential liabilities and run-ins with dealership groups. This is something Volvo USA is already experiencing with its company-directed vehicle subscription service.
At this juncture, Tesla is all too familiar with the franchise vs. direct-sales fight. In December last year, a Connecticut judge ruled in favor of Connecticut’s Department of Motor Vehicles on a motion prompted by the Connecticut Automotive Retailers Trade Association (CARA), finding that Tesla’s business activities within the state violated the states automotive franchise law system. The EV company only had one location in the state – a gallery located in Greenwich to inform interested parties about its products, not sell them – but even that was determined to constitute competition and thus banned activity. Legislative efforts to amend Connecticut’s laws by state representatives in favor of Tesla’s sales approach have, thus far, failed. Ironically, Connecticut is also controlled by Democrats in both the legislature and governorship.
News
Tesla dispels reports of ‘sales suspension’ in California
“This was a “consumer protection” order about the use of the term “Autopilot” in a case where not one single customer came forward to say there’s a problem.
Sales in California will continue uninterrupted.”
Tesla has dispelled reports that it is facing a thirty-day sales suspension in California after the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) issued a penalty to the company after a judge ruled it “misled consumers about its driver-assistance technology.”
On Tuesday, Bloomberg reported that the California DMV was planning to adopt the penalty but decided to put it on ice for ninety days, giving Tesla an opportunity to “come into compliance.”
Tesla enters interesting situation with Full Self-Driving in California
Tesla responded to the report on Tuesday evening, after it came out, stating that this was a “consumer protection” order that was brought up over its use of the term “Autopilot.”
The company said “not one single customer came forward to say there’s a problem,” yet a judge and the DMV determined it was, so they want to apply the penalty if Tesla doesn’t oblige.
However, Tesla said that its sales operations in California “will continue uninterrupted.”
It confirmed this in an X post on Tuesday night:
This was a “consumer protection” order about the use of the term “Autopilot” in a case where not one single customer came forward to say there’s a problem.
Sales in California will continue uninterrupted.
— Tesla North America (@tesla_na) December 17, 2025
The report and the decision by the DMV and Judge involved sparked outrage from the Tesla community, who stated that it should do its best to get out of California.
One X post said California “didn’t deserve” what Tesla had done for it in terms of employment, engineering, and innovation.
Tesla has used Autopilot and Full Self-Driving for years, but it did add the term “(Supervised)” to the end of the FSD suite earlier this year, potentially aiming to protect itself from instances like this one.
This is the first primary dispute over the terminology of Full Self-Driving, but it has undergone some scrutiny at the federal level, as some government officials have claimed the suite has “deceptive” naming. Previous Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg was vocally critical of the use of the name “Full Self-Driving,” as well as “Autopilot.”
News
New EV tax credit rule could impact many EV buyers
We confirmed with a Tesla Sales Advisor that any current orders that have the $7,500 tax credit applied to them must be completed by December 31, meaning delivery must take place by that date. However, it is unclear at this point whether someone could still claim the credit when filing their tax returns for 2025 as long as the order reflects an order date before September 30.
Tesla owners could be impacted by a new EV tax credit rule, which seems to be a new hoop to jump through for those who benefited from the “extension,” which allowed orderers to take delivery after the loss of the $7,500 discount.
After the Trump Administration initiated the phase-out of the $7,500 EV tax credit, many were happy to see the rules had been changed slightly, as deliveries could occur after the September 30 cutoff as long as orders were placed before the end of that month.
However, there appears to be a new threshold that EV buyers will have to go through, and it will impact their ability to get the credit, at least at the Point of Sale, for now.
Delivery must be completed by the end of the year, and buyers must take possession of the car by December 31, 2025, or they will lose the tax credit. The U.S. government will be closing the tax credit portal, which allows people to claim the credit at the Point of Sale.
🚨UPDATE: $7,500 Tax Credit Portal “Closes By End of Year”.
This is bad news for pending Tesla buyers (MYP) looking to lock in the $7,500 Tax Credit.
“it looks like the portal closes by end of the year so there be no way for us to guarantee the funds however, we will try our… pic.twitter.com/LnWiaXL30k
— DennisCW | wen my L (@DennisCW_) December 15, 2025
We confirmed with a Tesla Sales Advisor that any current orders that have the $7,500 tax credit applied to them must be completed by December 31, meaning delivery must take place by that date.
However, it is unclear at this point whether someone could still claim the credit when filing their tax returns for 2025 as long as the order reflects an order date before September 30.
If not, the order can still go through, but the buyer will not be able to claim the tax credit, meaning they will pay full price for the vehicle.
This puts some buyers in a strange limbo, especially if they placed an order for the Model Y Performance. Some deliveries have already taken place, and some are scheduled before the end of the month, but many others are not expecting deliveries until January.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk takes latest barb at Bill Gates over Tesla short position
Bill Gates placed a massive short bet against Tesla of ~1% of our total shares, which might have cost him over $10B by now
Elon Musk took his latest barb at former Microsoft CEO Bill Gates over his short position against the company, which the two have had some tensions over for a number of years.
Gates admitted to Musk several years ago through a text message that he still held a short position against his sustainable car and energy company. Ironically, Gates had contacted Musk to explore philanthropic opportunities.
Elon Musk explains Bill Gates beef: He ‘placed a massive bet on Tesla dying’
Musk said he could not take the request seriously, especially as Gates was hoping to make money on the downfall of the one company taking EVs seriously.
The Tesla frontman has continued to take shots at Gates over the years from time to time, but the latest comment came as Musk’s net worth swelled to over $600 billion. He became the first person ever to reach that threshold earlier this week, when Tesla shares increased due to Robotaxi testing without any occupants.
Musk refreshed everyone’s memory with the recent post, stating that if Gates still has his short position against Tesla, he would have lost over $10 billion by now:
Bill Gates placed a massive short bet against Tesla of ~1% of our total shares, which might have cost him over $10B by now
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 17, 2025
Just a month ago, in mid-November, Musk issued his final warning to Gates over the short position, speculating whether the former Microsoft frontman had still held the bet against Tesla.
“If Gates hasn’t fully closed out the crazy short position he has held against Tesla for ~8 years, he had better do so soon,” Musk said. This came in response to The Gates Foundation dumping 65 percent of its Microsoft position.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk sends final warning to Bill Gates over short position
Musk’s involvement in the U.S. government also drew criticism from Gates, as he said that the reductions proposed by DOGE against U.S.A.I.D. were “stunning” and could cause “millions of additional deaths of kids.”
“Gates is a huge liar,” Musk responded.
It is not known whether Gates still holds his Tesla short position.
Tesla dispels reports of ‘sales suspension’ in California
New EV tax credit rule could impact many EV buyers
