News
The strategy behind the state selection of the Tesla Gigafactory
By now, everyone who has any interest at all in Tesla Motors has heard about their plans for a Gigafactory. Since the plan was introduced in February, the discussion groups and forums have been filled with thoughts on the implications of the huge battery making installation. Four potential sites were named: New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and Texas.
Speculation about how this would change things became rampant. Nicolas Zart asked how it would affect Tesla’s long-standing relationship with Panasonic, who provides the batteries being used in the Model S and that will likely be used in the upcoming Model X. Yet a more persistent question in the peanut gallery has been why Tesla would choose the states it mentioned as candidates for the factory.
To be straightforward, there was a lot of strategic thinking that went behind the choice of the four states mentioned, and there’s a good reason that a couple of those states, deemed as “Tesla-unfriendly,” are on the list.
Logistics
The states chosen are all within a specific logistical area. They’re warm weather states, have little seismic activity, are within easily-accessed and well-established transportation corridors (trains, highways, etc.), have low-cost land available, and have a surplus of most energy types.
This means that transport of materials and finished products to and from each of these locations is relatively easy and requires minimal work to customize. All of them are in sunny locations (a primary requirement for a solar farm as large as Tesla proposes) and they all have access to low-cost energy at surplus should the wind and solar plans take longer to establish or not perform as expected.
Costs and Baskets of Eggs
Each of the four states named also have highly conducive political environments for business. California, love it or hate it, is one of the worst places in the nation to attempt to start a manufacturing business in terms of bureaucracy, costs, and red tape. Choosing California would also mean Tesla would be putting all of their eggs into one basket, as it were, geographically and politically. This would directly affect our next point. We’ll discuss that in a moment.
All four of the states listed have low or no corporate income tax, have relatively low property taxes (even for industrial use), and are about as business-friendly as a state’s government can be without giving away the farm. Nevada and Arizona also have corporate-friendly incorporation laws, should Tesla need to use them.
Leverage
Now for the real meat of it. Tesla has already leveraged California for about everything it can in terms of concessions and breaks. California would likely be willing to do a lot to help Musk get his Gigafactory built, but it’s just as likely that the other candidates would do just as much on top of their already-friendly atmosphere, industry-wise.
Further, two of these states (do we need to name them?) have been less than friendly to Tesla during the dealership vs direct sales battles. Dangle the “create a green factory and employ a lot of your citizens” carrot, though, and suddenly the discussion might begin to change a little.
You don’t have to be Richard Nixon to see that the prospect of one of the world’s largest automotive battery factories being located in your state will have a hundred benefits to every loss you might politically incur for turning your back on your friends at the auto dealer’s association. Especially if you’re a governor with hopes of getting into the White House (ahemRickPerryahem). It’s things like the Gigafactory that can build legacies for those with the savvy to utilize the PR potential.
Strategically Speaking
Putting it together, the strategy behind the Gigafactory’s geographic location is very astute. Musk and Co gain more by naming enemies in their list of potentials than they would going the relatively safe route of staying in their west coast comfort zone.
Elon Musk
SpaceX to launch Starlink V2 satellites on Starship starting 2027
The update was shared by SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell and Starlink Vice President Mike Nicolls.
SpaceX is looking to start launching its next-generation Starlink V2 satellites in mid-2027 using Starship.
The update was shared by SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell and Starlink Vice President Mike Nicolls during remarks at Mobile World Congress (MWC) in Barcelona, Spain.
“With Starship, we’ll be able to deploy the constellation very quickly,” Nicolls stated. “Our goal is to deploy a constellation capable of providing global and contiguous coverage within six months, and that’s roughly 1,200 satellites.”
Nicolls added that once Starship is operational, it will be capable of launching approximately 50 of the larger, more powerful Starlink satellites at a time, as noted in a Bloomberg News report.
The initial deployment of roughly 1,200 next-generation satellites is intended to establish global and contiguous coverage. After that phase, SpaceX plans to continue expanding the system to reach “truly global coverage, including the polar regions,” Nicolls said.
Currently, all Starlink satellites are launched on SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket. The next-generation fleet will rely on Starship, which remains in development following a series of test flights in 2025. SpaceX is targeting its next Starship test flight, featuring an upgraded version of the rocket, as soon as this month.
Starlink is currently the largest satellite network in orbit, with nearly 10,000 satellites deployed. Bloomberg Intelligence estimates the business could generate approximately $9 billion in revenue for SpaceX in 2026.
Nicolls also confirmed that SpaceX is rebranding its direct-to-cell service as Starlink Mobile.
The service currently operates with 650 satellites capable of connecting directly to smartphones and has approximately 10 million monthly active users. SpaceX expects that figure to exceed 25 million monthly active users by the end of 2026.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk’s xAI and X to pay off $17.5B debt in full: report
The update was shared initially in a report from Bloomberg News, which cited people reportedly familiar with the matter.
Elon Musk’s social platform X and artificial intelligence startup xAI are reportedly preparing to repay approximately $17.5 billion in outstanding debt in full.
The update was shared initially in a report from Bloomberg News, which cited people reportedly familiar with the matter.
Morgan Stanley, which arranged the debt financing for both companies, has reportedly informed existing lenders that X and xAI plan to pay back the full amount of the $17.5 billion debt. Bloomberg’s sources did not disclose where the capital for the repayment would be coming from.
X, formerly known as Twitter, assumed roughly $12.5 billion in debt during Musk’s acquisition of the company. xAI separately borrowed about $5 billion through bonds and loans last June. The two firms merged last year under xAI Holdings.
Bloomberg noted that portions of the debt are relatively recent and may carry early repayment penalties. xAI’s $3 billion in high-yield bonds are expected to be redeemed at 117 cents on the dollar, reflecting a premium since the debt was expected to stay outstanding for at least two years.
X has been servicing tens of millions of dollars in monthly debt payments, while xAI has reportedly been burning approximately $1 billion in cash per month as it invests heavily in data centers, chips, and AI talent. That being said, xAI also concluded a funding round in January, where it raised $20 billion of new equity.
The repayment plans come as Musk consolidates several of his businesses. SpaceX recently acquired xAI, making it a subsidiary as the company explores plans for space-based data centers. The combined entity has been valued at approximately $1.25 trillion.
Bloomberg previously reported that SpaceX is targeting a confidential IPO filing as soon as this month, potentially positioning the private space firm for a public listing later this year. Representatives for Morgan Stanley declined to comment, and X and xAI did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
News
Tesla Giga Berlin head calls out Handelsblatt’s claimed 2025 production figures
Andre Thierig, Senior Director of Manufacturing at Giga Berlin, published a detailed post on LinkedIn challenging several points made in the publication’s coverage of the Grünheide facility.
Tesla Gigafactory Berlin’s plant manager has publicly pushed back against recent reporting by German business publication Handelsblatt, which cited reportedly erroneous data about the factory’s production figures and financial performance.
Andre Thierig, Senior Director of Manufacturing at Giga Berlin, published a detailed post on LinkedIn challenging several points made in the publication’s coverage of the Grünheide facility.
In his LinkedIn post, Thierig called out Handelsblatt’s claim that 149,000 Model Y vehicles were produced at Giga Berlin in 2025. He noted that “the article is simply filled from front to back with false information and claims!
“I have to set the record straight here! In the last article about Tesla in Grünheide, the Handelsblatt speaks e.g. of 149,000 Model Ys built in 2025. WRONG!
“In 2025, we again produced over 200,000 vehicles. And this despite the fact that we stopped production in Q1 for the changeover to the new Model Y and then ramped it up again to 5,000 units per week over several weeks,” Thierig wrote.
He added that production increased each quarter in 2025 compared to the prior quarter and stated that more than 700,000 Model Y units have been produced at Grünheide since manufacturing began in 2022. For the first quarter of 2026, he stated that the factory is planning another production increase compared to the fourth quarter of 2025.
Thierig also questioned Handelsblatt’s reported 0.74% profit margin, writing that how the publication calculated the figure “remains reserved for their secret ‘calculation skills.’”
Beyond production data, Thierig highlighted Tesla’s broader footprint in Germany, stating that the company has invested more than €5 billion in Grünheide since 2020 and created nearly 11,000 permanent, above-tariff jobs. He added that Tesla is currently investing nearly €100 million into battery cell production at the site, which is expected to generate several hundred additional positions.
In a follow-up comment, Thierig noted that he did communicate with the publication’s editor-in-chief in an effort to “start fresh,” but he was informed that Handelsblatt’s current approach works just fine.
“Last year, I spoke to a representative of the Handelsblatt editor-in-chief and suggested that we “start anew” again. Handelsblatt turned down this offer on the grounds that their current approach works well for them,” Thierig noted.
Sönke Iwersen, Head of Investigative Research at Handelsblatt, responded to Thierig’s post, stating that the newspaper’s figures were based on Tesla’s own annual financial statements for the Grünheide entity.
He cited reported 2024 revenue of €7.68 billion, operating profit of €156.8 million, and net income after taxes of €55.6 million. Iwersen also referenced prior public comments from Elon Musk about Cybertruck demand, noting the gap between reported pre-orders and subsequent annual sales figures.
He also stated that the works council election eligibility figures Giga Berlin had dropped to 10,703 employees today from 12,415 two years ago.
“As far as production figures are concerned, these are figures from the data service provider Inovev. This is also stated in the article. Please compare this with Elon Musk’s information on demand for the Cybertruck. According to Musk, there were one million pre-orders. In the first year, 39,000 units were sold, in the second year 20,000. How can this be explained? With a million pre-orders?
“You yourself have repeatedly pointed out in recent months that no jobs would be cut in Grünheide because Tesla is different from the competition. Now a new works council is being elected in Grünheide. 10,703 people are eligible to vote. Two years ago, 12,415 people were eligible to vote. So there were exactly 1712 fewer from 2024 to 2026,” Iwersen wrote.
