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

Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
The law is written in a way that excludes one of the two US battery manufacturers in the country.

It’s a fine coincidence for the rest of the auto makers that Tesla is not eligible.
Like I said, it most likely has nothing to do with a coincidence but it's about generating revenue.

Panasonic sells battery to Tesla. Panasonic pays taxes on that sale. Tesla pays taxes on that sale. Panasonic gets tax credit.

Tesla builds batteries themselves..uncle sam gets nothing...welp..guess they decided they will pay out nothing as well.

Tesla can always spin off the battery division as it's own company and sell it back to Tesla generating tax revenue for uncle sam.
 
The law is written in a way that excludes one of the two US battery manufacturers in the country.

It’s a fine coincidence for the rest of the auto makers that Tesla is not eligible.
The law is not entirely clear. Rob said he doesn't know exactly how it will be interpreted. We'll find out. But I think it's extremely unlikely that Tesla's cells won't get the credit because they use them themselves rather than sell them to somebody else. We won't know until we know.
 
Like I said, it most likely has nothing to do with a coincidence but it's about generating revenue.

Panasonic sells battery to Tesla. Panasonic pays taxes on that sale. Tesla pays taxes on that sale. Panasonic gets tax credit.

Tesla builds batteries themselves..uncle sam gets nothing...welp..guess they decided they will pay out nothing as well.

Tesla can always spin off the battery division as it's own company and sell it back to Tesla generating tax revenue for uncle sam.
Profit taxes are just distributed differently.
But is that really how the US Tax system works for sales taxes?
Usually (at least for Europe) B2B transactions are tax neutral. Otherwise you could bump your profits by a whole tax rate for every upstream supplier level you integrate into your company. And that's explicitly not done by almost all mega corps that could easily afford it.
 
I don't think Rob is correct. When Tesla sells a car they are selling the battery to an unrelated person, otherwise Tesla would still own the battery. Everything included in the sale has been sold.
Rob mentions that there is a list of specific products mentioned as things you can put the battery in and then sell to still get the credit - an EV is not on that list (but things like a battery pack is).

Hoepfully its just a poorly written bill and the intent is not to exclude an automaker who makes their own cells and so will be interpreted differently - but then again something that pretty much only excludes Tesla wouldn’t surprise me either.
 
I don't think Rob is correct. When Tesla sells a car they are selling the battery to an unrelated person, otherwise Tesla would still own the battery. Everything included in the sale has been sold.
Another possible way around this is Tesla sells the cars and batteries separately. It's installed, but the consumer get 2 invoices instead of 1.
 
I don't think Rob is correct. When Tesla sells a car they are selling the battery to an unrelated person, otherwise Tesla would still own the battery. Everything included in the sale has been sold.

I think you're right. Furthermore, I'm sure we'd have heard something from Elon by now if the bill excluded Tesla's in house produced batteries from the credit.
 
Another day of heavy SP manipulation in the early pre-Market (when its mostly MMs and hedgies trading), followed by extreme volume at the Closing Cross: (3.5M shares, or 1.16M pre-split equiv.) as shortzes cover:

View attachment 846718

Paging @Papafox
How come the entities are able to find endless supply of shares at closing cross to cover their shorts . This is not a one time affair, per posters here, this is a daily occurrence. Who is selling to the manipulators and helping them
Cover their shorts?
Just curious to know

Crazy times indeed. We saw what appeared to be the market makers cushioning downward pressures on TSLA this past Friday, and they could possibly have been doing the same on Monday. We also saw something strange happen to percent of selling by shorts: it jumped out of its comfortable range for the past two weeks and ran higher. Also, the morning dip lasted half an hour longer with TSLA than with NASDAQ. I suspect a big short or hedge fund was trying a pushdown and was borrowing from FINRA exchanges. The net result? We had upward manipulators battling downward manipulators and both ultimately settled most the day's net short vs. long positions against each other in the closing cross. Welcome to the predator's ball!
 
Come to think of it . . .that sounds crazy high. Perhaps he is including lines of code as well.
I wonder what @Discoducky thinks of Joe Justice's claim of 60 parts introduced per day?
It *used* to be ~60 ECO (Engineering Change Orders which could be parts, processes or software) on average per day, but this was during the ramp of Model S so I don't know what it is now. I'd imagine that they have become even better at a higher rate of change however.
 
Come to think of it . . .that sounds crazy high. Perhaps he is including lines of code as well.
I wonder what @Discoducky thinks of Joe Justice's claim of 60 parts introduced per day?
60 sounds about right. It was 40 some time ago.

A production line at Tesla has small units (they call it cells) that do the same thing. If you have an idea for streamlining stuff (i.e. saving a cent of metal, changing 1 chip on a board, etc.) You implement it on one cell, get it to volume production and make sure it works. Then propagate that change to all cells.
But it is not part introduction, but part CHANGE. Different chip, fewer welds, less screws/rivets/..

At least that is what I heard from several second hand accounts explaining the Tesla methodology on YouTube. And why they have a governmental regulator on-site to sign off all changes the whole day 😁
 
I don't think Rob is correct. When Tesla sells a car they are selling the battery to an unrelated person, otherwise Tesla would still own the battery. Everything included in the sale has been sold.
If Rob’s interpretation is correct then it is the ultimate FU from govt to Tesla…. No option but for Tesla to sue

Spinning off battery division might be harder because of all the vertical integration
 
If Rob’s interpretation is correct then it is the ultimate FU from govt to Tesla…. No option but for Tesla to sue

Well, if Rob's interpretation is correct, there is at least one other option.

They could take it on the chin and just keep ramping production because the loss of these tax credits will be inconsequential over the long run, and Tesla/Elon have stated how they are opposed to subsidies anyway.
 
Last edited:
Re cells/batteries and Rob:
I get why he is interpreting it that way, but I think the intent is to cover companies that make cells and combine them into batteries (modules) to call out the cells are still eligible.
(4) SALE OF INTEGRATED COMPONENTS.— For purposes of this section, a person shall be treated as having sold an eligible component to an unrelated person if such component is integrated, incorporated, or assembled into another eligible component which is sold to an unrelated person.
This section does not say one cannot then combine the eligible component with something else before sale. IOW cells manufactured and integrated in modules and then sold are still cells sold. Otherwise, LG multicell modules are in doubt.
Futher, battery and thermal management systens are not eligible components; so, on a strict reading, self monitoring batteries/ modules would not be eligible.
To really encompass it, a Tesla is a car shaped pack.

This does block Tesla Energy from taking the credit on Tesla owned Megapacks, but allows it on 3rd party owned Mega and Power Packs.

Edit: also to cover active materials used in cells before sale.

(c) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section—
(1) ELIGIBLE COMPONENT.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘eligible component’ means—​
(iv) any qualifying battery component, and​
...
(5) QUALIFYING BATTERY COMPONENT.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘qualifying battery component’ means any of the following:​
(i) Electrode active materials.​
(ii) Battery cells.​
(iii) Battery modules.​
(B) ASSOCIATED DEFINITIONS.—​
(i) ELECTRODE ACTIVE MATERIAL.— The term ‘electrode active material’ means cathode materials, anode materials, anode foils, and electrochemically active materials, including solvents, additives, and electrolyte salts that contribute to the electrochemical processes necessary for energy storage .​
(ii) BATTERY CELL.—The term ‘battery cell’ means an electrochemical cell—​
(I) comprised of 1 or more positive electrodes and 1 or more negative electrodes,​
(II) with an energy density of not less than 100 watt-hours per liter, and​
(III) capable of storing at least 12 watt-hours of energy.​
(iii) BATTERY MODULE.—The term ‘battery module’ means a module—​
(I)​
(aa) in the case of a module using battery cells, with 2 or more battery cells which are configured electrically, in series or parallel, to create voltage or current, as appropriate, to a specified end use, or​
(bb) with no battery cells, and​
(II) with an aggregate capacity of not less than 7 kilowatt-hours (or, in the case of a module for a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, not less than 1 kilowatt-hour).​