News
Tesla’s battery supply constraint is ending, price parity with gas cars is at hand
Tesla’s Semi is coming, and it will be here sooner than expected. But the production of the vehicle could be pointing to one thing: Tesla is no longer battery constrained.
Past the face value portion of the story, something much bigger is happening. While the Semi entering a “volume production” phase is big news, the development of the commercial vehicle comes at a time where battery production for Tesla seems to be the main focus of the electric automaker.
In Q3 2019, CEO Elon Musk indicated that a shortage of battery cells primarily drove the Semi’s delay. If Tesla wanted to start producing the Semi, the company would have to make cells available for it. That would mean one thing: cutting back on cells utilized for Tesla’s mass-market vehicles, which at the time was the Model 3.
Building the Semi before a sufficient battery production and supply chain was established would have been detrimental to the company’s long-term plans. Of course, the Model 3 has been Tesla’s most popular vehicle since it started deliveries in 2017. Its affordability has helped Tesla reach a new market, which was all apart of Elon’s original Master Plan.
With the Model Y now being produced in Fremont, Tesla now has two mass-market vehicles that are affordable by a vast segment of the population. Ultimately, this means that Tesla needed to levy a majority of its available lithium-ion cells for the Model 3 and Model Y. Unfortunately, the Semi just was not a priority over those two cars. Why would it be? The Model 3 (and Model Y now) are Tesla’s two top sellers. Therefore, the battery needs pointed toward the 3 and the Y, with Semi production being dependent on the availability of battery cells.
If we think about Musk’s statement from Q3, he indicated that the Semi production would be based on when Tesla could manufacture the appropriate amount of lithium-ion batteries to power the Class 8 vehicle. Although demand for the 3 and the Y continues to increase, so is Tesla’s production rate, and it could be indicative that the Silicon Valley-based electric car maker is pumping out enough batteries to produce all of its vehicles without any worries of possible cell shortages.
Ultimately, this idea could lead to another significant development in the EV world as a whole, and that is price parity.
For a long time, analysts have pinpointed the electric vehicle movement’s price parity at $100/kWh for battery cell production. This means that when cells are produced at a high enough rate, batteries will be lower in cost. Then, electric cars will be the same price as gas-powered machines, making the argument of “EVs are too expensive” obsolete.
-
The Tesla Model 3 Performance utilizes a 75 kWh battery pack. If battery production is at $120/kWh, this would mean that the Model 3 Performance’s battery pack costs $9,000 to produce. The car’s $54,990 price tag, hypothetically at $120 per kWh, is made up of a battery pack that costs about $9,000.
If Tesla could produce batteries at a high enough rate where the cost per kWh could come down to $100, the battery pack would only cost $7,500 to build, meaning an additional $1,500 comes off the price of the vehicle altogether. Tesla’s goal is to produce enough battery cells to justify this pricing point for its cars. Also, $100/kWh is just the price parity point, and not where the cost will ultimately end up. If demand continues to increase and battery cell production keeps growing, the cost could get even lower.
If Tesla has enough batteries to justify producing mass quantities of the Model 3 and Model Y, along with the sizable battery packs of the Semi, parity could be coming sooner than expected. Most analysts indicated 2023 as the year when battery production would be on a level where EV prices could compete with their petrol-powered counterparts.
However, if the Semi is ready for a production run now, Tesla may have enough cells to introduce a more affordable pricing model for its vehicles. This could, in turn, lead to even higher production numbers, increased demand, and a sharp increase in the company’s delivery numbers.
The announcement of the Tesla Semi meant much more than the company producing its commercial vehicle. It means batteries are no longer in restricted amounts, the technology is improving, and the prices of the company’s vehicles could be coming down soon. With this, it appears that Elon Musk’s endgame with his Master Plan may be getting closer to reality.
In a new note to investors on Tuesday, Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Percoco said that Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors regarding its Robotaxi rollout, Full Self-Driving software, and Optimus.
Percoco said in the note that, for the most part, investors are still very positive about the direction the company is headed. However, there are some things the firm would like to see, and they have to do with financials.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla bulls are more than convinced that the company’s Full Self-Driving software is proof it can develop physical AI. Financially, however, there are still some questions, especially on elevated spending, which CEO Elon Musk said would occur as the company works to roll out Robotaxi faster and continue developing its Optimus robot.
The latter two are where Tesla will have to prove progress to investors, as Percoco writes that both projects “will require clearer evidence that Robotaxi is scaling and more tangible Optimus proof points to support the ROI on elevated capex.”
Percoco said the second quarter earnings call did not change his long-term thesis of where Tesla is positioned in the AI race, which is out in front. However, there are concerns that weaker gross margins and higher R&D spend will stress financials, and that has “sharpened our (and investors’) focus on measurable progress across Robotaxi and Optimus.”
Additionally, Robotaxi still needs to be proven with more operation in existing cities while maintaining safety but improving how many rides it gives in any given time, he said. For Optimus, Percoco wrote that he is “still looking for evidence beyond commentary around SOP.”
-
Morgan Stanley put Percoco in charge of covering Tesla after long-time analyst Adam Jonas transitioned to the automotive side.
Currently, Morgan Stanley has a $415 price target on Tesla and a ‘Hold’ rating on the stock. It is trading at around $330 at the time of publication, which was 2:30 P.M. on the East Coast.
SpaceX’s massive investment in AI will make it a big winner, Argus Research said after the company’s successful earnings call last week.
The firm also upgraded shares to a Buy from Hold and set a $160 price target.
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) is currently recovering from its heavy AI infrastructure investments, as it spent nearly $16 billion in Q2 alone. The company did this primarily by monetizing high-demand GPU compute capacity at a much faster pace than traditional data center economics would suggest.
Company CFO Bret Johnsen said that SpaceX would be able to pay back anything on new deployments within a year.
There are plenty of ways the company can do this:
Leasing excess compute capacity through contracts
SpaceX has already built Colossus and Colossus II, largely for its own model training. However, much of that capacity is already rented out to third parties. It already has major deals with Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI. These partnerships are adding billions per month to SpaceX’s spreadsheet.
-
High utilization driven by industry-wide scarcity
The demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity continues to exceed what is available for use. SpaceX can fill new racks quickly after they come online, so the capital deployed converts into revenue with minimal idle time.
Additionally, management and outside observers have described the new compute capital as behaving more like a cost-of-goods-sold than traditional multi-year capex, especially because of this rapid monetization pattern.
Capacity has already scaled from ~0.4 GW a year to 1.4 GW annually by the end of Q2. There are targets of more than 2 GW by year-end.
High incremental margins on the rental business once capacity is online
GPU cloud providers often operate at strong gross margins. SpaceX can monetize capacity that was already partially built or can be added efficiently. This means that incremental EBITDA margins on the rental revenue are usually high. This accelerates cash recovery relative to the gross capital outlay.
Parallel monetization of its own AI software and applications
Beyond pure infrastructure rental, SpaceX also generates revenue from Grok through subscriptions and usage, from X through ads, data, and other related services, enterprise APIs, and the planned integration of the Cursor coding tools acquisition.
These application layers ride on the same compute infrastructure and provide additional high-margin streams that could offset build-out costs. AI-segment revenue overall rose sharply to about $2.6 billion in Q2, according to Motley Fool. This was driven primarily by the infrastructure contracts, but the software side is also partially responsible.
Efficient, large-scale deployment and vertical integration advantages
SpaceX has emphasized the rapid construction of power and cooling infrastructure and favorable cost-per-megawatt economics relative to industry benchmarks in some disclosures.
-
Combined with its ability to scale capacity aggressively and the fact that many contracts start generating revenue within months of capacity coming online, the effective payback compresses dramatically compared with more conventional multi-year data-center projects.
SpaceX’s dominant near-term recovery path will turn the AI clusters into a hyperscale-style compute rental business for other leading AI companies while still using a portion for internal models.
Tesla headlights have caused a recall of over 20,000 of the company’s two most popular vehicles, the Model 3 and Model Y, due to the low-beam bulb exceeding the maximum allowed intensity according to federal standards.
Tesla initiated the recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) this morning, stating that the low-beam output “exceeds the maximum allowed intensity in the outer upper-right and outer upper-left areas of the 10U and 90U zone, as prescribed in FMVSS No. 108.”
Tesla sourced the impacted headlights from Marelli Automotive Lighting, a Mexico-based company. The recall impacts 2020-2023 Model Y vehicles and 2017-2023 Model 3 vehicles. It is estimated that every VIN in this recall is impacted by the defect.
🚨 Tesla is recalling 20,349 2020-23 Model Y vehicles and 2017-23 Model 3 vehicles due to an excessively bright headlamp low beam.
Currently, there is no remedy plan in place, as it is still being developed. pic.twitter.com/y34cIO2U0B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 11, 2026
Typically, Tesla would remedy recalls of this nature through an Over-the-Air software update, which has been a major focus of criticism by the company and its supporters because the NHTSA still refers to it as a “recall,” even though it requires no action by the vehicle owner. The fix is shipped over the internet and downloaded to the car.
-
However, there appears to be a potentially different solution for this problem. Tesla has not developed a remedy for this issue, so it could potentially be on the way. The big issue appears to be the fact that these recalled lamps are out of production, and this is an old body style for both vehicles. The headlights and front-end designs are completely different.
Tesla switched to another supplier when the affected headlight design was discontinued. It plans to begin notifying owners of their remedy options by September 15.
Tesla filed a petition protesting the recall to fix the vehicles’ headlight issue, but the NHTSA denied it. Now, Tesla will come up with a solution to fix it.
Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors: Morgan Stanley
SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says
