rmc523 Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 Please, no politics..... Rivian, Tesla, and Lucid say they face big losses as the Trump administration overhauls EV regulations The Trump administration is gutting an obscure set of EV regulations, causing EV makers Tesla, Rivian, and Lucid a major headache. The three companies have all warned in recent weeks that the end of the regulatory credits system — which allows them to make money off electric vehicles their rivals aren't selling — is set to have a big impact on their profits. In a petition filed in the DC Court of Appeals earlier this month, EV startup Rivian said that the Trump administration's regulatory overhaul had left over $100 million in revenue in limbo. In the automaker's latest earnings report, Tesla said that the repeal of US federal regulatory credit schemes had contributed to a $1.11 billion decrease in expected revenue, and warned that future revenue may be significantly affected by the changes. Tesla, Rivian, and Lucid all make money from selling regulatory credits to other carmakers who have failed to sell enough EVs to keep them in compliance with environmental regulations in the US and other countries. As all three companies only produce electric cars, these credits are essentially pure profit, and they have proven highly lucrative. Tesla pulled in nearly $3 billion last year from selling the credits to rivals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 (edited) When your entire business is based around selling EV credits and not the cars themselves, that’s not surprising at all… Edited August 21 by fuzzymoomoo 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted August 28 Share Posted August 28 On 8/21/2025 at 8:47 AM, fuzzymoomoo said: When your entire business is based around selling EV credits and not the cars themselves, that’s not surprising at all… Umm...... They wouldn't receive EV Credits if they didn't sell EVs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted August 28 Author Share Posted August 28 20 minutes ago, Biker16 said: Umm...... They wouldn't receive EV Credits if they didn't sell EVs. His point is if your car company is counting on that as your primary revenue, and not on...you know....making cars then.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 28 Share Posted August 28 2 hours ago, Biker16 said: Umm...... They wouldn't receive EV Credits if they didn't sell EVs. They also wouldn’t get them if other companies built their own EVs. The problem with relying on them to turn a profit is eventually they go away and now you’re losing money. If you can’t make money without government handouts you’re doing something wrong. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted August 28 Share Posted August 28 (edited) Tesla actually did two things to become profitable, it raised prices and sold carbon credits years before most manufacturer had anything like viable BEVs. I’ll add that carbon credit sales didn’t make Tesla profitable until it raised vehicle prices First is not always best but it sure helps until competition arrives Edited August 28 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 (edited) On 8/28/2025 at 4:39 PM, jpd80 said: Tesla actually did two things to become profitable, it raised prices and sold carbon credits years before most manufacturer had anything like viable BEVs. I’ll add that carbon credit sales didn’t make Tesla profitable until it raised vehicle prices First is not always best but it sure helps until competition arrives Wondering if Tesla could use those "carbon credits" to offset the loss to customers losing the $7,500 tax credit? Or did those lucrative carbon credits get the axe too in the One Big Beautiful Bill? Edited September 10 by twintornados Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 (edited) 6 hours ago, twintornados said: Wondering if Tesla could use those "carbon credits" to offset the loss to customers losing the $7,500 tax credit? Or did those lucrative carbon credits get the axe too in the One Big Beautiful Bill? Not sure about that, I think those carbon credits are only useful to companies that are exceeding their carbon limits. If the whole lot gets axed, then that will be a double whammy for Tesla in particular. Edited September 10 by jpd80 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe771476 Posted September 14 Share Posted September 14 The list keeps growing of mfrs. abandoning EV's. Stellantis Exec Says 2030 EV Targets Are No More Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted September 14 Share Posted September 14 1 hour ago, Joe771476 said: The list keeps growing of mfrs. abandoning EV's. Stellantis Exec Says 2030 EV Targets Are No More More fake news. Saying we aren’t going 100% EVs in Europe is not abandoning EVs. Geez. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe771476 Posted September 14 Share Posted September 14 On 8/20/2025 at 9:12 AM, rmc523 said: Please, no politics..... Rivian, Tesla, and Lucid say they face big losses as the Trump administration overhauls EV regulations The Trump administration is gutting an obscure set of EV regulations, causing EV makers Tesla, Rivian, and Lucid a major headache. The three companies have all warned in recent weeks that the end of the regulatory credits system — which allows them to make money off electric vehicles their rivals aren't selling — is set to have a big impact on their profits. In a petition filed in the DC Court of Appeals earlier this month, EV startup Rivian said that the Trump administration's regulatory overhaul had left over $100 million in revenue in limbo. In the automaker's latest earnings report, Tesla said that the repeal of US federal regulatory credit schemes had contributed to a $1.11 billion decrease in expected revenue, and warned that future revenue may be significantly affected by the changes. Tesla, Rivian, and Lucid all make money from selling regulatory credits to other carmakers who have failed to sell enough EVs to keep them in compliance with environmental regulations in the US and other countries. As all three companies only produce electric cars, these credits are essentially pure profit, and they have proven highly lucrative. Tesla pulled in nearly $3 billion last year from selling the credits to rivals. 5 hours ago, akirby said: More fake news. Saying we aren’t going 100% EVs in Europe is not abandoning EVs. Geez. Interesting read: Consumer Reports Data Shows EV Trucks Like the Rivian R1T, F-150 Lightning, Sierra EV, and Silverado EV Are Among the Least Reliable Vehicles on the Market Today - Why We Think Ford Will Be the Brand To Turn This Around | Torque News Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe771476 Posted September 14 Share Posted September 14 I think I mentioned this in another thread. Lion Electric schools bus warranties voided, leaving districts stuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick73 Posted October 8 Share Posted October 8 On 8/28/2025 at 3:39 PM, jpd80 said: Tesla actually did two things to become profitable, it raised prices and sold carbon credits years before most manufacturer had anything like viable BEVs. I’ll add that carbon credit sales didn’t make Tesla profitable until it raised vehicle prices First is not always best but it sure helps until competition arrives Rather than start new thread due to limited scope, I’ll reply to your post above because it seems appropriate even though dated. Tesla just announced new cheaper Model 3 and Y to help offset loss of $7,500 tax credit at end of September. Prices for the significantly decontented 3 and Y are roughly in ball park of $5k lower. I personally don’t see this move making a huge difference in total sales but it will be hard to know unless Tesla shares individual model data. It seems they removed pretty much any feature that was easy to delete even if it only saves a few dollars each. Lower battery capacity is a given, as is reduced range, though still better than previous standard versions. I happen to agree that this approach won’t be as effective as an all-new smaller Tesla that was to share manufacturing line capacity. https://electrek.co/2025/10/08/tesla-doesnt-want-to-sell-its-new-cheaper-model-y-heres-why/ Quote It’s a bummer that Tesla went with that rather than a new smaller and less expensive vehicle as originally planned. Especially when you consider that the decision was made to try to increase the utilization rate of Tesla’s current production lines, which appears to be running at about 60% amid this demand slump. I don’t think this, and the new standard Model 3, which is better value to be fair, solve this situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texasota Posted October 8 Share Posted October 8 Tesla, Rivian and Lucid need to build compelling products that stand on their own instead of relying on financial engineering. Federal subsidies and carbon credit schemes distort the free market. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherminator98 Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 13 hours ago, Rick73 said: Tesla just announced new cheaper Model 3 and Y to help offset loss of $7,500 tax credit at end of September. Prices for the significantly decontented 3 and Y are roughly in ball park of $5k lower. I personally don’t see this move making a huge difference in total sales but it will be hard to know unless Tesla shares individual model data. It seems they removed pretty much any feature that was easy to delete even if it only saves a few dollars each. Lower battery capacity is a given, as is reduced range, though still better than previous standard versions. I happen to agree that this approach won’t be as effective as an all-new smaller Tesla that was to share manufacturing line capacity. The problem with the cheaper model is that it will steal sales from the 3 and Y, cutting into profitability even more. I think that is the primary reason why they haven't gone that route. There is currently only so much they can do to make a product cheaper and make a profit off it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted October 9 Author Share Posted October 9 15 hours ago, Rick73 said: Rather than start new thread due to limited scope, I’ll reply to your post above because it seems appropriate even though dated. Tesla just announced new cheaper Model 3 and Y to help offset loss of $7,500 tax credit at end of September. Prices for the significantly decontented 3 and Y are roughly in ball park of $5k lower. I personally don’t see this move making a huge difference in total sales but it will be hard to know unless Tesla shares individual model data. It seems they removed pretty much any feature that was easy to delete even if it only saves a few dollars each. Lower battery capacity is a given, as is reduced range, though still better than previous standard versions. I happen to agree that this approach won’t be as effective as an all-new smaller Tesla that was to share manufacturing line capacity. https://electrek.co/2025/10/08/tesla-doesnt-want-to-sell-its-new-cheaper-model-y-heres-why/ But I thought cheaper is better! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted October 9 Author Share Posted October 9 It's so strange that they covered the glass roof of the Model Y with a headliner on the cheap model. Yes, you read that right - they keep the glass roof on the outside (likely cheaper to keep it all the same than developing a new roof panel), but somehow it's cheaper to cover it up with a headliner on the inside than just keep the same interior setup? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherminator98 Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 5 minutes ago, rmc523 said: It's so strange that they covered the glass roof of the Model Y with a headliner on the cheap model. Yes, you read that right - they keep the glass roof on the outside (likely cheaper to keep it all the same than developing a new roof panel), but somehow it's cheaper to cover it up with a headliner on the inside than just keep the same interior setup? Yeah I saw that and WTAF? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted October 9 Author Share Posted October 9 18 minutes ago, Sherminator98 said: Yeah I saw that and WTAF? I also wonder if they painted the whole inside of the glass black (like the edges on windshields/sunroofs) or if you can see the "outside" of the headliner with the glue from the exterior of the vehicle? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 Teslas idea of saving money. meanwhile, thousands of cybertrucks sit unsold all because a $40k starting price turned into $60k and the expected range went from 500 miles to 350……the theme is who cares anymore. tesla promised to make a $36,000 model 3 years ago but then refused to do so, the bulk of those interested moved on years ago which is why the news of the $39k model 3 fell rather flat, it may work but this kind of option late to the game usually doesn’t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick73 Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 7 hours ago, Sherminator98 said: The problem with the cheaper model is that it will steal sales from the 3 and Y, cutting into profitability even more. I think that is the primary reason why they haven't gone that route. There is currently only so much they can do to make a product cheaper and make a profit off it. Every buyer is different so who knows what would work best. I think Tesla may be capital constrained so they won’t invest in a new Model 2 anyway even if they thought it would sell really well. To your point, yeah, every new vehicle model has potential to cannibalize sales from existing models from same manufacturer. No doubt any company with declining sales is in a pickle. Tesla had good Q3 sales due to tax credits ending but I doubt that will repeat. Article says they have significant excess manufacturing capacity but demand for 3 and Y is weak at the price they can make a profit, so what choices do they have? Personally, I think a smaller Tesla Model 2 with nicer features would sell better than a stripped-down Model 3 or Y of equal price and profit. However, that ignores cost to develop new smaller model (some of which has already been committed according to most reports), and also required capital investment to upgrade existing facilities for new model. A new smaller model would reduce costs in different way versus decontenting Models 3 and Y so would appeal to different buyers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick73 Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 6 hours ago, rmc523 said: But I thought cheaper is better! Absolutely, in proper context. 😀 Revised 3 and Y almost seem an act of desperation. They should have built smaller and cheaper Model 2 when they had sales momentum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 22 hours ago, Texasota said: Tesla, Rivian and Lucid need to build compelling products that stand on their own instead of relying on financial engineering. Federal subsidies and carbon credit schemes distort the free market. What is crazy is that allowing these carbon credits to be purchased actually allows companies like Stellantis to avoid building EVs while artificially propping up true EV makers with otherwise unsustainable ledgers (like Tesla prior to 2021). 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.