Many in the Tesla and electric vehicle (EV) community have eagerly awaited the company’s rollout of a driverless ride-hailing service, and a few recent developments suggest that the company may be considering multiple U.S. cities for early pilot programs.
Tesla is in talks with Austin, Texas officials about rolling out early pilot programs for its self-driving robotaxis as early as next year, as reported by Bloomberg earlier this month, and echoing CEO Elon Musk’s previous aims to launch commercial robotaxis in 2025. As detailed in emails acquired by the publication through public record requests, a Tesla employee has already been discussing the deployment of such fleets since at least May, though the company has also been considering pilot deployment in other Texas cities.
“Tesla is still working to strategically find a city within Texas to deploy… The city of Austin is obviously on our roadmap, but has not yet been decided where we will deploy first as we have many options available,” wrote an employee in one email from November.
The report also said that Tesla reached out to the city of Austin ahead of its October 10 “We, Robot” event, during which it unveiled the Cybercab, and the employee expressed hopes to meet safety expectations in the city of Austin, along with training first responders on how to interact with autonomous vehicles.
Earlier this month, Tesla held an event at its Gigafactory in Austin to help train first responders on its autonomous vehicle technology, though the employee said it wouldn’t yet be used on public roads and would let officials know of any changes to that.
Tesla’s initial ride-hailing pilots could also target California, with internal tests already underway
During the company’s Q3 earnings call in October, Elon Musk also said that employees in the Bay Area, California were already testing ride-hailing services internally. Using the company’s development app, Tesla employees can already request rides and be taken to anywhere in the Bay, according to the CEO.
Both Texas and California cities make sense for Tesla’s initial rollout of commercial robotaxi services, especially given that Musk also said the company aims to debut ride-hailing services and “Unsupervised” Full Self-Driving (FSD) approval in both of these states in 2025, dependent upon regulatory approval. Musk also said that the current internal ride-hailing tests in the Bay Area utilize safety drivers initially, though it isn’t required to do so.
Watch Tesla’s FSD v13.2 navigate away from park in a tricky situation
READ MORE: Tesla is ramping its Cybercab testing sessions at Giga Texas
Earlier this month, a Deutsche Bank report noted that Head of Investor Relations Travis Axelrod said also said Tesla plans to utilize teleoperation during initial rollout of autonomous ride-hailing efforts, as a safety and redundancy measure. This will likely play a role wherever the company first deploys commercial ride-hailing efforts.
Tesla also teased a ride-hailing mobile app in its Q1 Shareholder Deck earlier this year, showing a summon button to order ride-hails, an estimated wait time, climate controls for during the ride, navigation details, and even the ability to select and cycle through music or other media options.
Credit: Tesla
The mobile app avatar showed a Model Y, highlighting the ability for Tesla’s other vehicles to be eligible for ride-hailing operations through the Supervised Full Self-Driving (FSD) program, which is available to any owner who purchases the software through a subscription or one-time purchase.
Tesla Cybercab, Waymo and commercial robotaxis
We also learned in October that the Cybercab features a large touchscreen, in addition to excluding a steering wheel or pedals. You can catch our first ride in the Cybercab below, as captured during Tesla’s October 10 “We, Robot” event in Southern California.
?: Our FULL first ride in the @Tesla Cybercab pic.twitter.com/6gR7OgKRCz
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 11, 2024
Both Texas and California make sense as locations Tesla would deploy early ride-hailing services, especially given its Fremont factory, Palo Alto engineering headquarters, and its competitor Waymo, which already operates paid driverless ride-hailing in San Francisco and Los Angeles.
Although Tesla isn’t expected to enter production with the Cybercab until 2026, the company’s other vehicles could be used to operate commercial self-driving at some point, though it also faces multiple competitors aiming to deploy these services.
Meanwhile, Waymo, the commercial robotaxi company backed by Google parent company Alphabet, has already been operating paid driverless ride-hailing in San Francisco since last year, and it has expanded services to Los Angeles, and Phoenix, Arizona throughout this year. This week, the company said it’s now giving over 150,000 paid driverless rides per week.
Amazon owns the driverless ride-hailing company Zoox, which has recently also gained some ground in deploying commercial self-driving ride-hailing vehicles in the Bay Area.
With General Motors (GM) recently announcing the end of its self-driving arm Cruise, one less future competitor remains for Tesla in the commercial robotaxi space. Musk joining the administration of incoming President Donald Trump is also widely expected to accelerate regulation efforts in the rollout of self-driving technology, though the urgency of the emerging market is quickly becoming clearer.
Still, Musk and Tesla supporters have argued that the company’s FSD will be more scalable than companies like Waymo utilizing geo-mapping efforts, due to its AI neural network model being trained on video footage from real-time drivers across the company’s ownership network. With added safety measures like teleoperation and safety drivers in its early rollout of commercial robotaxi services, Tesla may yet be able to gain enough public and regulatory trust to start deploying these services in the coming months.
What are your thoughts? Let me know at zach@teslarati.com, find me on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send us tips at tips@teslarati.com.
Need accessories for your Tesla? Check out the Teslarati Marketplace:
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
