News
Tesla addresses Zero-Cobalt future in latest Impact Report
Tesla outlined its goal for responsible Cobalt sourcing in its latest 2019 Impact Report, released on June 8, 2020.
The automaker plans to eventually produce a zero-cobalt battery for its vehicles and energy products, in its bid to source metals in a responsible fashion that maintains not only the integrity of the company but also the human rights of those involved in the sourcing of raw materials.
“Tesla’s batteries use nickel-rich cathode materials which contain less cobalt than other widely use cathode chemistries in the industry with our ultimate goal being to eliminate cobalt completely from our cells,” notes Tesla in its Impact Report.
Tesla’s lithium-ion batteries utilize an NCA Cathode makeup, comprised of a Nickel-Cobalt-Aluminum structure. The combination of the three metals creates a battery that has longevity and stability throughout the life cycle of the vehicle. Cobalt supplies a battery with high-rate performance and enhances cycle stability when exposed to high levels of heat, according to ScienceMag.
Cobalt, while controversial, is a crucial element in lithium-ion batteries, at least for now. While Tesla continues to work toward the omittance of the element from its batteries, the challenge is finding another metal that can replace Cobalt while maintaining the integrity of the battery.
Under a section titled “Supply Chain Introduction: Responsible Material Sourcing,” Tesla addresses and details its “Supplier Code of Conduct” and “Human Rights and Conflict Minerals Policy.” The two documents outline the company’s expectations for its suppliers and partners and require all members of the Tesla supply chain to uphold responsible and integrity-focused techniques when acquiring Cobalt.
“Tesla is committed to making working conditions in our supply chain safe and humane, ensuring that workers are treated with respect and dignity and that manufacturing processes are environmentally responsible,” the report indicates.
Tesla’s plans to utilize zero-Cobalt batteries are certainly in the company’s future plans. However, while the element is still included in the current battery makeup, responsible sourcing is among Tesla’s main concerns.
Suppliers involved in sourcing Cobalt for the electric automaker are required and expected to follow Tesla’s Code of Business Conduct and Ethics. Although many of the company’s direct suppliers obtain some raw materials through sub-contractors, Tesla conducts due diligence practices that maintain the safety and respect of workers everywhere.
Tesla has even gone as far as removing some risks from its supply chain. The report explicitly mentions areas notorious for child labor, especially in the field of Cobalt mining. “Because Tesla recognizes the higher risks of human rights issues within cobalt supply chains, particularly for child labor in the Democratic Republic of Congo, we have made a significant effort to establish processes to remove these risks from our supply chain,” the company wrote.
The eventual phasing out of Cobalt from the batteries Tesla uses requires an extreme process of due diligence, now. Cobalt has been one of the primary sources of criticism for non-EV supporters. In particular, the issue of child labor has driven as much skepticism from critics as nearly any other topic. However, the regular auditing and due diligence have helped Tesla maintain responsible labor and material acquisition practices, effectively eliminating any criticism for utilizing Cobalt at the current time.
Currently, the company’s cells use nickel-rich cathode materials and contain less Cobalt than any other widely used cathode chemistries in the EV sector. Eventually, zero-Cobalt batteries will be introduced into Tesla’s EVs Still, a controversial subject like the sourcing of the metal requires a tedious and specific amount of verification through a series of annual third-party audits.
The transparency that Tesla provides throughout the Impact Report’s Cobalt Sourcing section shows a responsible process of mining the metal. Tesla states that it has mapped significant areas of the Cobalt supply chain, and ethics concerning sourcing the metal will continue to improve over time.
Tesla’s 2019 Impact Report is available below.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
