Slashdot Mirror
Fiat Chrysler Will Pay Tesla To Dodge Billions In Emissions Fines (theverge.com)
MDMurphy writes: While people have good and bad things to say about Tesla, one consistent thing has been that the cars emit zero emissions when operating. But in Europe, in exchange for cash, Tesla is merging its fleet with that of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA). The amount FCA is paying Tesla is presumably less than they would in fines if they were on their own. With this merging of the fleets, in Europe at least, a Tesla is no more clean than a diesel Fiat. "The Italian-American carmaker is behind on meeting the new standard, and the so-called open pool option available at the EU allows automakers to group their fleets together to meet the targets," reports Bloomberg. "Payments to Tesla, whose electric cars don't produce CO2 emissions, may amount to over 500 million euros, according to Jefferies."
Ars Technica reports on the strict new EU regulations: "From 2020, 95 percent of an automaker's new cars sold in the EU have to meet this target, with the remaining 5 percent falling under the law in 2021. And the penalties for failing are draconian: a $107 'excess emissions premium' per gram of CO2 over the target, for every single car registered in the EU that year. For some OEMs, this has the potential to be ruinous; if FCA's portfolio were the same in 2021 as it was in 2018, the automaker would have to pay some $3.12 billion, out of total net global profits of $4.1 billion."
Ars Technica reports on the strict new EU regulations: "From 2020, 95 percent of an automaker's new cars sold in the EU have to meet this target, with the remaining 5 percent falling under the law in 2021. And the penalties for failing are draconian: a $107 'excess emissions premium' per gram of CO2 over the target, for every single car registered in the EU that year. For some OEMs, this has the potential to be ruinous; if FCA's portfolio were the same in 2021 as it was in 2018, the automaker would have to pay some $3.12 billion, out of total net global profits of $4.1 billion."
The pool was setup over a month ago. The timing of the announcement now amounts to a stock pump given the incredibly weak Q1 delivery numbers. It's all speculation at this point how much money these credits will net them, and it's not like they're going to be the only player. Many Chinese companies are going to be selling BEVs starting next year. $1 - $500M, over the course of 3 years, with very little credits needed to be bought this year. At most, FCA may have given Tesla some money immediately as a call, in the tens of millions, but if something like this has happened, where is the 8K that should be filed to show this? At most it may have helped payroll for a week, but does nothing to alleviate Tesla's immediate, existential threats.
If the Fiat is now "cleaner" how can the Tesla not be "dirtier"?
It's actually very simple to demonstrate.
I'll sit in a Tesla, with a hose running from its exhaust right next to my face, and you can do the same with a Fiat.
Then we turn on the cars and see who gets a better mileage.
It is THAT simple and easy!
Or... you know... you might want to learn to distinguish a metaphor from a thing it designates.
Particularly when it is in a form of a trademark which can be applied to a whole range of products, company policies, executives, stocks...
It also helps if you understand the concepts of taxes, regulations, reality, policy, incentives, subsidies... and a couple of others but those should do.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I'm getting a feeling that I'm not seeing a true Scotsman here.
Look, almost no market that exists is NOT distorted in some way or another. Trade tariffs? Market distortion. $457 million in federal grants to Boeing? Market distortion. Federal loans, loan guarantees and bailout assistance (not including repayments) $50,346,920,000 for General Motors? Market distortion. Any sort of taxation with redistribution of funds? Market distortion.
There do exist some markets that are not distorted, but you'll find them in places like Somalia.
So, what's your point again? You want to live somewhere that there is no government and the free market rules?
Does having a .50 cal mounted on the back of a Toyota pickup count as market distortion? Maybe a totally free market does not exist even in Somalia.
"The best part? I became an ordained minister while not wearing pants." -- CleverNickName
Actually, by definition, their actions are conservative. âoe(of a person or a set of views) opposing political or social liberalization or reform.â
Fine, if you want to claim all Democrats are conservative, since they all oppose Trump reforms for example.
However since we live in the real world perhaps lay off the grammar nazi bit a little, Mkay? It just makes you look petty.
Rural areas (which it was) are dominated by Republican voters
If you bothered reading your own link you'd find it happened in Massachusetts. Huh, I wonder who carried Massachusetts...
Don't seem much for facts do you? Guess you are also a Conservative Democrat, since you hate having your mind changed from its unfactual representation to a more likely one...
Could one of them be a closet Democrat? Sure... but it's rather improbable.
Or in fact as I have shown with actual facts, rather likely and it's you who are conjuring up your political enemies as the hatemongers. But given your petty attitude at my offering corrections to help you, we find you are just another hate-filled bigoted liberal who assumes bad == Republican. Sad.
Because Tesla is green and liberals like green so therefore they hate Tesla.
As I said, just bigoted... some of the largest environmental support groups are composed of largely Republican hunters, and I myself am a fervent environmentalist (vastly more than any other poster on Slashdot I've ever seen).
I'll let you have the last post, since you are too conservative to understand or be convinced of what is really happening.... beyond my help at this time. Maybe eventually you will heal.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I think this actually makes perfect sense - Tesla doesn't just meet the EU specs, they exceed them. So in return they get cash from an automaker that doesn't meet emission specs. If there weren't this "loophole" then Tesla would get no cash in return for exceeding specs. That cash helps them continue to increase their scale to better compete with current automakers, and subsidize EVs a bit more while scale and performance continues to improve.