News
Tesla representative removed from auto dealer’s board by Virginia Senate
Tesla Inc. employee Cody Arnett was relieved of his post in Virginia’s Motor Vehicle Dealer Board earlier this week, amid an ongoing battle over the electric carmaker’s right to sell directly to consumers in the state. Arnett, who was appointed by former Governor Terry McAuliffe before he stepped down from office, raised some eyebrows among other members of the MVDB, many of whom felt that the Tesla employee was not qualified for the post.
His removal from the MVDB seemed to have been caused by strong opposition to Tesla’s dealership-free business model by the Virginia Automobile Dealers Association (VADA), an influential group of legacy auto dealers that holds to the notion that automakers must sell vehicles through franchised dealerships. Arnett, who currently works as a performance coach for Tesla, was set to serve for four years on Virginia’s Motor Vehicle Dealer Board. As one of the MVDB’s 19 members, Arnett was tasked with the regulation and oversight of new and used automobile dealers in the state. On January 15, however, the VADA formally submitted a request to strip the 29-year-old Tesla employee of his appointment.
According to the VADA, Arnett should not be allowed to serve on the MVDB because he was not the owner of a franchised vehicle dealership. In a statement to the Richmond Times-Dispatch, the auto group’s president and CEO, Don Hall, asserted that the technicality ultimately disqualifies the Tesla employee from holding one of the board’s 19 seats.
“The seat cannot be held by an employee of a dealer. It must be held by the owner of a dealership. I am sure the young man is a nice guy, and I am sure he has got great intentions, but the fact is he does not qualify,” Hall said, according to the Times-Dispatch.
The Virginia Automobile Dealers Association’s objection to Arnett’s appointment was submitted to Sen. Jill Holtzman Vogel, R-Fauquier, the chairwoman of the Senate Privileges and Elections Committee. Last Tuesday, the Senate committee decided to strip Arnett of his place in the MVDB, in what could only be described as a rare instance when a gubernatorial appointment was relieved from a post, as noted in a Washington Post report. Only one member of the committee, Sen. Adam Ebbin, D-Alexandria, voted to keep Arnett on the Motor Vehicle Dealer Board.
Arnett has been a longtime employee of Tesla, starting his tenure with the Elon Musk-led electric car maker and energy firm back in 2012. In a statement to the Times-Dispatch, Arnett stated that he received a dealer-operator license three years ago. He also revealed that he had already attended an MVDB meeting earlier this month.
In a statement to the Times-Dispatch on Wednesday, Tesla senior policy manager Brooke Kintz expressed the company’s disappointment at Arnett’s removal from the state’s Motor Vehicle Dealer Board.
“Arnett would have brought an important and innovative perspective to the board and to Virginians. Former Governor McAuliffe recognized this in appointing Cody, and as the holder of a license in Virginia, Tesla has just as much of a right to participate on the MVDB as anyone else.
“The decision of a small number of legislators to overturn Cody’s appointment at the urging of VADA is highly unusual if not unprecedented. It raises basic questions of fairness and improper political influence,” Kintz said.
Tesla currently operates one store at 9850 W. Broad St. in western Henrico County, Virginia, that doubles as a showroom and service center.
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
