Noted carmaker Aston Martin has found itself in a climate lobbying controversy, following the spread of an anti-EV study which peddled the idea that electric cars will have to travel as far as 50,000 miles before matching the carbon footprint of a comparable fossil fuel-powered vehicle. Needless to say, the controversy, which is now being dubbed in EV circles as #Astongate, is crumbling down, and it seems to be dragging Aston Martin’s name with it.
The report, titled “Decarbonising Road Transport: There Is No Silver Bullet,” made the rounds in several key media outlets last week, with agencies such as The Times and the The Daily Telegraph reporting on its alleged findings. The findings of the study promptly drew raised eyebrows from EV authorities online, most especially Auke Hoekstra, Senior Advisor on Electric Mobility at the Eindhoven Technical University, who is known for debunking anti-electric car narratives. It didn’t take long before the study was thoroughly debunked.
But the story only got stranger from there.
Electric vehicle experts and researchers opted to trace the source of the study, and what they found was quite interesting. As it turned out, the study was commissioned by companies including Aston Martin, Bosch, Honda, and McLaren. The study was presented as the work of a firm called Clarendon Communications, and it was commissioned shortly after UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson called for a ban on the sale of new fossil fuel-powered vehicles from 2030.
Interestingly enough, the communications firm behind the report, Clarendon Communications, was registered under the name of Rebecca Stephen, a part-time NHS nurse and the spouse of Aston Martin’s government affairs director, James Stephen. The PR firm was set up only this February, and it is registered to the address of a property jointly owned by the couple.
In an email to The Guardian, Rebecca Stephen stated that the report from Clarendon was “compiled” by the same companies that commissioned the study itself. According to Stephen, Clarendon was contacted by Bosch “to provide public affairs and stakeholder support” so its logo and contact details appear on the back of the report “for this purpose.” Bosch, for its part, noted via a spokeswoman that it fully supports the report. The company also called for “greater transparency” on the carbon footprint of vehicles.
As the “Astongate” controversy emerges, Labour MP Matt Western, who wrote the foreword to the Clarendon Communications report, expressed his disdain that the study was used as part of an anti-EV narrative. According to Western, he agreed to be part of the project to “push this agenda forward, rather than the opposite.” “I am disappointed that the report has since been used to push an anti-electrification line in the media. I was not aware of any link between the PR firm involved and Aston Martin,” he said.
As for Francis Ingham, the director-general of the Public Relations and Communications Association, he noted that PR agencies such as Clarendon must fight misinformation, not spread it. “We have a duty to fight misinformation, not purvey it. PR agencies should be fully transparent about who they represent. Failure to disclose client relationships damages trust in our industry and lends credence to misleading perceptions of PR as a sinister practice,” Ingham said.
Amidst the shift of the auto industry towards electric vehicles, Aston Martin is among those that are being left behind. The company has canceled its RapidE electric vehicle and is currently not promising anything electric until 2026. The company has handed a fifth of its equity to Mercedes-Benz in exchange for access to the German luxury automaker’s hybrid and EV tech.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk explains why Tesla’s 4680 battery breakthrough is a big deal
Tesla confirmed in its Q4 and FY 2025 update letter that it is now producing 4680 cells whose anode and cathode were produced during the dry electrode process.
Tesla’s breakthroughs with its 4680 battery cell program mark a significant milestone for the electric vehicle maker. This was, at least, as per Elon Musk in a recent post on social media platform X.
Tesla confirmed in its Q4 and FY 2025 update letter that it is now producing 4680 cells whose anode and cathode were produced during the dry electrode process.
Why dry-electrode matters
In a post on X, Elon Musk stated that making the dry-electrode process work at scale was “incredibly difficult,” calling it a major achievement for Tesla’s engineering, production, and supply chain teams, as well as its partner suppliers. He also shared his praise for the Tesla team for overcoming such a difficult task.
“Making the dry electrode process work at scale, which is a major breakthrough in lithium battery production technology, was incredibly difficult. Congratulations to the @Tesla engineering, production and supply chain teams and our strategic partner suppliers for this excellent achievement!” Musk wrote in his post.
Tesla’s official X account expanded on Musk’s remarks, stating that dry-electrode manufacturing “cuts cost, energy use & factory complexity while dramatically increasing scalability.” Bonne Eggleston, Tesla’s Vice President of 4680 batteries, also stated that “Getting dry electrode technology to scale is just the beginning.”
Tesla’s 4680 battery program
Tesla first introduced the dry-electrode concept at Battery Day in 2020, positioning it as a way to eliminate solvent-based electrode drying, shrink factory footprints, and lower capital expenditures. While Tesla has produced 4680 cells for some time, the dry cathode portion of the process proved far more difficult to industrialize than expected.
Together with its confirmation that it is producing 4680 cells in Austin with both electrodes manufactured using the dry process, Tesla has also stated that it has begun producing Model Y vehicles with 4680 battery packs. As per Tesla, this strategy was adopted as a safety layer against trade barriers and tariff risks.
“We have begun to produce battery packs for certain Model Ys with our 4680 cells, unlocking an additional vector of supply to help navigate increasingly complex supply chain challenges caused by trade barriers and tariff risks,” Tesla wrote in its Q4 and FY 2025 update letter.
News
Even Tesla China is feeling the Optimus V3 fever
As per Tesla China, Optimus V3 is “about to be unveiled.”
Even Tesla China seems to have caught the Optimus V3 fever, with the electric vehicle maker teasing the impending arrival of the humanoid robot on its official Weibo account.
As per Tesla China, Optimus V3 is “about to be unveiled.”
Tesla China hypes up Optimus V3
Tesla China noted on its Weibo post that Optimus V3 is redesigned from first principles and is capable of learning new tasks by observing human behavior. The company has stated that it is targeting annual production capacity of up to one million humanoid robots once manufacturing scales.
During the Q4 and FY 2025 earnings call, CEO Elon Musk stated that Tesla will wind down Model S and Model X production to free up factory space for the pilot production line of Optimus V3.
Musk later noted that Giga Texas should have a significantly larger Optimus line, though that will produce Optimus V4. He also made it a point to set expectations with Optimus’ production ramp, stating that the “normal S curve of manufacturing ramp will be longer for Optimus.”
Tesla China’s potential role
Tesla’s decision to announce the Optimus update on Weibo highlights the importance of the humanoid robot in the company’s global operations. Giga Shanghai is already Tesla’s largest manufacturing hub by volume, and Musk has repeatedly described China’s manufacturers as Tesla’s most legitimate competitors.
While Tesla has not confirmed where Optimus V3 will be produced or deployed first, the scale and efficiency of Gigafactory Shanghai make it a plausible candidate for future humanoid robot manufacturing or in-factory deployment. Musk has also suggested that Optimus could become available for public purchase as early as 2027, as noted in a CNEV Post report.
“It’s going to be a very capable robot. I think long-term Optimus will have a very significant impact on the US GDP. It will actually move the needle on US GDP significantly. In conclusion, there are still many who doubt our ambitions for creating amazing abundance. We are confident it can be done, and we are making the right moves technologically to ensure that it does,” Musk said during the earnings call.
Elon Musk
Tesla director pay lawsuit sees lawyer fees slashed by $100 million
The ruling leaves the case’s underlying settlement intact while significantly reducing what the plaintiffs’ attorneys will receive.
The Delaware Supreme Court has cut more than $100 million from a legal fee award tied to a shareholder lawsuit challenging compensation paid to Tesla directors between 2017 and 2020.
The ruling leaves the case’s underlying settlement intact while significantly reducing what the plaintiffs’ attorneys will receive.
Delaware Supreme Court trims legal fees
As noted in a Bloomberg Law report, the case targeted pay granted to Tesla directors, including CEO Elon Musk, Oracle founder Larry Ellison, Kimbal Musk, and Rupert Murdoch. The Delaware Chancery Court had awarded $176 million to the plaintiffs. Tesla’s board must also return stock options and forego years worth of pay.
As per Chief Justice Collins J. Seitz Jr. in an opinion for the Delaware Supreme Court’s full five-member panel, however, the decision of the Delaware Chancery Court to award $176 million to a pension fund’s law firm “erred by including in its financial benefit analysis the intrinsic value” of options being returned by Tesla’s board.
The justices then reduced the fee award from $176 million to $70.9 million. “As we measure it, $71 million reflects a reasonable fee for counsel’s efforts and does not result in a windfall,” Chief Justice Seitz wrote.
Other settlement terms still intact
The Supreme Court upheld the settlement itself, which requires Tesla’s board to return stock and options valued at up to $735 million and to forgo three years of additional compensation worth about $184 million.
Tesla argued during oral arguments that a fee award closer to $70 million would be appropriate. Interestingly enough, back in October, Justice Karen L. Valihura noted that the $176 award was $60 million more than the Delaware judiciary’s budget from the previous year. This was quite interesting as the case was “settled midstream.”
The lawsuit was brought by a pension fund on behalf of Tesla shareholders and focused exclusively on director pay during the 2017–2020 period. The case is separate from other high-profile compensation disputes involving Elon Musk.
Elon Musk explains why Tesla’s 4680 battery breakthrough is a big deal
Even Tesla China is feeling the Optimus V3 fever
