Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.

Call to arms: Tuesday 9/22 State House (Boston) 1pm


Model S P-2540
Mar 24, 2011
Cape Cod
A little birdy told me that there is a committee hearing Tuesday 9/22 @ 1pm.
Tesla legal counsel and others will be there. Need people to show up in support
of Tesla, not sure if there will be speaking opportunities, nor am I sure about the room.
Unfortunately I won't be there but my better half may.
Do you know the committee name? I'll have my representative give me the description of the bill they may be discussing and post it here.

Breaking info!

Room A-1. See below:

The Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure holds a hearing on 15 automotive bills, along with two bills related to alcohol licenses in Salem. Full agenda: Event Details
(Tuesday, 1 p.m., Room A-1)
I'll be there.

- - - Updated - - -

The bad bill is S.177, sponsored, as it was last year, by Marc Pacheco. Like last year, the bill appears to be a wishlist of stuff for dealers and includes the following addition to the section of the law on direct sales by manufacturers

SECTION 2. Paragraph (10) of said subsection (c) of said section 4 of said chapter 93B,
33 as most recently amended by section 4 of chapter 152 of the acts of 2012, is hereby amended by
34 inserting before the first full sentence the following sentence:- This blanket prohibition on
35 manufacturer ownership applies notwithstanding whether a manufacturer or distributor has
36 previously used independently owned or operated dealerships to distribute its vehicles.

The good bill is H.222, sponsored again this year by Rep. Linsky of Natick where the first Mass. Tesla dealership was opened. This year it has many more sponsors, and in fact more than the dealers' bill. In addition to clarifying the legality of manufacturer ownership of a dealership where there were no previous franchise dealerships for the same manufacturer, it also specifies that anyone suing because they claim to be harmed by manufacturer ownership of a dealership must show that they sell the same make and model as the dealership they are complaining about, in order to prove they were harmed.
Last edited:
So.... I've never been to anything like this before. I want to show support obviously but if I just show up and sit there would that be completely useless? I kinda want to know what to expect before getting into this...
Might Tesla be bringing (temporary) wardrobe, for those not speaking?

What time does sign-up close, if the hearing begins at 1PM?

I plan on making it. As it is also taking place at this hearing, I wonder if H.3383 has ramifications for expanding "right to repair" beyond franchised dealers, by saying "manufacturers of digital electronic products".
Quick take on the happenings:
3383 was not related to auto "right to repair", though there may be some overlap. I say it because most of the hearing was one, by one, support for its application to electronics. Then came Tesla.

Very light showing, by the time Tesla took the desk, ~2:40. James Chen (Tesla's legal council, I think), Dedham's service head and one of our faithful all went, at once. I followed, with a quick echo about the conflict of dealers wanting to fix cars, up-selling the ICE, harming consumers, etc. James Chen did a great job, but saying it less well after "I'm a resident" still matters. That was it.

Other support for 177, the dealer bill, was weak. Its main sponsor did not attend, and the dealers did their thing, with overtime. Ernie Bach's council was there, representing his dual Subaru distributor and dealer role. Their unique opposition to the dealers was most telling, as she reiterated that the bill was an unmoderated wish-list, that keeps coming back. 'Automobile Alliance', I think, was there in opposition to the dealers. Their participating OEMs were not identitfied. My sense was 177 was going nowhere, before anyone went to this thing, and 222 explains a basic effort to contain the repeated need to be heard, by making the dealers petition apply only to OEMs whose vehicles they sell. I think 222's passage would get Tesla off the hook of having to hop planes so much. I would guess that is why the Dedham Rep is trying to help it along.