Autonomy debuted its electric vehicle subscription service in Austin, Texas, following its successful launch in California earlier in 2022 and its recent expansion into Florida and Washington. Following California and Florida, Texas is ranked third in EV registrations.
With almost 30,000 new EVs on the road between 2020 and 2021, Autonomy noted that the growth and natural demand makes Texas, “a compelling state for Autonomy to expand operations into.”
Scott Painter, founder, and CEO of Autonomy, gave a press statement emphasizing the growth of EVs in Texas.
“The EV adoption rate in Texas signals to us that there’s even more demand for EVs and more of a need for alternative ways to access one,” he said. “Today, Texas has more than 156,000 EVs on the road, with 22,122 in Travis County alone — the highest-ranking EV county in Texas. These numbers are encouraging, and we’re excited for Autonomy service to help boost EV adoption in the second-most-populous state in the country and increase EV adoption statewide.”
Austin has over 1,300 public EV chargers, with more than 500 new ones added within the last 90 days. Autonomy highlighted the city’s unique Austin Energy Plug-in EVerywhere network subscription plan that offers unlimited charging for $4.17 per month at any of its over 1,000 level 2 charging stations.
During a call with Teslarati on Wednesday, Scott Painter shared the types of EVs it will offer in Austin, along with a few additional details.
“Our fleet is predominantly Tesla Model 3s, and we have a couple of Modely Ys. Right now, we’ve got just under 2,000 cars in total in the fleet, and I think it’s about 100 Model Ys.”
“In the first quarter, we’re going to be adding VinFast, as well as Mercedes and Polestar. Those three brands are going to become part of the lineup in all of our markets.”
Scott added that he and the team at Autonomy were excited about Austin, specifically.
“Austin has a much bigger rate of EV registration rateably than everywhere else in Texas. Everywhere else in the country is sort of at about one or two percent that people are getting EVs. In Austin, it’s almost 10%.”
He added that it’s about 20% in California, but Austin and Miami are the top two cities in terms of EV registrations as a rateable number relative to non-electric vehicles.
We asked if Tesla’s move to Austin played any role in Autonomy’s decision to launch in Austin. Scott pointed out that although it did not, Tesla’s move probably played a key role in Austin’s EV registrations going up.
“Our decision was purely based on the evidence of EV registrations. I’m sure that EV registrations in Austin were influenced by Tesla’s decision to headquarter there. I think Austin feels like it owns Elon now, so, people who live in Austin feel like they should be driving the local car,” he said.
“But we’re simply making decisions based on really rational evidence that says this is the time to go to Austin.”
Scott emphasized the affordability of driving an EV versus a traditional internal combustion engine vehicle.
“I think that we could have never anticipated the kind of tailwinds that we’re seeing right now for going electric. Certainly, when gas prices go above four or five dollars a gallon, it’s undeniable. You should be driving an electric car.”
Scott noted that one could drive the same amount of miles for around one-eighth the price.
“The average American currently still gets 20 miles to the gallon and drives 1,000 miles per month. That means they’re putting $4,000+ per year into their car versus $800 per year for the same miles even in a state like California where we pay almost 20 cents a kWh for electricity.”
He also pointed out that Autonomy fills in the gaps where the cost of buying a new car, especially an EV, is becoming “unreachable” for many Americans. He also noted that many people are holding off on buying an EV because of the Inflation Reduction Act and tax credits.
“Everyone sort of thinks that, ‘I’ll just wait until the tax credit is there.’ Well, to qualify for the tax credit, you have to make a certain amount of money, and you have to buy a car that has a certain amount of all American-made products in it. So Tesla would normally fully qualify, but some of these new entrants don’t.”
Scott explained that as a fleet operator, Autonomy qualifies for all of it and is able to pass along those savings.
Disclosure: Johnna is a $TSLA shareholder and believes in Tesla’s mission.
Your feedback is welcome. If you have any comments or concerns or see a typo, you can email me at johnna@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter at @JohnnaCrider1.
Teslarati is now on TikTok. Follow us for interactive news & more. Teslarati is now on TikTok. Follow us for interactive news & more. You can also follow Teslarati on LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook.
Investor's Corner
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
