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.
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
