News
Full Recap of Tesla’s 2015 Annual Shareholder Meeting
At the Tesla Annual Shareholder Meeting, chairman Elon Musk touched on a number of subjects, including cars, the GigaFactory, battery storage and space travel.
Tesla growth chart used at 2015 annual shareholder meeting
During his remarks at the Tesla annual shareholder meeting on Tuesday, chairman Elon Musk touched on a wide range of topics from the AutoPilot system, the GigaFactory, residential and utility scale grid storage, and life on Mars. Here’s a synopsis.
Car Stuff
Musk told the meeting that he anticipates sales volume will continue to grow 50% per year, on average, for the next several years. The company has opened a new casting and machining center near the Fremont factory. Moving production functions there has opened up room at the factory to install a new assembly line capable of producing 3 times as many cars as the current line. A new paint facility capable of handling up to 500,000 cars a year has also been installed.
The Model X is undergoing final pre-production tweaking and will start production in “3 to 4 months.” In response to a question, Musk said that mounting the battery pack low in the chassis makes the Model X one of the safest SUV’s on the road. He went on to say that, like the Model S, it will achieve some of the highest crash test ratings of any car on the road.
“[I]t’s turning out to be a really great car. I think the Model X may arguably be a better SUV than the Model S is as a sedan. We want to make sure obviously that some of the key features of the Model X, particularly the Falcon Wing door and the way the second row seats are done …is…just right, and provide true functionality and true value improvements versus just sort of feeling gimmicky. It’s got to be a genuine improvement in utility and aesthetics, so getting those final nuances right for the Model X is what we’re focused on right now.”
When asked about the affordable mass-market Model 3, he said it would be available only with a single motor at first to keep costs down but would be offered in a dual motor version as well.
He did have exciting news about the Supercharger network. The company is fitting solar panels to as many Supercharger locations as possible. He assured the audience that those that could not be converted to solar power would soon get their electricity only from renewable power sources.
Musk also said the company has created a new liquid cooled charging cord that is significantly thinner and more flexible than the one used now. Not only does liquid cooling make the cable more elegant, it will permit the use of higher powered Supercharger facilities in the future.
He emphasized that the system will continue to expand in North America and other countries to permit Tesla owners to enjoy free long distance driving for life. He did say that owners who use Superchargers for all their daily charging can expect to receive a “note” from the company.
With regard to the AutoPilot suite of autonomous driving features, Musk indicated that the company is busy testing and upgrading the system. “We’re making gradual progress towards what I’d say is a releasable bit of software. But it is quite a tricky thing and we want to make sure that our testing is exhaustive before we release the software. But if we keep making progress, I think we may be able to get it out to all the access customers which is sort of our public beta program around the end of this month.”
Full implementation is not expected for about 3 years, with a lot depending on how regulators in the US and abroad react to it. He said that the system at this point is intended to function like the auto pilot in airplanes — there to help but not to allow drivers to sleep through their journey to arrive alert and refreshed at their destination…..yet.
Musk admitted that interest in battery swapping was far lower than expected. He indicated that the company is focusing more on improving Supercharger performance and less on building battery swap locations.
Tesla PowerWall
One of the biggest announcements of the day concerns the Tesla PowerWall. Some critics have chirped that the units introduced to great fanfare in April were too small to be worth the cost. “I am very happy to announce that we’ve dramatically increased the power capability of the Powerwall. So it’s actually going to go from having 2 kilowatts steady, 3.3 kilowatt peak to a 7 kilowatt power, 5 kilowatt steady, price is unchanged. So, it basically more than doubled the power output of the Powerpack and the price is going to stay the same.”
The company will prioritize deliveries to people who already have a residential solar system or who are installing one. Why? Because an inverter will be already included in their system, meaning adding a PowerWall will cost only about $3,500 for the unit and about $500 for installation. That’s huge.
But even with that announcement, Musk admitted that the PowerWall may not make economic sense for most customers in the US because the differences between the cost of electricity during a 24 hour period are usually not large enough for there to be a pay back on the cost of the system in a reasonable period of time. He cites Germany, Australia and Hawaii as markets where the PowerWall makes more economic sense.
The company focus is on grid scale storage, which it expects will account for 80% of its stationary battery business. “That’s where the economics are very compelling because there is an important difference between price and cost. The cost to the utilities of between day and night is quite substantial because the power usage is often sort of 2:1 at least if not greater than 2:1, sometimes substantially greater than 2:1 between peak day usage and trough night usage.”
Musk told the audience that utility companies look favorably on using Tesla battery storage units because they are more compact than what competitors offer, so they can fit into the footprint of existing substations without the need to acquire more land and the permitting issues that may create. He says utilities are just like residential customers — they appreciate that the Tesla units are basically “plug and play” ready, with no hassles or headaches.
The GigaFactory
Musk said the GigaFactory was coming along smoothly, with production expected to begin next year with full capacity expected within 3 years. In response to a question from the audience, he responded, “Our focus right now is just making sure that we build the Gigafactory version one correctly and that’s going to be quite a difficult challenge over the next few years. We’ll have the first part of it active next year but then we want to try to get to full production in roughly three years…that’s going to be quite a challenge. And I think once we get to that point we want to figure out where to put Gigafactory Two and Three.”
He says the GigaFactory will have the capacity to build 50 gigawatt-hours of batteries a year. “And that should allow for 500,000 cars to be produced a year plus have 15 gigawatt-hours left over for stationary. The way it’s looking, demand for stationary is higher than expected, so we’re looking at potentially expanding the output capability of the Gigafactory to meet the higher demand for stationary.”
SpaceX
An audience member asked when SpaceX would be going public and Musk responded that a SpaceX IPO was a long way off, primarily because the stock market is focused on quarterly reports and has an attention span limited to 1 to 2 years maximum. He said the timeline for SpaceX was quite a bit beyond that. Then he dropped this bomb:
“I’m trying to build a city on Mars and that ends up sacrificing profitability for a really long time. I think it would be not super loved by the public markets. I’d expect with SpaceX that we will probably go public once we will have a regular flights to Mars.”
The Take Away
One stockholder asked Elon Musk what his goals for the company are. He gave this answer, which may serve as the overarching statement that underlies everything he and his various companies are attempting to accomplish.
“Our goal at Tesla is pretty straight forward; it’s really to accelerate the advent of sustainable energy and particularly sustainable transport. So in order for humanity to have a good future or for life…we have to figure out how to make that future sustainable, meaning not to have crazy amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere and ultimately get into situation of hydrocarbon scarcity, which would be economically disastrous.
“So, that’s what we’re focused on. Our primary goal is to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport and then, with the batteries, help the advent of sustainable energy production.”
Quoted material is courtesy of Seeking Alpha transcription service.
Elon Musk
The Boring Company just doubled its tunneling power in Nashville
The Boring Company’s Prufrock MB2 is commissioned and ready to mine beneath Nashville’s streets.
The Boring Company’s second tunnel boring machine, Prufrock MB2, is officially ready to dig in Nashville. The company confirmed the news on X, posting: “Prufrock-MB2 is ready to mine in Nashville! MB2 commissioning is complete, including the brief 11 rpm rotation shown here. Will MB2 catch up to MB1, who had quite the head start? And Prufrock-MB3 ships in August!”
MB2 arrives with meaningful improvements over its predecessor. Lessons learned from the launch and operation of MB1 have already been applied to MB2 to improve efficiency and prepare the machine for launch.
Traditional tunnel boring machines operate in a stop-and-go cycle, digging roughly five feet, halt, erect precast concrete segments to line the tunnel wall, then resume. That repeated interruption is one of the main reasons conventional tunneling is slow and expensive. Prufrock is designed to install the tunnel liner simultaneously with mining, eliminating the need to stop every five feet. The machine also skips the need for excavated launch pits. Prufrock arrives on a truck, tilts down, and launches into the ground within 24 hours. And when the tunnel is complete, it emerges from the ground and drives to its next launch site on a trailer, eliminating the need for expensive cranes or pit excavation. The machine is also fully electric and runs with zero people in the tunnel during normal operations, controlled remotely from a surface operations center.
Prufrock-MB2 is ready to mine in Nashville! MB2 commissioning is complete, including the brief 11 rpm rotation shown here.
Will MB2 catch up to MB1, who had quite the head start?
And Prufrock-MB3 ships in August! pic.twitter.com/TTrMql2aRg
— The Boring Company (@boringcompany) June 17, 2026
It won’t be long before we hear of another major update on The Boring Company’s Music City Loop project – a planned underground transit network beneath Nashville that would move passengers in electric vehicles through a series of tunnels at highway speeds, and bypassing surface traffic entirely. Nashville was selected in part because of its strong rock conditions that suits the Prufrock machines well, and relatively less regulatory hurdles.
Progress has been steady on multiple fronts. All 37 permits and approvals required ahead of tunneling have been obtained, out of 45 total. Key wins include a fully executed TDOT tunnel permit authorizing 25 miles of tunnel, unanimous airport authority approval for a Nashville International Airport station, and the city’s first residential station agreement serving downtown tower residents.
With MB1 already tunneling, MB2 now commissioned, and MB3 shipping in August, Nashville is becoming something of a live proving ground for scaled tunnel boring. The broader ambition is not limited to one city. The Boring Company’s stated goal is to make underground transportation a practical alternative to surface roads across major metro areas. Nashville is one of many cities, including a successful Las Vegas tunnel system, where that idea is being put to the test at real speed.
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.
The Boring Company just doubled its tunneling power in Nashville
Tesla urges New Jersey owners to oppose new bill that could block Robotaxi
