All cars use more energy to climb hills. If you'd like to factor that into your Tesla planning, check out https://evtripplanner.com/ -- It shows the Vacaville/Truckee segment as taking 173 rated miles to cover 130 actual miles.
Of course, this will impact all cars, though I find only a few MPG difference in our vehicles driving up to the ski resorts around Tahoe.
One curious thing I've noticed is that my relatively-high-Torque-and-HP car with a manual transmission gets almost the same mileage on flat ground versus going up and down mountain ranges, assuming there's no net elevation gain.
My girlfriend's fairly underpowered Subaru with a 4 speed automatic does significantly worse in the hills than it does on flat ground.
Also interestingly, the Tesla should get significantly better mileage in thinner air (on flat ground) where a gas-engined car has to deal with less air to burn which balances out the lower wind resistance.
Would also be interesting to see how the elevation change would affect a tesla at net 0. Say, drive from Sacramento to Truckee and back; I think the range should be plenty.
Thats only true if you have an old carbureted car that requires turning a screw under the hood to adjust the air-fuel mixture. Modern cars measure the amount of O2 in the exhaust and adjust the mixture to keep the moles-of-O2 to moles-of-gasoline ratio roughly fixed.
The thinner air means you have to open the throttle wider to achieve the same manifold pressure, which in turn means that with the throttle wide-open, the engine will produce less power. But the thinner air should have no effect on the amount of gas you need to burn to achieve a particular amount of power.
[Edit: you can think about it this way: A 89 MPGe Tesla Model S going up a steep hill at only 44 MPGe is still twice as efficient as a 20 MPG SUV driving on the flat.]