Louisiana Agreement Purchase 2013: Fill & Download for Free

This Man's Job: Make Bill Gates RicherSecretive Money Manager Michael Larson Helped Microsoft Co-Founder's Fortune Balloon to $82 BillionINVESTMENTS THAT HELPED MAKE BILL GATES RICHERIn 2013, Mr. Gates and other buyers paid $161 million for the Ritz-Carlton in San Francisco. The hotel is now valued at about $200 million, positioning Mr. Gates for a profit if he decides to sell. JOHN SUTTONInvitations to a dinner party from Bill and Melinda Gates at their mansion near Seattle in February included an unusual request: Wear pink or platinum. Spotlights installed for the occasion bathed the room in a pink glow.Mr. Gates raised his glass to toast the guest of honor, Michael Larson, who sat nearby wearing a pink button-down shirt, his favorite color. The Microsoft Corp. co-founder said Mr. Larson has his "complete trust and faith," according to people who were there."Melinda and I are free to pursue our vision of a healthier and better-educated world because of what Michael has done" for the past 20 years, Mr. Gates told about 40 dinner guests. Because of Mr. Larson, the world's richest man said, he sleeps well at night.The arrangement is simple: Mr. Larson makes money, and Mr. Gates gives it away. Since 1994, the 54-year-old Mr. Larson has managed Mr. Gates's investment empire, mostly through a firm called Cascade Investment LLC.Few people know much about Mr. Gates's assets or Mr. Larson's tactics—and the two men want to keep it that way. Real-estate investments, which range from the fancy Charles Hotel in Cambridge, Mass., to a 490-acre ranch in Wyoming once owned by William F. "Buffalo Bill" Cody, are often cloaked in nondescript names to make it harder to trace the deals back to Mr. Gates.Cascade's headquarters are in an unmarked building in the Seattle suburb of Kirkland. Mr. Larson is so protective of his boss that he used to be nicknamed "the Gateskeeper," says someone who worked with him. Employees who leave often sign confidentiality agreements barring them from talking about Cascade, people familiar with the matter say.Mr. Gates's net worth has swelled to about $82 billion from $5 billion since he hired the former bond-fund manager and gave him autonomy to buy and sell investments as he sees fit. In addition to Cascade, which holds most of the billionaire's personal fortune, Mr. Larson oversees the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's $41 billion endowment.Cascade doesn't publicly disclose its performance results, but people familiar with the firm say it usually churns out steady annual gains. Because of Mr. Larson's relatively conservative strategy, Cascade's losses when the financial crisis hit in 2008 were smaller than the 27% drop by the Dow Jones Industrial Average for the full year, people familiar with the results say.Since 1995, Mr. Larson has delivered a compound annual return of 11% for the Gates Foundation and two predecessors, outperforming the S&P 500 stock index by more than one percentage point.Mr. Gates, 58, would be worth about the same if he had kept all the Microsoft stock he got after starting the company in 1975. Mr. Gates owned a 45% stake when Microsoft went public in 1986. The shares are now worth about $150 billion, excluding dividends. Microsoft shares have nearly tripled in the past five years.But Mr. Gates has sold nearly $40 billion of Microsoft stock since 1994 as part of an effort to diversify his investments. The Gates Foundation also has given $30 billion to charitable causes.Messrs. Larson and Gates declined to comment on their relationship, but people who know them say it has evolved into a bond that is crucial to the billionaire's philanthropy. Mr. Larson's many profitable investments on behalf of Mr. Gates and sales of some of his Microsoft shares have increased the size of donations by Mr. Gates and his family to the Gates Foundation.That means more money can be plowed into the foundation's mission to fight disease and improve education in the developing world.Bill and Melinda Gates plan to donate 95% of their wealth to the foundation, the world's largest philanthropic organization. In addition to $28 billion from Mr. Gates, its endowment includes $12 billion in gifts from Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s Warren Buffett."They're not two buddies, for sure," says Steve Walsh, former chief executive of Legg Mason Inc.'s Western Asset Management unit, about Messrs. Gates and Larson. They rarely mingle socially, people close to them say.Mr. Walsh says he was struck by how much effort Mr. Gates put into the dinner party for Mr. Larson at the former Microsoft chief executive's 66,000-square-foot mansion on the edge of Lake Washington. The reference to platinum on the invitations was a nod to the metal's 20th-anniversary symbolism."It was almost tender—and endearing," says Mr. Walsh, who has known Mr. Larson for decades.The Wall Street Journal pieced together a snapshot of Mr. Gates's investments from interviews with more than two dozen people familiar with Cascade, securities filings that detail some holdings of the firm and real-estate records. Few of Cascade's investments have been publicly announced.The Wyoming ranch is part of a bet by Cascade on the steep rebound in real-estate prices since the financial crisis. The firm owns at least 100,000 acres of farmland in California, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana and other states—or an area seven times bigger than Manhattan.Cascade also owns more than $24 billion of shares in companies such as Canadian National Railway Co., AutoNation Inc. and Republic Services Inc. The holdings reflect Mr. Larson's value-conscious, buy-and-hold philosophy, mirroring Mr. Buffett, a close friend of Mr. Gates. Canadian National shares are up 207% in the past five years.While much of Mr. Gates's money is in stocks, Mr. Larson has plowed smaller chunks into private equity and other types of adventurous, so-called alternative assets, according to people familiar with the matter. Sizable bets on the bond markets have been reduced recently.Some investments have been duds. In 2007, Cascade and other investors bought a 13% stake in PlanetOut Inc., the publisher of Out magazine and a cruise-line operator targeting gays and lesbians. The company's shares soon sank, and it sold some assets and was acquired by another firm in 2009.Surprisingly, Mr. Gates has few technology-related investments. As of June 30, he held a 3.6% stake in Microsoft, worth about $13.9 billion based on Thursday's closing stock price.Mr. Gates makes his own tech and biotech investments, which aren't held by Cascade. He started digital-image company Corbis Corp. in 1989. Smaller investments include stakes in nuclear-reactor developer TerraPower LLC and meat-substitute maker Beyond Meat.Mr. Gates is updated on all the other investments every other month. "At the end of the day, all decisions go through Michael," says Mike Jackson, chairman and CEO of AutoNation, who considers Mr. Larson a friend. Mr. Larson is a director of the auto retailer, and Cascade owns a 14% stake in AutoNation valued at about $841 million.Mr. Gates decided to hire Mr. Larson after the Journal reported in 1993 that the entrepreneur's money manager at the time had previously been convicted of bank fraud. Mr. Gates was a close friend of the money manager and already knew about the conviction, the Journal said, but began looking for someone new after the uproar.After an extensive screening process, a recruiter invited Mr. Larson to meet Mr. Gates. The money manager had worked for a mergers-and-acquisitions firm and run bond funds for Putnam Investments, now a subsidiary of Canadian insurer Great-West Lifeco, Inc., before striking out on his own.The two men hit it off. Mr. Gates was impressed by Mr. Larson's self-assured yet low-key personality, people familiar with Mr. Gates's thinking say.After taking the job, Mr. Larson decided to go "off the radar," says Roger McNamee, a co-founder of Elevation Partners, a Silicon Valley firm that was an early investor in Facebook Inc. He says Mr. Larson believed a low profile was the best way to approach such high-profile investing following the bad publicity about his predecessor.Mr. Larson farms out more than $10 billion in assets at any given time to roughly 25 outside money managers, partly as a way to drum up new investment ideas. The outsiders aren't told any nonpublic details about the size of Mr. Gates's portfolio or its holdings, people familiar with the matter say.A news release announcing last year's acquisition of the Ritz-Carlton in San Francisco, a neoclassical gem in Nob Hill, identified only Cascade's co-investor in the $161 million purchase. A publicist for the Charles Hotel said she had no idea Mr. Gates is a co-owner of the hotel."It's an extraordinary tribute to Michael that if you think about Bill Gates and his reputation, you never hear about Cascade," Mr. McNamee says.Married with three children, Mr. Larson prefers Levi's jeans and dark pink shirts. Some current and former employees say he can be brusque and controlling, even deciding the seating chart for the investment firm's annual holiday party.James Floyd, chief investment officer at Claremont McKenna College, a liberal-arts school in California from which Mr. Larson graduated in 1980, says he is "brutally honest, but in a refreshing way. You know exactly where you stand with him." Mr. Larson advises the college's investment committee.Cascade employees are expected to be frugal. Even though Mr. Gates owns nearly half of the Four Seasons Holding Inc. luxury-hotel chain through Cascade, the investment firm's executives stay at less-expensive hotels, even when traveling on Four Seasons business.The $3.8 billion acquisition with Saudi Arabia's Prince Alwaleed bin Talal came in 2007 near the real-estate market's peak."There's a symbolic value to continually reminding their partners that Four Seasons is a financial investment, not an ego investment," says Philip Maritz, co-founder and president of hotel investment firm Maritz, Wolff & Co. He sold the Four Seasons in Houston to Cascade last year.Mr. Larson also is known as a golf nut who enjoys networking more than working on his backswing. People who know him say he puts immense value on personal relationships, cultivating them with an intensity that can feel tiring.He attends Allen & Co.'s big-name conference in Sun Valley, Idaho, with Mr. Gates.Bill and Melinda Gates also attend Mr. Larson's daylong round-table discussion held every December in Cascade's conference room. Invited high rollers from the finance and corporate worlds discuss themes and topics for the year ahead. Recent guests include Liberty Media Corp. Chairman John Malone, TPG co-founder David Bonderman andEdward Lampert, the hedge-fund manager who is CEO of Sears Holding Corp.Cascade has grown to roughly 100 employees, compared with 1,200 at the Gates Foundation. Mr. Larson likes to hire recent Claremont McKenna graduates. Employees are discouraged from using Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and other social media—and from sending email from their work accounts to outsiders who aren't business partners.In 2009, Mr. Larson dispatched a 25-year-old Cascade employee to negotiate the purchase of multimillion-dollar mansions in Jupiter Island, Fla., hoping the firm could squeeze bargains out of homeowners burned by Bernard L. Madoff's massive Ponzi scheme, people familiar with the matter say.The employee was told to say he worked for a Cascade subsidiary called Front Range Investment Holdings LLC, not Cascade or Mr. Gates, these people say. The employee nailed down the purchase of one mansion for $5 million, real-estate records show. It was on the market for $12 million in 2008.Front Range is described on the deed that recorded the purchase as a Colorado limited liability company, and other public records include an address at a post-office in Kirkland, Wash., where Cascade is based.Online real-estate firm Zillow Inc. estimates that the four-bedroom, nearly 12,000-square-foot "European villa" with a private dock is now worth $6.4 million. The mansion is for sale for about $5.3 million. Cascade is willing to walk away with a small profit.http://uds.ak.o.brightcove.com/47628783001/47628783001_4586448579001_4586439397001.mp4Sources: https://www.ft.com/content/ce87f48a-7208-11e5-9b9e-690fdae72044This Man's Job: Make Bill Gates Richer

The answer to the question as asked is clearly “yes”.I will answer a more interesting question: “Did US LNG exports already reshape the global energy market?”I argue the answer to that is also clearly yes.Let's talk about the energy market of 2011 and a company named Cheniere as a starting point.Please note the below is NOT 100% fact checked, but it is reasonably accurate. It is my personal work and has not been published.Title: Cheniere Energy; Paradigm breaker; World ChangerIn 2011, Cheniere Energy had a 2 billion dollar facility, no customer activity, and barely enough take or pay contracts to keep the doors open. From $40 a share in late 2007 Cheniere stock slid to $1.12 in late 2008. The solution they rolled out in Q4 2011 was a game changer that broke the mold on the LNG business, and may have influenced Saudi Arabia’s decision to drastically cut the price of crude oil from $100/barrel. That, in turn, has changed the geopolitics of the world.In order to understand the significance of Cheniere’s actions, it is first important to understand what the liquid natural gas market (LNG) was like prior to 2012. Qatar was the market share leader: Qatar had blazed the way in the global LNG market; they were also a member of OPEC. As the first mover, Qatar established a price of LNG linked to the price of oil and based on the energy content of oil. On a per mmBtu basis, Qatar’s contracts valued LNG approximately 10% less than oil. This was low enough to attract buyers, but not so low as to encourage major oil to LNG conversion and thus threaten its fellow OPEC members. Further Qatar put in place a self-imposed production limit on their gas field. On a per capita basis Qatar had become the wealthiest country in the world by selling LNG and had no desire to see the market damaged by raising production.By 2011 in Australia there were 2 operational LNG export terminals; and approximately $80 billion worth of additional LNG supply projects had successfully achieved FID (final investment decision). As the $80 billion in major projects is reaching 100% operational in 2018/2019 Australia either has already or is on the verge of overtaken Qatar as the world's largest LNG exporter. The business model for Austrailia's LNG export projects assumed oil-linked pricing, with oil prices well above the $30-$50/barrel price typical of the market from 2015 to 2017. The Australia based projects all followed Qatar’s pricing lead and priced LNG at a small discount to oil a per mmBtu basis.So in 2011 the LNG market had been growing for decades and $80 billion in projects were either under-construction or soon to be so in Australia alone. The oil-linked model was both well established and the foundation the entire global LNG industry was built upon. But, given the pricing method, LNG was more of a small specialty offshoot of the oil market than it was a standalone market of its own.In the meantime, in 2009, Cheniere had begun exploring its options as related to becoming a US based LNG exporter. What it still lacked was long term customers and the significant capital needed to build $12 billion worth of LNG production trains. It is unknown how the sales process went, but it is likely potential buyers in 2009 and 2010 would have had no enthusiasm to signing up for contracts similar to what Australian based suppliers had been selling for 5+ years. Australia was closer and the Australian project principals included oil and gas giants such as Chevron, Total, Exxonmobil, and Shell, so buyers’ risk was low.In 2011 Cheniere was a little known company with:FERC (US Federal Government) approval to convert its LNG import terminal to an export terminal;no track record of LNG production;no LNG production facilities with which to make LNG;no LNG export contracts or SPAs (sales and purchase agreements);was on the other side of the world with corresponding high shipping costs (and shipping LNG is expensive);no financial resources to pull off construction of the massively expensive multi-billion dollar LNG infrastructure needed to become a major LNG producer.That all changed with 4 blockbuster announcements:Oct 26, 2011 - BG Group’s subsidiary, BG Gulf Coast LNG, LLC signed a 20-year SPANov 21, 2011 - gasNatural fenosa signed a 20-year SPAJan 30, 2012 - Kogas signed a 20-year SPAMay 15, 2012 - Cheniere announced $2B worth of outside investment. $1.5B of that was provided by Blackstone.The SPAs on their own were significant; over the 20 year life they had approximately $10B worth of take or pay guarantees in each contract and another $10B worth of variable transactional costs. Thus those 3 contracts represented approximately $60 billion worth of revenue for Cheniere spread-out over 20 years. Just signing them was an amazing achievement.But the structure of the SPAs was novel and the focus of Cheniere’s paradigm breaking go-to-market strategy. Cheniere effectively formed a members only club (much like Costco); for a fixed monthly fee, Cheniere agreed to sell the buyers the world’s cheapest LNG and dramatically so. The LNG wouldn’t be valued at its energy content at all. Instead it was going to be priced based on Cheniere’s cost of goods sold plus a 15% markup to cover its variable operational expense related to making the LNG.Thus there is little or no profit in the LNG transactions enabled by the 20-year SPAs. Cheniere’s fixed expenses, including depreciation and interest), and most of the profit comes out of the fixed monthly fees.Further, since Cheniere’s key offerings were focused exclusively on LNG, they located their facility close to Henry Hub (HH) in the USA along the Gulf Coast. Henry Hub is widely recognized as the offering the world’s best combination of natural gas availability and low cost. Look ahead 5 years from 2012 to 2017 and Cheniere was already the single largest consumer of natural gas in the US. Being located close to HH has made it relatively easy to bring in the needed feed gas without having to spend billions on pipeline infrastructure. By year end 2017, Cheniere was bringing in approximately 3 BCF/day of feed gas, or approximately 4% of total US natural gas production. By the end of 2018, they should be bringing in almost 4.5 BCF/day of feed gas between their Louisiana and Texas facilities. And approximately 5 bcf/day by the end of 2019.For a sense of scale, 1 bcf/day can fuel 8 large 1 GW power plants, thus by the end of 2019 Cheniere alone will be exporting enough LNG to fuel 80 1 GW power plants globally.Hopefully by now you’re wondering what it costs to join the Cheniere family and earn the right to buy some of the world’s cheapest LNG? BG (now a part of Shell) was the first to join the Cheniere family and they got family privileges for just $35 million per month (or $420 million per year). Kogas, as the last of the first group of 3 family members had to pay $45 million per month (or $540 million per year). These contracts are rock solid so once they joined the family, they have no contractual way back out for 20 years. All 3 of those contracts are now fully in place. BG’s 20-years started in November 2016; Kogas’s in June 2017, and gasNatural fenosa’s in August 2017.There are now over a dozen members of the Cheniere family and over $150B worth of contracts. The family memberships come with a maximum amount of annual LNG purchases associated with them. Cheniere often takes the annual fixed fee and divides it by the maximum allowed LNG purchase by each family member and reports that as the tolling fee. As the last of the original 3 to sign, Kogas has a $3/mmBtu tolling fee. The 8 subsequent Cheniere family members have tolling fees of either $3/mmBtu or $3.50/mmBtu. I argue that it is much more useful to think about the contracts as I described them: a large club membership fee and the world's cheapest LNG as a benefit of membership.To understand why that was such a game changer and why Cheniere was able to sign 11 multi-billion dollar contracts in just a few years (2011-2013), let’s compare the all in cost of Kogas with the price of LNG bought under traditional oil-linked contracts:In 2006-2008, Henry Hub natural gas was roughly $7/mmBtu and oil had a base around $60/barrel. There are ~5.75 mmBtu/barrel, so $60/barrel is roughly $10.50/mmBtu for crude oil, but that was the start of the US fracking revolution that dropped the price of natural gas at Henry Hub in half. By 2011, Henry Hub was $3.50-$4.00/mmBtu and crude oil was consistently over $100/barrel, or consistently over $17/mmBtu. The energy value in US natural gas versus oil was obvious with oil being over 4 times as expensive per mmBtu, but US natural gas could only be sold in North America.But it was a US local situation. OPEC and other global oil producers gladly ignored the exploding US natural gas production. In Asia in particular, LNG was still almost exclusively being sold on oil-linked contracts and those contracts typically valued LNG at approximately 90% of the cost of oil on a per mmBtu basis.When Kogas signed on the dotted line with Cheniere, the world of new Austrailian/Asian LNG plants came to an abrupt stop. Henry Hub in early 2012 was approximately $3/mmBtu. Using the artificial tolling fee concept, the new Cheniere Kogas contract was for (HH * 115% + $3)/mmBtu FOB, or $6.50/mmBtu at the dock at Cheniere’s dock in Louisiana. Transport rates to South Korea were about $2.50, so they had an all in cost of LNG of $9/mmBtu. At that time, oil-linked contracts were being delivered in Asia at $16-$20/mmBtu.From 2012 to 2017 almost all new 20-year multi-billion dollar SPAs globally had a US LNG producer as the seller. Counter examples exist, but neither Qatar nor Australia saw new LNG facility reach FID (final investment decision) in those 5 years. At the same time 15 multi-billion dollar LNG trains achieved FID in those 5 year in the US.Think about that for a minute. The LNG contracts Cheniere took to the world in late 2011/early 2012 were approximately at a 50% discount to global LNG rates at the time! And Cheniere was willing to sign huge contracts of roughly $20B per contract. Only potential fellow US LNG producers were willing to compete on the same price basis as Cheniere went to market with.OPEC and other global oil producers all ignored this new market player (the US) selling energy at half the price per mmBtu that they were delivering. The reality was there was very little displacement of oil by natural gas globally so what did OPEC have to fear.That may have started to change in 2013 when China’s ENN Energy Holdings Group was provided $150 million to build out a LNG fueling infrastructure in China. By September 2014, Shell was reporting China had 100,000 LNG fueled trucks in operation. It was the fastest growing market for natural gas fueled vehicles in the world at the time (and still is). A 2014 industry report from a Chinese company stated the five year plan called for 12,000 LNG stations by 2020. By June 2015, a Shell executive stated there were 330,000 LNG trucks on the road in China and they expected it to triple by 2020. China produces roughly 50% of the LNG it uses directly in transportation and industry domestically, but the other 50% of LNG it consumes directly as LNG comes from imports. Another way to look at that is 80% of the LNG China imports at its various import terminals is regassified and pushed into the national natural gas pipeline, but 20% of the LNG in 2016 was kept in LNG form and delivered to the final consumer via truck.China’s main driver might have been pollution avoidance, but it certainly didn’t hurt that LNG as sold by Cheniere was 50% the cost of oil per mmBtu, and at the same time diesel was approximately $30/mmBtu at retail fueling centers in the US, or over 3 times the cost of LNG from Cheniere.In 2012 approximately 37% of China’s oil consumption was used for diesel, but diesel demand was flat in 2013-2015 and actually fell 5% in 2016 to be 30% of China’s oil consumption. China was one of the few oil demand growth centers in the world. The aggressive adoption of CNG/LNG for truck fuel in China was obviously a threat that keen observers at OPEC would have been aware of in 2014.We are all aware of the Saudi Arabia push in November 2014 to have OPEC countries allow production to increase in order to “preserve market share”. There has been an almost universal interpretation of that statement that Saudi was primarily concerned with US oil companies using fracking technology to increase production.Immediately after the drastic 2014 drop in price of crude oil, China is said to have significantly slowed its rollout of LNG fueled trucks. (Other sources claim it remains aggressive at 60% increase per year. [http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2017/03/24/diesel-demand-china-falling-petroleum-exports/]With the above knowledge in hand, it is clear that in fall 2014 Saudi would have been aware of:Cheniere’s marketplace success with LNG priced at half the price per mmBtu of oilThe Chinese sourcing of LNG for transportation partially coming from imported LNGChina’s threat to domestic diesel usage from natural gas fueled trucks (and lower prices would have only exacerbated the situation)I argue that given the above, Saudi’s fall 2014 actions to “protect market share” were not exclusively aimed at US frackers, but instead also targeted the ongoing globalization of the LNG trade as well, and in particular targeted Cheniere and other US LNG producers ongoing successful sales of 20-year LNG contracts.In 2018 it’s not only US LNG that is being priced at Henry Hub. Anadarko Petroleum has signed deals to sell LNG from gas discoveries off the coast of Mozambique at Henry Hub prices (per Anadarko executive vice-president Mitch Ingram).Thus we have these facts which in my mind argue strongly that the US LNG producers started massively disrupting energy markets in 2014:A two pronged attack against diesel in China - domestic LNG production + Cheniere aggressively in the 2014 market and drastically dropping the cost of imported LNG on new contractsOPEC (and Saudi in particular) faced losing significant parts of China’s diesel consumption in the 2014 timeframeOPEC / Saudi simultaneously being hit by US oil frackersCrude oil pricing eventually dropped to $30/barrel. On a per mmBtu basis 25% below Cheniere’s go to market priceLong term LNG SPA signings stop - almost none in 2015–2017. Ie. Almost none since the Saudi led crude oil price dropThe market is rebalancing, but since 2014 diesel has become “evil”Volkswagon diesel debacleParis, Athens, Madrid, Mexico City announce plans to ban diesel from the inner city by 2025. CNG/LNG are the most realistic replacement fuelsThe 2 Los Angeles ports enacted strict emissions regulations that diesel engines very likely won’t be able to meetUN Maritime committee put in place 2020 emissions regulations that are driving LNG usageGeopolitical effectsMiddle east countries losing access to windfall oil profitsVenezuela falling apartNew Australian LNG projects no longer competitiveRussia pipelines prices forced to drop prices nearly 50% and consider losing EU clients due to their political handling of gas supply

In a free market economy, their should be no reason that Tesla would not be able to sell directly to its customers. However, some states have franchise laws that prohibit direct sales of cars and only allow cars to be sold by dealerships.Tesla uses the direct sales model to reduce costs and the hassle of the buying experience. Anyone who has purchased an ICE vehicle knows what I mean by the hassle of the buying experience.Here is some added information on on direct sales by state:States with total direct sales bansNew Mexico (also bans service centers)In January 2019, the Public Affairs Committee approved the Tesla-friendly Senate Bill 243, but it died on the Senate Corporations and Transportation Committee calendar. House Bill 294 died in the House Commerce and Economic Development Committee.Alabama (also bans service centers)Alabama regards manufacturer-owned new motor vehicle stores and service centers as "unfair and deceptive trade practices".In August 2016 State Senator Tom Whatley introduced Senate Bill 22, assigned to the Senate Tourism and Marketing Committee, which would allow a manufacturer of alternative fuel vehicles to sell and lease its vehicles directly to the public. The bill died in committee.South Carolina (also bans service centers)South Carolina bans manufacturer ownership of new car dealerships and manufacturer service/repair of cars they do not own. A bill was introduced in 2019 to allow electric only manufacturers to sell in the state. However, Tesla does offer mobile service in the state.LouisianaLouisiana enacted a law in June 2017 that bans direct to consumer sales of vehicles. A service center is planned in New Orleans.TexasTexas enacted laws make it illegal to buy a car from Tesla in person, at a Tesla Gallery. Thus, all Texas orders are taken via the internet or over the phone. Texas residents can still easily buy a car from Tesla, but the purchase is handled as an out-of-state transaction and must be completed before the vehicle ships to Texas. Tesla recently added the ability to include tax, title, license, and registration in the sale price of the car so the purchaser doesn't have to pay that separately once they receive the vehicle. In 2015, Tesla lobbied the Texas Legislature to modify the law to allow Tesla to sell directly to consumers, and specifically allow Tesla employees to discuss "financing, leasing, or purchasing options" at the firm's existing galleries in Austin, Dallas, and Houston.Texas considered legislation in 2015 to allow Tesla to operate in the state but legislation was not passed.As of 2016, most of the GOP delegates support direct sales while Governor Abbott prefers the current system. According to Texans for Public Justice, Tesla spent $1.3m on lobbyists while dealerships spent $1m.ConnecticutConnecticut does not allow manufacturer direct sales, but does allow direct leasing. Tesla operated a gallery in Greenwich that the Connecticut Automotive Retailers Association successfully got shut down via a lawsuit. In March 2018, Tesla was appealing a ruling that they operate the Greenwich gallery as an unlicensed dealership, but later dropped the appeal. The gallery was shut down in March 2019.In December 2019, Tesla started offering leases at their showrooms which allowed them to provide test drives for customers discussing leases.In 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 bills were introduced in the legislature to allow licensing electric vehicle manufacturers as dealers.West VirginiaWest Virginia does not allow Tesla-owned stores or showrooms.In January 2019, House Bill 2219 was introduced that would allow a manufacturer to be licensed and operate as a new motor vehicle dealer if the company is ZEV-only and manufacturing since 2008.WisconsinAuto manufacturers are not allowed to sell directly to the public under Wisconsin law.In late 2017 a legislative bill named "Electric Vehicle Freedom Act" was introduced to allow only electric vehicle manufactures to sell directly. The bill is opposed by the Wisconsin Automobile Dealers & Truck Association.NebraskaNebraska prohibits auto manufacturer direct sales, but Legislative Bill 830 was introduced in 2018 in an attempt to change the law.There is a new bill being pushed into Legislation from Vargas again. LB51 - Change license applications, prohibited acts, and franchise restrictions under the Motor Vehicle Industry Regulation Act. On January 8th, 2020 - Title printed. Carryover bill.OklahomaOklahoma currently bans direct sales by auto manufacturers, but legislation was introduced in February 2018 to attempt to allow it.States with limited salesVirginia(2 stores, unclear if more would be denied)[edit]In Virginia Tesla has obtained license from the (DMV) for a single direct sales dealership (Tysons Corner). Upon learning of Tesla's attempt to obtain a second dealership in the state, the Virginia Automobile Dealers Association filed a lawsuit in March 2016 against both Tesla and the DMV to prevent the licensing of the second dealership.In September 2016, the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (VDMV) recommended ending Tesla direct sales, as at least 11 dealerships were interested in selling Tesla vehicles.The VDMV later allowed Tesla to open another shop (Richmond), as Tesla has no dealerships to compete against; the 11 interested dealerships would not be able to compete on undiscounted prices, as Tesla has the same price online and in shops.Third-party profits could come from servicing as is traditional, but Tesla already has satisfactory servicing.The Virginia Automobile Dealers Association continues to use the legal system in an attempt to prevent Tesla from opening more than a single store and appealed the ruling by the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles allowing the second store to be open. However, in June 2019 a judge in the Richmond Circuit Court ruled against the Dealers Association.The Dealers Association also had state Senators remove a governor-appointed Tesla employee from the Motor Vehicle Dealer Board, created in 1995, that regulates car dealers in the state.Ohio(3 store limit)In December 2013, days before Tesla was to open its first store in Ohio, a one line amendment to a draft bill was proposed at the urging of the Ohio Automobile Dealers Association that would have prevented Tesla from selling directly to the public in the state. This amendment was dropped a day later.A group of auto dealers then sued the state to try to get Tesla's license rescinded. This suit was dismissed less than two months later. Shortly thereafter a legislative bill was introduced that would ban all manufacturers from owning dealerships, not just those with existing frachisees.A deal reached between Tesla and the Ohio Automobile Dealers Association in March 2014 allowed Tesla to have three stores but blocks all other auto manufacturers. The Ohio Senate approved the bill in April.New Jersey(4 store limit)On March 10, 2014, it was announced that New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission and Governor Chris Christie's administration held a meeting to pass a new proposal into law. This new proposal, PRN 2013-138, was announced one day before it was to be put into law. Tesla responded by saying that the proposal "seeks to impose stringent licensing rules that would, among other things, require all new motor vehicles to be sold through middlemen and block Tesla's direct sales model," and that "[Governor Christie's] Administration has decided to go outside the legislative process by expediting a rule proposal that would completely change the law in New Jersey."The law was passed, and "Tesla will no longer be able to sell electric cars in New Jersey, effective April 1". Diarmuid O'Connell, Tesla Vice President of Business Development, said, "Worse, it has done so without any reasonable notice or even a public hearing."Forbes contributor Mark Rogosky said, "The state's new rules protect its auto dealers from having to compete with Tesla's direct sales model"; he points out that this is a direct contrast from what Christie said earlier, "We are for a free-market society that allows your effort and ingenuity to determine your success, not the cold, hard hand of the government." Kevin Roberts, a spokesman for the Christie administration, responded by saying "it was the [Tesla Motors] company, not the governor's office, that was attempting to bypass normal procedures.".In March 2015, a new state law was signed allowing zero-emission vehicle manufacturers to sell at up to four location and require a minimum of 1 service center.2018 session Senate bill No. 3493 was introduced to increased the number of allowed sales locations to 14 by 2023, but increases the mandated retail service facilities to seven. It died in committee.In September 2019, the New Jersey auto dealers association, the New Jersey Coalition of Automotive Retailers, sued Tesla and the state to stop Tesla from selling cars by its current methods in the state.Maryland(4 store limit)In May 2015, Maryland approved, through House Bill 235, direct Tesla sales to customers beginning in October 2015, though limiting the statewide number of stores to only four. The legislation was crafted specifically for Tesla and allows only four manufacturers of electric or non-fossil fuel burning vehicles without existing franchisees to be licensed to sell direct to the public.Pennsylvania (5 store limit)Pennsylvania enacted a law in 2014 that allows Tesla to open up to five stores.New York (5 store limit)In 2014, New York banned direct sales but grandfathered in five Tesla stores. Tesla operates two galleries in addition to its five stores.There is proposed legislation (Senate bill S6600A and Assembly bill A8248A) to allow more stores. The Eastern New York Coalition of Automotive Retailers is opposed to this as is the Rochester Automobile Dealers Association.Georgia (5 store limit)Since 2015, Georgia law no longer restricts Tesla to 150 car sales per year but limits sales to five locations.North Carolina (6 store limit)Tesla's first store in North Carolina was in Raleigh. In 2016 the state would not grant Tesla a dealer license for a second location in Charlotte. A previous legislative bill that would allow six Tesla stores was shelved in 2017.In July 2019 a bill was passed allowing Tesla to operate a maximum of six stores, unlimited galleries and repair centers.States for which Tesla gained the right to mostly unrestricted direct sales:New Hampshire (2013 law change)In 2013, New Hampshire passed legislation to allow auto manufacturers with no existing franchise dealer in the state to engage in direct sales.Minnesota (2013 law interpretation)The Minnesota Department of Public Safety ruled in 2013 that the original dealer law "does not prohibit a manufacturer from becoming licensed as a dealer in Minnesota".The dealership association in the state failed in their attempt to get the law changed to block Tesla.Washington (2014 law)A 2014 Washington state law outlawed direct sales but grandfathered in Tesla.Massachusetts (2014 court ruling)After an almost two year court battle with the Massachusetts State Automobile Dealers Association, a September 2014 ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court allowed Tesla to begin selling directly in the state. The court ruled the law only protected franchise dealers from abuse by manufacturers they already buy from; since no franchise dealers were selling Teslas at the time of the suit, the court ruled the Association had no standing to sue.Missouri (2017 court ruling)A Missouri circuit court ruled in August 2016 to end direct sales, confirmed in late December 2016, and delayed in early January while the Missouri Department of Revenue appeals the former verdict.]In December 2017 an appeals court reversed the circuit court's decision, saying the Missouri Automobile Dealers Association did not have standing to sue. However, the Dealers Association is backing new legislation that would allow it to sue.Wyoming (2017 law change)Wyoming banned direct sales until a law change in 2017 that created a direct sale manufacturer's license.Electric cars were seen as a way to promote the use of coal mined in the state.Arizona (2017 court ruling)Arizona blocked direct sales until June 2017 when an administrative law judge ruled that the Arizona Department of Transportation interpreted the law incorrectly. This was after a years-long legal battle by Tesla.Indiana (2017 law change)Indiana allows a service center and manufacturer sales for 30 months, ending direct Tesla sales by the end of 2017. A legislative proposal had further restrictions, opposed by Tesla.The Roads and Transportation committee approved a modification that grandfathered Tesla, but maintained the ban on all new direct sales by other automakers.Rhode Island (2017)In December 2017, Tesla was granted a license by the state of Rhode Island after DMV lawyers concluded that the law blocking direct auto sales only applied to manufactures that have franchise dealers. Tesla planned to begin sales in 2018 in Warwick, but this was pushed back to 2019.Utah (2018 law change)As of March 21, 2018, Utah Governor Herbert signed a bill into law allowing Tesla direct sales in the state.Michigan (2020 legal settlement)After a change of political leadership in Michigan's executive branch, on January 22, 2020, Tesla and the state of Michigan agreed to settle Tesla's 2016 federal lawsuit against the state for unfair vehicle sales and service restrictions. The agreement allows Tesla to sell and service cars within the state. Previously Tesla could not sell or service vehicles in Michigan. Tesla may deliver vehicles within the state, but they must be titled outside of Michigan and transferred to a new title after purchase. Tesla may not own a service center directly, but a wholly owned subsidiary may own a service centeColorado (2020 law change)Tesla opened its first and only Colorado store in Boulder in 2009. A 2010 revision to the state dealership law removed the word "franchised". This closed the loophole that Tesla had used to open a direct dealership but grandfathered in the existing singleThis limitation was supported by the Colorado Automobile Dealers Association.The store moved from Boulder to the Park Meadows shopping mall in Lone Tree in 2011. Showrooms/galleries have since been opened in Aspen, Vail, and the Cherry Creek Shopping Center in Denver, though these have since closed. There is a service center in Denver and a service center and showroom in Littleton. A large service center and store was built in Superior, Colorado in Boulder County, targeted for spring 2019 opening,, and opened in February 2020.A bill to allow direct sales died in the House in 2019, for which the Colorado Auto Dealers Association claimed credit. 2006 New Mexico Statutes, Section 57-16-5-V prohibits manufacturers like Tesla to be licensed as a dealer, directly or indirectly performing warranty or other services. Despite Tesla owners' pleas to change the law, they still currently depend on out-of-state centers such as Arizona and Colorado for Tesla sales and services.Hope you find this information useful.