> Well, no state has been stronger on this issue than California, who sets fuel efficiency goals that are the most stringent. The same cannot be said of Texas and Nevada; if anything the opposite is true. These are states where people take pride in driving big gas guzzling trucks and the government supports them in that.

How is this anything but a non-sequitor? CA law only covers cars sold in the state, not produced. How does moving to a state that may be more favorable to the business for other reasons (tax purposes, operating during the pandemic, etc) change anything in that regard?

Indeed. And if building Teslas in Texas helps to move Texan opinion toward being pro-Tesla and pro-EV... that's a net win. Texans have strong state pride [1] - could do well to key into it.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Mess_with_Texas

California often sets standards that get adopted elsewhere/nationally not because it's some magical state but because of the sheer size of its economy. It used to be quite common that auto manufacturers would build a CA-approved version for their vehicles until it became too costly to maintain two versions. Some manufacturers still do this for vehicles that have a higher portion of their sales outside CA (mostly large trucks). Regardless of whether or not you approve, CA definitely sets the nation standard on fuel efficiency for general consumer vehicles.

That said, if you're going to build a company in the American capitalism model where you inevitably interface with different layers of government, you probably would want to do it where those governments align best with your industry. If your goal is to build a car, MI is probably your best bet. If your goal is to solve fuel efficiency or an environmental problem, CA is one of the better places to be in; though maybe not the best. If your goal is to get people back to work ASAP, you'd want to go to a state with few(er) worker protections.

I think it's clear where Musk's motivations lie, but I'm sure others are unconvinced.

> If your goal is to get people back to work ASAP, you'd want to go to a state with few(er) worker protections.

Ha ha. Yes it's due to "worker protections" that workers at Amazon/Whole Foods can sell flowers but workers at a local florist can't.

> These are states where people take pride in driving big gas guzzling trucks and the government supports them in that.

Stereotypes like this are ridiculous.

Do these people exist in those states? Absolutely.

Do they also exist in California too? Definitely.

This type of blindness is so prevalent in California it's staggering. I had a friend who was (rightly) furious about North Carolina's homophobic legislation and declared "That kind of thing would never happen in California."

We stood there blankly looking at each other for a moment until I mentioned "But California passed Prop 8."

Of course he had a rationale. But how quickly we are to see the exception or nuance for "us" but never for "them."

We need to remember the plural of annedoate is not data.

After reading your post, the point practically makes itself:

If he can get Texas enlisted on the team to fight global climate change, that is a huge win. Clearly that's not assured, but a gigafactory and an HQ would not hurt.

With California, he's already mostly preaching to the choir.

> Why would Musk want Tesla to support Texas over CA? That seems backward unless his goal is the success of Tesla as a business, rather than progress against global warming.

Is Tesla can continues to increase sales like they did for almost a decade, then we have a good chance to completely switch the transportation industry from fossil fuel to renewable energy. If Tesla believe they would achieve this faster from TX than CA, then the move is justified because it better serves the mission of the company ("accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy"), not for business success. CA can perfectly continue to push for the energy transition, with or without Tesla.

That's contrary to all available evidence. In fact California's policies are ahead of planned CO2 reductions, due _entirely_ to reductions outside the transportation sector. Transport electrification is running far behind what many people predict. The number of cars Tesla has sold hasn't amounted to an iota of change in fleet CO2 output.

Musk likely believes that Tesla's successful production of cars (and success as a company) is a priority to achieving his long-term environmental goal, regardless of what state benefits from Tesla's employment and tax revenue.

The success of Tesla as a business will have far more impact on our progress against global warming than CA’s regulatory goals will. Maybe some don’t see it that way, but I’m quite certain Musk does, and frankly I agree with him.

Larry Ellison is on the board of Tesla and holds multi million dollar fundraising events for Trump.

Tesla doesn’t care about CA, Tesla wants to win and will strategize to do so.

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-02-15/larry-elli...

https://ir.tesla.com/board-directors/larry-ellison

The company is no longer a rogue CA carmaker, it’s a mainstream brand.

If Tesla can execute the plan for getting the country off fossil fuels in Texas, it makes sense to move it to Texas.

"Supporting" one state or another is irrelevant to that goal.

This is a great point. Putting your money where your mouth is.