News
Tesla gives Fiat a wake up call: ‘fake’ electric cars can still manipulate EU emissions standards
New CO2 regulations set to take effect in Europe have several loopholes in place that could derail the goal of reducing new car emissions by 37.5% in the region by 2030, according to a study published by advocacy group Transport & Environment. In a worst-case modeling scenario, gaming of the rules could also result in almost two million fewer zero or low emissions vehicles coming to market between 2025 and 2030, and of those in the market, half might be plug-in hybrids built for compliance, not innovation.
In order to propel the creation of a battery electric auto industry in the region, European Union members and parties participating in the discussions over the new CO2 regulations included incentives in the agreement that were tied to specific vehicle sales. Auto manufacturers with 15% of their sales coming from zero and low emission vehicles by 2025 and 35% from 2030 onwards will have their CO2 targets reduced by a maximum of 5%. This effectively means a company’s new fleet-wide CO2 output would only need to be reduced to 34.4% by 2030 instead of 37.5%, as calculated in the study.
Companies have further been allowed to pool their fleets together to help reach these goals, something which Tesla has recently taken advantage of by partnering with Fiat Chrysler. As a manufacturer of zero-emission vehicles, counting Tesla’s fleet with Fiat’s lowers the average per-vehicle CO2 output, thus lessening the burden for Fiat to meet the emissions standards while Tesla profits from the deal.
On its face, the 5% trade-off for lower emissions standards would be the entry of new, more innovative clean energy vehicles on the market; however, the inclusion of plug-in hybrids in that calculation could be problematic and used to game the system. In order to qualify as a low emissions vehicle, a hybrid car only needs to be under a threshold of 50 g/km CO2 output during testing which assumes full use of the vehicle’s battery. Because most of these plug-in hybrids have very low battery ranges, they’re often not used in practice in favor of the internal combustion engine, thus increasing their real-world CO2 output to around 120 g/km.
The technology behind plug-in hybrids is less innovative and therefore cheaper to produce, so the financial appeal of producing more of these types of vehicles over battery-only electric vehicles is high. The Transport & Environment study estimates that this effect will lead to about 2 million fewer all-electric cars being produced in favor of the cheaper, ‘fake’ electric compliance hybrids.
Other loopholes in the EU regulations also contribute to a reduction in CO2 outcomes. Fourteen countries where non-existent or nascent low emissions vehicle markets were identified will receive nearly double the emissions credit for eco-friendly cars sold to encourage development in the regions.
Simply, a large manufacturer could register thousands of vehicles in one of these markets, acquire double credit for each vehicle, and then quickly sell the vehicles in an established market where demand is higher. When sold, the cars would technically be “used” for record keeping purposes, but new to consumers and presented that way. This would circumvent the point of developing a low emissions market in those countries, further limiting the expansion of low emissions car availability.
The EU member states where double credits apply are Ireland, Greece, Poland, Slovenia, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Cyprus, and Malta.
The final (possible) loophole identified in the Transport & Environment study lies with the inclusion of Norway in the EU regional calculations. The country has not yet formally been included in the 2025/30 standards but is part of the 2020/1 standards currently in effect and will likely be included in the upcoming rules.
Norway is requiring 100% of its vehicles to have zero emissions by 2025, thus guaranteeing sales of those types of cars in a market where ICE vehicles are not competitive. Automakers could concentrate their sales in that region and make less effort to sell in the rest of Europe, all while still remaining compliant with the regulations. Reaching compliance in this manner is another way the intent of the coming CO2 reduction requirements can be manipulated.
The authors of the Transport & Environment study have laid out their proposals to overcome these loopholes, but considering that they were included to win the support of the auto industry in the region, further changes to the regulations seem unlikely. Also, the study could be taking an overly pessimistic view of the possible outcomes the loopholes could lead to.
Consumer markets, even without significant CO2-related regulation, are already showing trends towards increasing low emission vehicle demands, especially for battery electric vehicles like those sold by Tesla. This “Tesla Effect” has been noted by the upper echelons of legacy auto and several have committed to billions in electric fleet investments. Porsche is unveiling its first production electric vehicle, the Taycan, this September and has plans to retire its diesel-powered lineup and embrace electrification. Ford has also recently committed to electrifying its F-series, most notably the classic F-150, as well as invest $11 billion dollars to produce 40 electrified vehicles by 2022.
Elon Musk
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
ARK Invest breaks down six reasons SpaceX’s $1.75 trillion IPO valuation may be justified.
ARK Invest, which holds SpaceX as its largest Venture Fund position at 17% of net assets, has published a detailed investor guide to why a SpaceX IPO may be grounded in a $1.75 trillion target valuation.
The financial case starts with Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet constellation, which has surpassed 10 million active subscribers globally as of early 2026, with 2026 revenue projected to exceed $20 billion. ARK’s research puts the total satellite connectivity market opportunity at roughly $160 billion annually at scale, and Starlink is adding customers faster than any telecom network in history. That growth alone would justify a substantial valuation.
Additionally, ARK notes that SpaceX has reduced the cost per kilogram to orbit from roughly $15,600 in 2008 to under $1,000 today through reusable Falcon 9 hardware. A fully operational Starship targeting sub-$100 per kilogram would represent a significant cost decline and open markets that do not currently exist. SpaceX executed a staggering 165 missions in 2025 and now accounts for approximately 85% of all global orbital launches. That infrastructure position took decades to build and would be nearly impossible to replicate at comparable cost.
SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise
The February 2026 merger with xAI added a layer to the valuation that straightforward financial models struggle to capture. ARK argues that at sub-$100 launch costs, orbital data centers could deliver compute roughly 25% cheaper than ground-based alternatives, without power grid delays, permitting friction, or land constraints. Musk has stated a goal of deploying 100 gigawatts of AI computing capacity per year from orbit.
The $1.75 trillion figure itself is not a conventional earnings multiple. At roughly 95x trailing revenue, it prices in Starlink’s adoption curve, Starship’s cost trajectory, and the orbital compute thesis together. The public S-1 prospectus, due at least 15 days before the June roadshow, will give investors their first complete look at the financials to test those assumptions. ARK’s position is that the track record earns the benefit of the doubt. Fully reusable rockets were considered unrealistic for years. Starlink was considered financially unviable. Both happened on timelines that surprised skeptics.
Elon Musk
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford CEO Jim Farley said in a recent podcast interview that Tesla is not who Americans should look at to beat Chinese carmakers.
The comments have sparked quite a bit of outrage from Tesla fans on X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk.
Farley said that Chinese automakers are better examples of how to beat competitors. He said (via the Rapid Response Podcast):
“If you’re an American and you want us to beat the Chinese in the car business, you’re all going to want to pay attention, not necessarily to Tesla. Nothing against Tesla—they’ve been doing great—but they really don’t have an updated vehicle. The best in the business for us, cost-wise and competition-wise, supply chain, manufacturing expertise, and the I.P. in the vehicle, was really BYD. In this next cycle of EV customers in the U.S., they want pickups and utilities and all these different body styles. But they want them at $30,000, not $50,000. Like the first inning, they want them affordably.”
Despite Farley’s synopsis, it is worth mentioning that Tesla had the best-selling passenger vehicle in the world last year, and in China in March, as the Model Y continued its global dominance over other vehicles.
Musk responded to Farley’s comments by stating:
“This is before Supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.”
This is before supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 19, 2026
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges
Instead, Ford is “doubling down on its affordable” EVs and said it would pivot from its previous plans.
Reaction from Tesla fans was pretty much how you would expect. Many said they have lost a lot of respect for Farley after his comments; others believe he is the last CEO anyone should be taking advice on EVs from.
Nevertheless, Farley’s plans are bold and brash; many consider Tesla the most ideal company to replicate EV efforts from. It will be interesting to see if Ford can rebound from this big adjustment, and hopefully, Farley’s plans to replicate efforts from BYD work out the way he hopes.
Elon Musk
SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch
NASA awarded SpaceX a $175 million Mars rover contract while the White House proposes cutting the mission.
NASA just signed a $175.7 million contract with SpaceX to launch a Mars rover that the White House is simultaneously trying to defund. The contract, awarded on April 16, 2026, tasks SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with launching the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Rosalind Franklin rover from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, no earlier than late 2028. It would mark the first time SpaceX has ever sent a payload to Mars.
Under NASA’s Rosalind Franklin Support and Augmentation project, known as ROSA, the agency is providing braking engines for the rover’s descent stage, radioisotope heater units that use decaying plutonium to keep the rover warm on the Martian surface, additional electronics, and a mass spectrometer instrument, as noted by SpaceNews.
Those nuclear heating units are the reason an American rocket was required at all. U.S. export controls on radioisotope technology mean any payload carrying them must launch on a domestic vehicle, which narrowed the field to SpaceX and United Launch Alliance. Falcon Heavy’s pricing made it the practical choice.
SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket
Falcon Heavy debuted in February 2018 and has 11 launches to its record. The rocket has not flown since October 2024, when it sent NASA’s Europa Clipper toward Jupiter. The three-core design, built from modified Falcon 9 first stages, gives it the lift capacity needed for deep space planetary missions that a single Falcon 9 cannot reach.
The Rosalind Franklin rover has been sitting in storage in Europe for years. It was originally due to launch in 2022 as a joint mission with Russia, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ended that partnership, leaving the rover built but stranded without a launch vehicle or landing hardware. NASA stepped back in through a 2024 agreement with ESA to rescue the mission. The rover is designed to drill up to two meters below the Martian surface in search of evidence of past life, a science objective no previous mission has attempted at that depth.
The contradiction at the center of this story is hard to ignore. The White House’s fiscal year 2027 budget proposal included no funding for ROSA and did not mention the mission at all in the detailed congressional justification document released April 3.
Musk has long argued that reaching Mars is not optional. “We don’t want to be one of those single planet species, we want to be a multi-planet species.” Whether this particular mission survives Washington’s budget fight, the Falcon Heavy contract means SpaceX is now formally on record as the rocket that could get humanity’s next Mars science mission off the ground.
The timing of this contract carries extra weight given that SpaceX filed confidentially with the SEC in early April and is targeting an IPO roadshow in the week of June 8. It would be the largest public offering in history.
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
