OVERVIEW….

Since it’s founding in 2003, Tesla has supplied clean energy vehicles to the ultra-wealthy in America and around the world, but it’s American taxpayers who have largely kept it in business even as Elon Musk has reaped the financial benefits.  Musk’s stake in the car company is now worth billions of dollars, yet since he took Tesla public in 2010, it has earned a profit in just one three-month period and lost $294 million in 2014.

In 2012, analysts and industry observers began to note Tesla’s slide after the company’s promising IPO in 2010, and to warn investors that they were buying into a public relations campaign rather than investing in a successful company.   To date, analysts from top financial firms such as Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Barclays, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, and Capstone have raised concerns about the value of Tesla stock, and advised investors to limit their exposure in the company.

Although Musk’s supporters often compare him to Henry Ford, a more apt comparison might be John DeLorean, who launched the DeLorean Motor Company (DMC) in 1975 with the goal of selling an affordable sports car. Like Tesla, whose very existence depends on government support, DMC also received large government subsidies. The British Government gave DMC $120 million to build its factory in Dunmurry, Ireland.  DeLorean manufactured just one car, the DMC-12, which only sold 9,000 cars over an eleven month period. The company went bankrupt 1982. In 1999, John DeLorean was bankrupt and $85 million in debt, hoping that his car would become popular again amid a wave of retro-inspired designs by Volkswagen and Chrysler.

Of course it’s unclear to what extent DeLorean sought to lobby politicians as Tesla executives have lined the campaign coffers of key politicians with thousands of dollars in campaign contributions and Tesla has been rewarded in return.  According to the Los Angeles Times, Tesla has received over $2.3 billion in tax subsidies which has helped to keep it in business.  For example, after Musk traveled to Washington DC a reported 12-plus times to lobby the Obama Administration and Congress, Tesla was rewarded with almost $500 million in low interest loans from the Department of Energy.

Remarkably, Musk had previously argued against similar loans for traditional automakers.  During the financial crisis of 2008, Elon Musk argued against applying funds from the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, a Department of Energy effort to finance an increase in fuel-efficient cars, to struggling American automakers.  At the time, Musk stated that “…mortgaging the future to cover up the Auto Industry’s mistakes would have dire consequences for the next generation.”

Although Musk believed that traditional automakers should not receive government funds to help them regain their footing, he has no such compunction when it comes to Federal funding for the companies that he runs. Industry observers agree that Tesla would have folded by now without a steady stream of government funding.

 Additional Background….

Political Contributions Of Note Made By Tesla’s Leadership

Members Of Tesla’s Leadership Have Contributed To Presidential Candidates, Federal Campaign Committees, And Political State Parties Or Politicians In States Where Tesla Has Received Subsidies, Incentives, Or States Where Tesla Has A Manufacturing Operation. (Center For Responsive Politics, Accessed 1/31/15)

 

Contributions To Presidential Candidates & Federal Campaign Committees
Year Of Contribution Contributed By Amount Contributed Recipient
Since 2007 Steve Jurvetson $4,600 Barack Obama
In 2014 Kimbal Musk $10,000 Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee

 

In 2011 Kimbal Musk $5,000 Barack Obama
In 2013 Kimbal Musk $1,000 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
Since 2011 Kimbal Musk $22,900 DNC
Since 2007 Steve Jurvetson $4,600 Barack Obama
In 2014 Kimbal Musk $10,000 Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee

 

 

(Center For Responsive Politics, Accessed 1/31/15)

 

Contributions To Political State Parties Or Politicians In States Where Tesla Has Received Subsidies, Incentives, Or States Where Tesla Has A Manufacturing Operation
Year Of Contribution Contributed By Amount Contributed Recipient
In 2008 Steve Jurvetson $1,260 Democratic Party Of Nevada
In 2008 Steve Jurvetson $1,329 Democratic Party Of Colorado
In 2008 Steve Jurvetson $3,498 Democratic Party Of Pennsylvania
In 2004 Kimbal Musk $2,000 John Kerry
In 2007 Kimbal Musk $4,600 Jared Polis (CO)
In 2012 Kimbal Musk $5,200 Andrew Romanoff (CO)
In 2009 Kimbal Musk $1,000 Jane Harman (CA)
In 2012 Kimbal Musk $2,500 Loretta Sanchez (CA)
In 2011 Kimbal Musk $1,000 Dana Rohrabacher (CA)
In 2004 Kimbal Musk $1,000 Ken Salazar (CO)
Since 2013 Kimbal Musk $5,100 Mark Udall (CO)
In 2004 Kimbal Musk $2,000 Stan Matsunaka (CO)

 

In 2012 Kimbal Musk $2,500 Chaka Fattah (PA)

(Center For Responsive Politics, Accessed 1/31/15)

TESLA HAS BENEFITED FROM MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES

Tesla Motors Has Received $2.391 Billion In State And Federal Government Subsidies

According To The Los Angeles Times, Tesla Has Received $2.391 Billion In Subsidies. (Jerry Hirsch, “How It Adds Up Three Companies, $4.9 Billion In Government Support,” Los Angeles Times, 5/30/15)

Subsidies Received By Tesla Include A Department Of Energy Loan, State Tax Incentives, And Regulatory Credits. (Jerry Hirsch, “How It Adds Up Three Companies, $4.9 Billion In Government Support,” Los Angeles Times, 5/30/15)

 

Tesla’s Government Subsidies
Subsidy Amount Description  
$ 1.29 Billion Nevada Tax Incentives For Gigafactory (Lithium-Ion Battery Factory)  
$45 Million Value Of Discounted Department Of Energy Loan  
$ 90 Million California Alternative Energy And Advanced Transportation Financing Authority  
$517.2 Million Sale Of California And Other Regulatory Credits  
$284 Million Estimated Value Of Federal Income Tax Credits For Eligible U.S. Buyers Of Model S Sedans  
$38 Million Value Of California Buyers Of Model S Sedans  
$126 Million California Self-Generation Incentive Program  
$647,626 California Job Training Reimbursement  

(Jerry Hirsch, “How It Adds Up Three Companies, $4.9 Billion In Government Support,” Los Angeles Times, 5/30/15)

$465 Million U.S. Department Of Energy Loan To Tesla

Musk Flew To Washington Multiple Times To Make The Case For The DOE Loan To Tesla

Musk Flew To Washington, D.C. At Least 12 Times Between 2009 And 2012 “To Help Make The Case To The Department Of Energy For Nearly Half A Billion Dollars In Low Interest Loans As Part Of The Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program.” “In early 2010, auto industry news site Autoblog described his lobbying on Tesla’s behalf: ‘Musk flew to Washington D.C. at least a dozen times since early 2009 to help make the case to the Department of Energy for nearly half a billion dollars in low interest loans as part of the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program.’” (Timothy P. Carney, “Green Energy Stimulus Profiteer Comes Under IRS Scrutiny,” Washington Examiner, 10/15/12)

The U.S. Department Of Energy Gave A $465 Million Loan To Tesla Motors For A Manufacturing Facility For Tesla’s S Sedan And To Manufacture Certain Vehicle Parts

In 2009, The Obama Administration Announced Tesla Motors Would Receive A $465 Million Loan To “Finance A Manufacturing Facility For The Tesla Model S Sedan”; The Loan Would Also “Support A Facility To Manufacture Battery Packs And Electric Drive Trains” For Teslas And Other Vehicles. “Tesla Motors will receive $465 million that will also advance electric vehicles.  The first loan will finance a manufacturing facility for the Tesla Model S sedan.  This vehicle demonstrates how the emerging electric car is becoming more affordable: the Model S is expected to be roughly $50,000 cheaper than Tesla’s first vehicle, the Roadster. The all-electric sedan consumes no gasoline and runs entirely on electricity from any conventional 120V or 220V outlet. It will get the equivalent of more than 250 miles per gallon, far exceeding the 32.7 mpg minimum efficiency required for large sedans. Production of the Model S will begin in 2011 and ramp up to 20,000 vehicles per year by the end of 2013. This integrated facility expects to create 1,000 jobs in Southern California. The second part of the loan will support a facility to manufacture battery packs and electric drive trains to be used in Teslas and in vehicles built by other automakers, including the Smart For Two city car by Daimler. This project demonstrates how Tesla’s early technology will support electric projects at larger companies. Early pilot battery pack production will begin in 2011, reaching about 10,000 by 2012 and 30,000 packs in 2013. The new facility expects to employ 650 people in the Bay area of Northern California.” (U.S. Department Of Energy, “Obama Administration Awards First Three Auto Loans For Advanced Technologies To Ford Motor Company, Nissan Motors And Tesla Motors,” Press Release, 6/23/09)

Tesla’s Loan Was Broken Into Two Parts, With $365 Million For A Manufacturing Facility For Tesla’s Model S Sedan And $100 Million For “A Facility To Manufacture Battery Packs And Electric Drive Trains.” “In Tesla’s case, as in Fisker’s, the government loan was broken into two parts. The first chunk, for $365 million, is to finance a manufacturing facility for the Tesla Model S sedan, Tesla’s lower-cost answer to its earlier $109,000 Roadster. The other $100 million funded a facility to manufacture battery packs and electric drive trains used by Teslas and other automakers, including the Smart Fortwo city car by Daimler. Tesla points to such partnerships — along with investments from Toyota and Panasonic — as signs that long established companies believe in its cars.” (Ronnie Greene, Matthew Mosk, and Brian Ross, “Energy’s Risky $1 Billion Bet On Two Politically-Connected Electric Car Builders,” The Center For Public Integrity, 10/20/11)

The Loan Was Through The Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) Direct Loan Program

“The Funding [To Tesla] Was Issued Under The $25 Billion Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, One Piece Of A Giant Umbrella Of DOE Loans And Loan Guarantees Going Out The Door.” (Ronnie Greene, Matthew Mosk, and Brian Ross, “Energy’s Risky $1 Billion Bet On Two Politically-Connected Electric Car Builders,” The Center For Public Integrity, 10/20/11)

Tesla’s Loan Was Through The Department Of Energy’s Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) Direct Loan Program. (U.S. Department Of Energy, Accessed 1/27/16)

(U.S. Department Of Energy, Accessed 1/27/16)

The Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Direct Loan Program Was Established In 2007 To Provide Direct Loans “To Automotive Or Component Manufacturers For Reequipping, Expanding, Or Establishing Manufacturing Facilities In The U.S. That Produce Fuel-Efficient Advanced Technology Vehicles” And For Other Purposes. “The Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) direct loan program was established in Section 136 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to support the production of fuel-efficient, advanced technology vehicles and qualifying components in the United States. The ATVM loan program provides direct loans to automotive or component manufacturers for reequipping, expanding, or establishing manufacturing facilities in the U.S. that produce fuel-efficient advanced technology vehicles or qualifying components, or for engineering integration performed in the U.S. for advanced technology vehicles or qualifying components.” (U.S. Department Of Energy, Accessed 1/27/16)

Tesla Lobbied The Federal Government, Including The Department Of Energy, On The ATVM Loan Program

The ATVM Loan Program “Was Established In Section 136 Of The Energy Independence And Security Act Of 2007.” “The Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) direct loan program was established in Section 136 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to support the production of fuel-efficient, advanced technology vehicles and qualifying components in the United States.” (U.S. Department Of Energy, Accessed 1/29/16)

According To Lobbying Reports, In 2008, Tesla Hired K&L Gates To Lobby The Department Of Energy, The U.S. House Of Representatives, The U.S. Senate, And The White House On Section 136 Program. (Center For Responsive Politics, Accessed 1/29/16)

According To Lobbying Reports, In 2008, Tesla Hired McBee Strategic Consulting To Lobby The Department Of Energy, The U.S. House Of Representatives, The U.S. Senate, And The White House On Section 136 Program. (Center For Responsive Politics, Accessed 1/29/16)

A Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report Criticized The Department Of Energy’s Oversight Of The $25 Billion ATVM Program

In A Report To Congress, The Government Accountability Office “Criticized The Energy Department For Not Keeping Close Enough Tabs On Its Fleet Of Auto Loans — Including Those To Fisker And Tesla — to Ensure They Meet Benchmarks.” “Yet an audit this year by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, criticized the Energy Department for not keeping close enough tabs on its fleet of auto loans — including those to Fisker and Tesla — to ensure they meet benchmarks.” (Ronnie Greene, Matthew Mosk, and Brian Ross, “Energy’s Risky $1 Billion Bet On Two Politically-Connected Electric Car Builders,” The Center For Public Integrity, 10/20/11)

The GAO Report Noted “Taxpayers Do Not Know Whether They Are Getting What They Paid For Through The Loans” Because The Energy Department Could Not Be Assured The Projects Were On Track To Deliver The Vehicles As Agreed. “‘DOE cannot be assured that the projects are on track to deliver the vehicles as agreed,’ said the GAO report examining the department’s ATVM program. ‘It also means that U.S. taxpayers do not know whether they are getting what they paid for through the loans.’” (Ronnie Greene, Matthew Mosk, and Brian Ross, “Energy’s Risky $1 Billion Bet On Two Politically-Connected Electric Car Builders,” The Center For Public Integrity, 10/20/11)

Politics Might Have Influenced The Department Of Energy’s Decision To Award Tesla The Loan

Steve Westley, An Obama Bundler, “Sat On Tesla’s Board From March 2007 To December 2009, A Time Period In Which DOE Announced Its Loan Commitment” To Tesla.” “Tesla brings political pull, as well. Steve Westly, who has ‘bundled’ hundreds of thousands of dollars for Obama, sat on Tesla’s board from March 2007 to December 2009, a time period in which DOE announced its loan commitment to the Silicon Valley company.” (Ronnie Greene, Matthew Mosk, and Brian Ross, “Energy’s Risky $1 Billion Bet On Two Politically-Connected Electric Car Builders,” The Center For Public Integrity, 10/20/11)

Steve Westley’s The Westly Group “Was Also A Financial Supporter Of Tesla Motors,” Westly Still Personally Invests In Tesla And “Now Serves On An Advisory Board To The Energy Secretary.” “His Westly Group was also a financial supporter of Tesla Motors until Tesla went public in 2010, and Westly himself continues to invest in the company. He now serves on an advisory board to the Energy Secretary.” (Ronnie Greene, Matthew Mosk, and Brian Ross, “Energy’s Risky $1 Billion Bet On Two Politically-Connected Electric Car Builders,” The Center For Public Integrity, 10/20/11)

Nick Pritzker, A Tesla Investor, Is “A Donor To Obama And A Cousin Of Penny Pritzker, The National Finance Chair Of Obama’s 2008 Campaign.” “Tesla’s founder and CEO, Elon Musk, is a hearty political contributor who has primarily backed Democrats, including Obama. According to published reports, another Tesla investor is Nick Pritzker, a donor to Obama and a cousin of Penny Pritzker, the national finance chair of Obama’s 2008 campaign.” (Ronnie Greene, Matthew Mosk, and Brian Ross, “Energy’s Risky $1 Billion Bet On Two Politically-Connected Electric Car Builders,” The Center For Public Integrity, 10/20/11)

  • NOTE: The Initial Loan Application Was Filed Under President Bush But “Landed Under Obama.” “O’Connell, the Tesla executive, said political muscle played no role in the company’s award of the $465 million in loans, noting that the initial application was filed under Bush — though landed under Obama.” (Ronnie Greene, Matthew Mosk, and Brian Ross, “Energy’s Risky $1 Billion Bet On Two Politically-Connected Electric Car Builders,” The Center For Public Integrity, 10/20/11)

Regulatory Credits

Tesla Has Cashed In On At Least Two Types Of Regulatory Credits

Tesla Has Earned Over $530 Million From Selling Environmental Credits, Including Zero Emission Vehicle Credits And Federal Greenhouse Gas Credits. “Tesla has used emissions regulations to its financial advantage. Since 2008, the company has earned more than $534 million from the sale of environmental credits to competitors that don’t sell enough zero emission vehicles to meet California’s rigorous standards — the strictest in the nation. The total also includes sales of federal greenhouse gas credits.” (Jerry Hirsch, “Tesla’s Push For Tougher Emission Standards Would Boost Its Bottom Line,” Los Angeles Times, 8/5/15)

Tesla Earns Regulatory Credits From Its Zero Emission Vehicles And Then Sells Those Credits To Other Manufactures

Tesla Noted It Earns “Various Tradable Regulatory Credits That Can Be Sold To Other Manufacturers” Because Of Its Zero Emissions Vehicles. “In connection with the production, delivery, and placement into service of our zero emission vehicles in global markets, we have earned and will continue to earn various tradable regulatory credits that can be sold to other manufacturers.” (Tesla Motors, Form 10-K, Securities And Exchange Commission, 2/26/15)

Because Tesla Produces More Than The Minimum Quantity Of Zero Emission Vehicles Required Under Multiple States’ Laws, Tesla Receives Credits Known As “ZEV Credits,” Which Tesla Can Sell To Other Manufacturers Tesla Has “A Surplus Of Credits.” “Under California’s Zero-Emission Vehicle Regulations and those of states that have adopted the California standards, vehicle manufacturers are required to ensure that a portion of the vehicles delivered for sale in those states during each model year are zero-emission vehicles and partial zero-emission vehicles. Currently, the states of Arizona, California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont have such laws in effect. These laws provide that a manufacturer may earn credits, referred to as ZEV credits, if they produce more zero-emission vehicles than the minimum quantity required by those laws. Those manufacturers with a surplus of credits may sell the excess credits to other manufacturers who can then apply such credits to comply with the regulatory requirements, including making up for deficits.” (Tesla Motors, Form 10-K, Securities And Exchange Commission, 2/26/15)

Tesla Earns Regulatory Credits From Federal Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards

Tesla Contracts With Other Automobile Manufacturers To Sell Its Earned Credits From Greenhouse Gas Credits. “Additionally, under the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) national greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards and similar standards adopted by the Canadian government, car and truck manufacturers are required to meet fleet-wide average carbon dioxide emissions standards. Manufacturers who fail to meet such standards have a deficit in their emission profile.  Manufacturers whose fleet wide average performs better than such standards may earn credits. Manufacturers may sell excess credits to other manufacturers, who can use the credits to comply with these regulatory requirements. As a manufacturer solely of zero emission vehicles, we earn the full amount of GHG credits established by the standards on each vehicle sold. We have contracted with another automobile manufacturer to sell all earned credits.” (Tesla Motors, Form 10-K, Securities And Exchange Commission, 2/26/15)

Federal Income Tax Credit And State Rebates

Tesla Buyers Receive A $7,500 Federal Income Tax Credit, Which, In Total, “Tesla Buyers Have Qualified For An Estimated $284 Million In Federal Tax Incentives.” “Tesla buyers also get a $7,500 federal income tax credit and a $2,500 rebate from the state of California. The federal government has capped the $7,500 credit at a total of 200,000 vehicles per manufacturer; Tesla is about a quarter of the way to that limit. In all, Tesla buyers have qualified for an estimated $284 million in federal tax incentives and collected more than $38 million in California rebates.” (Jerry Hirsch, “Elon Musk’s Growing Empire Is Fueled By $4.9 Billion In Government Subsidies,” Los Angeles Times,” 5/30/15)

Multiple States Offer Rebates And Other Incentives For The Purchase Of Electric Vehicles

(Tesla Motors, Accessed 1/12/16)

State Subsidies: Nevada Battery Factory

Tesla Received $1.3 Billion In Benefits For Building A Battery Factory In Nevada

“The $1.3 Billion In Benefits For Tesla’s Nevada Battery Factory Resulted From A Year Of Hardball Negotiations.” (Jerry Hirsch, “Elon Musk’s Growing Empire Is Fueled By $4.9 Billion In Government Subsidies,” Los Angeles Times, 5/30/15)

  • States Were Asked To Bid For Project To Build The World’s Largest Lithium-Ion Battery Factory. “Late in 2013, Tesla summoned economic development officials from seven states to its auto factory in Fremont, Calif. After a tour, they gathered in a conference room, where Tesla executives explained their plan to build the biggest lithium-ion battery factory in the world — then asked the states to bid for the project.” (Jerry Hirsch, “Elon Musk’s Growing Empire Is Fueled By $4.9 Billion In Government Subsidies,” Los Angeles Times, 5/30/15)

During Negotiations, Tesla Asked For $500 Million In Upfront Payment From Nevada. “The automaker at first sought a $500-million upfront payment, among other enticements, Hill said. Nevada pushed back, in sometimes tense talks punctuated by raised voices.” (Jerry Hirsch, “Elon Musk’s Growing Empire Is Fueled By $4.9 Billion In Government Subsidies,” Los Angeles Times, 5/30/15)

  • “They Shored Up The Deal With An Agreement To Give Tesla $195 Million In Transferable Tax Credits, Which The Automaker Could Sell For Upfront Cash.” (Jerry Hirsch, “Elon Musk’s Growing Empire Is Fueled By $4.9 Billion In Government Subsidies,” Los Angeles Times, 5/30/15)

California Subsidies

Tesla Has Reaped $91 Million In Savings From Agreements With California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority Tax Incentives (CAEATFA) To Exempt Tesla From California Sales And Use Taxes

The Exemptions Are Decided By The California Alternative Energy And Advanced Transportation Financing Authority, Which “Calculates Whether The Loss In Sales Taxes Is Worth The Added Benefits That Come Through Additional Property And Income Taxes If The Company Continues To Expand And Hire In The State.” “Deana Carrillo, executive director of the economic development agency chaired by Chiang, said the program is designed to retain and expand the pool of high-paying jobs in advanced California industries. But she emphasized it’s unlike controversial economic development programs that lure companies with cash grants. … The California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority calculates whether the loss in sales taxes is worth the added benefits that come through additional property and income taxes if the company continues to expand and hire in the state, she said.” (Chris Kirkham, “Tesla Motors Receives $39 Million In Sales Tax Incentives From State,” Los Angeles Times, 12/16/15)

In 2009, Tesla Entered An “Arrangement With The California Alternative Energy And Advanced Transportation Financing Authority (CAEATFA) That Resulted In An Exemption From California State Sales And Use Taxes For The Purchase Of $320 Million Of Manufacturing Equipment,” Which Tesla Believed Would Result In Savings Of Up To $31 Million Over Four Years. “In December 2009, we finalized an arrangement with the California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority (CAEATFA) that resulted in an exemption from California state sales and use taxes for the purchase of $320 million of manufacturing equipment. As the equipment purchased would otherwise have been subject to California state sales and use tax, we believe this incentive resulted in tax savings by us of approximately $31 million over the period starting in December 2009 and ending in December 2013.” (Tesla Motors, Form 10-K, Securities And Exchange Commission, 2/26/15)

In 2012, Tesla Entered Another Agreement With CAEATFA For Exemption From California State Sales Or Use Tax For The Purchase Of Up To $292 Million Of Manufacturing Equipment, Which Tesla Believed Would Result In Savings Of Up To $24 Million Over Four Years. “In January 2012, we finalized an additional agreement with CAEATFA for an exclusion from California state sales and use taxes for the purchase of up to $292 million of manufacturing equipment. To the extent all of this equipment is purchased and would otherwise be subject to California state sales or use tax, we believe this incentive would result in tax savings by us of up to approximately $24 million over the period starting in December 2011 and ending in December 2015.” (Tesla Motors, Form 10-K, Securities And Exchange Commission, 2/26/15)

In 2013, Tesla Finalized Another Agreement With CAEATFA For Exemption From California State Sales And Use Taxes For $415 Million Of Manufacturing Equipment, Which Tesla Believed Would Result In Savings Of Up To $35 Million Over Four Years“In December 2013, we finalized a third agreement with CAEATFA that will result in an exclusion from California state sales and use taxes for an additional $415 million of manufacturing equipment. To the extent all of this equipment is purchased and would otherwise be subject to California state sales or use tax, we believe this 2013 incentive would result in tax savings by us of up to approximately $35 million over the period starting in December 2013 and ending in December 2016.” (Tesla Motors, Form 10-K, Securities And Exchange Commission, 2/26/15)

In 2015, California Announced Tesla Would Receive $39 Million In Sales Tax Incentives. “California State Treasurer John Chiang announced Tuesday that electric car maker Tesla Motors will receive $39 million in sales tax incentives, marking a new round of government subsidies for a company that has become adept at using them to grow the business.” (Chris Kirkham, “Tesla Motors Receives $39 Million In Sales Tax Incentives From State,” Los Angeles Times, 12/16/15)

“Tesla Applied For The Most Recent Sales Tax Exclusion Based On More Than $463 Million Worth Of Expected Purchases Related To The Expansion Of Its Model S And Model X.” (Chris Kirkham, “Tesla Motors Receives $39 Million In Sales Tax Incentives From State,” Los Angeles Times, 12/16/15)

West Virginia And Colorado Income-Tax Credits

West Virginia Offered An Additional Income-Tax Credit Of $7,500 For The Purchase Of A New Tesla For Personal Use, And Colorado Offered A $6,000 Income-Tax Credit. “For each purchase of a new Tesla acquired for personal use, the federal government offers a $7,500 federal tax credit. In addition, various states offer additional income-tax credits, including $6,000 in Colorado and $7,500 in West Virginia.” (Christopher Koopman, “Tesla Is No Success Story,” U.S. World And News Report, 6/3/13)

Tesla Reports Net Losses

“Tesla And SolarCity Continue To Report Net Losses After A Decade In Business, But The Stocks Of Both Companies Have Soared On Their Potential; Musk’s Stake In The Firms Alone Is Worth About $10 Billion.” (Jerry Hirsch, “Elon Musk’s Growing Empire Is Fueled By $4.9 Billion In Government Subsidies,” Los Angeles Times,” 5/30/15)

March 2015: “Since [Tesla’s] Founding In 2003, The Company, Which Went Public In 2010, Has Earned A Profit In Just One Three-Month Period. In 2014, It Lost $294 Million On $3.2 Billion In Revenue.” (John Lippert, “Will Tesla Ever Make Money? Bloomberg Markets, 3/4/15)