Priority for customers at ZEV credit states would tremendously increase TM operating profit & cash flow.
" (Tesla's Director of Business Development and Government Affairs, Ken Morgan) hinted that Tesla will prioritize Model 3 deliveries in markets with ZEV mandates"
It was not listed as one of the delivery criteria and it would be hard to add another criteria as rhe current ones already conflict. Does Canada count as part of US for the current criteria? Will someone in BC be counted as a West Coast delivery? Someone in Quebec as an East Coasr?
keep trolling . . . yes, Tesla can add a criteria.
Doesn't make much sense to limit it to ZEV states for ZEV credits when Tesla is already having a hard time selling all the credits it already produces at a much lower volume today. Other car makers are also ramping up their own compliance vehicles so they don't have to buy external ZEV credits.
the delivery prioritization language from the Tesla blog ("Reserving your Model 3" on March 21st, 2016) noted "...begin deliveries in North America starting on the West Coast, moving east...", not specifically United States... So while cars for Canada do have different requirements, they are not so different that they could not be built at the same time as the US bound cars.
"TeslaTap.com | November 1, 2016
Doesn't make much sense to limit it to ZEV states for ZEV credits"
priority=a thing that is regarded as more important than another.
Limit=a restriction on the size or amount of something permissible or possible.
Cars for Canada could be built at the same time as cars for the US. So could cars for many countries. Tesla could also work on the approval processes concurrently. But it would be a bad use of resources. It would make more sense to have a team start off working with US regulatory agencies, then start making cars, and move on to other countries as quickly as possible, and keep going as the team is freed up. Tesla won't run out of customers while this is happening, and I can't say what countries will be dealt with in what order, but there's a finite number of people who deal with government regulators and they will have to work with each country, and then make adjustments as needed.
For example, some countries won't allow summon using a fob. Others won't allow automatic lane changes without the car assuring that the driver's hands are on the wheel. There's no advantage for Tesla to delay things unnecessarily and have people sitting around doing nothing when they could be working with regulators. But there's also no reason to have a hiring frenzy to get people to meet with regulators from every country out there at once, and then fire people when the process is done. Tesla can figure out what a suitable balance would be. In theory, if they limited it to a nation at a time, and it took six months per country, sales to the US alone would still allow maximum production. But Tesla wouldn't want to do that because it wouldn't be good for their reputation if they never managed to get cars to other countries. So Tesla will be served best by estimating how long the process will take for each country, start as many at a time as are appropriate, and move on when the time is right. A lot of the time will be waiting to hear back from people, so a literal single threaded process wouldn't be needed. Once things are sent to a regulator, it wouldn't be a matter of waiting to hear back, but would be time to start on the next country, so there would be plenty of overlap.
As for ZEV credits, assuming 60% of sales are domestic, and about half of domestic sales are in California, and that production volume on the Model 3 will be substantially higher than what's currently being done, there will be a glut of ZEV credits simply because Tesla is starting with California. Tesla does not need to limit sales to states with ZEV credits and the opposite would make more sense. The laws of supply and demand say that the fewer credits they have, the more they are worth. If they already have too many to get a good price for them, then moving to non-ZEV states as soon as possible will mean selling as many cars overall, earning as many credits overall but spread out over time, and selling the credits for more money, making more money per vehicle.
"Haggy | November 3, 2016
Tesla does not need to limit sales to states with ZEV credits"
dumbass=someone who is purposely obtuse in the midst of a perfectly logical explanation simply out of spite and vitriol.
Red Sage ca us | November 3, 2016
Is that your new title?
When One ZEV Counts as Many
One provision of the ZEV mandate intended to ease the burden on automakers is the "travel rule." It anticipates that battery-charging and hydrogen-fueling infrastructures will be installed in some states, such as California, long before making it to others, such as Vermont and Maine. So the plan initially permits automakers to "travel" credit for cars sold in California in a proportional basis to the other ZEV states.
For example, if 2018's total new-car sales in New York are 90 percent of new-car sales in California, and Vermont sales are 40 percent of California's, then 40 ZEVs sold in California that year will count as 36 ZEVs toward meeting New York's requirement and as 10 ZEVs in Vermont.
The net result will be fewer ZEVs than the absolute numbers would seem to dictate in the first few years of the plan. But automakers still will have to sell some ZEVs in each state until the travel policy for battery-electric vehicles expires in 2017. After that, all the requirements will have to be met in each of the states.
Because hydrogen fuel infrastructure is expected to be more difficult to spread nationally, automakers will be allowed to continue to "travel" proportional credits for fuel-cell electric vehicles through 2025. -- Edmunds, 'Will California's Zero-Emissions Mandate Alter the Car Landscape?'
Google search ZEV credits and read your preferred sources.
note: supposed to be 20 Hydrogen fueling stations in California by end of 2017, we shall see.
@brando - 20 stations for the 300 or so Hydrogen cars. At least the lines shouldn't be too long at each station. At an estimated $2M per station (or $200M for 20 stations), that only works out to $666K per car! Seems like we in California could find a better use for that money. Sad.
@TeslaTap.com " Seems like we in California could find a better use for that money. "
You sound just like those opposed to the EV highway and EV infrastructure. Financing hydrogen power is important to a sustainable future.
"We think that to solve climate change it will take a combination of many technologies. We do not look at developing hydrogen as competition with other renewable energy systems. All forms of renewable energy that are economically viable should be used where appropriate. It is not a competition and old sales tactics of trying to eliminate competition with ad hominem arguments should be discarded. We wish Elon Musk well with his new battery business and we would appreciate his support with our efforts to develop a cost effective hydrogen production method. The reason that the California Energy Department encourages hydrogen cars over battery powered cars is the quick refueling and superior range of hydrogen cars. Read the California Statewide Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program."
Eagle Favors hydrogen.
@TT +1 Especially since Toyota has given up on hydrogen cars, it doesn't seem that there will be many more coming. The long tailpipe becomes really significant.
"Financing hydrogen power is important to a sustainable future."
No it's not. HFCV technology is just plain dumb, and I'm not a supporter of dumb technologies even if they are allegedly "sustainable" (which in the case of hydrogen is highly debateble).
Hydrogen based fueling is extremely inefficient in terms of the energy recovered from what is put in. Instead of producing hydrogen by various energy-intensive or emissions-intensive processes, compressing it, transporting it in tankers to dedicated storage and pumping facilities, transferring it to a vehicle under extremely high pressure, and then putting it into a fuel cell to produce electricity to drive an electric motor, why not, you know, cut out the middlemen and just store the electricity?
Hydrogen is promoted by some in the fossil fuel industry because it is the perfect product extension - they are trying to find a way to remain relevant as oil dies by tying consumers to a product they can control the production, distribution and retailing of.
Simple economics will kill off HFCVs, inefficiency never wins in a properly functioning commercial marketplace.
Hydrogen is the fuel of the future and always will be.
It gets worse: hydrogen needs to be super cooled in order to fill up a car at the fast rates people want--another, separate need for electricity. It makes no sense.
This talk of issues transporting hydrogen is pure nonsense. It's all been worked out by the authorities that the California High-Speed Rail system will be modified to carry extra cars for moving hydrogen into the densely populated areas.
Ever notice how the hydrogen filling stations are from Shell, BP, Exxon, etc.? Hmm, I wonder why?
"TeslaTap.com | November 24, 2016
At an estimated $2M per station (or $200M for 20 stations)"
#'s Typo error