This is a preview from our weekly newsletter. Each week I go ‘Beyond the News’ and handcraft a special edition that includes my thoughts on the biggest stories, why it matters, and how it could impact the future.
Earlier this week, there was plenty of talk about the Revel taxi fleet in New York City, comprised of 50 Tesla Model Y all-electric crossovers that would contribute to the ride-sharing services that the Big Apple has long been accustomed to over the past century. As the automotive sector has transitioned to a more sustainable look and feel, taxi companies are also putting their hand in the cookie jar, adding sustainable vehicles to their fleets, and taking gas-powered machines off the road.
Revel is an independent company attempting to make this happen. The company has 50 Model Y taxis ready to take on the streets of Manhattan and the other boroughs of New York. However, reports circulated earlier this week that the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission blocked this possibility overwhelmingly with a five-to-one vote.
New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission: A Giant Game of Telephone
While the reports from various media outlets, including our own, highlighted the spectacle, which seemed to be an incredible chance of corruption, there was actually a huge misunderstanding. New York City TLC’s Deputy Chief of Public Affairs, Allan Fromberg, took some time out of a busy Thursday to talk to me, clarifying the situation that has been misconstrued since its original report.
Tesla Model Y taxi fleet successfully blocked by NY commission
After getting in touch with Mr. Fromberg on Thursday, we talked about the initial reports. “The whole narrative that Revel would have to buy 50 gas cars to then convert to EVs is just a giant game of telephone. In fact, for Revel to bring on its 50 BEVs, they would have to replace 50 existing, already-licensed vehicles, and not new vehicles.”
Initial reports indicated that TLC Commissioner Aloysee Heredia Jarmoszuk stated that congestion was why Revel wasn’t granted licenses. In fact, this is true. Revel was never required to purchase 50 gas vehicles, which didn’t make much sense from the get-go. In my initial communication to Mr. Fromberg, I stated that the contradictory nature of the TLC’s implied decision to block Revel’s Model Y fleet because of congestion, but then suggest 50 additional gas-powered vehicles needed to be purchased didn’t make much sense.
Fromberg agreed and said that this misconception was due to the aggregation of media reports looking to push out this controversial angle of the story quickly.
Mr. Fromberg then explained what the vote on Tuesday evening entailed, straight from the TLC Commissioner’s mouth.
2018 Legislation: The Taxi Cab “Cap”
Ms. Jarmoszuk said:
“First and foremost, no one and no entity has been blocked. The public meeting/vote was neither about electric vehicles nor about any particular company nor about car models. Rather, the public meeting was about vehicle licenses, which are presently capped since the market is saturated and distressed, with low performance as a result of the pandemic and previous market stressors. Presently, there are nearly 100K vehicle licenses, which is too large a supply for current passenger demand. The public meeting was about ensuring mechanisms to properly manage applications for new/additional licenses against current ridership numbers/needs.”
This is actually in reference to series of five pieces of legislation that were passed in 2018. According to the New York City Office of the Mayo, on August 14th, 2018, Mayor Bill de Blasio signed the following pieces:
144-B: Requiring the TLC to stop issuing for-hire vehicle licenses for 12 months, to study congestion and various aspects of the industry, and after the study, allows the TLC to establish vehicle utilization standards and regulate the number of for-hire vehicle licenses;
634-B: Waiving licensing fees for accessible taxi-cabs and for-hire vehicles;
838-C: Pertaining to the licensing and regulation of high-volume for-hire vehicle services;
890-B: Directs the TLC to establish rules to provide minimum payments to high-volume for-hire vehicle drivers;
958-A: Reducing penalties for unauthorized street hails.
Really, 144-B, 634-B, 838-C, and 890-B are the four pieces that are relevant to this story. In 2018, 144-B halted the licensing of any additional “For-Hire” vehicles, meaning taxis or ride-hailing vehicles. Simply put, there was an incredible number of vehicles on the streets of New York, and congestion was becoming a real issue there. The “cap” limit on the number of vehicles was enforced in 2018 and was set to last one year. Mr. Fromberg informed me that this legislation has been extended and renewed several times and is still effective to this day. Therefore, the City still will not license any additional vehicles. When one fails or loses its license, a new vehicle takes its place.
There are several other reasons for this, including fair wages for drivers and affordability for taxi companies. But, unfortunately, drivers were suffering and still are due to the COVID-19 pandemic. While many of the economic negativities are finally beginning to subside, 2020 was an ugly year for the NYC taxi sector. Many drivers weren’t making enough money to afford loan payments on medallions. Unfortunately, some of these drivers took their own lives, and it is an absolute tragedy that this occurred.
With that being said, taxi drivers are hard-working, and they deserve to make enough money to feed their families. In the 2018 passing of these legislative pieces, De Blasio said, “We’re putting hardworking New Yorkers ahead of corporations. We are taking immediate action for the benefit of more than 100,000 hard-working New Yorkers who deserve a fair wage and halting the flood of new cars, grinding our streets to a halt.” The changes increased take-home pay for drivers by approximately 20 percent on average — more than $6,000 per year.
With all of that being said, New York City is operating with a substantial number of taxis, and the TLC has granted nearly 100,000 vehicle licenses. Before any more vehicles can obtain one of these licenses, some of the current vehicles must lose their licenses through expiration or vehicle removal in a company’s fleet. When 50 licenses open up, Revel will have the ability to obtain them, giving the company full rights to operate as a ride-sharing service, just as it aims to do.
To Mr. Fromberg’s knowledge, there would be no cost for Revel to go through the normal administrative procedure to obtain the licenses.
Revel’s Response: EV Taxis are a necessity to NYC
Revel CEO Frank Reig is under the impression that the TLC is operating under “shortsighted bureaucracy and entrenched interests,” according to a Tweet from Wednesday night.
After the Tuesday hearing, Reig said:
“At today’s hearing, the Taxi and Limousine Commission offered no evidence or analysis to support ending the EV exemption. The Commissioners sat through almost 3 hours of testimony on all sides yet asked zero questions and spent zero time deliberating before making a policy decision with profound consequences. The TLC never intended to consider what drivers and New Yorkers had to say, and only cared about jamming through this vote on Primary Day with as little scrutiny as possible. This decision doesn’t change the fact that New York City needs an alternative to the predatory leasing system that exploits drivers and pollutes our environment, and Revel is exploring ways to accomplish that.”
Revel told Teslarati earlier today that it is aware that the TLC is not recommending the purchase of 50 gas-powered cars. The company is also aware that the TLC has capped the number of licenses it would issue. In order to encourage the adoption of electric cars, Revel spokespeople said that additional licenses would be given to wheelchair-accessible vehicles and EVs. A few hundred EVs have been added to the NYC Taxi fleet in the past two years, but these cars only account for .5% of the total number of For-Hire vehicles on NYC’s streets.
Tesla Model 3 wins hearts as famed NYC Taxi, picks up where Nissan Leaf couldn’t
This rule is brought up every six months and was last addressed and subsequently renewed in February. That means that it was due for review in August. However, the TLC brought the issue to light early and revoked the rule. The TLC says that if Reval wants to operate a rideshare service with its fleet of 50 Model Ys, they will have to obtain the licenses from displaced and no-longer-active taxis in the city.
Revel states that it would take two to three additional vehicles off of the street because the company will hire TLC-licensed drivers, who will no longer lease gas-powered vehicles. In addition, revel owns the vehicles, and different drivers will use the same car through different shifts, which could become a long-term advantage for the TLC as fewer cars will be on the street.
This would also line up with the Legislature items 634-B and 890-B, which would alleviate short-term leases and provide drivers with guaranteed wages, benefits, and vacation time.
The Bottom Line
The issue is this: Congestion is a real issue in the city. And while EVs only making up .5% of the total taxi fleet in the Big Apple, there is evidently no room for more vehicles, of any kind, in the City. Over time, the concentration of EV Taxis in the City that Never Sleeps will surely rise, but the existing vehicles need to be removed from the licensing pool before Revel can unleash its 50 all-electric Model Y taxis.
To summarize it easily, Fromberg said: “The TLC is fully committed to a 100% electrified future, just not at the cost of additional congestion.”
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
I use this newsletter to share my thoughts on what is going on in the Tesla world. If you want to talk to me directly, you can email me or reach me on Twitter. I don’t bite, be sure to reach out!
-Joey
On behalf of the entire Teslarati team, we’re working hard behind the scenes on bringing you more personalized members benefits, and can’t thank you enough for your continued support!
Elon Musk said weeks ago during SpaceX’s third-quarter earnings call that the company’s Grok Bot, its autonomous AI Agent platform, was showing “the fastest growth of a product” that he’d ever seen in his life.
Now, SpaceXSI is scaling back Grok Bot users’ weekly limits, much to the surprise of those who have relied on it to take away monotonous tasks in their lives.
Elon Musk’s terse November 1 reply on X captured a sharp tension in the early days of agentic AI. Responding to a user who asked for a Grok Bot usage reset after hitting 100 percent with four days still left on the weekly cycle, Musk wrote: “The cost of serving Grok Bot was unsustainably high relative to revenue.”
@DogecoinNorway The cost of serving Grok Bot was unsustainably high relative to revenue
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 1, 2026
The post arrived amid a wave of similar complaints from paying subscribers whose meters had jumped unexpectedly toward or to the limit, sometimes overnight and with little corresponding activity. It also stood in clear contrast to statements Musk had made only days and weeks earlier.
On the SpaceX third-quarter earnings call in mid-to-late October, Musk had described Grok Bot in almost the opposite terms. He called it “the fastest growth of a product that I’ve ever seen in my life” and said he had “never seen anything grow this fast.”
Company figures put paid weekly users at roughly 800,000 earlier in the month, more than doubling over the prior period. Daily active users had climbed from under 100,000 in early September to over 600,000 by late October.
Musk emphasized that the product has no free tier and that users appear to be getting real value beyond what they pay. In other remarks, he noted that usage per user was rising rather than declining, the opposite of the usual decay pattern for new software.
Grok Bot, launched around August, functions as an always-available agent with its own persistent cloud computer; it can schedule, research, shop, browse, and execute multi-step workflows even after the user steps away. Access is bundled into X subscription tiers (roughly $30, $100, and $200 per month) and certain Cursor plans, drawing from shared weekly usage pools whose exact sizes have not been publicly detailed.
The economics of that model are what Musk’s November 1 post put in the spotlight. Agentic systems burn far more compute than ordinary chatbot exchanges. Each task can trigger repeated model calls, tool use, web actions, and sustained background work.
When growth is as rapid as Musk celebrated, the absolute compute bill scales quickly even if average revenue per user stays fixed under flat monthly subscriptions. Industry observers noted the opportunity cost as well: the same GPUs can be rented to other AI labs at higher rates.
A simple back-of-the-envelope comparison circulating after the post illustrated the gap: if every reported daily user paid the top tier, annualized subscription revenue would still be modest relative to the scale of compute infrastructure SpaceX is building and leasing to companies like Anthropic.
Some users also reported possible dashboard anomalies around the same period, though Musk’s framing treated the underlying cost-revenue imbalance as the core issue rather than a pure metering glitch.
The juxtaposition is the core of this exchange. Within roughly two weeks of publicly framing Grok Bot as an unprecedented success with strong unit economics and no free tier, Musk acknowledged that serving the same product had become unsustainable relative to the revenue it generates.
For the broader industry, the episode underscores a structural challenge of the agent era: demand is real and growing faster than many expected, yet the cost of fulfilling that demand through always-on, multi-step agents can outrun subscription pricing before companies can adjust limits, introduce metered billing, or raise prices.
Musk’s reply did not promise an immediate reset or higher allowances; it simply stated the constraint. In doing so, it supplied a rare, explicit public data point on the unit economics of a high-profile AI agent just as adoption numbers were still being celebrated as the fastest in Musk’s experience.
The tension between rapid, paid growth and the compute required to deliver it is now on the record.
News
Tesla owners who tap Emergency Drive Away for fun are in for a surprise
Tapping Activate on Tesla’s Emergency Drive Away reportedly triggers a $539 service bill without moving.
Tesla owners who press Activate on Emergency Drive Away may be on the hook for a service bill even if their car never leaves the Supercharger stall.
Yaro, who posts about Tesla service cases on X as @Tutrifour, said a customer called after tapping Activate while still plugged into a Supercharger. The owner was about to pull away, remembered the cable was still connected and stopped. The car never moved, but the touchscreen showed a red alert reading “Emergency Drive Away has been activated” with “Service is required” underneath. A Service Mode screenshot showed the active alert BMS_a228_EmergencyDriveAwayServiceRequired, which Yaro said only Tesla Service can clear.
Here is a lesson to Tesla owners. Don’t press Activate on the new Emergency Drive Away feature on your Tesla because service charges $539 to inspect the charge port and to clear the alert. Yes, even if you didn’t move the car an inch. https://t.co/NZJENw4SQv
— Yaro (@Tutrifour) October 30, 2026
The cost of clearing it was the bigger surprise. “Don’t press Activate on the new Emergency Drive Away feature on your Tesla because service charges $539 to inspect the charge port and to clear the alert. Yes, even if you didn’t move the car an inch,” Yaro wrote. The $539 figure comes from that single case, and Tesla has not published a set price for the inspection or commented on the post. Yaro also noted that the car would still charge with the alert on screen.
Tesla launched Emergency Drive Away on October 1 with software update 2026.38.3, letting drivers pull away from a U.S. Supercharger with the cable still attached, as Teslarati reported. To use it, a driver shifts into Drive while connected, holds the brake and taps Activate. The prompt warns that driving with the cable connected will damage the vehicle and the Supercharger, and that short camera recordings will be shared with Tesla.
Tesla Charging has been clear about what follows a real activation. Repairs to a Supercharger stall can run up to $25,000 depending on the site, a service visit for the car’s charge port is mandatory, and deliberate misuse “will invoke additional penalties.” What the company had not spelled out is that the service requirement is triggered the moment Activate is pressed, not the moment the cable breaks away.
From an engineering standpoint, that is the cautious choice. Once Activate is pressed, the car cannot be sure the charge port latch was not stressed, so flagging it for inspection removes the guesswork. It also means the button carries a price on its own, which is a stronger deterrent against casual use than any warning screen.
Customer called because they have an active alert after tapping ACTIVATE on the new Emergency Drive Away feature. They didn’t actually drive away but were about to until they “remembered” they had the charge cable connected.
This alert can only be cleared by Tesla Service. https://t.co/SkHyJJPFwU
— Yaro (@Tutrifour) October 28, 2026
The report follows the feature’s first known real world use, when a driver in Austin during F1 weekend appeared to trigger it by accident and dragged the Supercharger cable along with the car. The Reddit user who filmed it said the driver seemed to have only half read the prompts.
For owners, the takeaway is to treat the red prompt as a stop sign. If it appears after shifting out of Park by mistake, shift back and unplug the normal way from the touchscreen, the Tesla app or the button on the charge handle. Activate is meant for moments when staying at the stall is the bigger risk, and Tesla is now pricing it that way.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk calls Earth’s data centers “peanuts” next to what SpaceX is planning in orbit
Elon Musk says SpaceX capex efficiency is underestimated as orbital data centers loom by 2028.
Elon Musk is pushing back on one of the biggest worries hanging over SpaceX stock. In a reply on X on Sunday, Musk said the company’s capital expenditure efficiency is severely underestimated. He was responding to a Milk Road Stocks post citing analyst Kyle Reidhead, who estimates SpaceX will need to spend roughly $470 billion over the next five quarters.
Reidhead built that figure around the target SpaceX set on its third quarter earnings call: 13 gigawatts or more of compute by the end of 2027. In his breakdown, Nvidia captures 83 to 89 percent of the spending. SpaceX ended the quarter with 1.7 GW of nameplate compute and guided to $35 billion to $40 billion in fourth quarter capex, as Teslarati reported.
Musk did not attach a number to his claim, but the earnings call shows the argument. CFO Bret Johnsen said new compute currently pays for itself in under a year at today’s pricing, and Musk said that window could shrink to six months next year. Using that pace, Reidhead argues about $230 billion of the $470 billion could come from operating cash flow and about $60 billion from SpaceX’s roughly $90 billion cash pile, leaving around $180 billion to borrow. Musk confirmed last week that SpaceX had already closed a new $40 billion debt raise to buy GPUs.
The ground buildout is not the end goal. It is what is meant to pay for the move to orbit. Replying on Friday to charts built from Sequoia partner Shaun Maguire’s SpaceX model, Musk wrote that “Terrestrial compute will be peanuts compared to orbital compute,” adding that orbital compute deployed per month “probably exceeds terrestrial around the end of 2028 and then far exceeds it in 2029.”
Maguire’s model shows how steep that path is. It has capex climbing from $88 billion this year to $290 billion in 2027 and $369 billion in 2028, with SpaceX burning $77.8 billion in cash this year and $122.6 billion next year before turning $114.9 billion cash positive in 2028. Musk’s response to the model was, “I think we can do better.”
The orbital half runs through Starmind. SpaceX plans to operate up to 1 million AI satellites flying in clusters of about 10, linked by roughly 10 terabits of bandwidth, with deployment of thousands of units starting as soon as late 2027 out of its Gigasat factory in Bastrop, Texas, according to SpaceX’s space safety page. Musk has said each Starmind spacecraft will carry more than 250 kW of solar power.
Getting there depends on launch volume. Maguire’s model assumes 250 Starship flights in 2028, up from two this year and 38 next year. The nearer test is financial: SpaceX guided to $33 billion to $37 billion in first quarter 2027 revenue, more than double the $14.58 billion it booked in Q3, and Musk reposted that guidance again on Sunday morning.
Grok Bot users hit with weekly limits early, Elon Musk explains what happened
Tesla owners who tap Emergency Drive Away for fun are in for a surprise
