News
Tesla and EVs didn’t brake for the pandemic, and now the age of oil is ending
During the first nine months of 2020, car sales cratered, with every major automaker seeing a steep drop in sales as the pandemic raged across the globe. That is, of course, every major automaker except Tesla. Despite the world practically stopping due to the pandemic, the Silicon Valley-based electric car maker sold more cars than ever before. Tesla even maintained its momentum from the previous year by posting five profitable quarters in a row, and it’s poised to end 2020 with an inclusion into the S&P 500 index.
A Make or Break Year, and EVs Made It
What’s quite interesting is that it was not only Tesla that saw some serious momentum this year. Even as sales of internal combustion vehicles collapsed, EVs in general managed to thrive. A good example of this could be seen in Daimler and Volkswagen’s electric car sales in 2020. Both companies saw record-setting declines in their ICE divisions, but both companies also saw their EV sales this year doubling. This, if any, further highlighted that there is a growing demand for electric cars.
Even more impressive was the fact that 2020 was a year when the electric vehicle movement could have been crushed once more. The year saw the launch of some of the most important EVs for their respective companies. In Tesla’s case, this was the Model Y, a vehicle that Elon Musk expects would outsell the Model S, Model 3, and Model X combined. Volkswagen also launched the ID.3, a car that, if successful, could very well be the second coming of the ubiquitous Beetle. Failure on the Model Y and the ID.3’s part could have resulted in the EV movement getting set back again. That did not happen.
Peak Oil
To state that 2020 was challenging would be a gross understatement. Amidst lockdowns in several countries, the world changed. Air travel all but stopped and working from home became the norm. Then in September, British oil firm BP Plc announced something remarkable: peak oil may have very well happened, and the demand for oil may never return to its prior levels. Granted, oil prices rose in November as vaccine trials continued and demand recovered somewhat in Asia. But even as the world approached a return to some form normalcy, it was evident that things would no longer be the same.
US Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell echoed this sentiment last month. “We’re not going back to the same economy. We’re recovering, but to a different economy,” he said. Powell has a valid point. In the post-pandemic world, more people will likely continue to work from home. A good number of people will likely travel less as well. BP’s estimates noted that about 2/3 of the pandemic’s impact on oil demand will be from adverse effects on the global economy, and 1/3 will be due to permanent changes in human behavior. This behavior, it seems, includes a shift to electric cars.
A Point of No Return for the Internal Combustion Engine
The transportation sector accounts for a large part of the world’s oil consumption. Bloomberg notes that over half of the world’s crude is used by the transportation sector, and 3/4 of that amount is taken up by wheels on the road. With car buyers going for sustainable vehicles during a pandemic, and with sales of ICE cars dropping steeply, it is starting to seem like the transportation sector’s demand for oil is only bound to get less in the coming years. With this drop in demand comes the end of the internal combustion engine.
Signs of the ICE extinction actually started becoming notable before the pandemic hit. As early as 2018, EVs started bucking the trend in auto sales, resulting in some analysts speculating if sales of gas and diesel-powered vehicles will no longer return to levels seen in years prior. The idea of “peak oil” happening seemed farfetched then, but amidst the pandemic and the collapse of ICE sales, the end of the oil age is looking very plausible.
Batteries and a Path to ICE Extinction
The electric car age will be powered by batteries. It is then fortunate that batteries are a technology, not a consumable fuel. This means that as battery production reaches higher levels, battery prices are bound to get lower. Data tracked by BloombergNEF revealed that every time battery supplies doubled worldwide, the cost of batteries declined by about 18%. And considering that companies like Tesla are actively pursuing plans to produce batteries at unprecedented volumes, there is a good chance that battery prices will decline to such a degree that electric cars may reach price parity with gas and diesel-powered cars sooner than expected.
Price parity will likely be the final nail in the ICE coffin. Cost, after all, is the one area where the internal combustion engine still has an edge against EVs. Once this edge is taken away, and once rapid chargers become as ubiquitous as gas stations, there will quite literally be no more reason left to own a vehicle equipped with an internal combustion engine.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
