News
Tesla’s Battery Strategy Receives Little Discussion, But It Should
Tesla released news last month that its new Roadster battery pack upgrade would use cells manufactured by South Korea-based LG Chem, instead of Panasonic, its long-standing battery cell provider and investor in the Gigafactory.
The automotive media riffed on a possible “controversy” between Panasonic and Tesla Motors, as it headed into 2016. After all, LG Chem sells batteries to a lot of companies notably GM for its Volt and upcoming Bolt vehicle.
Tesla Model S P85 battery pack
Last year, Forbes was drooling over the “holygrail” of batteries from Ann Arbor, Michigan-based Sakti3 and its solid state lithium battery. The article hyped possible breakthroughs for the EV industry, such as a $100 / kWh battery cells, but mainly touched on its application towards consumer products. Soon after, U.K. vacuum maker Dyson announced its plan to purchase the battery startup for $90 million to help commercialize the battery technology for consumer purposes.
What gets lost in the post-Model X reveal and Autopilot frenzy is that Tesla’s battery strategy is spot on, much like that of Nissan’s partnership with NEC (also known as Automotive Energy Supply Company). The way to shave cell and battery pack costs in 2015, and going forward, is vertical manufacturing for lithium-ion battery chemistry. And, this seems to get lost lately with all the talk around self-driving vehicles and forward guidance on sales numbers.
GM Strides
During Tesla's latest earning's call, Musk and JB Straubel commented on the recent claim by GM that they would have an "industry-leading" $145 per kWh cell cost.
Musk said:
“I mean we're constantly agonizing about cell cost and pack cost, and we don't think anyone is on a path to be even close to us. If they are, I would be the first to congratulate them.”
Sounds like confidence with his team and battery strategy, and it resonates with me. Battery chemistry break-throughs for automotive use seems to be a long way off, with most new battery materials still being tested in the lab and no pilots really anywhere.
Argonne National Laboratory, outside of Chicago, recently released the “mid-term” results of its battery program to create “a game-changing next generation battery to transform the transportation sector” but there’s nothing on the cusp for advancement in battery chemistry. Their R&D has given insight to how dendrites behave, and how batteries degrade over time, but no breakthroughs on battery chemistry half-way through its five year study.
Getting back to Tesla, they hired lithium-ion battery researcher and professor Jeff Dahn, from Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia earlier this year. According to Fortune, Dahn is currently working on a project funded by 3M and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada to develop longer-lasting, lower cost lithium-ion battery cells. Dahn will joint Tesla Motors in June of 2016.
The race is on to make lithium-ion cheaper but it sure doesn’t look like there’s any “other” battery chemistry on the backstretch. While the battery breakthrough hype has died down, it comes down to two automakers (maybe GM too) committed to reducing battery costs by vertically integrating it into their manufacturing footprint. To my knowledge some automakers haven’t committed yet, like Volkswagen and Toyota. Wonder how that will play out?
Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new rules that the Trump Administration is aiming to enforce on autonomous vehicles. On Thursday, NHTSA, under the Trump Administration’s U.S. Department of Transportation, commenced rulemaking on the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).
This effort aims to eliminate the mandate for manual brake pedals in vehicles that are designed to be driven exclusively by automated driving systems. This would impact the Tesla Cybercab, which the company has stated would operate without a steering wheel or pedals.
Tesla Cybercab launch is imminent after latest sighting at Giga Texas
The Trump Administration is looking to revise FMVSS No. 135, which requires standard braking systems on light-duty vehicles.
Currently, the regulation requires light-duty cars to use traditional manual braking systems that allow operators to slow the vehicle. With the advent of self-driving in the U.S., these regulations need updating, and these are the changes that could come to FMVSS No. 135:
- Removes requirements for hand- or foot-operated brake controls for vehicles designed never to be operated by a human. Existing rules still apply to AVs that retain manual controls.
- All subject vehicles must still meet the same stopping distance performance criteria via alternative testing procedures.
- While this update ensures AVs can physically stop when commanded, NHTSA is separately developing safety performance requirements for AVs in real-world driving scenarios.
- NHTSA will continue to use its broad defect enforcement authority to investigate unsafe ADS behavior and oversee recalls.
As autonomy becomes a greater part of passenger travel, these types of rule adjustments will be more than reasonable. It will give manufacturers the ability to self-certify their vehicles and avoid any red tape that could ultimately delay the deployment of these vehicles.
Administrators are also incredibly excited about the opportunity to play a role in the advancement of self-driving vehicles.
“We are at the cusp of the greatest technological revolution in vehicle technology since the innovation of the Model T,” NHTSA Administrator Jonathan Morrison said. “If we want America to lead the way, we have to reimagine our regulatory framework. That’s why under Secretary Sean Duffy’s AV Framework, NHTSA is tearing down pointless barriers to innovative designs while strengthening the fundamental safety requirements that matter and holding AV developers accountable for safe performance.”
The Cybercab entered mass production at Gigafactory Texas in April. Tesla ultimately plans to push the vehicle into its Robotaxi fleet, potentially when frameworks like these are established.
Tesla plans to boost production at its Gigafactory Berlin plant in Germany following a sharp rebound in sales and demand in Europe after a softer 2025.
The plans put Tesla in a better position to compete with strengthening companies in Europe and potentially other markets; demand indicators show Tesla is much better off than in 2025.
Last year was a tough year for Tesla in terms of overall demand in Europe. The company produced over 200,000 vehicles at the German plant last year, a soft figure compared to the 375,000 vehicles Tesla lists as its current capacity at the factory.
🚨 Tesla said this morning it will ramp up production at Gigafactory Berlin to a volume of 7,500 vehicles per week.
This is a 20 percent boost in production. Tesla will hire 1,000 new employees to help with the increase.$TSLA pic.twitter.com/kravKfRO5n
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 25, 2026
Tesla’s overall European sales dropped significantly last year due to a variety of factors. However, sales are rebounding, and demand is strong once again, and only getting stronger. Tesla is now planning to bump production of Model Y vehicles at Giga Berlin upward by about 20 percent. It will also bring 1,000 new jobs to the plant.
Tesla confirmed the details of its planned production expansion in Germany this morning. It is a strategy to keep up with strengthening demand.
In Q1, Tesla saw a record 61,000 vehicles produced at Giga Berlin. European registrations rebounded sharply, with Model Y seeing 117 percent increases in March 2026 compared to last year. Germany alone saw stark increases, with a quadrupling in registrations to 9,252 units.
This trend continued in other key European markets, including France, Denmark and Sweden. Tesla registrations were up over 46 percent in some of these markets, and Model Y continued its trend as a top BEV in the market.
Demand has been recovering strongly in 2026, giving Tesla a reason to expand production efforts at the factory. These increases signal management’s confidence in sustained or growing European pull for Berlin-built vehicles.
Tesla is being sued by the family of the woman who was killed in a Texas crash involving a Model 3. The driver, who is also being sued, claimed the vehicle was operating on Autopilot mode, but Tesla executives have come out challenging that claim, stating that the driver of the vehicle overrode the system.
The lawsuit was filed by 76-year-old Martha Avila’s daughter and her husband, who allege a “design defect” involving a Tesla and a failure to warn. The suit alleges negligence against Tesla and the driver, Michael Butler.
Butler “stated he was operating with an automated driving assistance system engaged at the time of the crash,” the Harris County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement. He showed no signs of intoxication and was cooperative, the Sheriff’s Office said, according to NBC News.
Just after reports of the crash and numerous headlines that immediately blamed Tesla’s Autopilot suite, both Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Head of AI Ashok Elluswamy challenged that. Musk said the crash made “no sense” given that Tesla Autopilot and Full Self-Driving do not travel at the speeds the door cameras captured the car traveling at, which Tesla says was 73 MPH.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
Elluswamy also revealed that Tesla data showed Butler overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100%, and that the pedal was compressed fully even after the car had crashed. Tesla has not released this data to the public, likely because it is communicating with agencies like the NHTSA on an investigation.
The suit uses a Washington Post analysis of government data that “identified at least 17 fatal incidents linked to Tesla Autopilot.”
This is far from the first time an accident has been blamed on Autopilot. A fatal crash in Texas was blamed on Autopilot several years ago, but when Tesla released data to the NTSB, which was investigating the crash, Autopilot was not available where the crash occurred, and Autosteer was never enabled, meaning the car was manually controlled at the time of the accident.
“Application of the accelerator pedal was found to be as high as 98.8 percent,” the NTSB said in their findings. The highest recorded speed in the five seconds leading up to the impact was 67 miles per hour. The area where the crash occurred is residential, and Texas State laws… pic.twitter.com/XGD97NHVZ2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 18, 2026
More information on the accident will be released as Tesla works with agencies to find the cause of the crash. From personal experience, it is hard to imagine Tesla Autopilot or FSD operating in this manner. It drives sometimes too cautiously in residential areas in parking lots, at least in my experience. Speeding happens, but at this rate in this type of area, it is hard to believe.
We look forward to more details being released with time.
Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new Trump autonomy rules
Tesla plans production boost at Giga Berlin following rebound in Europe
