New Texas Bill to Screw Tesla Owners!

[TexasEV]

Prior to this change, Chevy couldn't own stake in a Ford dealership, after this change it could, because this is added (emphasis mine): "the business of which includes buying, selling, exchanging, servicing, or repairing the same type of motor vehicle that the manufacturer or distributor manufactures or distributes".

No that is not correct. The purpose of this bill is to allow Warren Buffet's auto dealerships to operate legally in Texas, which they can not do now because one of his other companies manufactures RVs. "The same type" means automobile, as opposed to RVs. He has dealerships that sell almost every make of car. Even if this bill passes he still couldn't buy Ford Motor Co. and also own Chevy dealerships-- they're both the same type of motor vehicle.

I see you quoted Hancock's "While not a full-blown auto direct sales bill..." as if this is a small step towards that. It isn't. It isn't even a partial-blown direct sales bill. lt's a "make Warren Buffet's dealerships legal, and while we're at it, let's include an ambiguity for the TADA to use to go after Tesla" bill. If anyone doubts the second half of my description, why else would Hancock object to clarifying language that Tesla wants to remove any possibility of misinterpretation?

 

[TexasEV]

My understanding is that he got $15K in contributions from Glen-Eagle. Perhaps others too, though I haven't heard. He's just doing what he was paid to do.

And Red McCombs, and Dan Friedkin (Gulf States Toyota), and TADA, etc., etc. over the past few elections. But that's true of most incumbents. He even got $2500 from Elon, but that probably just gets the Tesla lobbyist in the door.

 

[jelloslug]

This bill has nothing to do with sales. Tesla has never been able to sell in Texas, that's why we have "galleries" instead of stores, and the online sales technically take place in California. This bill is about banning Tesla from operating service centers in the state, by changing the definition of "dealership" that can't be owned by a manufacturer. Michigan is the only state that currently bans Tesla service centers I believe.

When I said the bill has nothing to do with sales, I should have said nothing directly to do with sales. Because you can imagine what would happen to Tesla sales if there were no longer any service centers here. That's obviously TADA's intent with this rent-seeking bill, to kill Tesla sales legislatively because they can't do it in the free market. It's really a desperation move by the auto dealer cartel.

South Carolina bans service centers also.

 

[mxnym]

No that is not correct. The purpose of this bill is to allow Warren Buffet's auto dealerships to operate legally in Texas, which they can not do now because one of his other companies manufactures RVs. "The same type" means automobile, as opposed to RVs. He has dealerships that sell almost every make of car. Even if this bill passes he still couldn't buy Ford Motor Co. and also own Chevy dealerships-- they're both the same type of motor vehicle.

I see you quoted Hancock's "While not a full-blown auto direct sales bill..." as if this is a small step towards that. It isn't. It isn't even a partial-blown direct sales bill. lt's a "make Warren Buffet's dealerships legal, and while we're at it, let's include an ambiguity for the TADA to use to go after Tesla" bill. If anyone doubts the second half of my description, why else would Hancock object to clarifying language that Tesla wants to remove any possibility of misinterpretation?

I see what you mean regarding "the same type," and you are definitely correct, but I think it's too late to go back and correct my post. My point regarding his comment wasn't that this particular bill has anything to do with direct sales, it was that it seems unlikely to me that a guy who writes a bill to explicitly enable direct sell would turn around and write a different bill to explicitly disable the same. Vote on a bill, sure, sponsor one, maybe, but write two bills with opposite intent? Then again, I haven't seen this alleged direct sell bill, only his word that it previously existed. That having been said, I also haven't seen Tesla's recommended text to tell you any reason it might be objectionable, and there's not likely to be any good information on how the meeting they had went down, either. The bill does make me uncomfortable as written, but I still doubt the intent implied in the second half of your description.

 

[TexasEV]

I Vote on a bill, sure, sponsor one, maybe, but write two bills with opposite intent? Then again, I haven't seen this alleged direct sell bill, only his word that it previously existed.

He sponsored Tesla's direct sales bill in the 2015 legislative session. It never even got a committee hearing in the Senate.

 

[mxnym]

He sponsored Tesla's direct sales bill in the 2015 legislative session. It never even got a committee hearing in the Senate.

Fair enough, most bills don't, but I guess if he only sponsored it, then he must have "misspoke" when he indicated that he wrote one?

 

[Boourns]

The purpose of this bill is to allow Warren Buffet's auto dealerships to operate legally in Texas, which they can not do now because one of his other companies manufactures RVs. "The same type" means automobile, as opposed to RVs.

I knew there had to be a reason for this thing. That is it. My suspicions that Hancock's pretense was exactly that is confirmed.

 

[jboy210]

The sponsor of the Senate bill is Kelly Hancock: The Texas State Senate – Senator Kelly Hancock: District 9

House bill is Charlie Geren: Texas House of Representatives

You can find your representative/senator here: Who Represents Me?

At this point I think it is more impactful if you reach out to your individual representative & senator to make the point that you are against any form of direct sales prohibition, rather than trolling Hancock, who seems from his Twitter feed to live up to the last half of his surname.

District 9? As in the movie subtitled "You're not welcome here". Surreal.

 

[bedoig]

I got a positive response from my House rep, Steve Toth, that I thought I'd share:

Thanks Brian,
I’m with you on this. I will not support this bill. Keep speaking up. It makes us listen.
God bless,
Steve

 

[jerry33]

And make a phone call to your representatives. I just did and only about 100 people had called, needs to be in the thousands.

 

[TexasEV]

In movies and TV shows, there is often talk of "pressing charges" wherein the implication is that the prosecuting attorney can only act with permission or must act at the behest of an injured individual (I believe the legal definition of injured is to have suffered a loss). In reality, I don't believe an injured individual can force or prevent prosecution. Given this, the bill may not be as dangerous as it seems, because a Tesla competitor presumably can't really bring charges from the state unless they can actually pocket the state's AG .

I don’t think you understand the relationship between the auto dealer cartel and the Texas governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general.

 

[buttershrimp]

I don’t think you understand the relationship between the auto dealer cartel and the Texas governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general.

Yeah haven’t you guys watched human centipede?

 

[reddy]

I am calling Bullshit on Sen Hancock. The language has CLEARLY changed, the existing language doesn't include Tesla's repairs in the definition of a dealership.

Here is the existing statute 2301 of the Texas Occupations Code:

(a) In this section, "manufacturer" includes:
(1) a representative; or
(2) a person who:

(A) is affiliated with a manufacturer or representative; or
(B) directly or indirectly through an intermediary, is controlled by, or is under common control with, a manufacturer.

(b) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2)(B), a person is controlled by a manufacturer if the manufacturer is directly or indirectly authorized, by law or by agreement of the parties, to direct or influence the person's management and policies.

(c) Except as provided by this section, a manufacturer or distributor may not directly or indirectly:
(1) own an interest in a franchised or nonfranchised dealer or dealership;
(2) operate or control a franchised or nonfranchised dealer or dealership; or
(3) act in the capacity of a franchised or nonfranchised dealer.

And the Texas Transportation Code section 503 defines dealers this way:

Sec. 503.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:

(1) "Board" has the meaning assigned by Chapter 2301, Occupations Code.

(2) "Commission" means the board of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles.

(3) "Converter" has the meaning assigned by Chapter 2301, Occupations Code.

(4) "Dealer" means a person who regularly and actively buys, sells, or exchanges vehicles at an established and permanent location. The term includes a franchised motor vehicle dealer, an independent motor vehicle dealer, an independent mobility motor vehicle dealer, and a wholesale motor vehicle dealer.

(5) "Department" means the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles.

(6) "Drive-a-way operator" means a person who transports and delivers a vehicle in this state from the manufacturer or another point of origin to a location in this state using the vehicle's own power or using the full-mount method, the saddle-mount method, the tow-bar method, or a combination of those methods.

(7) "Franchise" has the meaning assigned by Chapter 2301, Occupations Code.

Here are the definitions in the Texas Occupations Code Chapter 2301

7) "Dealer" means a person who holds a general distinguishing number issued by the board under Chapter 503, Transportation Code.

(8) "Dealership" means the physical premises and business facilities on which a franchised dealer operates the dealer's business, including the sale and repair of motor vehicles. The term includes premises or facilities at which a person engages only in the repair of a motor vehicle if the repair is performed under a franchise and a motor vehicle manufacturer's warranty.

 

[reddy]

The key wording of the existing Texas Occupations Code Chapter 2301 is "if the repair is performed under a franchise and a motor vehicle manufacturer's warranty."

Tesla does not fall under the definition of having a dealership, because they have no franchised dealers. The repairs performed at Tesla Service Centers are not performed under a franchise.

The NEW language proposed by Senator Hancock changes that so that Tesla WOULD be considered a dealer or dealership and be in violation.

This overreach by TADA and Senator Hancock may backfire. My letter to my Senator and Representative asked them to eliminate the dealers monopoly on sales, and allow Tesla to sell in Texas unimpeded.

BTW, many offices merely count emails and phone calls and faxes without actually reading them!!

So feel free to call, write, fax, and email , and get counted 4 times. Have your family call , write, email and fax too. Getting more numbers gives everyone more traction.

 

[StealthP3D]

He sponsored Tesla's direct sales bill in the 2015 legislative session. It never even got a committee hearing in the Senate.

That's good "cover" for this anti-Tesla bill. People will say, "oh, it must not mean what it says it means because the sponsor has already proven he is "pro-Tesla" by sponsoring a "pro-Tesla" bill", never mind that the pro-Tesla bill never even saw the light of day.

 

[reddy]

You can find Sen Hancocks full list of contributors, here:
All of these links work, so you can click on anything red.

HANCOCK, KELLY - FollowTheMoney.org

These include:
TEXAS OIL & GAS ASSOCIATION $27,000
KOCH INDUSTRIES $25,500
BASS BROTHERS ENTERPRISES $25,000
VALERO ENERGY $18,500
OCCIDENTIAL PETROLEUM $15,000
GENERAL MOTORS $12,000
TEXAS AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION $10,000
CHEVRON CORP $7,500

 

[larmor]

I just emailed my Texas state rep as well. Hope it helps. BTW, (on a tangent or on a limb here) but wouldn't restriction of Tesla service be an infringement of the commerce clause of the constitution, since, Tesla is based in another state? (This is a reach, but hey that's what the internet is best at)...

 

[buttershrimp]

You can find Sen Hancocks full list of contributors, here:
All of these links work, so you can click on anything red.

HANCOCK, KELLY - FollowTheMoney.org

These include:
TEXAS OIL & GAS ASSOCIATION $27,000
KOCH INDUSTRIES $25,500
BASS BROTHERS ENTERPRISES $25,000
VALERO ENERGY $18,500
OCCIDENTIAL PETROLEUM $15,000
GENERAL MOTORS $12,000
TEXAS AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION $10,000
CHEVRON CORP $7,500

Jesus, if this is accurate, how does this not make it to a Electrek article?

 

[jerry33]

Jesus, if this is accurate, how does this not make it to a Electrek article?

Because Electrek is anti-Tesla. All the articles I've read put a negative spin (not perhaps as blatant as some publications) on Tesla.

 

[bob_p]

Even if this bill passes - which is likely a long shot, since most bills that are introduced don't pass or even get out of committee within the short time the legislature meets every two years - this won't prevent Tesla from providing service in Texas, it should only force them to change how that service is provided.

The lack of direct sales hasn't prevented Tesla from selling a lot of vehicles in Texas - and if this bill is interpreted to make it more difficult for Tesla to provide service to customers, it will provide more ammunition for the inevitable challenge to state-level dealership protections which will be settled either in federal court or with new federal legislation to protect interstate commerce and the affected customers.