News
Automakers come to accept that the EV revolution has begun
The last several months have been busy in the electric vehicle revolution. Governments have been announcing their phase out plans for petrol vehicles and automakers have committed billions of dollars to electrification programs. At this point automakers are practically falling over each other racing to get out their announcements. How many electric vehicles they’re developing, how much they’re investing, are they going fully electrified, and when. Suddenly no one wants to be perceived as falling behind in this revolution. And why should they? Nokia and Blackberry can attest to what happens if you do.
In the past, established automakers have been very cautious with electrification, with many simply watching to see how the situation developed. Generally, their investments could be best described as vague or immaterial to their core business of making cars. That’s clearly changed – take a look at the timeline of announcements below.
Taken as a whole these announcements are really quite striking. Most recently it was GM and Ford that released their competing declarations of electrification. GM with twenty new fully electric vehicles by 2023 and Ford quickly following up to say they had a new dedicated team for fully electric vehicles, while reiterating their previously committed $4.5 billion in investments for 13 new electrified vehicle options. Ford followed up the next day to say they were also diverting one third of their investments from combustion vehicle development.
The month prior was filled with even more announcements, including tweets between Elon Musk and Mercedes about the size of the latter’s investments. Volkswagen, BMW, Mercedes, Jaguar, Honda, BYD, and Dyson all made significant announcements about their EV programs that month, but it was Volvo’s “fully electrified” announcement that first caught the media’s attention back in July. It was a clever, if somewhat misleading PR move, but it did set important targets for their company and the competition. The fact that Tesla started producing their mass market Model 3 was almost lost amongst all this news. That’s an exaggeration of course, but only a year ago many believed their plans were impossible.
Government announcements have been another important part of the narrative, with targets that provide direction and impetus to the industry. Based on some of the lobbying it hasn’t been entirely welcome, but that’s to be expected. Anytime an entire country is talking about completely phasing out your current business model, it’s going give an industry pause. In this case there were multiple, with China, the UK, France, India, and several others weighing in with their plans to phase out combustion vehicles.
Looking at these announcements together suggests that a new phase in the electric vehicle revolution has begun. The fundamentals behind this shift are what I will argue here. My proposition is that the combined macro-economic drivers of regulation, competition, and market growth are pushing EVs to the mainstream. Be forewarned, it’s a long post, but analyzing any of these factors in isolation loses the bigger picture. Electric vehicles are coming, of that there can be no doubt.
Regulation, competition, and market growth.
You’ll notice the analysis below centers around plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs). Today a little more than 60% of new EV sales are pure battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and the rest are plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). PHEV’s are a transitionary technology, which currently offer some benefits that will disappear as battery costs continue to fall and range continues to increase. Note that the analysis doesn’t include hybrids without plugs, they’re old news. Also note that in talking about vehicles and vehicle sales, these are always in reference to passenger vehicles (i.e. no freight trucks). Annual passenger vehicles sales data was taken from the International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers and electric sales information is from the International Energy Agency.
Regulation:
The 2015 Paris climate agreement requires country specific greenhouse gas reductions by 2030 or sooner. As part of the agreement countries must also submit annual reports on their progress. Transport is a key part of each country’s emissions and it’s one that has a solution at hand, hence the plans to phase out combustion vehicles. France and UK announced for bans by 2040, Scotland by 2032, Netherlands 2025, Norway 2025, and India and China in development. There’s some subtlety to each. Norway for example is leaning towards economic levers to achieve their goals in lieu of outright restrictions, while India has said they expect all vehicles to be electric by 2030 without regulation being necessary, though their official policy is expected later this year.
Personally I tend to agree. I expect we will all be buying electric vehicles long before 2040 largely due to economics, especially with carbon pricing. That said, all of the government announcements are important. They provide both the public and automakers a framework in which to operate, while the more aggressive targets are actually moving the industry forward.
California and nine east coast states have long mandated a portion of sales be zero emission vehicles (ZEVs), administered through a credit system. The system gives partial credit to plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) and more credits to long range zero emission vehicles (ZEVs). It’s basically the reason automakers have produced ZEVs in the USA. In quite possibly the biggest announcement of the year China is now doing something similar. They’ve mandated a ‘new energy vehicle’ credit requirement of 10% of sales in 2019 and 12% in 2020. Since one EV can be responsible for multiple credits it means that less than 12% of all vehicles sold will be required to be zero emission vehicles. For example, if the requirement was met with vehicles like the BMW i3, it would mean 4.6% of all vehicle sales in China would be ZEV in 2020, about 1.4 million that year. For reference there are about 2.5 million PEVs on the planet right now.
China is also looking at establishing a date for complete phase out of petrol vehicles, which has caught California’s attention. California is not eager to lose their leadership position in electric vehicles and is now looking to increase their own targets and establish their own timeline for complete phase out. I believe the quote from their governor was “Why haven’t we done something already?”. It seems that an EV target race has begun and that means mandated growth for the EV market.

source: BMW
Market Growth:
This one has always been a bit of ‘chicken or the egg’ scenario. Historically demand for electric vehicles was low, which automakers referenced as the reason for their limited offerings. Others argued that there could be no demand when so few options were available, especially when those that did exist had such weird aesthetics (which was an effective way to prevent scavenging from more profitable combustion sales). Tesla flipped this around with their preorders of the Model 3 and showed everyone the latent demand to the tune of nearly 400,000 preorders. Other automakers took notice. BMW even started having widespread video presentations depicting the threat of Tesla to motivate their employees.
If you’ve only heard the rhetoric of how electric vehicles constitute a small fraction of the world’s annual sales, you might have missed something important. Exponential growth. Since 2012 growth of plug-in electric vehicles has been over 40% every year. Cumulatively that means 10x more PEVs will be sold in 2017 than 2012, as shown in the graph below.

Historical data from the IEA, 2017 estimate from EVvolumes.com
Don’t get me wrong, the existing market share is almost laughably low at 1.1% worldwide (2016 data from the IEA), but over the last three years sales have grown at an average 54.6% compound annual growth rate (CAGR).
To illustrate the effect of exponential growth consider the following example about bacteria in a jar. If the number of bacteria doubles every minute and after 1 hour the jar is full of bacteria, that means at 59 minutes the jar is half-full, at 58 minutes ¼ full, at 57 minutes 1/8 full, etc. At 54 minutes that jar is only 1.6% full and everyone is thinking that bacterial will never fill the jar. It’s simplistic and exaggerated but that’s where we are today, at 54 minutes.
The example shows the power of exponential growth but also the challenge in forecasting it. Over the long term, small changes in annual growth rates can have big impacts. Solar power projections were notoriously underestimated and each year forecasts had to be revised upwards. That’s not to disparage the forecasters, it’s incredibly difficult to do what they do and certainly some caution in forecasting is warranted. But it is worth considering that electric vehicles may be in a similar situation. For example, Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) posted an EV outlook report in 2016, estimating that annual sales in 2040 would be 35% of all vehicles sold and the total PEV fleet would be 410 million. This year they revised those projections up, to 54% and 600 million. That’s 200 million more EVs, on a starting estimate of 410 million, after one year of new data. Will the next years’ forecasts also be revised upwards?
Shorter timeframes are usually more accurate, BNEF’s numbers indicate they expect approximately 2.5 million PEVs to be sold in 2020. That seems reasonable, but it would mean that PEV sales growth slows to 35% annually for the next few years. With more models coming that have better features and lower costs, and with governments now pushing the market with more aggressive targets, it seems unlikely growth will slow. So as an experiment what happens if the 54.6% growth rate over the last three years continues, to 2020 and 2025?
The impact would be impressive. The graph indicates that over 4 million PEVs would be sold in 2020, for 5% of total vehicle sales. That jumps to 37 million PEVs sold in 2025, nearly 40% of the total vehicle sales predicted. Contrast that with BNEF numbers, of 3% of sales in 2020 and 8% in 2025. Personally I think 8% is a low estimate for 2025, it works out to a compound annual growth rate of approximately 25%. Interestingly UBS increased their 2025 PEV estimate upwards by 50% this year (from 2016) to 14% of total sales – showing that short-term projections can be just as uncertain.
Perhaps 54.6% isn’t feasible, although Tesla has nearly managed it with a 47% growth rate since 2013. They did this while building up their staff, infrastructure, technology, and procedures virtually from scratch all at the same time. It’s also worth considering the history of smartphones. Globally smartphone sales grew at a rate of 46.4% year over year for ten years from 2004 to 2014, growing from sales of 27 million a year to over a billion. It was even more dramatic in China, where smartphone users accounted for about 5% of mobile subscribers in 2010 but were 70% by 2015 (Statista). That’s in just 5 years.

Data from www.gartner.com
Granted smartphones are not cars. The average smartphone costs orders or magnitude less and is traded in every two years, while the average car is traded in every 6.5 years (in the USA). A smartphone apparently has an average total lifespan of 4.7 years and a car can last to ~200,000 miles, approximately 15 years of average driving.
But electric cars do offer something cell phones never have. A lower cost. Cell phones provide a wealth of new functionality in our lives, but generally at a premium. Today, electric cars already cost less to operate than combustion vehicles, by 2018 they are expected to reach cost parity on total cost of ownership (UBS report), and by 2025 Bloomberg expects them to cost less upfront than combustion vehicles. That’s battery only electric vehicles (BEVs). Perhaps the changeover is longer than it was for cellphones, but once BEVs have an upfront cost less than petrol, why would anyone buy anything else?
Competition:
More and more manufacturers are entering the electric vehicle field with legitimate programs and their EVs are getting excellent reviews. At the end of 2016 the Chevy Bolt came out and won the North American and Motor Trend car of the year awards. Be prepared to see future EVs dominate the awards. VW already has a new e-Golf, Nissan a new Leaf, BMW an updated i3, Hyundai released their Ionic, and Audi, Porsche, and Jaguar are all coming out with pure EV models in 2018. Then there are the massive “electrification” shifts from the likes of Mercedes, BWM, Volvo, Austin Martin, VW, Ford, GM, and others. All now committing to reshaping their companies and the industry by moving to electric vehicles. There’s also that company Tesla which started making their game changing Model 3. Suddenly there’s a lot of competition and if your company isn’t one of those competing…. what are you doing? Those automakers on the sidelines are starting to look obsolete and it’s a short road from obsolete to ‘out of business’.
With automakers and governments committing to electrification of vehicles, we are going to see a significant ramp up in the electric vehicle market. More plug-in options are coming out, billions are being invested, and governments are seriously planning the end of combustion vehicles. It really is a paradigm shift. In large part we have Tesla to thank. If they hadn’t shown the world what was possible, who knows when this would have happened. Certainly the future would be a bit darker.
Investor's Corner
Tesla opens the Q&A for its biggest earnings call yet
Tesla opens its Q3 earnings Q&A, and Cybercab, Robotaxi, Optimus and regulators loom over October 21.
Tesla has opened its shareholder question portal for the Q3 2026 earnings call, with the Say Q&A page already listing questions. Investors have until 4:00 p.m. EDT on October 20 to submit and vote on what management should answer.
The call is set for Wednesday, October 21. Tesla will post results after the market closes, with a live webcast at 4:30 p.m. CT, or 5:30 p.m. ET, through its investor relations site.
Say ranks questions by the number of shares behind the votes, which gives institutional holders extra weight over the retail crowd.
Ahead of Q2, retail investors asked why Robotaxi growth had stalled, when Cybercab would start customer rides, and where the Optimus Gen 3 ramp stood, while an institutional holder asked how Tesla and SpaceX would split Terafab duties. Cybercab has since answered one of those. Tesla said last week it has 300 plus Cybercabs serving Austin, up eightfold in 30 days, with Dallas named as the next city. The questions now are likely to move from when to how fast.
There is also a regulatory question hanging over the call. NHTSA has demanded sworn answers on how the pedal free Cybercab was certified against federal safety standards, with responses due October 30, nine days after the call. Whether an analyst raises it live is unknown, but it is the kind of exposure that tends to find its way into a Q&A.
The numbers will not be the main draw. Tesla already reported 486,532 deliveries and 13.7 GWh of storage for the quarter. Consensus sits around 43 to 45 cents per share on roughly $27.8 billion in revenue, according to Zacks, after a Q2 report that missed on EPS. Goldman Sachs, which holds a Neutral rating and a $360 target, argues the outlook for Robotaxi, FSD and Optimus will matter more to the stock than the quarter itself.
The call also lands six days after the rescheduled Roadster event, which Tesla will stream on X on Thursday, October 15, at 7:55 p.m. CT. If the Roadster shows up with a production date or a SpaceX thruster package, expect it to climb the voting list before the deadline.
Elon Musk
Ukraine says Starlink is cutting out its military drones as Poland calls out Elon Musk
Ukrainian officials allege SpaceX limited military Starlink speeds, disrupting drone missions; SpaceX has not commented.
Ukrainian officials are accusing SpaceX of placing a speed limit on the military version of Starlink that their forces use to fly drones, but SpaceX has not confirmed that any change was made. Presidential adviser Serhiy Beskrestnov said in a Telegram post on Wednesday that Starshield terminals have begun losing service when they move faster than about 100 miles per hour, according to a Reuters report. “Our defense forces did not receive a warning about this limitation, and this led to the disruption of several missions,” he wrote.
Ukraine’s 7th Rapid Reaction Corps told Reuters that connections dropped for 10 to 20 seconds at just 68 to 75 mph, which made the drones harder to control. Volunteer Serhiy Sternenko, citing military reports, said the dropouts are now starting at 37 to 43 mph. These accounts come from Ukrainian officials and military sources and have not been independently verified. Regular civilian terminals were reportedly not affected, according to EUalive.
.@POTUS: We told Zelensky, ‘You can do whatever you want to Russia, but don’t hit the refineries because that’s a world problem.’ And what does he do? He goes and hits the diesel fuel. He better damn well stop. https://t.co/CdRlMcPlKr
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) October 10, 2026
SpaceX has not publicly commented or explained what, if anything, changed. Beskrestnov and other Ukrainian officials believe the issue is intentional and point to the timing. Washington has been pressing Kyiv to stop long range strikes on Russian oil refineries after President Trump called for an “energy ceasefire,” and Musk posted on Saturday that “Zelensky has gone too far.” EUalive noted that neither Ukrainian nor Polish officials have presented evidence that the limit was ordered by Washington or by SpaceX, so the link to politics remains an allegation. Other explanations, such as a technical or policy change affecting fast moving terminals, have not been ruled out.
Poland’s foreign minister, Radosław Sikorski, responded on X by quote tweeting a Kyiv Independent report and writing: “Hey, @elonmusk, big man, are you playing politics with your products again? As your European customers, we are watching you.” Poland is the largest funder of Ukraine’s Starlink service, having supplied more than 29,000 terminals and covering operating costs Sikorski has put at roughly $50 million a year. The wording echoes their 2025 clash, when Musk told Sikorski to “be quiet, small man.” At the time of writing, neither Musk nor SpaceX had responded to the claims.
Hey, @elonmusk, big man, are you playing politics with your products again?
As your European customers, we are watching you.— Radosław Sikorski 🇵🇱🇪🇺 (@sikorskiradek) October 14, 2026
The dispute sits on top of a long history. Musk confirmed in February 2022 that Starlink was active in Ukraine after a request from a Ukrainian minister. That October, SpaceX asked the Pentagon to share the bill and Musk said the cost was approaching $20 million a month, before he reversed course and said SpaceX would keep paying. In December 2024 the Pentagon moved some of those terminals onto the Starshield service, the government version now at the center of the complaints.
SpaceX has also changed how its network treats certain terminals in Ukraine before, and that time it was with Kyiv’s cooperation. In February, Ukrainian officials confirmed that terminals believed to be used by Russian troops were disabled after coordination with SpaceX, a step that Ukrainian commanders later said hurt Russian assaults. Whether anything similar is behind the latest reports is unclear, which is why Kyiv is asking for answers.
Ukraine is already looking at backups. Defense tech company Stetman is developing its own satellite system, UASAT-NANO, and officials in Europe have discussed alternatives to Starlink since early 2025, though none match its scale yet.
Elon Musk
FAA kicks off review of SpaceX’s bid to fly Starship nearly every day
FAA is reviewing SpaceX’s plan for 456 Starship launches a year, up from 25 today.
The FAA said Tuesday that it will prepare an environmental impact statement on SpaceX’s proposal to run as many as 456 Starship launches and 912 landings a year from Starbase, Texas. SpaceX is currently authorized for 25 launches and 50 landings annually, which makes the request roughly 18 times the existing ceiling. The notice of intent is set to publish in the Federal Register on Wednesday.
The plan comes in two phases. Phase 1 would allow up to 100 launches and 200 landings a year, on any day and at any hour. Phase 2, which the FAA says could arrive within several years, would raise the limit to the full 456 launches, still at any hour but only on weekdays. The agency noted that 912 landings is the upper limit for the Texas facility no matter where a given mission begins, and that Starship and Super Heavy could come down at the launch site or in the Gulf and open ocean.
A draft statement will be released for public comment at a later date, and the FAA has not said when. According to the Federal Registar, written comments are due November 30 on regulations.gov under docket FAA-2026-12808, with in person scoping meetings on November 17 in Brownsville and November 19 in Port Isabel, plus a virtual session on November 18. The review will weigh air quality, wildlife, coastal resources, water, noise, and aviation, and the FAA said any increase beyond this proposal would need its own separate review.
The numbers look large next to what Starbase has actually done. Starship has flown three times from Texas this year, including Flight 14 on September 28, the first orbital flight, which deployed 26 Starlink V3 satellites. Bloomberg reported that Starbase has never launched more than five times in a calendar year. The current cap of 25 comes from an FAA approval in May 2025. In February, the agency also approved up to 44 Starship launches a year from Launch Complex 39A in Florida, so Phase 1 in Texas alone would more than double that allowance.
Musk has said Starship could eventually fly more than once per hour within less than a decade, per Bloomberg. The nearer term target is Flight 15. Musk said on October 10 that it is hopefully four to six weeks away and will try to catch the ship with the tower, as Teslarati covered. That flight still runs under the existing 25 launch limit, and so would every Starbase launch for as long as the new review takes.
As of mid morning Pacific time on Tuesday, SpaceX had not posted about the filing on its own account.
