Read the wild email Tesla is sending to suppliers amid Supercharger chaos
After firing its entire Supercharger team, Tesla has sent out an email to suppliers which shows just how chaotic the decisionmaking leading up to the firings must have been.
Earlier this week, Tesla abruptly fired its entire Supercharging team, leading to an immediate pullback in Supercharger installation plans. Now we’ve seen the email that Tesla has sent to suppliers, and it’s not pretty.
When the firings were announced Monday night, there was little information about how they would affect Tesla’s plans.
On Tuesday, Tesla CEO Elon Musk said that “Tesla still plans to grow the Supercharger network, just at a slower pace for new locations and more focus on 100% uptime and expansion of existing locations.” According to Tesla’s website, Superchargers currently have 99.95% uptime.
But in the interim, we’ve already heard about Supercharger projects being cancelled, including halting rollout in the entire country of Australia, including sites that had already been subject to long-term leases and given the go-ahead for construction which will now be abandoned.
And Tesla has also sent out an email to all of its suppliers, which leaked to the internet. Here it is in full, but with contact information redacted:
To all concerned:
You may be aware that there has been a recent adjustment with the Supercharger organization which is presently undergoing a sudden and thorough restructuring. If you have already received this email, please disregard it as we are attempting to connect with our suppliers and contractors. As part of this process, we are in the midst of establishing new leadership roles, prioritizing projects, and streamlining our payment procedures. Due to the transitional nature of this phase, we are asking for your patience with our response time.
I understand that this period of change may be challenging and that patience is not easy when expecting to be paid, however, I want to express my sincere appreciation for your understanding and support as we navigate through this transition. At this time, please hold on breaking ground on any newly awarded construction projects and planned pre-construction walks. If currently working on an active Supercharging construction site, please continue. Contact [email redacted] for further questions, comments, and concerns. Additionally, hold on working on any new material orders. Contact [email redacted] for further questions, comments, and concerns. If waiting on delayed payment, please contact [email redacted] for a status update. Thank you for your cooperation and patience.
The email is remarkable for several reasons, largely because it shows a lack of structure and consideration to the decision to fire the entire team.
Firstly, Tesla states that it is “attempting” to connect with suppliers and that it may have sent multiple emails to some of them. This suggests that Tesla doesn’t have an established method of contact for all of its suppliers – either it doesn’t have a master contact list, or its previous method including points of contact within Tesla is not usable because, well, those points of contact would have been fired.
Second, it says that the “adjustment” (an odd word for firing an entire department) has led to a process of establishing new leadership roles. This is typically something that a company would consider before changing leaders, and ensure that there are current employees with experience who are ready to step up to take the position of a retiring leader, perhaps with a period of mentorship prior to the outgoing leader’s retirement.
Even in a situation where a firing is sudden, it’s typically reasonable to elevate a previous second-in-command to fill the void. This is why it’s beneficial to have a deep bench – something which Tesla has touted before.
Third, Tesla goes on to mention that these suppliers are “expecting to be paid,” which suggests that Tesla is likely to welch on its payment obligations, at least in the short term. We have seen Musk refuse to pay bills before, so mention of skipping out on payment must raise alarm bells for suppliers who have been working in good faith with Tesla.
Finally, Tesla asks for suppliers to continue construction on active projects, but to hold on breaking ground or doing pre-construction site walks. This could be considered unclear, as there are many parallel steps to approval, permitting and construction of sites, so it’s hard to set a single line that is easily communicated about which sites should continue and which sites shouldn’t. Presumably, site contacts within Tesla would be able to reach out to individual sites and tell them whether to continue construction or not – if they were still working there, which it seems they are not.
To ask for patience is reasonable when an unforeseen circumstance hits a company, but this is not an unforeseen circumstance – it is entirely self-inflicted by Tesla.
Other charging providers have reacted to Tesla’s disruption of its own Supercharger plans, with at least one company, Revel, suggesting that it’s ready to swoop in on “really good sites” that Tesla left on the table, particularly in Revel’s home in New York City.
Electrek’s Take
We have heard from several sources who told us that the reason for these firings is because Rebecca Tinucci, former head of Tesla’s EV Charging division, resisted Musk’s demand to fire large portions of her team.
While this is hearsay, it’s plausible considering the language in Musk’s letter announcing the firings – which claimed that some executives are not taking headcount reduction seriously, and made a point to say that executives who retain the wrong employees may see themselves and their whole teams cut. It isn’t a stretch to think that Musk included those demands since they were related to his firing of Tinucci and her team.
The Supercharging team was one of the more successful and crucial teams within Tesla, and many observers consider the Supercharger network to be Tesla’s primary “moat” that makes it better than the competition. Tinucci was also responsible for negotiating NACS agreements across the industry, leading to a huge win when Tesla’s plug became the de facto standard after basically every automaker adopted it over the course of the last year.
Superchargers are also incredibly important, especially in North America. In Europe there are more successful non-Tesla charge providers, but in NA, Tesla is the big dog. And if infrastructure is important, then Tesla pulling back is bad not just for Tesla but for EVs as a whole.
It seems abundantly clear that, whatever explanation we accept, the firing of the Supercharger team was not well-considered (and our readers seem to agree). Even if headcount reduction is necessary, the whole team shouldn’t be laid off. Even if it was necessary as a retaliatory measure – which would not be a good rationale – it still would be wiser to retain some part of it so as to avoid the chaos suggested by the email above.
Whatever mechanism led to the firing, it does fit into a pattern of increasingly erratic behavior that Musk has been showing lately.
Many possible explanations have been advanced to explain this behavior, and most of them don’t increase my personal faith that Musk will make the right decisions with Tesla.
As I said in our original post about Tesla’s first round of layoffs, we do need Tesla to keep pushing the industry forward. While Pandora’s box is open and EVs are here to stay at this point, regardless of Tesla’s ups and comparatively-rare downs, the rest of the industry is still trying hard to pump the brakes on the transition, even if it means America will be less competitive if those companies get their way.
Tesla is one of the few entities that is large enough and committed enough to dragging those timelines forward, whether the rest of the industry likes it or not. We need a healthy Tesla, and for that, we need steadier management. This email is not an example of that – and neither are most of Musk’s managerial actions recently.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Tesla (TSLA) board members have received a wake-up call letter from eight state treasurers, asking them to fulfill their duties and supervise the company’s CEO, Elon Musk.
Will they ignore this warning as well?
There have been concerns about Tesla’s board sleeping at the wheel for a while now.
Their job is to oversee Tesla’s management for the benefit of shareholders, but Tesla’s stock is down almost 40% this year while the CEO is splitting his time between 6 different companies and projects while alienating most of Tesla’s consumer base.
Yet, the board hasn’t said a word about it.
The situation lends weight to the argument that the board is entirely under Musk’s control, which is the main point of contention in Tesla’s $55 billion CEO compensation case.
Now, eight state treasurers have joined forces to raise their concerns with the board. They wrote in a letter addressed to Robyn Denholm, chair of Tesla’s board:
We are increasingly concerned that Tesla’s recent performance signals deeper governance and leadership challenges that, if left unaddressed, could have serious consequences for the company and its stakeholders. In the first quarter of 2025 alone, Tesla’s stock declined by 36%. The company missed delivery targets, recalled a substantial number of vehicles, and experienced a surge in trade-ins for competing brands. Meanwhile, CEO Elon Musk continues to divide his attention across multiple companies and a high-profile advisory role within the federal government. These external commitments raise serious questions about whether Tesla’s leadership is fully engaged in addressing the company’s core challenges.
In the letter, the treasurers remind Tesla’s board of its duty “to provide strong oversight, uphold fiduciary standards, and ensure that the company’s leadership is aligned with the long-term best interests of the company.”
They are directly asking the board three questions:
- How is the Board ensuring that Mr. Musk and Tesla’s leadership team are devoting adequate time and focus to resolving recent performance issues and guiding the company’s future direction?
- In light of the company’s underperformance, how is the Board evaluating whether executive compensation remains aligned with shareholder value and corporate accountability?
- How does the Board plan to communicate its strategy for navigating this period of uncertainty and restoring investor and public confidence in Tesla’s leadership?
Tesla is going to release its Q1 2025 financial results today, hold its earnings conference call, and have a “live company update.’ Maybe some of these questions will be answered.
Here’s the letter in full:
2025-04-17 Letter to Tesla Board Chair
April 17, 2025
Robyn Denholm
Chair of the Board
Tesla, Inc.
1 Tesla Road
Austin, TX 78725
Dear Chair Denholm,
We are entrusted with promoting the long-term economic health and financial stability of our states and the people we serve. Tesla, Inc. is not just one of the world’s most valuable companies—it is a major player in the clean energy economy and a leading force in emerging technologies such as robotics and autonomous driving. The company’s success or setbacks have significant implications for workers, regional industries, and innovation ecosystems in our states.
We are increasingly concerned that Tesla’s recent performance signals deeper governance and leadership challenges that, if left unaddressed, could have serious consequences for the company and its stakeholders. In the first quarter of 2025 alone, Tesla’s stock declined by 36%. The company missed delivery targets, recalled a substantial number of vehicles, and experienced a surge in trade-ins for competing brands. Meanwhile, CEO Elon Musk continues to divide his attention across multiple companies and a high-profile advisory role within the federal government. These external commitments raise serious questions about whether Tesla’s leadership is fully engaged in addressing the company’s core challenges.
We regularly interact with stakeholders across our states, including institutional investors, industry leaders, workers, and small businesses. We are hearing increasing concern about Tesla’s direction, not only from financial professionals but from those who have looked to Tesla as a leader in clean energy innovation and American industrial renewal. If Tesla falters, the effects won’t be confined to shareholders—they will ripple through regional economies, workforce pipelines, and public confidence in the energy transition.
At a moment when American industrial leadership is facing stiff global competition, it is essential that companies like Tesla are governed with focus, discipline, and clarity of mission. The Board’s role is especially critical now—to provide strong oversight, uphold fiduciary standards, and ensure that the company’s leadership is aligned with the long-term best interests of the company. Public officials like us do not take the step of raising these concerns lightly except when the obvious risks demand it.
We believe the Tesla Board has a responsibility to act decisively to ensure the company returns to a stable and focused trajectory.
We respectfully request the Board provide clarity on the following:
- How is the Board ensuring that Mr. Musk and Tesla’s leadership team are devoting adequate time and focus to resolving recent performance issues and guiding the company’s future direction?
- In light of the company’s underperformance, how is the Board evaluating whether executive compensation remains aligned with shareholder value and corporate accountability?
- How does the Board plan to communicate its strategy for navigating this period of uncertainty and restoring investor and public confidence in Tesla’s leadership?
Finally, we strongly believe Tesla’s Board would benefit from engaging with public sector stakeholders who share an interest in the company’s long-term value and societal impact. We welcome the opportunity to speak further about these concerns and discuss how the Board can take swift and transparent action to restore investor confidence and public trust in Tesla’s leadership and the company’s future.
We welcome a response and the opportunity for continued dialogue.
Signed,
Mike Pellicciotti, Washington State Treasurer
Deborah B. Goldberg, Massachusetts State Treasurer and Receiver-General
Michael W. Frerichs, Illinois State Treasurer
Erick Russell, Connecticut Treasurer
Laura M. Montoya, New Mexico State Treasurer
David L. Young, Colorado State Treasurer
Mike Pieciak, Vermont State Treasurer
Malia M. Cohen, California State Controller
Electrek’s Take
Tesla is a $700 billion publicly traded company that is run like a family business by Musk, who owns just 13% of the float.
The board, which was so handsomely rewarded that it had to return almost $1 billion worth of compensation as part of a shareholder lawsuit, is letting Musk do whatever he wants without any objection.
It’s clear that they have a quid pro quo with Musk, whereby they receive compensation at a rate several times higher than any other similarly sized company in exchange for allowing Musk to run Tesla as if it were his private company.
While I am glad they sent this letter, I doubt that a group of state treasurers will convince Tesla’s board to do anything.
At this point, they are either completely fine with Musk destroying Tesla or they believe his claims about self-driving technology.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Chevron is not seeing signs that the U.S. is close to a recession even as President Donald Trump’s tariffs weigh on expectations for oil demand, CEO Mike Wirth said Tuesday.
“There’s no signs that we see at this point that we are in or close to a recession,” Wirth told CNBC’s “Squawk Box.” “There are signs that growth may be slowing and we have to always be prepared for that.”
The International Monetary Fund on Monday cut its growth outlook for the U.S. this year to 1.8%, down from 2.7% previously.
The oil market is expecting reduced demand as a consequence of Trump’s tariffs and the decision by OPEC+ increase production faster than expected, Wirth said. Chevron isn’t changing its capital spending plans in response to drop in prices, the CEO said.
U.S. crude oil prices have fallen about 11% since Trump announced his tariffs on April 2. West Texas Intermediate was last up about 72 cents at $63.80 per barrel. OPEC and the International Energy Agency have cut their demand outlooks for this year.
Wirth said U.S. onshore oil production in patches like the Permian Basin is likely to pull back if prices hit $60 per barrel. Offshore production likely won’t be affected, he said.
“That’s an area where if we were to be at a $60 price or even lower you’re likely to see activity pull back in this sector and you’ll see the production response over a few months,” Wirth said. “That’s what we should watch, not so much the deep water activity.”
Chevron is not expecting a major direct impact on its business from Trump’s tariffs as energy has largely been exempt from the levies, Wirth said.
“The effects that we feel are likely to be more the macroeconomic effects as they flow through the economy,” Wirth said. “The bigger issues would be what would it mean for growth, and global trade and how does that evolve.”
Executives at oil and gas companies were scathing in their criticism of Trump’s tariffs in an anonymous March survey by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, warning that steel tariffs were raising their costs and low prices could impact their activity.
Get Your Ticket to Pro LIVE
Join us at the New York Stock Exchange!
Uncertain markets? Gain an edge with CNBC Pro LIVE, an exclusive, inaugural event at the historic New York Stock Exchange. In today’s dynamic financial landscape, access to expert insights is paramount. As a CNBC Pro subscriber, we invite you to join us for our first exclusive, in-person CNBC Pro LIVE event at the iconic NYSE on Thursday, June 12.
Join interactive Pro clinics led by our Pros Carter Worth, Dan Niles, and Dan Ives, with a special edition of Pro Talks with Tom Lee. You’ll also get the opportunity to network with CNBC experts, talent and other Pro subscribers during an exciting cocktail hour on the legendary trading floor. Tickets are limited!
Little is known about super-secretive EV startup Slate, but the fledgling brand is rumored to be backed by Jeff Bezos and determined to shake up the existing electric order with an affordable lineup of compact SUVs and pickups with that golden $25,000 price tag.
Now, at least, we know what it’s gonna look like. The battle of the billionaires is on!
Redditor jonjopop over at the spotted subreddit spotted what looks like an early prototype of an unbranded SUV with bizarre “CryShare” wrap. CryShare, as a concept, seems to combine the functionality of a ride sharing app like Uber or Lyft with the familiar (to parent, anyway) idea that small babies will often sleep better in a moving car than in their own cribs … but that’s not what’s important here.
Instead, focus on the vehicle itself – parked on Abbot Kinney Boulevard in Los Angeles without explanation or fanfare, this is our best look yet at the kind of vehicle(s) Slate is likely to reveal in the coming days.
Stumbled upon the Bezosmobile [Slate Automotive…idk?] being revealed with an absolutely bizarre marketing campaign
byu/jonjopop inspotted
Other local automotive journalists caught wind of the public unveiling, too – and our friends at The Autopian (Hi, Matt!) sent their own David Tracy out on the streets of LA to check it out. Tracy took the following video and posted it to Instagram.
The Slate breaking cover and causing buzz just ahead of what’s sure to be a painful Q1 earnings call for Tesla is a masterstroke of marketing – especially as doubts surrounding the viability of a “less expensive” Tesla Model Y or Model 3 continue to mount amid the uncertainty of Trump’s tariffs and declining sales of the brand’s more profitable models both at home and abroad.
As with so much involving Slate, however, there is nothing here written in stone – or even cast in cheese. Nothing has been announced, nothing is promised, and for all we know this might have more to do with the affordable Rivian brand launch, a new BYD, or be a viral marketing bit from some local Art Center design student in (relatively) nearby Pasadena. In fact, about the only thing I think we can say about Bezos (?) new Slate project with confidence today is this: Elon could probably use that drink.
SOURCES | IMAGES: Reddit, The Autopian.
If you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway