News
Tesla faces biggest challenge yet as oil industry fights to maintain its hold on US auto
Tesla might have overcome several notable hurdles this year, but the electric car maker is now facing what could very well be its biggest challenge yet in the United States. As the company hits its stride with the production of the Model 3 and as it prepares to ramp its energy business next year, a rather discreet movement is underway to ensure that America remains waist-deep in oil.
A recent expose published by The New York Times outlines an active campaign to roll back the country’s existing vehicle emissions rules. Earlier this year, the US government laid out a plan that aims to ease fuel efficiency standards in the country. The movement’s central point is simple — since America is so awash in oil, the country no longer needs to worry about energy conservation.
The publication’s investigation noted that the movement, which was supported by proposals in Congress and social media campaigns, is backed by some of the United States’ largest oil interests. Marathon Petroleum, the US’ largest refiner, as well as a policy network with ties to billionaire Charles G. Koch, contributed to help push the movement’s agenda. Overall, the creation of the proposal and its support from the oil industry is understandable, considering that the advent of electric vehicles threatens the bottom line of the industry. Less gas-thirsty cars on the road mean lower sales of gasoline. More pure electric vehicles on the road, such as Tesla’s electric cars, are an even bigger threat.
The US government’s initiative takes aim at the country’s emissions standards, which practically requires automakers to double the fuel efficiency of their vehicles by 2025. Under the government’s proposal, emissions standards would be frozen at 2020 levels. The NYT estimates that if the government’s planned rollback is implemented, it would increase greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by more than the amount of gases put out by midsize countries such as Austria, Greece, or Bangladesh in one year.
Lawmakers and delegations across the United States have backed the pro-oil campaign, with several groups sending letters to the Transportation Department to express their support. The publication noted that these letters featured much of the same phrasing, particularly a line directly referencing the preferences of American car buyers. “With oil scarcity no longer a concern, historically low gas prices, increasingly ambitious CAFE requirements, it is important that NHTSA and EPA review the mandate to ensure that the US is protecting consumers from higher costs and still allowing for choice in vehicles that best fit their needs,” one of the letters stated.
The oil-backed movement, though, is currently encountering some pushback from members of the government. Among these is Senator Tom Carper of Delaware, who expressed his criticism of the administration’s campaign. In a statement to the NYT, Carper noted that “oil interests are cynically trying to gin up support in Congress for the weakest possible standards to ensure that cars and SUVs have to rely on even more oil.” The senator added that “If this attempt is successful, the outcome will be a blow to the auto industry, consumers, and our environment.”
At the forefront of the resistance against the oil-backed campaign is California, home to Tesla’s headquarters and electric car factory. California pledged to stick to stricter emissions standards while maintaining an initiative to push the adoption of zero-emissions vehicles. Thirteen states currently follow CA’s lead, representing about 35% of the United States’ nationwide car sales.
At the heart of the movement is the notion that American car buyers prefer large, gas-guzzling vehicles such as full-sized pickup trucks and SUVs over zero-emissions vehicles. This is a market barely touched by electric car makers today, with cars such as the Tesla Model X competing in the luxury SUV segment — a far smaller and notably higher-priced market than those populated by gas-powered best-sellers such as the Chevrolet Suburban. The same is true for the pickup truck market, which is home to the Ford F-150, the country’s best-selling vehicle. Serious all-electric pickup trucks such as Rivian’s R1T have been unveiled recently, but just like the Model X, the R1T is a luxury vehicle at its core.
Tesla has matured greatly this year, as the company overcame the Model 3’s production hell and as Elon Musk dealt with the repercussions of his online behavior. Considering the pro-oil movement stirring in the country, though, Tesla might need to take even greater responsibilities in the immediate future. Being a first mover in the electric car revolution, Tesla has the potential to take the lead in bringing compelling vehicles that can compete with gasoline-powered cars on both performance and price. The company is already accomplishing this with the Model 3, as proven by the electric sedan’s impressive sales figures over the past months. So far, though, Tesla is yet to release vehicles that can truly take on the country’s gas guzzlers at a similar price point.
This might change next year, as Tesla is expected to reveal the Model Y SUV. The Model Y is designed to be the SUV counterpart of the Model 3 — powerful, practical, and attainable by the everyman — and if Elon Musk’s recent statements are any indication, the vehicle’s unveiling could be just around the corner. Tesla could very well be targeting the mainstream, seven-seat SUV market with the Model Y, with Musk recently describing the vehicle as a “midsize SUV” during an appearance at the Recode Decode podcast. Musk has also indicated that Tesla might be releasing its pickup truck earlier than expected.
Tesla, though, is not capable of pushing the EV revolution alone. Thus, it is pertinent for EV startups such as Rivian and Bollinger Motors to step up to the challenge and perhaps accelerate the development and release of their electric vehicles. Legacy automakers that have committed to an electrified future, such as Porsche and Jaguar, must expedite the release of compelling zero-emissions cars as well. Porsche and Jaguar have already taken a notable step with the Taycan and the I-PACE, but far more steps need to be taken.
For its part, Tesla would best be served by a steadier hand in the coming quarters. With an aggressive campaign to keep the United States entrenched in oil ongoing, Tesla must lead in a manner that is quick, efficient, and steady. Thus, mistakes such as the over-automation of the Model 3 assembly line, as well as Elon Musk’s Twitter gaffes, should best be avoided. Tesla is already a fast-evolving company, having grown to a major automaker in all but 15 years. Considering the presence of the government’s oil-backed campaign, though, Tesla is at a point where it must evolve even faster than before.
For now, the US’ auto industry appears to be facing a crossroads. On the one hand, there are companies such as Tesla proving that electric cars such as the Model 3 are viable and competitive. On the other hand, there are groups lobbying to maintain the auto industry’s reliance on oil. If a recent public hearing in Colorado is any indication, though, it appears that support for sustainable transportation is very much present.
Last month, Americans for Prosperity representative Shari Shiffer-Krieger attended a public hearing about Colorado’s pending decision to follow California’s lead. Americans for Prosperity is among the oil industry’s supporters. In Iowa, the group joined the fight against an initiative that would make it easier for gas stations to install electric car charging stations, and in Illinois, the group discouraged state officials from considering subsidies for EVs. Speaking to Colorado’s regulators, Shiffer-Krieger argued that buyers in the rugged state preferred powerful SUVs over stricter emissions rules.
“Coloradans deserve much better,” she said.
Colorado’s regulators accommodated her, before allying themselves with California.
News
SpaceX hid behind another name in the Arizona desert, and now it’s going big
SpaceX puts a $50 billion price on its Arizona supercompute campus ahead of December’s hearing.
SpaceX has put a price tag on the supercomputer campus it wants to build in the southern Arizona desert. In a statement Thursday, the company said it is pursuing a roughly $50 billion supercompute campus in Cochise County, about 80 miles east of Tucson. Together with a separate facility planned at Starbase, Texas, the two projects add up to more than $74 billion in planned investment.
The Arizona figure had not been disclosed before. SpaceX’s involvement only became public on November 4, when company representatives hosted a packed town hall at Cochise Elementary School for an application filed under the name Tombstone Resources LLC. A SpaceX representative told residents the filing used another name because putting SpaceX on it “draws attention” from outside the county, local station KVOA reported.
The application describes a 747-acre site near the Willcox Playa with up to nine buildings of about 493,000 square feet each. SpaceX plans to bring the campus online in four phases of roughly 1.5 GW, reaching 6 GW at full build, backed by a 24 GWh battery system and about $3.6 billion in grid upgrades. At that size, it would draw about 2.5 times more power than every data center in Maricopa County combined, according to an Arizona Republic analysis.
SpaceX says the project will create about 5,500 construction jobs and 1,000 permanent jobs, and that it could cut electricity bills for members of the local cooperatives by up to 20 percent. The campus would use dry cooling with no industrial groundwater use. Its application estimates ongoing water needs of 7 to 10 acre-feet a year, roughly what 20 to 30 homes consume.
Power is the bigger question. The site sits next to the Apache Generating Station, a coal and natural gas plant with about 1 GW of capacity that had been slated to retire by 2028. SpaceX told residents its investment could expand the station to more than 6 GW.
Local opposition is organized. A petition asking the county to deny the permit has gathered about 2,400 signatures, and the nearby playa is a landing spot for federally protected sandhill cranes, which SpaceX says its design accounts for. The Cochise County Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing on December 9 in Bisbee, with written comments due November 27. If approved, construction could start in March 2027.
The Texas project faces a vote the same day. The Starbase City Commission will consider a property tax abatement for SpaceX’s $24 billion gas plant and supercompute facility at its own December 9 hearing, as Teslarati reported. SpaceX said Thursday the Starbase site has already generated more than 3,000 construction jobs, and it committed $220 million to Brownsville’s water and wastewater systems, $40 million of which has been paid.
Both campuses would expand a footprint still centered on the Memphis area, where SpaceX’s Colossus data centers run largely on gas turbines and the company won a permit for a power plant in Southaven, Mississippi earlier this year. SpaceX ended the third quarter with 1.7 GW of nameplate compute. The Arizona campus alone, at full build, would be more than three times that size.
Elon Musk
Nvidia’s board meets on Jensen Huang, and Elon Musk already has an answer
Elon Musk says it would be an honor to hire Jensen Huang amid Nvidia turmoil.
Elon Musk says he would welcome Jensen Huang at one of his companies if Nvidia’s board decides to push out its longtime chief executive.
On Wednesday evening, the financial account ZeroHedge posted “Elon please hire Jensen” on X. Musk replied roughly two hours later: “That would be an honor.” Neither Huang nor Nvidia had responded publicly as of Wednesday night.
Musk’s reply came as Nvidia’s board met to decide Huang’s future. The Wall Street Journal reported that directors were preparing to oust him following reports of two extramarital relationships. One involves Alice Huang, a Singapore-based businesswoman whom U.S. intelligence officials reportedly believe was working for China’s Ministry of State Security. The New York Times separately reported a relationship with Kimberly Powell, Nvidia’s vice president of health care. Huang acknowledged being unfaithful in a memo to employees on Sunday but gave no details.
@zerohedge That would be an honor
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 12, 2026
Under Nvidia’s bylaws, a majority of its 11 directors can remove the CEO with or without cause. Bloomberg reported that the board has been working with an outside firm on possible replacements and may name an interim chief, with CFO Colette Kress seen as the likely pick. Nvidia shares fell more than 8 percent in extended trading, according to CNBC, and the company is scheduled to report quarterly earnings on November 17.
Musk has more riding on Nvidia’s leadership than most tech executives. In August, he told investors on SpaceX’s first earnings call as a public company that it would build its AI infrastructure exclusively on Nvidia hardware, calling Vera Rubin “the best architecture.” SpaceX is also working with Nvidia on the compute payload for Starmind, its planned orbital AI constellation. In October, SpaceX said it had a binding commitment for a roughly $40 billion lease of Vera Rubin GPUs and related equipment, with the leases expected to begin in the first half of 2027.
The scale of that dependence is already enormous. On its Q3 call, SpaceX said it was bringing roughly 200,000 to 220,000 Nvidia GB300 GPUs online each month and expects 2.5 to 3 GW of nameplate compute by the end of the year. That buildout is now reaching new sites like the proposed $24 billion power plant and supercomputer campus at Starbase.
The relationship between the two executives also goes back nearly a decade. Huang has often told the story of personally delivering Nvidia’s first DGX-1 AI supercomputer to Musk in 2016, when no other customer wanted one. “Nobody wanted to be part of it, except for Elon,” Huang said on the Joe Rogan Experience last December.
Musk did not say what role Huang might fill, and his reply stops short of a formal offer. Huang co-founded Nvidia in 1993 and still owns about 3.6 percent of its stock, so any move to a Musk company would depend on whether, and how, he leaves the chipmaker he has run for more than three decades.
SpaceX officially launched the Starlink Mini 2 on November 10, delivering the first portable Starlink terminal designed around independent power.
Invitation-only preorders for select U.S. customers are priced at $999 plus tax, a figure that includes a full year of Roam Unlimited service valued at roughly $2,100. A refundable $100 deposit reserves the kit, with the balance due at shipment, expected to begin in mid-December. Broader availability is listed as coming soon.
Starlink just unveiled Mini 2, its next-gen portable dish.
Quick-swap battery, up to 4.5 hrs per charge
USB-C power
Built-in Wi-Fi
Online in about 60 secondsPreorders are open now. https://t.co/QawqgbswrQ
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 10, 2026
The headline feature is the quick-swap 71 Wh battery. Clipped to the rear of the dish without tools, it delivers up to 4.5 hours of connectivity on a single charge.
The 490-gram pack includes its own USB-C port and LED indicators, so users can charge a spare separately and swap it in seconds while staying online. Starlink notes that the terminal can continue operating while the battery charges or run directly from a 60 W USB-C source. The retail box includes one battery, a 60 W USB-C charger, and a 3-meter cable.
Beyond power, the Mini 2 is thinner at 23.1 mm (versus 38.5 mm on the original Mini) while measuring 263 × 314 mm. With the battery and kickstand attached it weighs 1.6 kg.
Built-in Wi-Fi 6 expands coverage to up to 1,800 square feet, an IP67 rating protects against dust and water, and a standard 1/4-20 tripod thread plus physical power button round out the design. Field of view remains 110 degrees, and the unit retains support for mobile use.
For travelers, campers, and remote workers, the swappable battery removes the longstanding requirement for an external power bank or vehicle outlet that defined the first Mini. Spare packs sold separately further extend runtime, turning the compact terminal into a more self-contained solution.
While the bundled $999 invitation price sits well above the original Mini’s current $149 starting point, the included year of service and genuine untethered operation mark a clear step forward in portable satellite internet.
SpaceX hid behind another name in the Arizona desert, and now it’s going big
Nvidia’s board meets on Jensen Huang, and Elon Musk already has an answer
