News
Adoption of Tesla’s electric truck will be driven by regulation
It’s expected that the commercial trucking industry will begin to transform in the same way that the passenger automotive industry has. Fuel efficiency has become a new priority and electrification is now the go-to plan for achieving higher MPGs in heavy trucking. In much the same way that regulations pushed trucking towards lower pollution at the expense of efficiency in the 1970s, today’s trucking paradigm is seeing a push for more efficiency. At what expense?
A new report from Ravi Shanker at Morgan Stanley urges investors to consider electric and self-driving commercial trucking as an opportunity. Shanker says that regulations and economics will drive the industry towards electrification and autonomous technologies. The analyst says that this could happen as early as 2020, which is when new federal fuel economy regulations on heavy-duty vehicles begin to really gather steam. Although efficiency gains will be had with electrification and self-driving, Shanker makes it clear that this will be secondary to the demand created by regulatory pressure.
As usual, we look to California for a glimpse of what could be coming. California’s Sustainable Freight Action Plan calls for 100,000+ zero-emissions trucks to be on the road by 2030 in that state. There is debate as to whether this plan is realistic, but federal standards are also playing a large role. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (part of the federal Department of Transportation) have proposed emissions and fuel economy standards for heavy-duty vehicles. The first of these began with the 2014 model year.
For our purposes, the regulations affecting “combination tractors” (aka “tractor-trailer” or “18 wheeler”) models are pertinent. The 2018 standards are relatively loose and most in the industry believe they are achievable, but the EPA and NHTSA have proposed further standards to begin in 2021, with incremental increases thereafter through to 2027. The goals are largely aimed towards lower CO2 emissions with reductions of about four percent (depending on the vehicle type) being the goal. The reduction is not the issue with industry insiders, however, it’s the test cycle to be used, which some argue is less realistic and which disfavors other emissions that also have requirements to be met. This Phase 2 of the federal efficiency standards for heavy trucks is not yet finalized, but will very likely be the driving force behind national changes in trucks.
Equating these changes into standard numbers that the general public would understand is difficult. Heavy-duty trucks can range in fuel efficiency from 20 mpg or better down to 2-3 mpg. For most tractor-trailer combinations, MPG averages of 4-9 mpg are the norm, depending on load, tractor type, and area of operation. Most analysts calculate efficiency using fuel use in tons per mile with a relatively long distance (100-500 miles) being the average. Using this method, for example, in my time driving a tractor pulling a refrigerated trailer across all 48 states, my fuel economy average was about average for that sector of the industry at roughly 60 ton-miles per gallon. Today, these numbers are slightly higher, according to the latest U.S. Transportation Energy book. Using this method of calculation, a 2015 Toyota Prius is about a third as efficient at moving freight as was my truck.
This doesn’t mean there isn’t room for improvement, of course. There are more companies than Tesla working towards deleting the smoke stacks from big trucks.
In Europe, Volvo trucks is working hard towards a zero-emissions (at the tailpipe anyway) trucking solution with several approaches being tested. An overhead tram-like charging system has been deployed for a short stretch of highway in Sweden, aiming to improve plug-in trucks’ range in EV mode. Short-haul battery electrics and two different versions of autonomous (or semi-autonomous) systems are also being tested.
Here in the States, Volvo’s Mack Trucks is working on a handful of electrification options for heavy-duty drivetrains. So is Daimler (Freightliner, Western Star in the U.S.). Startups like Nikola also have eyes on this electric trucking future. Other startups have hoped to get into the mix as well, but the failure rate is high with companies like Smith Electric, Vision Industries, and Boulder Electric having designed and marketed innovative commercial truck options that ultimately never caught on.
Meanwhile, the largest maker of electric heavy vehicles is Chinese maker BYD, who branched out from making gadget batteries into building electric buses, trucks, and more. They are currently filling contracts internationally for buses and trucks in places as disparate at California, Malaysia, and Europe. BYD builds battery-electric, hydrogen fuel cell electric, plug-in hybrid, and hybrid drivetrains and machines for several commercial market sectors.
So we can guarantee that changes to the trucking industry are coming, but no one can say how fast or how much change that will be. Current federal regulations will drive the industry forward until 2018 and it’s likely that new standards will be in place to keep carrying change forward after that. California’s ambitious plans for adopting electric trucks will be largely regulation and incentive driven, but that has down sides as well. Many of the startups we’ve seen who’ve created electrified big rigs or delivery trucks ultimately failed when the incentives began to dry up.
For Tesla, this could mean that the financial case for the Tesla Semi will need to be more economics-based and less dependent on single market, incentives-based plans. This means that Elon and Co should be looking beyond California and it’s 100,000 vehicle plans into a broader market. We’ll discuss the potential economic case for a Tesla Semi in a future editorial.
Tesla just raised Model Y prices for the first time in two years, with the largest increase being $1,000.
The move signals shifting dynamics in the competitive electric vehicle market as the company continues to work on balancing demand, profitability, and accessibility.
The new pricing affects premium trims while leaving entry-level options unchanged. The Model Y Premium Rear-Wheel Drive (RWD) now starts at $45,990, a $1,000 increase.
The Model Y Premium All-Wheel Drive (AWD)—previously referred to in the post as simply “Model Y AWD”—rises to $49,990, also up $1,000. The top-tier Model Y Performance sees a more modest $500 bump, bringing its starting price to $57,990.
Tesla Model Y prices just went up:
New prices:
🚗 Model Y Premium RWD: $45,990 – up $1,000
🚗 Model Y AWD: $49,990 – up $1,000
🚗 Model Y Performance: $57,990 – up $500 https://t.co/e4GhQ0tj4H pic.twitter.com/TCWqr3oqiV— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) May 16, 2026
Base models remain untouched to preserve affordability. The entry-level Model Y RWD holds steady at $39,990, and the base Model Y AWD stays at $41,990. This selective approach keeps the crossover accessible for budget-conscious buyers while extracting more revenue from higher-margin configurations.
After years of aggressive price cuts to stimulate volume amid slowing EV adoption and rising competition from rivals like BYD, Ford, and GM, Tesla appears confident in underlying demand. Recent lineup refreshes for the 2026 Model Y, including refreshed styling and efficiency gains, have helped maintain its status as America’s best-selling EV.
By protecting base prices, Tesla avoids alienating price-sensitive customers while improving margins on the more popular variants.
Tesla Model Y ownership review after six months: What I love and what I don’t
For consumers, the changes are relatively modest—under 3% on affected trims—and still position the Model Y competitively against gas-powered SUVs in the same class. Federal tax credits and potential state incentives may further offset costs for eligible buyers.
This marks a subtle but notable shift from the deep discounting era that defined much of 2024 and 2025. As the EV market matures into 2026, Tesla’s pricing strategy will be closely watched for clues about production ramps, new variants like the rumored longer-wheelbase Model Y, and broader profitability goals.
In short, today’s adjustment reflects a company that remains dominant yet pragmatic—willing to test higher pricing where demand supports it. It is unlikely to deter consumers from choosing other options.
Elon Musk cannot be fired from SpaceX, and there’s a reason for that.
In a blunt post on X on Friday, Elon Musk confirmed plans to structurally shield his leadership at SpaceX, ensuring he cannot be fired while tying a potential trillion-dollar compensation package to the company’s long-term goal of establishing a self-sustaining colony on Mars.
Yes, I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars, not pandering to someone’s bullshit quarterly earnings bonus!
Obviously, IF SpaceX succeeds in this absurdly difficult goal, it will be worth many orders of…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 15, 2026
The revelation stems from a Financial Times report detailing SpaceX’s intention to restructure its governance and compensation framework. The moves are designed to protect Musk’s control and align his incentives with the company’s founding mission rather than short-term financial pressures. Musk’s reply left no ambiguity:
“Yes, I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars, not pandering to someone’s bullshit quarterly earnings bonus!”
He added that success in this “absurdly difficult goal” would generate value “many orders of magnitude more than the economy of Earth,” though he cautioned that the journey will not be smooth. “Don’t expect entirely smooth sailing along the way,” Musk wrote.
The strategy reflects Musk’s deep concerns about how public-market expectations could derail SpaceX’s core objective. Founded in 2002, SpaceX has repeatedly stated its purpose is to reduce the cost of space travel and ultimately make humanity a multiplanetary species.
Unlike Tesla, which went public in 2010 and has faced repeated battles over Musk’s compensation and board influence, SpaceX remains privately held. Musk has long resisted taking the rocket company public precisely to avoid the quarterly earnings treadmill that forces most CEOs to prioritize short-term stock performance over ambitious, high-risk projects.
By embedding protections against his removal and linking any outsized pay package to verifiable milestones—such as a functioning Mars colony—SpaceX aims to insulate its leadership from activist investors or board members who might demand faster profits or safer bets.
Musk has referenced past experiences, including his ouster from OpenAI and shareholder lawsuits at Tesla, as cautionary tales. In those cases, he argued, external pressures risked diluting the original vision.
Critics may view the arrangement as excessive, especially given Musk’s already substantial voting power and wealth. Supporters, however, argue it is a necessary safeguard for a company pursuing goals measured in decades rather than quarters. Achieving a Mars colony would require sustained investment in Starship development, orbital refueling, life-support systems, and in-situ resource utilization—technologies that may deliver no immediate financial return.
Musk’s post underscores a broader philosophical point: true breakthrough innovation often demands tolerance for volatility and a willingness to ignore conventional business wisdom. As SpaceX prepares for increasingly ambitious Starship test flights and eventual crewed missions, the new governance structure signals that the company’s North Star remains unchanged—humanity’s expansion beyond Earth.
Whether the trillion-dollar package materializes depends on execution, but Musk’s message is clear: SpaceX exists to reach the stars, not to chase the next earnings beat. For investors or employees who share that vision, the protections are not a perk—they are a prerequisite for success.
News
Tesla discloses two Robotaxi crashes to NHTSA
Newly unredacted data filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reveals the two incidents.
Tesla has disclosed information on two low-speed crashes that occurred in Austin with its Robotaxi platform. These incidents occurred with teleoperators steering the vehicle, and there were no passengers in the car at the time they happened.
Newly unredacted data filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reveals the two incidents.
The first crash took place in July 2025, shortly after Tesla launched its nascent Robotaxi network in Austin. The ADS reportedly struggled to move forward while stopped on a street. A teleoperator assumed control, gradually accelerating and turning left toward the roadside. The vehicle then mounted the curb and struck a metal fence.
In the second incident, in January 2026, the ADS was traveling straight when the safety monitor requested navigation support. The teleoperator took over from a stop, continued forward, and collided with a temporary construction barricade at approximately 9 mph, scraping the front-left fender and tire.
Tesla Robotaxi service in Austin achieves monumental new accomplishment
Tesla has previously told lawmakers that teleoperators are authorized to pilot vehicles remotely—but only at speeds below 10 mph, as the only maneuvers they were approved to perform were repositioning in awkward areas.
“This capability enables Tesla to promptly move a vehicle that may be in a compromising position, thereby mitigating the need to wait for a first responder or Tesla field representative to manually recover the vehicle,” the company stated in filings earlier this year.
Before this week, Tesla redacted the NHTSA reports, but they decided to reveal all 17 Robotaxi incidents recorded since the launch in Austin last Summer. Most of the other crashes involved the Tesla being struck by other road users and were not caused by the self-driving suite itself.
There were other incidents, including two additional self-caused accidents involving the ADS clipping side mirrors on parked cars. In September 2025, one Robotaxi struck a dog that darted into the roadway (the dog escaped unharmed), while another made an unprotected left turn into a parking lot and hit a metal chain.
Although Waymo and Zoox have reported more total crashes, Tesla operates at a far smaller scale. The cautious pace reflects the company’s broader safety concerns; it has been very slow with the Robotaxi rollout to ensure the suite is ready for operation.
Last month, CEO Elon Musk acknowledged that “making sure things are completely safe” remains the primary bottleneck to expanding the network, describing the company’s approach as “very cautious.”
The unredacted filings arrive amid heightened regulatory scrutiny of autonomous vehicles. NHTSA recently closed a separate probe into Tesla’s Full Self-Driving software repeatedly striking parking-lot obstacles such as bollards and chains—a problem that also prompted a recall at Waymo last year.
Tesla Robotaxi has been a widely successful program in its early days of operation, and the transparency Tesla brings here is greatly appreciated. Incidents will happen, of course, but the honesty gives customers and regulators a sense of where Tesla is in terms of developing its self-driving and fully autonomous ride-hailing suite.
Tesla Model Y prices just went up for the first time in two years
Elon Musk explains why he cannot be fired from SpaceX
