A new report shows that commercial vehicles are much higher polluters than passenger vehicles despite making up a much smaller portion of cars on U.S. roads. For this reason, the study’s authors say the U.S. should prioritize electrifying the commercial vehicles sector rather than just focusing on passenger vehicles.
PepsiCo- and KPMG-backed software logistics company Adiona Tech shared the Connected Thinking report on Tuesday, which suggests that last-mile combination trucks be electrified as soon as possible to help fight CO2 emissions. The company says that all urban deliveries of groceries, parcels, furniture and other goods should be performed by electric vehicles (EVs) by 2025.
“Commercial vehicles are a much bigger polluter than passenger cars and they are in desperate need of modernization,” Adiona writes in the report. “Large combination trucks are just 1 percent of vehicles on the road, but they produce 18 percent of vehicle emissions.”
The study compared Bureau of Transportation Statistics figures from 2019 to those of 2020 and 2021, looking at vehicle miles driven by passenger cars and trucks, along with their associated emissions. What it found was that emissions decreased significantly in 2020 and 2021, while truck miles and their associated emissions increased above 18 percent of road traffic emissions.
Sources: Connected Fleet data; BTS, fuel consumption by mode, additional combination truck stats, additional car stats, additional single-axle truck stats. Credit: Adiona Tech
The report included several key findings, notably including that the average fuel consumption of combination trucks is roughly 20 times higher than that of a passenger vehicle. The report also says that switching just five of these combination trucks to green alternatives — such as hydrogen fuel cells or lithium batteries — would be comparable to the effects of buying EVs for 100 households.
While the average truck drives about 22,930 miles annually, the report notes that large combination trucks travel an average of 59,929 miles in the same period, and single-unit trucks only average 12,278 miles annually.
According to data sourced from the Bureau of Transportation, light-duty vehicles with a short wheelbase have an average fuel consumption of 481 gallons per year, compared to 640 gallons consumed on average by light-duty vehicles with long wheelbases, and 1,639 gallons on average by single-unit, two-axle trucks with six tires or more. However, the data also shows that combination trucks consume an average of 9,909 gallons annually.
In a press release, Adiona Tech CEO Richard Savoie highlights the need to prioritize larger freight in the fight against carbon emissions, beginning with those that travel the most.
“America needs to aggressively decarbonize the biggest emitters on the road, large freight and delivery vehicles,” Savoie said in the release. “The US automotive industry is at a crossroads, but it needs to act now to electrify every car on the road. Doing so requires connected thinking and collective action. We cannot transform the national fleet of nearly 300 million vehicles overnight, so we need to make decisions that make the biggest difference, for the lowest effort first.”
The passenger vehicle sector has adopted EVs much more quickly than others, as several automakers have now followed Tesla’s lead in building fully electric vehicles. While electrifying every car is still an important goal, Savoie explains, it shouldn’t be the only one.
“Frankly, the data shows that consumer adoption of EVs should not be America’s number one priority,” Savoie said. “Electrifying fleets is by far the most efficient way to reduce vehicle emissions. Every battery we put in a combination truck counts for 20 households buying an EV, and businesses often have fleets of hundreds of vehicles.”
“We must prioritize the electrification of these vehicles that are on the road most, travel the longest distances, and are the least fuel-efficient,” Savoie added.
Several companies have begun piloting or at least stated plans to purchase electric last-mile delivery vehicles, including FedEx, Amazon, Walmart and more.
Adiona Tech backer PepsiCo is one of the first companies to have begun electrifying its semi-truck fleet after purchasing an initial batch of Tesla Semis last year. A recent event showed some serious range results for the Semi, and PepsiCo detailed last month how the truck was helping it reach its own sustainability goals.
You can read the full report from Adiona Tech here.
What are your thoughts? Let me know at zach@teslarati.com, find me on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send your tips to us at tips@teslarati.com.
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
