UPDATE (Bill Veto’d): Tesla Responds To GM-Backed Anti Direct Sales Bill In Indiana

1 year ago by Eric Loveday 165

Tesla Store

Tesla Store

Tesla Store

Tesla Store

Yesterday, AutoBlog brought us news that Tesla is facing a direct sales battle in Indiana that’s backed by General Motors.

In Indiana “a bill that was “authored and pushed by General Motors,” (according to Tesla) is making its way through the state legislature,” according to the online magazine.

*UPDATE: General Motors has issued this statement:

GM supports HB 1254. GM believes that all industry participants should operate under the same rules and requirements on fundamental issues that govern how we sell, service and market our products.

A benefit of a nationwide network of thousands of dealerships is that General Motors customers never have to worry about driving to another state to buy, service or support their vehicles.

Tesla’s insistence on special rules could result in multiple manufacturers competing with similarly capable vehicles and similar price points, yet operating under a different set of rules.

Tesla could open a franchised dealership with an independent operator in Indiana today, but instead they insist that the State must first provide them with unique rules and special exceptions to suit their own business interests. In fact, Tesla was willing to agree to a dealer model in Virginia. The Indiana legislature shouldn’t create a special exemption for them here.

*UPDATE 2: The bill has been effectively vetoed. Indystar writes:

A state Senate committee on Thursday effectively tabled a controversial proposal to prevent Tesla Motors Inc. from selling cars in Indiana under its current business model.

The Senate Commerce and Technology Committee voted to send House Bill 1254 to a summer study committee. 

Tesla has been able to sell in Indiana, but this new bill, if passed, would cease Tesla’s ability to sell there after July 1, 2016 (the date when Tesla’s current license would expire).

AutoBlog adds this info, which comes directly from the bill:

“All dealer licenses issued to a manufacturer under this chapter expire thirty (30) months after the date on which the first dealer license is issued to the manufacturer under this chapter. A dealer license issued to a manufacturer under this chapter may not be renewed.”

It’s believed that the bill will pass, so Tesla is calling on its supporters to speak out against it. Tesla issued this statement:

Tesla Owners and Enthusiasts:

Tesla Needs Your Help In Indiana

Tesla Needs Your Help In Indiana

We need your help. Yesterday (2/18), the Indiana Senate Committee on Commerce & Technology held a hearing on a bill that would shut down Tesla in the state. Authored and pushed by General Motors, HB1254 with amendment 3 would prohibit any manufacturer from being able to hold a dealer license after December 31, 2017. Existing law allows ANY manufacturer to apply for a dealer license without the use of independent franchised dealers. Despite having a lawfully granted license to sell Tesla vehicles directly since 2014 at the Fashion Mall at Keystone; despite contributing over $42 million to the state through the purchase of parts and components from Indiana suppliers; and despite plans underway to construct a 26,000 square foot Tesla Service facility that will employ approximately a dozen Indiana residents and serve our customers, GM is pushing the Senate Committee to shut out Tesla.

Here’s how you can help: please contact your local Senator – and if you live in one of the districts covered by any of the following Committee members, we urge you to reach out and let them know they should not shut out Tesla. You can find your Indiana legislators here.

Chairman Buck: Senator.Buck@iga.in.gov , (317) 232-9466
Senator Merritt: Senator.Merritt@iga.in.gov, (317) 232-9533
Senator Delph: Senator.Delph@iga.in.gov, (317) 232-9541
Senator Head: Senator.Head@iga.in.gov, (317) 232-9488
Senator Houchin: s47@iga.in.gov, (317) 232-9814
Senator Leising: Senator.Leising@iga.in.gov, (317) 232-9493
Senator Tomes: Senator.Tomes@iga.in.gov, (317) 232-9414
Senator Breaux: s34@iga.in.gov, (317) 232-9534
Senator Broden: s10@iga.in.gov , (317) 232-9849
Senator Randolph: s2@iga.in.gov, (317) 232-9432

A follow up hearing will be held next Thursday, February 25, 2016, at the Capitol building. Let your voice be heard before that hearing to let them know that Indiana should encourage innovation, economic growth and consumer choice. Don’t let GM tell you that your only option is to buy a car from a traditional franchised dealer by shutting out Tesla.

Thank you for your support and willingness to help Tesla stay and grow in Indiana. As always, when communicating with legislators, please be polite and respectful. Personal attacks should be absolutely avoided as they will only hurt our cause! Thank you again.

General Motors did not respond to AutoBlog’s request for comment, but Tesla supporters have already become very active:

Bonnie Norman Tweet

Bonnie Norman (Model X Owner/Prominent Tesla Supporter) Tweet – @bonnienorman

You can read the bill in its entirety at the source link below.

Source: AutoBlog

Tags: , , , , ,

165 responses to "UPDATE (Bill Veto’d): Tesla Responds To GM-Backed Anti Direct Sales Bill In Indiana"

  1. ffbj says:

    So the new “GM” huh? Looks a lot like the new boss is same as the old boss. Throwing roadblocks up against the most popular and best car in the world. Really showing GM’s competitive advantage in the space, and it’s not because they build a superior vehicle, it’s because they have paid off politicians in their corner.

    Why not use threat money for something constructive, like building out some charging infrastructure? No the bean-counters have determined it is better to stop Tesla that to do something that would actually promote their own ev products.

    No Bolt for me. Just fed up with GM, their FUD, and their recalcitrant backward looking, anti-competitive policies.

    1. x says:

      +1
      In all honesty I was thinking about a Bolt, but not anymore. I just find gm simply despicable with what they’re doing now and before in MD, MI…
      With so much “experience” and … bla bla (see seekingalpha bunch of constant boosters of gm and same time tesla critics) they could’ve used the lobby money for something good, how about cheaper Bolt, more Evs etc. No.
      Why compete, when you can keep out the competition using lobbyist and such practices. And then, oh, “please visit us at you friendly chevy dealer!”.
      NO.

        1. ClarksonCote says:

          Let’s all be a little realistic here.

          GM was forced to sell through franchised dealers. Now they have a network of people who are not GM that they rely on to sell their cars.

          Because of this, the sales playing field is unfair. Tesla can sell direct, GM cannot.

          GM can ask that Tesla doesn’t get an advantage they were not allowed to have, or they can ask to not have to use franchised dealers anymore.

          If they choose the latter, what do you think will happen to their business? That’s a big middle finger to the thousands of dealers they have, and they sure won’t want to sell GM cars anymore.

          It’s frustrating sometimes to see people make all these comments about how GM is just being so rude, conspiring against Tesla, etc. The reality is there’s not much else they can do without enraging the only people presently allowed to sell their product, which obviously would not bode well.

          1. TomArt says:

            Nope – you missed the point entirely.

            It is legal for Tesla to sell cars direct – has been in almost every state. Once Tesla became popular, then NADA started lobbying and got several of these laws changed specifically to ban any automaker from selling direct.

            Legacy automakers have not been “forced” to operate under the dealer model. The dealership model grew out of a convenience where the automakers didn’t want to bother with repair and maintenance services.

            Legacy automakers then tried to sell direct, undercutting their own dealership networks, in rough economic times. However, dealerships gained prominence and political clout by that time, and so they were able to fight back in the legislatures, creating the laws banning an automaker from competing against their franchise dealerships.

            Despite that, dealerships make a majority of their profit from repairs and maintenance, and some additional profit from used car sales. They make very little profit from marking-up new vehicle sales.

            Because of these facts, dealerships cannot survive economically with EVs – the maintenance and repair needs are drastically reduced from ICE vehicles. With no ICE, no multi-gear transmission and with regenerative breaking, EVs are a dealership nightmare. The most common and costly maintenance and repairs are not needed (engine oil, oil filters, air filters, transmission fluid, sensors, fluid filters), or are much less common (brake pad replacement, rotor maintenance).

            Tesla has never had dealerships, so they are not undercutting anyone directly. And, the dealerships cannot economically survive on their own without unnecessarily marking up new EV sale prices.

            Legacy automakers and NADA can kiss Musk’s ass for all that it matters.

      1. Also – the Text Link for the correct item (Some of the other links I left might have been other stuff:

        HOUSE BILL No. 1254
        _____
        DIGEST OF HB 1254 (Updated January 28, 2016 8:48 am – DI 103)
        Citations Affected: Noncode.
        Synopsis: Interim study committee. Urges the legislative council to assign to assign to an appropriate interim study committee the topic of motor vehicle dealer and manufacturer licenses.
        Effective: July 1, 2016.

        http://in.proxy.openstates.org/2016/bills/hb1254/versions/hb1254.02.comh

        [SECTION 1. [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2016] (a) The general assembly urges the legislative council to assign to an appropriate interim study committee for study during the 2016 legislative interim the topic of new motor vehicle dealer and manufacturer licenses, including additional licensing requirements for a manufacturer that engages in the direct sale to consumers of new motor vehicles of the manufacturer.]

    2. evcarnut says:

      This is THE HEIGHT OF DISCRIMATION & AGAINST THE AL LAWS OF FREE ENTERPRIZE….I HOPE GM GOES BANKRUPT FOR GOOD! PEOPLE SHOULD STOP BUYING GM JUNK PRODUCTS . THE HEADS ARE GREEDY PIGS THAT WANT IT ALL TO THEMSELVES! Why are they doing this? Its INSANE! .I HOPE THESE HEADS OF GM GET WHAT THEY DESERVE 100 FOLD!

      1. Jacked Beanstalk says:

        Your caps lock is stuck.

        1. ffbj says:

          Everyone has a style, or lack thereof.

          1. Skryll says:

            But he does have a point. If the Bolt is any good it will sell plenty alongside the model 3 as it comes out, there is no reason to be doing the old corrupt anticompetitive money war that produces no value. Focus should be on innovation and value building not on making the playing field harder

          2. evcarnut says:

            Big deal that is …

        2. evcarnut says:

          I’m just P 0’d l o l

      2. pjwood1 says:

        Dealer franchise laws are laws. GM has to play by them. I’m not on GM’s side, but respect their argument, as the field isn’t level. Sad, they don’t aim to strike franchise requirements, instead.

        1. Chris O says:

          Of course the playing field is level. Nothing is stopping GM from selling Bolt and Volt under another label like “GM” or “Saturn”and bypass those franchise laws like Tesla does.

          1. pjwood1 says:

            I don’t believe that’s true, Chris. Once an OEM has a franchise, I believe most state laws prohibit an end-run.

            I’m researching “GM authorship” of this bill. Anyone have a link? It probably has a normal state rep sponsoring it, but I haven’t found anything beyond Tesla’s claim. People aren’t awake, if they think Tesla has no credibility problems (463HP, instead of 692HP P85D’s, etc.)

            Bonnie is a TMC poster. With all due respect, her claiming “GM authorship” is A LOT different than a state rep., or someplace else that would lend better verification. Jay?

            1. pjwood1 says:

              Ok, seen enough of GM’s “equity” argument. Straight from the horses mouth, in MD. This is a preview of their speaking slot this Thursday, at the IN hearing (go to minute 36:30):

              It’s like fingernails to chalk-board, hearing GM feign support for EV1 (crushed), the (CARB-state only) Spark, and the rediculous “our dealers are heavily trained”. Great products, guys, but the knod goes to Tesla.

        2. JakeY says:

          Laws can change (as GM is pushing). GM could have pushed for a wider exemption (manufacturer own stores as long as they are sufficiently far away from existing dealerships, as Tesla is helping push in MI). Instead they are trying to put up road blocks.

          I don’t think even GM fans think this is a good move. It is a way to kill any possible good will toward the brand.

        3. Speculawyer says:

          Yeah, I think it is time to consider scrapping those laws.

          Times have changed and they might not make as much sense now.

          I’d like to be able to buy direct from GM instead of go through a dealer.

    3. Rick Danger says:

      +1000, well said ffbj.

      1. ffbj says:

        Thanks, Rick, how’s Tricks?
        GM makes it is so easy. GM get a clue it is the age of the age of the internet. No longer are you able to obfuscate the issue with unsubstantiated claims of the benefits of the franchise system. Everyone knows that is a big lie, and I don’t GM needs more bad press. Someone said own goal, I think that is about right, but being a serial offender in that department is a hard habit to break.
        It reminds me of General Bullmoose, what is good for GM is good for the U.S.A. and vice versa.
        The funny part is that even those that normally support GM, are appalled at these antiquated, gangland, bullying tactics, GM continues to use.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj65AcbekIE

        1. kdawg says:

          Don’t buy a Ford either. Their dealers have also sued Tesla.

        2. Ambulator says:

          General Bullmoose was a fictionalized version of Charles Erwin Wilson.

          1. ffbj says:

            Cool, thanks for the info.

    4. Brian says:

      I am actually in the market for a used car (sold my natural gas civic) and was considering a 2013 Volt over getting a second 2013 Cmax energi. But I am seriously considering not buying any GM product even the volt. I hope I can buy a Tesla soon because dealers have never left me happy. Kia, Ford, I have recent stories about them too.

    5. Sammy says:

      +1. I was thinking about getting the Bolt. Not any more. The bit of good will they generated out of making the Bolt is gone by this.

  2. MDEV says:

    Take it to the Supreme Court, time to stop the Oil cartel.

  3. Alex says:

    And thats why i would NEVER by a BOLT!
    I would prefer a 30 kWh Leaf over this company, but i will buy a 150 -200 miles Leaf II :-).

    1. evcarnut says:

      BOYCOTT GM ..THESE ARE HUGE INJUTICES THEY ARE PERPITRATING against their Fellow Man!..IT GOES AGAINST ALL HUMAN RIGHTS ..EVRYONE DESERVES TO MAKE A LIVING NOT JUST “GM” ..I HOPE GM DIES AN UGLY DEATH & GOES AWAY FOREVER! ((((Sorry for the Honest in factory workers.))) WE DON’T NEED GM, THEIR DICTATORSHIP, 0r THE JUNK GARBAGE THEY Engineer…GM pulled out of Canada For MEXICO … “STUPID CANADIANS” Still buy their junk!. It Blows me Away!

      1. Richardd962 says:

        GM is just trying to level the field, TESLA IS the Cheater in this, by having no concessions, it can sell a a lower price, this bypassing laws that all other car manufacturer has to obey.

        So before accusing someone get the facts strait.

        1. x says:

          Fact #1 is you are either a shill or naive.

          The current law in Indiana, (and every where else in the civilized world) allows people to bypass the huge joy to be forced into a middleman’s lair (aka dealership), so tesla and other could sell products people actually want.

          This is not right to unprincipled people who enjoy benefits just to support really bad causes, detrimental to almost everyone else (“Thank you for smoking”) -everyone that is except the lobbyist and the friendly hard-working dealers.

        2. Eric says:

          It’s not cheating by Tesla at all. It’s just that Tesla chooses to use a different way of selling cars than all the others. It’s part of the way they’re competing in the market. Any car manufacturer could do the same. But they won’t. They’d rather protect their cosy little market – not in the interest of consumers, but purely their own interest of not having too much competition.

          GM and the old-world dealers are anti-competitive in this matter and the worst thing is: they’re being backed by politicians. Time to vote them out of office, I’d say, or at least set the FTC on the case.

        3. goodbyegascar says:

          Richardd962,

          If there is a cheater in all of this, it’s the dealer network, and we all know it.

        4. No GM for you! says:

          The argument is that GM is “only trying to make sure that everyone plays by the same rules”, but the problem is that the main reason why these laws were even created in the first place was to protect franchise dealerships against unfair competition from their own manufacturers, like GM, but not against outside competition, which would be against all the principles of the free market.

          1. pjwood1 says:

            Exactly, and just how to proceed in Indiana. The consumer argument resonates in all states, where protection of the high-maintenance (ICE) car franchise is fundamentally against the consumer. Hearing officers should see the light, if people and their legislators respond to Tesla’s call, and convey this message.

          2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Ah, here’s someone who knows his history!

            Yes, the various State dealer protection laws were intended to protect dealerships from the predatory business practices which auto makers formerly used during economic downturns, extorting money from the dealerships in order to make up for shortfalls in income.

            Those laws were never intended to keep a fledgling auto manufacturer like Tesla from bypassing the dealership business model and doing direct sales in the States. Using the State laws as protectionism against Tesla is a perversion of the intent of the laws, and a perversion of justice.

            GM using political influence in Indiana against Tesla is quite reminiscent of how the Big Three used the SEC and a Congressional investigation to shut down the Tucker Car Corp., which back in 1948-49 was the last significant attempt before Tesla Motors to start a new automobile manufacturing business in the USA.

            Shame on anyone defending GM for its corrupt big bully tactics.

        5. MDEV says:

          Sure and we should still selling asbestos products to keep the status-quo

        6. jelloslug says:

          How are they cheating? The rules say that a manufacturer cannot compete with their franchises. Tesla has no franchises so they have broken no rules.

    2. kdawg says:

      If you think GM is the only one benefiting from a dealership business model you are clueless. All the current car companies have dealerships set up, and would love the everything to stay as is.

      Tesla got blocked in West Virginia because their Senate president is also a Nissan dealer.

      http://www.theverge.com/2015/4/3/8340433/west-virginia-ban-block-tesla-sales

  4. manbitesgas says:

    First one to set up an EV-only dealership wins the prize. Meager at first, sure, but you’ll just be ahead of the curve.

    1. M Hovis says:

      Maybe not. Imagine the efforts that Tesla is putting into this, and all of a sudden in 2020, Apple says “what they said”.

  5. Big Solar says:

    I’ll never buy a GM no matter what it is. I’ll walk first after reading this. What a friggin waste they are. Greedy little can’t stand on their own two feet hypocritical piglets.

    1. kdawg says:

      It’s NADA protecting their interests. They even have a PAC

      “NADA PAC (formerly the Dealers Election Action Committee, or DEAC) is NADA’s political action committee and represents the interests of all franchised dealers of new cars and trucks by supporting pro-dealer congressional candidates of both political parties.”

      Here’s their Industry Relations team. Notice is all car companies with dealerships. This includes Acura, Audi, BMW, Chrysler, Ford, Lincoln, GM, Buick, Cadillac, Chevy, Honda, Hyunadai, Infiniti, KIA, Jaguar, Lexus, Mazda, Mercedes, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Porsche, Subaru, Toyota, VW, and Volvo.

      https://www.nada.org/CustomTemplates/GeneralPage.aspx?id=21474839229

      1. pjwood1 says:

        Thanks, kdawg. I don’t doubt NADA would be behind this, but “GM authorship”? How does Auto Blog prove this? GM might actually be an OEM, or member of a group filing this Bill, but to single them out sounds almost to me as if Tesla is aiming for the group member who most threatens them.

        Tesla may top the “do-good” list, but they’re no saints.

      2. Big Solar says:

        Still, Ef em Kdawg, they’re not trying hard enough for me. Not to mention bailouts and ignition switches……

        1. kdawg says:

          I was for the “bailout”. The ignition switch issue seems like old news to me (20 years ago) and the manuals told people not to hang anvils from their keychains. As someone who designs controls systems, people will always find a way to do something wrong. It’s also a lesser of the evils. I can point out other “bailouts” and other “recalls” from every major auto company. It just seems when the letters G.M. are involved, people start to salivate.

  6. bro1999 says:

    See, I love GM’s EV products (I own a 2012 Volt and plan to buy a Bolt), but stuff like this really looks bad.
    It’s like a bully who’s been held back 2 grades picking on the wimpy new kid on the playground and kicking him while he’s down. More bad PR than anything else. Bad GM.

    1. ffbj says:

      Good analogy.

    2. SparkEV says:

      Well, I separate GM engineering from GM bureaucracy. Their engineers are top notch with out of the box thinking. SparkEV’s 400 ft-lb torque motor and Volt complexity are engineering marvels. But when it comes to their corporate pulling stupid crap like this, OMG, what a major F-up. It’s like crushing EV1 all over again.

      1. TomArt says:

        True – GM was first to market with production vehicles having heads-up displays and AWD, but they discontinued them after only one or two model years…then, decades later, the Europeans introduce similar tech to the US market.

  7. Pete says:

    Since EV1 i don’t like GM, but the Bolt made something good.
    After this i hate them, last week i saw an interview with a GM employee (marketing i think). He rejoiced like crazy when the interviewer noticed the low gas prices “good for our truck sales” slip out. Sometimes i think why GM put 60 kWh in the Bolt, because LG is so cheap than Tesla, Nissan and others will do the same but GM is talking they “cracked the longe range EV code”. Or perhaps GM subsidizes the Bolt and all other EV manufactures look old wit 45-55 kWh battery. What would happen? Sales would be destroyed, because GM will not supply minimum 400.000 EVs sold globally every year and all people cry to Tesla or Nissan that they put to less kWh in there.

    1. Brian says:

      You have a great point. Your comment has opened my eyes to something new!…

      GM releases low cost (37K$), subsidized, all electric car that to hurt the competition/movement (and force other manufacturers (nissan, ford, kia, hyundai, etc) to lose money on their electric cars (rushing to higher range to compete), and result in people not buying them because GM has a better “value”). But GM will not produce that many cars so they will kill the market while dangling a carrot in front of electric car buyers that simply can’t buy one. I wouldn’t buy a new 100 mile leaf if I could get a bolt!…Also it could create a resentful feeling towards electric mobility at nissan because they didn’t tier their upgraded range like tesla every year and GM is killing their profitability.

      GM will say “we sold 25K this year it is a success/profitable (profitable on paper)” but their main goal was to prove that people “don’t want” to buy electric vehicles. Also GM gets a write off for marketing their company as new and hip and green by making this Bolt.

      Makes total sense why they would put out a 60kwh battery in a car the price of the 30kwh nissan leaf…they probably lose money (r&d, battery cost etc) on each car (true cost) but that was never their point in making the bolt. They want to hamper the adoption of electric cars and hedge bets in case their plan doesn’t work in which they do actually have a car that could sell numbers. In business it is good to have your cake and eat it too, it has now become clear why they would make this car…to gain good PR, get CAFE/CARB benefits, kill the competition, and hopefully kill the electric car movement in order to keep it a SMALL niche segment of the automotive world…thus protecting their parts/dealer/ICE business model$$$$.

      Makes me also a bit scared for Lyft as to if/when GM will bring them down the tubes with them. Having experience with Lyft, they are a good company.

      1. David says:

        Sadly, I think you’re right. GM created a task force to study Tesla. The Bolt may well be nothing more than GMs concerted effort to kill Tesla. Sell a cheap 200+ mile range car at a loss just to put Tesla out of business. Then jack up the price and claim no one wants it.

        GM has a long history of underhanded manipulation of the auto market. Between 1937-1950 GM worked tirelessly to destroy mass transit in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy

        EV1. Watch the movie, Who Killed The Electric Car. Stopping use of NiMH batteries in cars, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries

        And now GM is WRITING legislation that would normally be bad for them, all to try and put Tesla out of business.

        GM has also tried to stop and stall CHAdeMO deployment claiming CCS superiority. Yet they REFUSE to spend any money what so ever on CCS deployment.

        In isolation, the lack of CCS deployment is strange. Neutering a 200 mile range car, preventing long distance travel and making it still a commuter car. But in light of other GM activities, it is not unreasonable to think the lack of CCS deployment is intentional and part of their plan to hurt the BEV market, not help it.

        I would be surprised to see GM sell the Bolt in any quantity. It looks purely as a way to stop Tesla and Nissan sales.

  8. Michael Parker says:

    Letter has been sent to my representatives.

    1. Michael Parker says:

      Add this to the growing list of reasons I will never give my money to GM – regardless of how good their vehicles may be getting.

      1. MikeG says:

        There is that plus their products when used correctly kill you. See GM ignition lock for example.

    2. Leptoquark says:

      Direct testimony, if at all possible, has much more impact. Fill the hearing with regular Jane and John Q. Public Tesla owners, Thursday 2/25/2016 at the Capitol, if you really want to influence the outcome.

      We had a similar bill in Maryland, with testimony, which wound up with a good solution, since the MD auto dealer association was cooperative.

      If no angry Tesla owners are at the hearing, that essentially says you agree.

      1. MikeM says:

        I’d like to add: <>.

        Even more than Tesla owners, there must be a good number of EV owning/leasing/waiting-for-model-3 folks like me out there, even in Indiana.

        1. MikeM says:

          What the #$%^@ ? Where’d my words go??

          I’d like to add: “NOT just Tesla owners” .

          Even more than Tesla owners, there must be a good number of EV owning/leasing/waiting-for-model-3 folks like me out there, even in Indiana.

          1. Art Isbell says:

            Angle brackets are used to enclose HTML tags that define the look and behavior of Web pages. Many Websites don’t allow users to affect the look and behavior of these Websites by inserting HTML tags into their comment text. That’s probably why the text inside your angle brackets was removed. Nothing sinister going on…

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              It would be more accurate to say that the website software treats anything inside angled brackets as if it’s HTML, rather than text to be displayed. So yes, anything in a post inside angled brackets will disappear when it’s displayed. I had that happen the first time I tried to use a [/snark] tag, but used angled brackets instead of square brackets, so it disappeared.

              As you say, nothing sinister going on.

        2. Michael Parker says:

          Yup – that’s me you are describing there!

  9. Ryan H says:

    I’m a Tesla owner who would have considered a Bolt as an additional vehicle in a year… but NO LONGER… seems to me that even GM doesn’t think the Bolt can stand up to Tesla on it’s own merits… they probably figure they can pick up the supercharger network pretty cheap if they can just push Tesla off the cliff

  10. Alan says:

    The world is watching what goes on with stories like this, here in the UK there are plenty of EV enthusiasts who don’t want to give money to the Middle East & Russia & who do give a damn about the environment.

    GM/Opel/Vauxhall are scoring a huge own goal on this !

    1. x says:

      +1
      True, huge own goal. They hope probably that this will pass unnoticed. I do hope that would not be the case and more and more people will voice (I wrote to GM few minutes ago) their strong disagreement. If they will be flooded by thousands and thousands of emails, people in Indiana legislature etc, they will change their bullying “strategy” – one may hope.
      For sure though,there will be no Bolt for me, not anymore.

  11. Breezy says:

    I’d like to hear GM respond to Tesla’s accusation that GM “authored and pushed” this bill. If true, shame on GM; If not true, shame on Tesla.

    GM would be on shaky ground here. There is no problem with a “level playing field” in Indiana. GM is free to open factory-owned stores there if they want to.

    1. floydboy says:

      I understand that as an avid GM supporter, you would want this to be something Tesla made up. But looking at past behavior of both companies, it’s far more likely that GM is ‘up to no good’ than Tesla.

      A pertinent clue would be, who stands to gain the most. I view this as much more than “shaky ground”. It’s very likely to become quicksand once the larger media starts spouting off about it. GM should have left well enough alone.

  12. ffbj says:

    The GM straight gas, no non-franchises choir sings “Back Home in Indiana,” at the Indianapolis 500. How fitting.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-FwwNDCUKE

  13. Aaron says:

    It’s easy: Indiana has a law called the “religious freedom” law. It prevents the government from “substantially burdening” someone based on their religious views.

    We need to come up with a religion of Tesla Motors worshipers (pretty much everyone on this site) and claim that Indiana’s blocking of Tesla Motors’ direct sales “substantially burdens” our religious views.

    1. kdawg says:

      I think a Tesla store would be a church for some, as many seem to be Tesla fans on a religious level.

      1. evcarnut says:

        Simple solution ?.. Tesla appoints dealer principles/owner & puts them in charge gives them a small % enough so they qualify as owners, While Tesla Is Majority share silent partner/owner. If they Quit ,they forfeit their shares to a new dealer principle/owner appointee. Wouldn’t that work?

  14. Richardd962 says:

    finnaly Tesla will be forced to play by the same rules as the other car manufacturer.
    GM is comming out with the bolt in a few months, but it has to fight a ghost car (model 3)
    that will sell 2500 $ lower just because they do not obey the law that mandate
    car manufacturer to deal thru dealership to sell and service the car they sell.

    1. Alan says:

      How would you feel if all products had to be sold through a franchised dealership/distributor and increased the price of everything you buy ?

      1. Brian says:

        I want/agree with the direct sales model for Tesla. But almost everything we buy is sold through a “dealer” in case of wholesale items purchased by grocery store or department store then sold to us for a retail price.

        But again if I can buy direct and get a better price/experience heck yeah I will do that!

        1. MDEV says:

          Because the producer want it this way not because is mandatory by special interest.

          1. evcarnut says:

            A Valid Point,very well Put!

          2. TomArt says:

            Exactly!

        2. Ed says:

          The state does not require groceries, shoes, or anything else to be sold through dealers. That’s the business choice of the manufacturer. The state should not be dictating business models to companies– let the market decide. If a consumer prefer to buy a car at a dealer, that’s fine. If a consumer wants to buy a car directly from a manufacturer that sells that way, that’s also fine. All this “level playing field” stuff is just protecting the incumbent against someone who may have a better idea. Let the market decide.

        3. evcarnut says:

          So who cares if the dealership belongs to the manufacturer or some jo blow..Direct selling would be dealing right at the factory, picking the car up there & so on ,with no repair depots ..Like AVANTI did when the Altmans bought the bankrupt studebaker plant & rights to it…people dealt at the factory with the owners..Directly

    2. Richardd962, manufactures who don’t already have dealerships can sell direct in any place Tesla sells direct.

      And what do you say about the many Mercedes Benz Company Stores in and around Toronto, Ontario, Canada? Why can’t Tesla have the same rights as MB?

      1. kdawg says:

        What are the Canadian laws? Is the ADA up there too?

      2. evcarnut says:

        Tesla has N0 problems in Canada ,That I know of .., Just the price is so damn high because of the High$$USD$$ …. $1 USD is $1.40 CDN

    3. No GM for you! says:

      The argument is that GM is “only trying to make sure that everyone plays by the same rules”, but the problem is that the main reason why these laws were even created in the first place was to protect franchise dealerships against unfair competition from their own manufacturers, like GM, but not against outside competition, which would be against all the principles of the free market.

      1. evcarnut says:

        GM Has F.O.S Excuses in order to hold back any progress on EV’s

    4. Fool Cells says:

      why have a law forcing a leeching middle man? Let the market decide. If the dealership are as beneficial as they say, the market will naturally keep them around.

  15. Nelson says:

    Just one more reason why I will gladly place my $1,000 deposit for a Model 3 come March 31st.

    NPNS! SBF!
    Volt#671

  16. Khai L. says:

    I too will be joining the pool of potential Bolt buyers in boycotting GM (assuming they did author the bill as Breezy said).

    And everyone that I have been advocating BEV’s too will also hear my spiel about boycotting GM. What they’re doing is despicable (MI was definitely their doing, and they almost succeeded in MA too).

    1. evcarnut says:

      GM Are thieves & bullies,denying & stealing peoples’ lively hoods . While they, the self servers build EV’s for “CARB CREDITS” Purposes 0nly,with no long term commitment. I hope their day of reckoning comes to them swiftly & as merciless as they are!

  17. Anon says:

    Nothing like being on the wrong side of history, making your company look bad while you use politics and lobbyists to suppress innovation of alternative & cleaner technologies, while eliminating competition in your own industry.

    This is why we can’t have nice EV’s.

    Thanks GM. Thanks Mary T. Barra & cohorts.

  18. bro1999 says:

    Really, all this does if give people more reason to sympathize with Tesla (along with giving Tesla more free press), while at the same time making GM look like a bully. tsk tsk

  19. No GM for you! says:

    I was going to buy a Bolt as soon as they came out. In fact, I was eagerly waiting for it. But now I will wait another year for Model 3. No more Bolt for me.

    GM killed the trolley buses then they killed the EV and now they want to kill Tesla.

    1. ffbj says:

      Yeah, and to this day they still deny they had anything to do with the demise of the trolley system. Buying the trolley systems up in a consortium with Standard Oil, through dummy companies, and then running them into the ground, and then afterwards burning the trolley cars so they could never be used again. Nope, did not have a thing to do with that.
      Funny how the trolleys were mostly all replaced by stinky GM diesels buses.
      If you don’t think GM behind this I am afraid your apprehension of reality is not of the highest quality.

      Same old GM.

  20. I wonder how many dealers that are public registred
    Tesla should try to buy stocks in as many dealers as possible, as then they will directly linked to an auto manufactor
    Also how many of the owners of these dealers do also own stock in an auto manufactor, most pensions fonds do, so almost all owners/employes have this link

  21. Brian says:

    I really hope that Tesla ownership experience with the model 3 will be similar to my Apple experience. This in addition to the low maintenance for the EV will be a giant middle finger to the dealers and mechanics that always seem to know less that me about my car’s issues.

    Apple has always takne care of me, I upgrade every year so my phones are in warranty and any little issue during the year they don’t hassle me or investigate they have always just replaced things for me (dust in screen, small dead pixel, etc). I keep my phone in good condition and if a problem arises it is handled.

    1. evcarnut says:

      Rite On!

  22. Edward Arthur says:

    The FTC had a hearing regarding the direct sales of autos in January. Public comment is open until March 4. You can enter comments from this page:

    https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/2016/01/auto-distribution-current-issues-future-trends

    Get on it!

    1. Alan says:

      I live in the UK but still uploaded a comment !

    2. ffbj says:

      Thanks. This was my comment:

      Car dealers are looked upon as the least trustworthy of any business group in the U.S. Why? Is everyone just treating them unfairly or is shoe on the other foot? Multiple scams and methodologies to cheat customers are often attributed to car dealers. Many cases are brought against them year after year for bad practices by various states attorneys general.
      Where there is smoke, there is fire.
      There is about as much smoke as a Dodge Hellcat doing donuts in the parking lot, but I predict nothing will happen. Nada is too powerful. GM and other manufactures will continue to lobby and buy off politicians to quash competition. I am not counting on much to come out of the FTC hearing. Recommendations, which no one will follow, and which will have no force of law..

      The franchise system is a broken system. It does not add value to the produced product it merely adds to the cost of that product to the end user. It sets up a privilege and protection from competition to an industry which if rife with corruption and
      unfair practices.

    3. TomArt says:

      Done! I put forth two arguments: 1) economic – since EVs require substantially less maintenance and repairs, dealerships cannot survive on their own economically. Their only hope would be to significantly mark up the cost of the EV, for which there is no value-add to the vehicle itself. Unnecessary upward pressure on prices is not good. 2) Intent – the laws were to protect dealerships from their suppliers (automakers) selling direct to undercut them. Any automaker that does not have, nor has ever had, dealership relations, is not endangering anyone by selling direct. The laws were changed specifically to ban Tesla from selling direct after Tesla became popular.

  23. I first caught this story about 6AM here – http://electrek.co/2016/02/23/tesla-gm-direct-sales-indiana/

    It suggests to me that if that is how GM wants to play, I need to greatly raise the OEM Rates for Exhibiting at EV Fest 2016! Non combative OEM’s may get discounts, but GM will pay full price.

  24. SparkEV says:

    I wonder if it’s possible to have Tesla supercharger locations be considered as “dealers”; after all, they provide “service” specific to Tesla cars.

    Even if this idiotic law pass and Tesla can’t sell, they can still operate superchargers and contract out service. Then the people will be free to buy from neighboring states. Maybe Tesla can invoke the commerce clause to defeat this kind of nonsense in SCOTUS: people are buying out of state (commerce), state law is interfering with interstate commerce.

    1. evcarnut says:

      Whoa!! Don’t give them any more STUPID Ideas…As you can clearly see they will go as LOW as a snake’s Belly to mess things Up! They’ll resort to the lowest of low..

      1. SparkEV says:

        Which idea I propose is stupid? If Tesla succeeds in SCOTUS ruling dealership law as unconstitutional, it will invalidate such nonsense in all states, effectively opening the door nation wide. If they only defeat in IN, it’s a victory, but the war is still on.

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      SparkEV said:

      “Then the people will be free to buy from neighboring states.”

      Don’t they have that freedom already?

      “Maybe Tesla can invoke the commerce clause to defeat this kind of nonsense in SCOTUS: people are buying out of state (commerce), state law is interfering with interstate commerce.”

      But anyone can order a Tesla car online, and if my understanding is correct, they can have it delivered in the State they live in, even in a State where Tesla is prevented from doing sales from their showrooms. I don’t think any State law interferes with that interstate commerce.

      I’d love to see this go to the Supreme Court, but I don’t see that anybody has standing to sue. I’m not a lawyer nor a legal expert, but I don’t see that a State regulating how a product is sold in their State falls under the jurisdiction of interstate commerce.

      Certainly different States have different laws regulating how, when, and where — for example — liquor can be sold. Clearly none of that falls under the Constitutional interstate commerce clause, or liquor manufacturers would long since have sued in federal court for relief.

      1. SparkEV says:

        If the bill passes, people of IN will have to go through lots of hoops to buy Tesla. In effect, it will increase the cost.

        Not sure if people know about the farmer and US constitution commerce clause. If a small farmer growing wheat on his land for his consumption to feed his chickens is illegal due to potential price rise in some other state, making Tesla unavailable sure as heck will make it cost a lot more across state line. In addition, restricting Tesla wheat supply will artificially raise GM wheat price in IN. It’s totally unconstitutional.

  25. Scramjett says:

    You know what, I’m going to be real honest here. I’m no GM fanboi and this chicken sh*t move by GM does make me PO’d. However, I’m still going to buy the 2017 Volt. It’s still a nice car and the Volt nameplate already has a proven track record and it’s really the only plug-in option that our one car family has…for now.

    I’ve looked at the C-Max and the Sonata PHEV, but the AER and cargo space in both are lacking for what I need.

    Someday we may go back to two cars (when our other expenses go down) and I’ll be looking at a PHEV SUV or Minivan (such as the Pacifica…maybe). When that happens and when the Model III comes out, I’ll be trading the Volt for a Model III (and ultimately, trading whatever SUV/Minivan PHEV we get for the Model Y).

    I guess what I’m saying here is that boycotting a company that pulls such a BS move is all well and good and I say more power to those of you who are able/willing to do it. But how about some consideration for those of us who don’t like the company for pulling such a stunt, but still buys its products because we’ve determined that it is what fits best into our life?

    1. Stephen Hodson says:

      Hey man, I respect your choice to do what you think is right for yourself and your family. But you need to admit to yourself that your purchase of a GM Volt is a vote for GM. Don’t blame anyone but yourself if GM is successful in its anti-competitive wfforts to shut down progress for all of th other consumers who would benefit from a non-dealer option.

      You do have other options.

      1. Richardd962 says:

        What if all this is a move by TESLA to discredit G.M.

        1. evcarnut says:

          it’s not, but if it should be, G00D!it’s about time! Gm has been giving Tesla Jabs every time they speak of EV’s!

        2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Richardd962 said:

          “What if all this is a move by TESLA to discredit G.M.”

          What if all your posts are a move by a Big Oil shill or a TSLA short-seller to discredit Tesla?

          Not saying they are, but that appears far more likely.

      2. kdawg says:

        “You do have other options”

        ———

        Sorry to burst your bubble, but not everyone can’t afford a Tesla.

        1. Mr. m says:

          Double no means yes… But you mean no 😉

          1. Mr. m says:

            And i agree, there are no cars comparable to the Volt today available, maybe in 2025 the choices will be better. I hope so.

            1. ” there are no cars comparable to the Volt today” – Right! And Very Few with so little Head Room and Leg Room that have 4 doors and call themselves 4-seaters!

              My (Bought New) Chevy Sprint (Geo Metro for USA) in Summer of 1987 had more head room for front and back seats!

              The Volt could use more head room, and leg room! They already have room at the bottom since the didn’t put the batteries in the floor! Sorry – but I am 6’3″ tall and those are my first vehicle criteria: Not Range, Not refilling/recharging, but do I fit in the beast!

              For the Average USA Male at 5’10” might work for the car – http://halls.md/average-height-men-height-weight/ but not so much for me! It’s a shame really – because the drive train is PDG (Pretty Darn Good!), but the vehicle they put it in should be sold in Japan!

          2. kdawg says:

            I saw that as soon as I hit the enter key. If only we had an edit button :/

      3. Scramjett says:

        Thank you for respecting my choice. Do I have other options? Yes. There is the Tesla, which I can’t afford. There are the other PHEVs I mentioned, but those would not work in my situation and I can’t fault GM for being the only company that knows how to make a solid PHEV with really good AER. Was this a d**kish move by GM? Absolutely. I will always hold it against them. While I do hold GM accountable, they are by no means alone on this as the Indiana politicians don’t have to listen to them and can tell them where to stick their bill. They won’t, but that’s politicians today. A bunch of corporate butt kissers who care only about their billionaire benefactors and try to con the public into thinking that benefiting the rich will somehow benefit them (news flash: it won’t). And, in spite of all that, I’m still getting the Volt. This is what happens when you have only a few large companies, they drag their feet which limits your choice to the one company that actually has a decent offering.

        Here is one thing I can say with absolute certainty. This will not stop Tesla. This probably won’t even slow them down. They have become a force to be reckoned with. They have already shaken up the market and the Volt is, in fact, GMs answer to Tesla. They only produced the Volt out of fear of Tesla (and I think everyone knows the Bolt is their answer to the Model III). I’m not terribly jazzed by the Bolt and it comes with one hugely glaring drawback, no charging infrastructure. So I will be replacing the Volt with the Model III at some point (probably, as I said, a couple years after the Model III is out and after Tesla has worked out most of the kinks).

        My final point is that, as a pessimist, I understand your concerns. However, Tesla is one area that I am not pessimistic (much).

    2. evcarnut says:

      I Hate to say this,But, people like you Empower them. Divided fall & empower the parasitic, thieving, communists ..I bet if your Job was on the line, you’d pass on a Gm Product.. But, I am well ,So ,All is well! Cheers!

      1. Mr. m says:

        Yeah the bad communists all drive bad efficient cars like the Volt!

      2. Scramjett says:

        Communist my big fat hairy a**! At the risk of getting sucked into a political spat, GM and its underhanded tactics are more in common with fascism. In fact, there have been many notable scholars who have made the connection between corporatism and fascism. Indeed, the big three German auto companies and most industrial companies did exceedingly well with the “Third Reich” in power. But I digress.

        Given the sheer number of people who buy GM cars, I seriously doubt that my decision to buy or not to buy has a significant impact on the decisions they make or on enabling anything with them. Contrary to popular opinion, there is no “voting with your dollars.”

        Incidentally, if my job was on the line, I wouldn’t even be looking at buying a new car period! I wouldn’t be looking at any major new expenses at all. The last thing I need is to incur a major expense when I’m in danger of loosing my job!

    3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      @Scramjett:

      You have my respect for being willing to express what is clearly, at the moment, an unpopular opinion.

      I think once a lot of people currently posting “I’ll never, ever buy a GM car again!” cool down, they’ll reconsider. Just about all big businesses have engaged in shading dealings, and attempts to use political influence to suppress competition. That Tesla has not yet done so is, I think, more a mark of how young the company it is than any idealism on the part of its leadership.

      Sure, Elon Musk is a true idealist, one willing to put his money where his mouth is. But Elon won’t be running Tesla forever.

  26. Stephen Hodson says:

    Hi GM – if you’re even listening – I have two additional letters for you. FU.

    I never would have bought your cars in the first place but now I sure as hell hope your company winds up BK – where you should have been left 8 years ago.

    1. Trollnonymous says:

      +100K

  27. Stephen says:

    If this is true I too will remove the Bolt from my wish list. Maybe Model 3 will replace my Volt. I hope you are reading this GM.

  28. Rick says:

    What do you expect from a hypocrite company like gm? Didn’t they sue the state of Cali a few years ago to avoid having to make EVs to comply with the zero emissions regulations?
    Bolt: an obvious and rushed “me-too wannabe” answer to the Model 3, look at the hideous little hatch. Ripped off design elements from other car makers and still did a crappy job.
    This story: even more obvious evidence that this company has a serious attitude problem. I knew it at the time the bailout was a huge mistake… I will not hesitate to tell people not to buy opel or another gm product around here. They disgust me.

    1. Scramjett says:

      The lawsuit you refer to was over 15 years ago in the 90’s. The end result was that a fuel cell nut was appointed chair of the ARB (not the current chair) who basically had the ZEV rules scrapped in favor of the fuel cell ZEV rules and “Ahnold’s” idiotic hydrogen highway…which, btw, was supposed to be complete by 2010.

  29. Trollnonymous says:

    If they (GM) think it’s unfair, then the US needs to stop subsidizing oil/gas PERIOD!.

    Those subsidies do make an unfair playing field.

    And I’m going to beat my drum on the Caddy they will be building in China all so they can “Import” it into the US all after the tax payers bailed their sorry aszes out from the BK!

    Disgusted.

    1. kdawg says:

      Yes those 5 cars, made from US parts, but assembled in China, then shipped back to the US sure is going to destroy the US economy.

      Google “Ford Mexico” before you get you panties in a bunch over the CT6 Plugin.

      1. Trollnonymous says:

        So they both did it and it must make it “OK”.

        Interesting logic till it’s your job that went out of the country.

        1. kdawg says:

          What car do you drive or plan to buy next?

      2. WarrenPiece says:

        Typical GM fanboy, blind to bend over and just take it.
        So by your logic, financially it makes more sense to “take it out of the country” and that’s OK.

        Tell it to the Pfizer folks at corporate and other jobs in the chain.
        http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/20/investing/pfizer-and-allergan-merger-inversion/

        Or even the folks at Carrier.
        http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/12/employees-react-to-news-1400-jobs-are-leaving-the-country-video/

        Sure, some other company did why not, it’s OK.

        Problem is, in manufacturing, they will move those “small” as you state it product parts to be manufactured over seas and import them in as parts for cars here. Then eventually the rest of the products.

        But sure, it’s OK because the other companies did that.

        1. kdawg says:

          First, I didn’t say it was OK. Just that GM possibly selling a very low volume car in the US that was manufactured outside the US, should not be the posterboy for “Sending jobs overseas”. You pointed out more examples besides Ford.

          FYI, you may want to check where your clothes are made, and your TV, and the computer you’re typing on.. etc.

          1. Trollnonymous says:

            Because the company that made them were not bailed out by tax payers then shipped jobs out of the country?

            They weren’t in a BK and bailed out by US tax payers.

            GM = Disgusting

            1. kdawg says:

              You don’t think foreign countries subsidize their manufacturing industry? Where do you think that money comes from? (hint: taxes)

              You know Ford lobbied for the bill that “bailed out” GM right? Their CEO even testified for it before Congress. Ford also took 5.9 billion in 2009 just before the crash. Then they asked for 9 billion more! They were supposed to make fuel efficient cars with the money.. but all we got was a couple Energis in limited numbers, and an even more limited Focus EV. At least they do have bigger plans for 2020. Better late than never.

              Do I even need to mention the Chrysler bailout, when then got owned by 2 foreign companies?

        2. Scramjett says:

          I wouldn’t call kdawg a GM “fan boy.” He’s just as interested in the upcoming Tesla Model III as the rest of us. But, like me, he’s an engineer and we engineers care more about what works. We generally don’t give a good gorram about politics or BS like that.

          1. kdawg says:

            Unfortunately common sense isn’t common, and people are way too emotional here.

            What I find funny is many of the posters here don’t even drive a plug-in but feel they are the ones that “know it all”.

  30. MTN Ranger says:

    Could Tesla get around all these state dealership laws by just setting up used car sites that sell CPO Teslas? When people come in that want to buy a new car, point them to the Tesla website.

    1. Speculawyer says:

      Interesting idea.

  31. Speculawyer says:

    So the GOP has gone protectionist?

    1. Scramjett says:

      That surprises you?

  32. Mister G says:

    F U GM

    1. WarrenPiece says:

      +1

  33. Bolt says:

    I had actually gone to a dealer to put a deposit on a Bolt, but decided that I would just wait until it came out to buy one.

    But now I have decided to buy a $2,000 car and wait for the Model 3 to come out. Then I can sell the old car and get a new, shiny Tesla in a couple of years or so.

    I just really hope that Tesla does not delay the Model 3.

    1. MTN Ranger says:

      I guess you will have to change your name now. /s

      But seriously, I’m driving a used ICE now until I decide upon the Bolt or Model 3. Bolt available in early 2017 or Model 3 in 2018/19. Price for the base models will probably be very close with an edge to the Bolt. $37,500 – negotiation = invoice or better for Bolt. $35,0000 + $1200 destination charge = $36,200 for Model 3. Who know, the Bolt may be reduced by $5,000 or so by the time the Model 3 is released. Look at the Volt price reductions or the years.

      As far as appearance, that remains to be seen at the Model 3 concept reveal. I have a feeling everyone expecting a slightly smaller Model S with amazing performance will be very disappointed. A lot will need to be sacrificed for Tesla to achieve a $35,000 price point.

    2. Scramjett says:

      I recommend a Mazda 3. Really fun to drive cars! 🙂

  34. MTN Ranger says:

    Here’s a response from GM as posted in the GM-volt.com website:

    “GM supports HB 1254. GM believes that all industry participants should operate under the same rules and requirements on fundamental issues that govern how we sell, service and market our products.

    A benefit of a nationwide network of thousands of dealerships is that General Motors customers never have to worry about driving to another state to buy, service or support their vehicles.

    Tesla’s insistence on special rules could result in multiple manufacturers competing with similarly capable vehicles and similar price points, yet operating under a different set of rules.

    Tesla could open a franchised dealership with an independent operator in Indiana today, but instead they insist that the State must first provide them with unique rules and special exceptions to suit their own business interests. In fact, Tesla was willing to agree to a dealer model in Virginia. The Indiana legislature shouldn’t create a special exemption for them here.

    Thanks,

    Chris

    Communications Manager
    General Motors Company
    25 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Suite 400
    Washington, DC 20001”

    1. kdawg says:

      It would be interesting to hear the thoughts of all the other car companies associated with the NADA as well. I’m sure their responses would be analogous.

      1. ffbj says:

        Yes, about as analogous as to what a Bull produces standing in the field all day.
        Just more GM BS.

        1. kdawg says:

          So you don’t think the rest of the auto industry supports their dealerships? And why are all they all members of NADA, you know the one pushing the legislation?

    2. Bolt says:

      Now, why would a company as big as GM be afraid of little Tesla? Perhaps they believe that the Bolt is inferior to the Model 3 and so are afraid of competition.

      They know very well that Tesla’s chances of surviving under the dealership model are slim because of all the extra expenses that need to be paid to the dealership owner and sales people. The cost or a Tesla would go up dramatically under a dealership model.

      1. kdawg says:

        How can the Bolt be inferior to a car that doesn’t exist?

        1. Bolt says:

          Do you seriously doubt that Tesla will put out a better product than the Bolt. If the Model S and X are any indication of what the Model 3 will be like then you can be sure it will surpass the Bolt.

          Can you imagine the ludicrousness of it if the Model 3 turns out to be the same as or inferior to the Bolt?

          Tesla has to distinguish itself from the crowd. The cars they develop will have to be very compelling if Tesla is to succeed.

          1. kdawg says:

            Yes I do have my doubts. Tesla misses price points and the options are $$$. They have quality issues. I don’t like the looks for the Model S (exterior & interior). If the Model 3 is a 20% smaller Model S, that will be too small. I’m also worried about getting the car serviced. I can take my Volt to 5 different places within 10 miles of my home.

            Things the Model 3 has going for it are probably the 0-60 time, but I already beat everyone off the line in my Volt, so not a big deal to me. The Supercharger network is the only thing that could push me in Tesla’s direction. However by the time I could actually get my hands on a Model 3, the SAE J1772 DCFC network, and L2 destination chargers may be ubiquitous enough for my driving habits that the Supercharger network advantage is moot.

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        The Big Three of Detroit, including GM, used political influence to kill off the Tucker Car Corp. when it was, as they say, “small enough to drown in a bathtub”. Why wouldn’t they try to do the same with Tesla? Surely you can’t expect GM to welcome more competition. And surely you recognized the hypocrisy of GM proclaiming “…all industry participants should operate under the same rules and requirements…”

        GM, as with all big businesses, thinks they are the only ones who should be granted exceptions to laws and regulations.

        I suspect that the Big Three of Detroit would already have succeeded in killing off Tesla if Elon Musk was as politically naive as Preston Tucker.

    3. MikeM says:

      Special rules?? Horsefeathers!

      Great example of spinning the narrative.

      The original laws were written for one purpose only – to stop the big 4,3,2,? automakers from undercutting their independent dealers.

      Now they’re whining about Tesla wanting exceptions from laws that never even applied to them until the recent flurry of specifically Tesla-focussed amendments.

      What a joke!

    4. Scramjett says:

      *FACEPALM* Wow, just wow! The arrogance! I think they just got even more d**kish!

  35. MikeM says:

    I’d like to repeat a call from Edward Arthur, earlier on these pages:

    Quote: “The FTC had a hearing regarding the direct sales of autos in January. Public comment is open until March 4. You can enter comments from this page:

    https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/2016/01/auto-distribution-current-issues-future-trends

    Get on it!”

    I just did! Now it’s your turn!!

    1. TomArt says:

      Done! see my comment above

  36. Bill Howland says:

    I’m not that conversant with the Issue, but to me, the National Dealer’s Association would be the better place to claim any ‘unfairness’.

    Its better for GM to stay out of this, if the ill-will generated here is any indication.

    I in general get mad when people or organizations stick their noses in things which are none of their business.

    I was disturbed by the comment that GM has hindered adoption of the world-wide Chademo Standard –

    Since it doesn’t concern them they should BUTT-OUT. Especially since it is now official policy that they will *NOT* develop infrastructure.

    The best thing for GM to do would be to use the lowest-cost-effective standard that there is. Perhaps the Chademo connector is too pricey and they’re throwing their weight around to use the lower cost CCS thing.

    But then how come Nissan can afford to put these on the lowly Leaf? (albeit, as an option). The last thing we need is more standards. I keep saying the only one who got the charging issue right was Nissan.

    Others will make the case for Tesla, but It looks to me somewhat up in the air, because although Tesla claims the free superchargers’ cost are ‘insignificant’, I can’t believe ultimately, with the model 3 at least, that that could be possibly forever true.

  37. Bungalow says:

    I’m from Quebec Canada and in the 1990 we built a fantastic electric engine car and, as GM did, it was sold to a petrolum cie who buried it in his back yard. I will never buy from GM, FORD OR CHRYSLER…ALL the same , working with gas entreprise. MY NEXT CAR WOULD BE A LEAF OR A TESLA. 🙂

  38. JamieO says:

    No Bolt, No Volt for me. Goodbye GM

  39. DougP says:

    I like Tesla, but I don’t think they deserve special treatment.

    Look guys, this is all about whether Tesla should operate under the same rules/laws as all of the other Automotive OEMs. I agree that it would be best to get rid of the franchise laws altogether (and believe me, GM and all of the OEMs would love that), but that is totally unrealistic – it just ain’t gonna happen. Given this, it is only fair that Tesla be subject to the same laws as everyone else. If you all agree with Tesla and think that these laws suck (which they do), then put your energy towards overturning the franchising laws, don’t go dumping on the OEMs who have been chafing under these laws for decades.

    1. JakeY says:

      That is not at all a fair summary of what is happening. What is happening is GM is pushing a *new law* that is designed to block Tesla, simply because GM is not planning to open their own store (Indiana allows manufacturers to open their own store).

      GM can choose to build their own stores if they wanted to.

      In other states, Tesla has been pushing to overturn franchising laws, but GM is working on the exact opposite. This is not fair in any way.

    2. TomArt says:

      Doug, you completely missed the point. You need to read the above comments in order to get a grip on the situation.

      States keep changing the rules to block Tesla. Tesla has never had franchise dealers, so the laws, as originally cast, did not affect Tesla. Since the Model S has gone on sale to wide acclaim, NADA has been lobbying to change the existing rules in many states.

      And, here is, by far, the most important point about this issue: dealerships make money from service, not from new vehicle markup. The dealership model will collapse economically with EVs, due the substantial reduction of service requirements.

      Therefore, requiring Tesla to use franchise dealerships is a clever way to try to put them out of business by crippling their ability to sell their superior products.

      1. TomArt, in response to “Therefore, requiring Tesla to use franchise dealerships is a clever way to try to put them out of business by crippling their ability to sell their superior products.” and GM’s bash that Tesla won’t open a Franchised Store/Stealership, could such a Dealership make additional money by selling Solar Panels, Wind Turbines Tesla Power Walls, and other such alternate energy related products, or would they be still restricted by State Franchise Laws in that they could only sell Vehicles?

        After All – if sales is the only thing that makes money when selling EV’s maybe having the whole package of Leaving Oil (and maybe – the Grid) behind, would make up for the service losses? (And wind turbines do have some service needs, so that might help, too!)

  40. Liz says:

    I would change the headline. A Veto is very different from being referred to a committee.

  41. Anon says:

    Congrats to the Efforts of Tesla Supporters around the world– light shed on the anti-consumer bill being sponsored by members of the US Automotive Industry, have failed. *sounds of celebration!*

    ‘Uncivil’ or not, you were heard, and it worked!

    Senator: BUCK YOU– you corrupt, clueless, corporate puppet.

    And thank you GM and others, for the entertainment of watching you deal with an evolving automotive industry. Try making better products, instead of corrupting our democratic political system, to achieve your self-serving business goals.