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 has launched a direct campaign targeting its customers in New Jersey, sending emails that warn of pending legislation that could effectively block true driverless technology in the state.
The email focuses on Senate Bill S.1677 and Assembly Bill A.3968, measures intended to create a three-year autonomous vehicle pilot program but laden with requirements that Tesla argues make unsupervised Robotaxis impossible.
Tesla is sending out this email to New Jersey Tesla owners, warning them that NJ could block autonomous vehicles, and to take action.
“Proposed legislation moving through Trenton right now would impose restrictions so severe that true driverless deployment would remain illegal.… pic.twitter.com/2bmY646AUL
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) June 16, 2026
According to the email, the bills impose “restrictions so severe that true driverless deployment would remain illegal.” Specific hurdles include mandates for human safety drivers during operations, multimillion-dollar insurance minimums, reportedly $5 million, and thresholds like 100,000 miles of demonstrated safe autonomous driving before any driverless approval.
Tesla contends these are arbitrary barriers that ignore real-world performance data and favor entrenched competitors over innovative technologies like its Full Self-Driving (FSD) system.
The push comes as Tesla has started expanding Robotaxi operations in states like Texas, where unsupervised vehicles are already providing rides in several cities. New Jersey, by contrast, risks falling behind. The company highlights in the email communication that more than 94 percent of serious crashes result from human error, meaning impairment, distraction, or fatigue. These are all problems that Robotaxis eliminate entirely.
In 2025, New Jersey recorded 582 traffic deaths, underscoring the human cost of delayed adoption.
Tesla’s outreach stresses the transformative potential of robotaxis. For families, they could offer safer school runs without drowsy or distracted drivers. For seniors and people with disabilities, robotaxis promise independence and reliable mobility.
In areas with limited public transit, they could deliver affordable, on-demand transportation, reducing congestion, emissions, and overall transportation costs. Economically, the company warns that restrictive rules could cost New Jersey jobs, innovation investment, and billions in potential growth as autonomous ride-hailing scales elsewhere.
Supporters of the legislation, including Sen. Andrew Zwicker, describe the pilot as a cautious framework with strong safety oversight, including incident reporting, expert task forces, and restrictions in sensitive zones like school areas. They view it as balancing innovation with public protection.
Tesla and pro-AV advocates counter that the bill lacks technology neutrality, creates insurmountable entry barriers for commercial deployment, and prioritizes process over outcomes — effectively functioning as a de facto ban on services like Robotaxi.
This latest clash echoes Tesla’s past battles in New Jersey over direct vehicle sales. The email directs owners to Tesla’s advocacy platform, where they can send customized messages to legislators calling for amendments: outcome-based safety standards, open competition, and clear pathways for fully driverless commercial operations.
As hearings approach, Tesla’s campaign frames the issue as a choice between protecting the status quo and embracing life-saving progress. With robotaxi technology already proving itself in permissive states, New Jersey owners are being asked to ensure their state doesn’t lock out the future of transportation.
Turn-by-turn navigation is not new technology.
For over two decades, drivers have relied on Garmin, TomTom, and later smartphone apps like Google Maps and Waze to receive precise, reliable directions. These systems have guided millions safely through unfamiliar cities, highways, and backroads with remarkable effectiveness. They handle real-time traffic, construction detours, and complex intersections with minimal fuss.
Yet Tesla, the company that promised revolutionary Full Self-Driving (FSD), continues to struggle with this foundational capability. As FSD (Supervised) v14.3.4 has started rolling out to cars this week, navigation remains its glaring Achilles’ heel, undermining the entire autonomous vision.
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Tesla’s FSD excels in many driving behaviors—smooth acceleration, confident lane changes in ideal conditions, and responsive handling of visible obstacles. However, when it comes to following a route accurately, the system falters repeatedly.
Owners report wrong turns, missed exits, inefficient routing through local roads instead of highways, phantom speed limit errors, and even directing vehicles to building rear entrances. Interventions for navigation issues often outnumber those for core driving maneuvers. Tesla has begun surveying owners specifically about these errors, acknowledging the problem after years of complaints.
Navigation is perhaps my biggest complaint when it comes to FSD, because sometimes, we do know better. Some of us have been living in our areas for our entire lives, but even those who have not have years or even decades of experience driving on local roads. We might know a little better about routing.
But the navigation mistakes are more than just FSD potentially taking a slightly different route that may or may not save you a few minutes. Sometimes, they’re genuinely mind-boggling.
This isn’t just annoying; it cascades into broader failures. A flawed route plan confuses the AI’s decision-making, leading to hesitant behavior, unnecessary disengagements, or dangerous maneuvers like attempting impossible U-turns or ignoring clear ramps. In a system meant to operate with minimal supervision, unreliable navigation erodes trust.
More often than not, false or plain incorrect navigation is what causes me to interrupt FSD operation. Unfortunately, I believe the latest FSD version is the worst example of it, and it leads me to believe that Tesla might be making some changes; they’ve just made them in the wrong direction.
It makes you wonder: Why is a company that has done so much with the progress of FSD and autonomy struggling so much with navigation, something that is not new and has been around a long time?
Multiple Data Sources
First, Tesla’s navigation relies on a fragile patchwork of multiple data sources—Google Maps, TomTom, OpenStreetMap, Valhalla, and its own fleet-derived data—stitched together rather than a single authoritative map. When these conflict on lane geometry, road status, or turn details, the system hesitates or chooses incorrectly.
Traditional GPS providers maintain centralized, regularly validated databases with professional curation and rapid updates. Tesla’s hybrid approach, while innovative in crowdsourcing, introduces inconsistencies that a purely vision-based or end-to-end AI approach may not easily reconcile in real time.
Persistent Learning
FSD seems to struggle with persistent learning from driver interventions.
Unlike consumer apps that quickly adapt to repeated corrections or user preferences (e.g., avoiding certain routes or remembering habitual detours), Tesla’s FSD often fails to internalize fixes on the same trip or across similar scenarios. Owners note making the same manual override multiple times without the routing engine updating its behavior meaningfully.
This stems from the neural architecture prioritizing real-time perception and control over long-term route memory and personalization, making navigation feel rigid and “opinionated” compared to the adaptive logic in Waze or Google Maps.
I noticed that when I asked Grok to try and get me home a certain way (a way that FSD routinely took in the past because it was the most efficient), it had to place a waypoint between my location at the time and my house. When I went to edit the waypoint out, as Grok had placed it for a way to get FSD to get off the highway at the right exit, it was stumped again, rerouted, and took a longer way home.
The next thing I’ve noticed, and this might be controversial, is that Nav has gotten even worse.
I think that might actually be a good thing; Tesla seems to be adjusting it. They just need to adjust it the opposite way.
The car is taking extremely strange routes to very… https://t.co/UHg3tVfNA2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
Reasoning, Scaling, and Intuition
Third, scaling navigation for unsupervised or robotaxi ambitions requires not just accuracy but adaptability and user-like reasoning. Current FSD often defaults to single routes that ignore driver preferences or real-world nuances like time-of-day traffic patterns. It fails to match the intuitive, context-aware planning that traditional systems have refined over the years.
Resolving navigation is critical for several reasons. Practically, it is the backbone of any autonomous journey: without trustworthy routing, the car cannot reliably reach destinations, rendering FSD useless for robotaxis or hands-free commutes. Safety depends on it—mismatched plans create hesitation in merges or intersections, increasing accident risk.
Economically, Tesla’s valuation and future hinge on FSD delivering unsupervised driving; persistent navigation flaws delay regulatory approval and erode consumer confidence. For owners who paid premiums for FSD, these issues represent unfulfilled promises. While it is unlikely Tesla will lose too many customers due to bad navigation, some will be frustrated with the constant need for human input.
Tesla has achieved miracles in electric vehicles and battery tech. Mastering turn-by-turn—technology Garmin nailed in the early 2000s—should not be this hard. By investing in tighter data integration, faster learning loops from interventions, and more intuitive routing algorithms, Tesla could close this gap.
Until then, FSD’s navigation struggles highlight a humbling truth: even the most ambitious innovator must sometimes master the basics before conquering the future.
A Tesla Cybertruck driver in the United Kingdom had their all-electric pickup seized by local police in the Greater Manchester area after the department cited “legitimate concerns.”
Last Thursday, police saw the pickup on the roads and decided to pull the driver over. Greater Manchester Police said:
“Whilst this may seem trivial to some, legitimate concerns exist around the safety of other road users or pedestrians if they were involved in a collision with the Cybertruck.”
🚨 A Tesla Cybertruck, which is illegal to drive in the UK due to safety concerns, has been seized by police in Greater Manchester
“Whilst this may seem trivial to some, legitimate concerns exist around the safety of other road users or pedestrians if they were involved in a… pic.twitter.com/cqhdPok3DM
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
The Cybertruck in question was, according to the BBC, registered and insured abroad and was confiscated. The driver, who is a UK resident, was reported.
The Greater Manchester Police Department then added:
“The Tesla Cybertruck is not road-legal in the UK and does not hold a certificate of conformity.”
The Cybertruck cannot be legally driven in the UK because it has no UK Type Approval for operation in the country. This is due to some safety concerns, which are related to its angular shape and design. The stainless steel exoskeleton has sharp edges and projections that violate UK/EU rules on pedestrian protection.
Tesla has considered creating what it referred to as an “international version” that would be approved for operation in Europe. However, there has been no real movement on that front by the company, as it has been focused on the Robotaxi rollout primarily.
Tesla urges New Jersey owners to oppose new bill that could block Robotaxi
Tesla’s Navigation Nightmare: Why the easiest part of FSD might be the hardest
