Decided it would be fitting to take the kids down to meet their reps on president's day. Was very impressed with the great showing, so great to see so many people make the time to come down on short notice. I've worked on bills in Olympia and it's hard to get people to take the day off and be there so representatives notice it when they get a bunch of folks down there, it can make a huge difference. We did not have an appointment but stopped by our reps with a typed statement and Tesla's hand out. When we stopped by to log our opposition to HB 2524, Senator Chase's secretary said the Senator was booked but engaged me in conversation about my opinion. I must have said something right, the senator called her into the room and told her to send us in while she ate lunch. Wow, was I surprised and our kids got to meet one of their representatives! The first thing she said is that the bill is dead but then acted a little uncertain if she knew which bill I was talking about, she was pretty sure it was not going to make the cut this year. Anyway, I let her know how our family felt about forcing the arcane dealership model on everyone during the age of computer ordering and the championing of innovation. Thank you Tesla for organizing this amidst all the other fast moving things that need attention, it helped a lot to have parking there and have some point people to help direct us!!
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Briefly met Rep. Cyrus Habib in Olympia today. I’m part of his constituency and he is one of the bill sponsors.
I was chatting with his assistant and another Tesla supporter when Rep. Habib got out of his office, heading for a speech on the House floor. When we expressed our concern about the impact of the bill on Tesla’s business in WA state, he replied "what, two chargers are not enough for you?". We had to clarify that this was not about chargers but about Tesla being able to open new showrooms and service centers in the WA state. And then he dropped the bomb. He said that the bill does not prevent Tesla from opening new locations and that we got it all wrong. Then he repeated it. He also said that Tesla can open as many new locations in WA state as they want and that he is a big supporter of EVs. We wanted to discuss with him the anti-Tesla part of the bill but he said he was late for the speech.
So either Rep. Habib just doesn’t see the bill the way we do or he had a change of heart. Or maybe he was just playing politics with us J. I related the story to the Tesla staff on-site and they were baffled and doubtful.
In retrospect, I find his reference to chargers interesting. Wondering if there’s more than just a simple confusion.
I was chatting with his assistant and another Tesla supporter when Rep. Habib got out of his office, heading for a speech on the House floor. When we expressed our concern about the impact of the bill on Tesla’s business in WA state, he replied "what, two chargers are not enough for you?". We had to clarify that this was not about chargers but about Tesla being able to open new showrooms and service centers in the WA state. And then he dropped the bomb. He said that the bill does not prevent Tesla from opening new locations and that we got it all wrong. Then he repeated it. He also said that Tesla can open as many new locations in WA state as they want and that he is a big supporter of EVs. We wanted to discuss with him the anti-Tesla part of the bill but he said he was late for the speech.
So either Rep. Habib just doesn’t see the bill the way we do or he had a change of heart. Or maybe he was just playing politics with us J. I related the story to the Tesla staff on-site and they were baffled and doubtful.
In retrospect, I find his reference to chargers interesting. Wondering if there’s more than just a simple confusion.
palmer_md
Member
Why would he write a bill to limit the number of charge stations? That is even more ridiculous than limiting the number of Sales and Service centers. Probably some lobbyist wrote the bill and he has no idea what's in the bill he agreed to present. Sad either way.
How to lose votes in one sentence. I hope someone recorded that comment so it can haunt him in the future.
@linred. I was the other Tesla owner who couldn't keep quiet. After I talked with my Rep.'s Admin, I chatted with Mr. Habib's Admin. What I'd overheard was so wrong, I was incredulous. I explained what I believe the bill says and what I thought was wrong. He seemed kind of taken aback. (No, I'm not in his district.)
It looks like we need to make comments on that article. There are some very uninformed comments and unfriendly ones too. They don't understand that if it were up to the dealerships we would be stuck with half hearted compliance cars and more misinformation. They want to know where "they" would get service too. The emphasis needs to be made on the consumer having the ability to choose what ever companies they want to do business with.
Tesla shouldn't be subject to franchise laws because they are not a franchise. The automakers were doing just fine with their agreements with their manufacturers until Tesla came along. Would they try to pass a law so that their manufacturer couldn't require them to sell EV's because they can't make profits on servicing them?
Here is the latest on the bill......OLYMPIA, Wash.: Tesla protests bills that would limit expansion | Business | The News Tribune
ChadS
Last tank of gas: March 2009
The bill was voted on last night; it passed 93-3 in the House and 47-0 in the Senate, and several people that insisted they wouldn’t let the anti-Tesla clause through voted for it. I sure hope that means it was modified; let's look at the bill history...
I see that the notes say that a “floor amendment” was adopted yesterday. The substitute bill as posted still has the anti-Tesla provision in Section 1, saying that licenses and sublicenses are to be denied to manufacturers and their agents if that would put them in violation of 46.96. But it looks like a new section 7-1-g-vii has been added to 46.96.185, which says that any manufacturer that already has a license and only sells their own cars and doesn’t have dealers is not in violation of the law.
That’s great for Tesla; it means they can expand in WA. But Section 1 still means no new manufacturers can use the same direct-sales model. And 7.1.l still says that existing dealers can’t be forced to install service equipment for new vehicles unless ALL dealers are forced to do so, so it could be harder to get new EVs from existing automakers in to the state (maybe not; but it now depends on the dealers more than the manufacturers, and the dealers have traditionally been more reluctant than the manufacturers). Tesla’s mission is to get the whole industry to move to electric, so while Tesla is allowed to expand, and we clearly had a measurable effect on the legislators (thanks everybody who showed up, and submitted comments online!) I still don’t see this as a complete positive.
I see that the notes say that a “floor amendment” was adopted yesterday. The substitute bill as posted still has the anti-Tesla provision in Section 1, saying that licenses and sublicenses are to be denied to manufacturers and their agents if that would put them in violation of 46.96. But it looks like a new section 7-1-g-vii has been added to 46.96.185, which says that any manufacturer that already has a license and only sells their own cars and doesn’t have dealers is not in violation of the law.
That’s great for Tesla; it means they can expand in WA. But Section 1 still means no new manufacturers can use the same direct-sales model. And 7.1.l still says that existing dealers can’t be forced to install service equipment for new vehicles unless ALL dealers are forced to do so, so it could be harder to get new EVs from existing automakers in to the state (maybe not; but it now depends on the dealers more than the manufacturers, and the dealers have traditionally been more reluctant than the manufacturers). Tesla’s mission is to get the whole industry to move to electric, so while Tesla is allowed to expand, and we clearly had a measurable effect on the legislators (thanks everybody who showed up, and submitted comments online!) I still don’t see this as a complete positive.
Last edited:
palmer_md
Member
Sounds like they gave themselves the poison pill. It only takes one dealership to keep all of them from ever selling EV's. That means when gas prices shoot up, and EV's are what everyone wants, they only place they will be able to purchase is from Tesla.
Really dumb decision.
Really dumb decision.
Last edited:
I heard that they were in session until 10 or 11 last night with no dinner break.
This result is not good. I tried to explain to them that it is not right to restrict innovation and new business paradigms to just one company. It is that business paradigm that made EV's possible because automakers don't want to make them and dealers don't want to sell them.
I don't see how this bill could stand up in court. Is someone going to claim that Tesla has a monopoly now?
Besides, I am tired of seeing flood plains filled in and replaced with car lots full of unsold cars.
- - - Updated - - -
Maybe it is a poison pill for the dealers.
Breaking news. President Obama just announced plans to increase MPG requirements to 53 mpg.
very unfortunate that this striker amendement singled Tesla out, this is bad for the future of EV's. I agree that the part of the bill that favors Tesla only, may get struck down in the courts anyway, it could in fact simply be a slow release poison pill. this was a partial victory for the dealers association to get this passed even in one of the most pro EV states.
striker amendments are so tricky, unless you are a lobbyist on the floor, it's the part of the process that is just not democratic. negotiations happens very much behind closed doors between opposing forces while the public does not get to say if they agree or disagree with the final amendement. One reps secretary asked me specifically if I supported the bill if it were amended for Tesla and I said I only supported the bill if it was inclusive of any manufacturer who did not have dealers, being able to sell directly.
striker amendments are so tricky, unless you are a lobbyist on the floor, it's the part of the process that is just not democratic. negotiations happens very much behind closed doors between opposing forces while the public does not get to say if they agree or disagree with the final amendement. One reps secretary asked me specifically if I supported the bill if it were amended for Tesla and I said I only supported the bill if it was inclusive of any manufacturer who did not have dealers, being able to sell directly.
This pretty much seals Tesla as the monopoly for EV vehicles in Washington state. No current manufacturers will sell anything but compliance cars through the dealership model.
Current Chinese car manufacturers are nothing to worry about. Samsung and other electronic giants on the other hand are going to completely wipe the current manufacturers and dealers off the map.
gglockner
Member
So if my understanding is correct, the amended bill grandfathered Tesla Motors so that they can add more stores, but prevents others from doing the same? Shame on the legislators.
A few weeks ago, I sent emails asking my reps (Ross Hunter, Cyrus Habib) and senator (Rodney Tom) to defeat the bill, but they voted for it anyway. No surprise. Any chance that Governor Inslee will veto it?
A few weeks ago, I sent emails asking my reps (Ross Hunter, Cyrus Habib) and senator (Rodney Tom) to defeat the bill, but they voted for it anyway. No surprise. Any chance that Governor Inslee will veto it?
Similar threads
- Article
