Help me understand. Are you arguing that PG (or anyone) cannot take the position that the federal government subsidizing the EV sector is good, while simultaneously taking the position that a state government caving to incumbent political pressure to pass an anti-consumer ruling is bad?

Are those two beliefs internally inconsistent in some way? Are you basically arguing that you can either believe in no government involvement, or accept government's involvement on the condition that one must abrogate the moral right to complain about its anti-consumer behavior; that there is no other consistent position to take?

Maybe I'm not understanding what exactly you are saying.

The second portion of your argument appears to be an ad hominem claim that we should disclaim PG's statements because of the possibility that he may own Tesla equity. Do you have an actual claim beyond that?