Tesla Model S
  • Tesla Model S
  • Tesla Model S

  • tesla model s
  • tesla model s

  • Tesla Model S
  • Tesla Model S

  • Tesla Model S
  • Tesla Model S

  • Tesla Model S
  • Tesla Model S

  • Tesla Model S
  • Tesla Model S

  • Tesla Model S
  • Tesla Model S

  • Tesla Model S
  • Tesla Model S

  • Tesla Model S
  • Tesla Model S

  • Image Credit: Tesla Motors
  • Image Credit: Tesla Motors
  • Image Credit: Tesla Motors
  • Image Credit: Tesla Motors
  • Image Credit: Tesla Motors
In the Keystone State, the compromise number between zero and unlimited is five, apparently. Pennsylvania's Senate applied that math in an attempt to resolve the issue of allowing Tesla Motors to operate company-owned stores in the state. The senate this week unanimously voted for a bill that will allow Tesla's operations, but placed a limit on the number of stores at five. The bill will now go to the state's House for approval, according to Automotive News.

Earlier this month, trade group the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers went on record against the lack of limits on Tesla-owned stores in Pennsylvania. While the group was neutral on the issue of whether Tesla could work around the traditional third-party dealership network to sell its electric vehicles, the group said allowing Tesla to own an unlimited number of stores in the state created an unfair advantage for the California-based automaker.

The trade group is now on board with bill as currently drafted because the store limit is similar to that of nearby states such as Ohio and New York. Tesla has one store in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, with another slated for Devon.

*UPDATE: Diarmuid O'Connell, Tesla's vice president of corporate and business development, wrote in an e-mail to AutoblogGreen that the company was "pleased" with the Pennsylvania's senate vote, and that the state's bill "serves the interests of Pennsylvania's consumers while enabling all parties, including lawmakers and auto dealers, to avoid unnecessary and potentially protracted conflict."


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 9 Comments
      bluepongo1
      • 1 Year Ago
      These (D)=(R) parasites must hate job creators to limit Tesla Motors' galleries.
      Grendal
      • 1 Year Ago
      NADA is finally getting smart about this. A compromise should have happened in the first place. Even their wins, like New Jersey, quickly became losses when the buying public and the media put a spotlight onto their nonsense.
      miles
      • 1 Year Ago
      This is becoming comical. Why not 4 or 6 stores? At some point a few years down the road, I can see Tesla lawyers getting these limits thrown out as unconstitutional. In the meantime its amusing to watch states and dealer associations dig themselves into deeper and deeper hole...
      Erik Goossens
      • 1 Year Ago
      Very bizarre indeed. The other companies made their bed when they opted for the franchise route (and those existing franchises deserve protection from company-owned stores *from the same brand*. Just because Tesla doesn't want to make the same mistake shouldn't mean that they're prevented from enjoying the full benefits of the approach they want to take. This bill has an outlandish sense of "fairness"
      Philmore
      • 1 Year Ago
      I hope they put a few right next to the Jersey border for payback!
      Electron
      • 1 Year Ago
      Pretty bizarre compromise. Manufacturers should be totally free to choose the sort of retail model they think suits their particular product best rather than be forced to adopt a retail model that was designed a long time ago for a different sort of product. At some point those politicians need to acknowledge that EVs have needs and economics that are fundamentally different from traditional cars like the fact that they don't generate the sort of maintenance income that keeps an expensive franchise dealership model funded. Forcing fundamentally different products in the same retail model doesn't level the playing field, it just makes the chances of success for the product that fits the model least well that much smaller.
      Erik Goossens
      • 1 Year Ago
      Very bizarre indeed. The other companies made their bed when they opted for the franchise route (and those existing franchises deserve protection from company-owned stores *from the same brand*. Just because Tesla doesn't want to make the same mistake shouldn't mean that they're prevented from enjoying the full benefits of the approach they want to take. This bill has an outlandish sense of "fairness"
      miles
      • 1 Year Ago
      This is becoming comical. Why not 4 or 6 stores? At some point a few years down the road, I can see Tesla lawyers getting these limits thrown out as unconstitutional. In the meantime its amusing to watch states and dealer associations dig themselves into deeper and deeper hole...
      diffrunt
      • 1 Year Ago
      Not really related, but if I lived in King of Prussia, I wouldn't admit it.
    Share This Photo X