News
How EV adoption is soaring in unlikely circumstances, and what could make it better
The adoption of electric vehicles has continued to skyrocket over the past several years despite challenging supply chain conditions, less-than-ideal geopolitical scenarios, lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the soaring cost of EV materials. How this optimism remains was examined in a recent white paper from Cox Automotive, which outlined how EVs continue to defy all odds and gain market share, despite monumental challenges standing in the sector’s way.
EV Adoption grows despite rough conditions
The state of EV adoption is relatively healthy, with more Americans buying EVs than ever despite increased costs and extended wait times for delivery. Automakers across the EV manufacturing industry have been forced to adjust prices and vehicle lineups due to the increased cost of materials and supply chain deals. Tesla, for example, axed the $35,000 Standard Range+ Model 3, and its most affordable vehicle now starts at well over $40,000. Rivian was forced to push prices upward due to materials costs soaring after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and these examples are just two of many.
Supply chain bottlenecks have also forced consumers to push back wait times for EVs considerably. Some configurations of EVs are not available until next year due to extensive order logs; take the Long Range Tesla Model 3, for example, which won’t be available until 2023 because of its heavy demand.
Despite this, EV adoption has increased every year since 2019. “Americans are buying EVs at a record pace despite rising prices and long waits for delivery. The fleet industry is also taking note with fleet operators highly motivated to replace their gas-powered fleets with EVs to achieve sustainability goals, drive efficiency and reduce total cost of ownership,” Cox Automotive wrote in the summation of its white paper.
Price Parity and the EV Tax Credit
Price parity has always been talked about when it comes to EVs. It does not take a genius to figure out that the average person will choose an affordable car over an expensive one, even if the expensive one will not require weekly stops at the pump. However, one of the biggest things keeping EVs from extremely rapid adoption is the prices of the cars themselves, which have increased considerably over the past year due to materials costs soaring.
Luckily, consumers can take advantage of the Inflation Reduction Act, which will provide EV buyers with tax credits based on where their vehicle was manufactured and whether the car equips a U.S.-manufactured battery. “Tax incentives available as part of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 will be critical to consumer adoption, helping offset the cost of pricey EVs.” This is a key point in the mass adoption in EVs, and consumers will likely stick to gas-powered cars as long as they are able to if they are more affordable than a quality EV.
Supply Chain Disruptions have slowed EV adoption considerably
Related to other points already made, supply chain disruptions and constraints are slowing EV adoption. U.S.-based EV manufacturers are too reliant on foreign companies for parts, Cox said. Automakers are pushing to produce battery packs and other parts in the U.S., which will eventually help combat slow logistics times.
“Global computer chip and material shortages are impacting production, raising the price of new and used vehicles, and contributing to long waits to buy new EV models.” Consumers want affordable and they want it now. Costs will continue to remain high, and wait times will stay long if U.S. automakers do not adopt domestic supply chain strategies.
Superior EV tech is keeping the U.S. competitive
Domestic supply chain bottlenecks may have some consumers willing to spend a little extra opting for other vehicle options. If someone is willing to spend $160,000 on a car and they can buy a 2022 Porsche 911 GT3 and get it in two weeks, they’re more likely to buy that instead of waiting months for a Tesla Model S Plaid if environmental reasons and fuel savings are not being considered. Tech and the innovations of battery chemistries and recycling are keeping the U.S. automakers in focus. If battery makers can develop various battery chemistries comprised of materials that can be sourced in the U.S., wait times will reduce and cars will have more availability.
I’d love to hear from you! If you have any comments, concerns, or questions, please email me at joey@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @KlenderJoey, or if you have news tips, you can email us at tips@teslarati.com.
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.
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
