Tesla hit with shocking sales news in major market: 'Nowhere near the level we are used to'
In Norway, where 97% of new car sales are electric vehicles, Tesla has lost its title as the bestselling EV brand.
As The Driven reported, Volkswagen now sells over twice as many EVs in Norway as Tesla.
Tesla sales have declined not only in the United States but also in Europe. Analysts attribute this trend, at least partly, to Tesla CEO Elon Musk's polarizing involvement in politics and with the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency, potentially making the ownership of a Tesla feel like a political statement to some drivers.
Meanwhile, Volkswagen took over 20% of the market share of new car sales in April, compared with just 8.6% for Tesla. Three of the five bestselling cars in Norway are Volkswagens: the ID.4, ID.7, and ID.3.
Although Tesla sales in Norway are down, the Tesla Model Y still topped the chart as the bestselling car model in April.
According to Øyvind Solberg Thorsen, the director of Norway's Road Traffic Information Council, "Tesla is nowhere near the level we are used to, you can't pretend otherwise," per The Drive.
"It may be a sign that many people now find that other brands are just as interesting and have just as much to offer in roughly the same price segment," he added.
While this news from Norway may be discouraging for Tesla, it's positive news for EVs in general.
The overall number of electric cars on Norwegian roads is increasing, and tax law changes have made EVs even more enticing and accessible for drivers over the years, according to El País.
However, regardless of where you live, when you make your next car an EV, you can also save money on gas and maintenance while eliminating exhaust pollution. EVs are a cleaner, greener way to drive, and they are more affordable than ever before.
If you were going to purchase an EV, which of these factors would be most important to you?
Cost
Battery range
Power and speed
The way it looks
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
You can make EV ownership even more cost-effective by charging your vehicle with solar power you generate at home. Powering your EV with solar energy is cheaper than paying for public charging stations and more self-sufficient than relying on the overstrained grid.
EV drivers can save as much as around $10,000 on solar panel installations by comparing trusted installer quotes through a free online tool from EnergySage, which primarily operates in the U.S. If the upfront cost of solar installation is out of your budget, leasing panels may be an option. Palmetto's LightReach solar panel leasing program helps EV drivers get a solar setup for no money down while locking in low energy rates.
Regarding Norway's EV momentum, one adviser and investor in Norway commented in a LinkedIn post, "As Norway continues to lead by example, the collaboration between policymakers, industry stakeholders, and #CPOs like Recharge remains crucial in paving the way for a greener future. Other countries have a lot to learn here!"
"I'm looking forward to seeing how the new and fairly affordable smaller BEV models get on in Norway," a CleanTechnica writer commented. "I'm also interested to see whether tax policy regarding the residual powertrains will turn to tackling diesel and HEV sales."
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
14 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Did Republicans Just Kill the Filibuster?
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Republicans are relying on rarely employed accounting methods to push Donald Trump's "one, big beautiful bill" through the Senate, and in doing so could upend established Congressional procedures surrounding the reconciliation process and the filibuster. Why It Matters The filibuster—a procedural move allowing senators to extend debates on bills indefinitely without a 60-vote majority—has long been viewed as a move to encourage bipartisanship in Congress and as a bulwark against political dominance by slim majorities in the upper chamber. Experts told Newsweek that recent moves by Republicans while trying to pass Trump's tax legislation could create new precedent surrounding the filibuster for years to come, including past the period of GOP control. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham looks out from the upper chamber, June 11, 2025. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham looks out from the upper chamber, June 11, 2025. J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo What To Know Republicans are employing the reconciliation process to pass Trump's tax bill, the centerpiece of his second-term domestic agenda, allowing them to eventually advance the bill with only a majority vote rather than the 60 votes normally needed to do away with the threat of a filibuster. A central element of the bill, which the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates would add $4.2 trillion to the nation's deficit through 2034, is the extension of the tax cuts enacted during Trump's first term. Sweeping fiscal moves of this kind are traditionally restricted by the Byrd Rule, adopted in 1985, which limits the sort of policies that can be folded into bills passed through reconciliation, and forbids legislation from adding to the nation's deficit beyond 10 years. However, as reported by AP, Congressional Budget Office Director Phillip Swagel recently notified Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley of the Senate Budget Committee that elements of the Big, Beautiful Bill would increase the deficit "in years after 2034." Going by this assessment, the Republican bill would violate the rule that determines what legislation can clear the Senate with a simple majority, which could force Republicans to amend significant portions of the legislation. In response to these concerns, and Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough advising that certain provisions in the bill were not budget-related and therefore in violation of Senate rules, Republicans have now argued that Trump's 2017 tax cuts should be treated as part of the fiscal "baseline" forecast, even though these have not yet been extended. Republicans have also cited Section 312 of Congressional Budget Act to argue that the final authority for determining baseline spending figures, and whether the tax portion of the bill violates Byrd, lies with Republican Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham. When approached by Newsweek for comment, a spokesperson for Senator Graham said: "Republicans do not want a $4 trillion tax hike—which is what would happen if the Democrats had their way and the 2017 tax cuts expired." They also referenced past support from Democrats for the notion that the Senate Budget Committee Chairman has the power to establish the baseline, citing former Chairman Bernie Sanders' 2022 remark that "the Budget Committee, through its Chair, makes the call on questions of numbers." Sanders is an independent who caucuses with the Democrats. Experts have said that this new "Byrd Bath"—as it has been referred to by some on Capitol Hill—could establish a new precedent regarding budget reconciliation and the avoidance of filibusters by those in power in the future. "The budget process established in 1974 and reinforced by rules and precedents since then was intended to allow a simple majority to pass a budget as long as the contents of a budget measure were limited to budget-related spending and tax provisions," Steve Smith, professor of politics at Arizona State University, told Newsweek. "Playing partisan games with the budget process to set aside the 10-year budget period or use it for nonbudget purposes is contrary to the plain language of the Budget Act and the Byrd rules adopted by the Senate," he added. "It is a precedent that will get repeated over and over again." Michael Ettlinger, a political adviser who previously worked with the Biden-Harris campaign, said, "If the Republican's new accounting method becomes the norm, it will be far easier to pass deficit increasing legislation in the Senate with a simple majority vote—limiting the impact of the filibuster." Ettlinger, who is currently a senior fellow at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), noted that nothing would then stop Democrats from employing the same precedents to bypass the filibuster in future bills. "If the Democrats reclaim the Senate they will have the opportunity to undermine the filibuster as the Republicans have done," he told Newsweek. "It's their choice." Democratic Senator Rubén Gallego, reiterated this argument, posting to X: "There is no filibuster if the Senate [Republicans] do this and when Dems take power there is no reason why we should not use reconciliation to pass immigration reform." What People Are Saying Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, in a statement released Sunday, said: "The only way for Republicans to pass this horribly destructive bill, which is based on budget math as fake as Donald Trump's tan, was to go nuclear and hide it behind a bunch of procedural jargon. We're now operating in a world where the filibuster applies to Democrats but not to Republicans, and that's simply unsustainable given the triage that'll be required whenever the Trump era finally ends." Steve Smith, professor of politics at Arizona State University, told Newsweek: "If a small Senate majority can put anything in a budget measure or ignore the ten-year budget window, then nothing is left for regular legislation that is subject to a filibuster. It represents a "get-it-while-you-can" partisanship that Republicans have adopted since [Mitch] McConnell became leader that, step-by-step, has undermined longstanding Senate norms." Republican Senator and Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham, speaking on the Senate floor on Monday, said: "I'm not the first chairman to change a baseline for different reasons." "The budget Chairman, under [Section] 312, sets the baseline," Graham continued. "This has been acknowledged by Republicans and Democrats." What Happens Next? Debate over President Trump's megabill has now reached the final stages. A "vote-a-rama" on the bill—a marathon session during which lawmakers may introduce amendments to a reconciliation package—kicked off in the Senate on Monday morning. Should the bill pass a Senate vote, expected this week, it will then be sent back down to the House for approval. On Friday, Trump said that his preferred deadline of July 4 was not the "end all," but later said via Truth Social that the House of Representatives "must be ready" to send the bill to his desk by this date.
Bloomberg
14 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Musk Slams Trump Tax Bill, Again
Elon Musk has slammed the US Senate's version of President Donald Trump's tax bill for cutting tax credits for electric vehicles. Bloomberg's Max Chafkin talks about the impact that could have on Tesla with Caroline Hyde and Ed Ludlow on 'Bloomberg Tech.' (Source: Bloomberg)
Miami Herald
19 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Fed vs. Trump on tariffs impact will soon be put to test
It's a widely held belief among economists that President Donald Trump's tariffs will boost inflation notably over the next few months. But muted price increases so far have called that assumption into question, emboldening the White House and opening up divisions at the Federal Reserve. Anticipation of firmer inflation has kept the U.S. central bank from delivering interest-rate cuts this year as it waits to see what happens. The Trump administration is applying intense pressure on Fed Chair Jerome Powell to bring down borrowing costs, and two Fed governors in recent days have publicly diverged from Powell by asserting a cut could be appropriate as soon as July. A pair of key reports in the coming weeks - the monthly jobs report due Thursday and another on consumer prices due July 15 - will be critical in determining the central bank's next steps. Both are expected to finally begin reflecting the impact of tariffs, but any surprises could change the schedule for rate cuts. "One of the things that makes it such a difficult situation is that we simply haven't done this sort of experiment in the past," William English, a professor at the Yale School of Management and former high-ranking Fed economist, said of the tariffs. "We're outside the range of experience for a modern U.S. economy, and so it's very difficult to be confident about any forecast." Trump and his allies have escalated attacks on the Fed and Powell in recent weeks, motivated by data showing inflation remained tame through May despite the tariffs put in place. The president has lobbed several insults at Powell, calling him a "numbskull" and "truly one of the dumbest, and most destructive, people in Government." Other Trump administration officials and some congressional Republicans - oftentimes more reticent to weigh in on monetary policy - have joined in as well. Kevin Hassett, director of the White House National Economic Council, said on June 23 that there is "no reason at all for the Fed not to cut rates right now." Hassett, who is seen as a possible replacement for Powell when the Fed chair's term expires next year, emphasized data due in the coming weeks: "I would guess that if they see one more month of data, they're going to really have to concede that they've got the rate way too high," he said. And Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Monday on Bloomberg TV that Fed officials "seem a little frozen at the wheel here" after having made "a gigantic mistake" letting inflation run too far in 2022. The debate reflects the delicate situation the Fed is in as it aims to avoid a policy mistake. Should officials cut rates just as tariff-induced price pressures kick in, they may have to resort to more aggressive measures later on. But holding rates at an elevated level to combat inflation that never materializes risks restraining the economy unnecessarily, potentially damaging the labor market in the process. Forecasters expect inflation to accelerate in the coming months. Powell told Congress in testimony last week he expects "meaningful" price increases to materialize in June, July and August data as the levies work their way through the economy. But he added Fed officials are "perfectly open to the idea" the impact could be smaller than feared, "and if so, that'll matter for our policy." The Bureau of Labor Statistics will publish its report on consumer prices for June on July 15, two weeks before the central bank's next policy meeting. Fed Governors Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman - both Trump appointees - have broken step with Powell and their other colleagues to raise the possibility of a rate cut next month if the data cooperate. "I think we've got room to bring it down, and then we can kind of see what happens with inflation," Waller said in a June 20 CNBC interview, adding the central bank could always bring a halt to rate cuts again if necessary. "We've been on pause for six months to wait and see, and so far the data has been fine." Still, investors currently see only about a 20% chance of a July move and are instead betting the next cut will come in September, according to federal funds futures. Tariff math Benign inflation readings through May suggest companies are finding ways, at least for now, to avoid price hikes despite Trump's tariffs on dozens of U.S. trading partners - and widespread uncertainty over how long the duties will last and the level where they'll ultimately settle. One potential explanation is companies are working through inventories of imports they frontloaded in the first quarter to get ahead of the levies, said Josh Hirt, a senior U.S. economist at Vanguard Group. Hirt's calculations suggest that, on average, importers this year have paid an effective tariff rate lower than what Trump has put in place, largely because so much was brought in before they took effect. Another source of uncertainty Powell discussed in his testimony is just how the costs of the tariffs will be split between exporters, importers, retailers, manufacturers and consumers. "In the beginning, it will be the importer that pays the tariff, but ultimately it will be spread out among those five," Powell said, adding that data suggests at least some of the impact will fall on consumers. Before the July 15 inflation report comes equally consequential monthly data on employment, due from the BLS on July 3. So far this year, there's been little indication that tariffs have put a dent in hiring, which has allowed the Fed chair and many of his colleagues to maintain that a solid labor market means there's no rush to cut rates. But as with the inflation data, forecasters have largely maintained that any potential labor-market impact of the trade policy upheaval wouldn't be visible before the release of the June figures. In a Bloomberg survey, economists said they expect the this week's report will show the unemployment rate in June crept up to 4.3%, which would mark the highest level since 2021. Bowman, in a June 23 speech, said Fed officials should "recognize that downside risks to our employment mandate could soon become more salient, given recent softness in spending and signs of fragility in the labor market." Monthly consumer spending figures published Friday by the Bureau of Economic Analysis showed a drop in outlays in May as households pulled back on discretionary services like travel and dining, and forecasters warned higher prices in the months ahead would put more pressure on consumption. English, at Yale, said the impact of tariffs will depend on factors which are difficult to measure. But "the kind of intuition that there's going to be some pass-through of the tariffs to prices just feels right," he said. "I am not yet thinking that the basic story is wrong." (With assistance from Sonali Basak.) Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
