According to a credible new report, Elon Musk has reportedly shut down an internal analysis from Tesla executives that showed the company’s Robotaxi plans would lose money and that it should focus on its more affordable ‘Model 2’.
This decision culminated a long-in-the-making shift at Tesla from an EV automaker to an AI company focusing on self-driving cars.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
We credit that shift initiated by Musk for the current slump Tesla finds itself in right now, where it has only launched a single new vehicle in the last 5 years, the Cybertruck, and it’s a total commercial flop.
Now, The Information is out with a new in-depth report based on Tesla insiders that describe the decision-making process around the cancellation of the affordable Tesla and the focus on Robotaxi.
The report describes a meeting at the end of February 2024 when several Tesla executives were pushing Musk to greenlight the $25,000 Tesla:
In the last week of February 2024, after a couple of years of back-and-forth debate on the Model 2, Musk called a meeting of a wide range of executives at Tesla’s offices in Palo Alto, Calif. The proposed $25,000 car was on the agenda—a final chance to air the vehicle’s pros and cons, the people said. Musk’s senior lieutenants argued intensely for the economic logic of producing both the Model 2 and the Robotaxi.
After unveiling its next-generation battery in 2020, Musk announced that Tesla would make a $25,000 EV in 2020, but he had clearly soured on the idea by 2024.
He said in October 2024:
I think having a regular $25,000 model is pointless. Yeah. It would be silly. Like, it’ll be completely at odds with what we believe.
The Information says that Daniel Ho, head of Tesla vehicle programs, Drew Baglino, SVP of engineering, and Rohan Patel, head of business development and policy, Lars Moravy, vice president of vehicle engineering, and Franz von Holzhausen, chief designer, all pushed for Musk to greenlight the production of the new $25,000 model.
The executives pointed to an internal report that didn’t paint a good picture of Tesla’s Robotaxi plan. The report has credibility as Patel commented on it:
We had lots of modeling that showed the payback around FSD [Full Self Driving] and Robotaxi was going to be slow. It was going to be choppy. It was going to be very, very hard outside of the U.S., given the regulatory environment or lack of regulatory environment.
Musk dismissed the analysis, greenlighted the Cybercab, and killed the $25,000 driveable Tesla vehicle in favor of the Model Y-based cheaper vehicle with fewer features.
The information describes the analysis:
Much of the work was done by analysts working under Baglino, head of power train and one of Musk’s most trusted aides. The calculations began with some simple math and some broad assumptions: Individuals would buy the cars, but a large portion of the sales would go to fleet operators, and the vehicles would mostly be used for ride-sharing. Many people would give up car ownership and use Robotaxis. Tesla would get a cut of each Robotaxi ride.
The analysis followed a lot of Musk’s assumptions, such as that the US car fleet would shrink from 15 million a year to roughly 3 million due to Robotaxis having a 5 times higher utilization rate.
They subtracted people who wouldn’t want to switch to a robotaxi for various reasons, arriving at a potential for 1 million self-driving vehicles a year.
One of the people familiar with the analysis said:
There is ultimately a saturation of people who want to be ferried around in somebody else’s car.
After accounting for competition, Tesla figured it would be hard for robotaxis to replace the ~600,000 vehicles it sells in the US annually.
Tesla calculated that the robotaxis would bring in about $20,000 to $25,000 in revenue at the sale and about three times that from Tesla’s share of the fares it would complete over their lifetimes:
The analysts figured Robotaxis would sell for between $20,000 and $25,000, and that Tesla could make up to three times that over the lifetime of the cars through its cut of fares. They added in capital spending and operational costs, plus services like charging stations and parking depots.
The internal analysis assigned a much lower value to Tesla robotaxis than Musk had previously stated publicly.
In 2019, Musk said:
If we make all cars with FSD package self-driving, as planned, any such Tesla should be worth $100k to $200k, as utility increases from ~12 hours/week to ~60 hours/week.
Furthermore, Tesla’s internal analysis pointed toward difficulties expanding into other markets, which could limit the scale and profitability of the robotaxi program. Ultimately, it predicted that it could lose money for years.
Electrek’s Take
For years, this has been one of my biggest concerns about Tesla: Musk surrounding himself with yesmen and not listening to others.
This looks like a perfect example. It was a terrible decision fueled by Musk’s belief that he was smarter than anyone in the room and encouraged by sycophants like Afshar.
Musk has been selling Tesla shareholders on a perfect robotaxi future, but the truth is not as rosy, and that’s if they solve self-driving ahead of the competition, which is a big if.
It’s not new for the CEO to make outlandish growth promises, but it’s another thing to do at the detriment of an already profitable and fast-growing auto business.
The report also supports our suspicions that the shift in strategy contributed to some of Tesla’s talent exodus last year.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
President Donald Trump wants to revive the struggling coal industry in the U.S. by deploying plants to power the data centers that the Big Tech companies are building to train artificial intelligence.
Trump issued an executive order in April that directed his Cabinet to find areas of the U.S. where coal-powered infrastructure is available to support AI data centers and determine whether the infrastructure can be expanded to meet the growing electricity demand from the nation’s tech sector.
Trump has repeatedly promoted coal as power source for data centers. The president told the World Economic Forum in January that he would approve power plants for AI through emergency declaration, calling on the tech companies to use coal as a backup power source.
“They can fuel it with anything they want, and they may have coal as a backup — good, clean coal,” the president said.
Trump’s push to deploy coal runs afoul of the tech companies’ environmental goals. In the short-term, the industry’s power needs may inadvertently be extending the life of existing coal plants.
Coal produces more carbon dioxide emissions per kilowatt hour of power than any other energy source in the U.S. with the exception of oil, according to the Energy Information Administration. The tech industry has invested billions of dollars to expand renewable energy and is increasingly turning to nuclear power as a way to meet its growing electricity demand while trying to reduce carbon dioxide emissions that fuel climate change.
For coal miners, Trump’s push is a potential lifeline. The industry has been in decline as coal plants are being retired in the U.S. About 16% of U.S. electricity generation came from burning coal in 2023, down from 51% in 2001, according to EIA data.
Peabody Energy CEO James Grech, who attended Trump’s executive order ceremony at the White House, said “coal plants can shoulder a heavier load of meeting U.S. generation demands, including multiple years of data center growth.” Peabody is one of the largest coal producers in the U.S.
Grech said coal plants should ramp up how much power they dispatch. The nation’s coal fleet is dispatching about 42% of its maximum capacity right now, compared to a historical average of 72%, the CEO told analysts on the company’s May 6 earnings call.
“We believe that all coal-powered generators need to defer U.S. coal plant retirements as the situation on the ground has clearly changed,” Grech said. “We believe generators should un-retire coal plants that have recently been mothballed.”
Tech sector reaction
There is a growing acknowledgment within the tech industry that fossil fuel generation will be needed to help meet the electricity demand from AI. But the focus is on natural gas, which emits less half the CO2 of coal per kilowatt hour of power, according the the EIA.
“To have the energy we need for the grid, it’s going to take an all of the above approach for a period of time,” Kevin Miller, Amazon’s vice president of global data centers, said during a panel discussion at conference of tech and oil and gas executives in Oklahoma City last month.
“We’re not surprised by the fact that we’re going to need to add some thermal generation to meet the needs in the short term,” Miller said.
Thermal generation is a code word for gas, said Nat Sahlstrom, chief energy officer at Tract, a Denver-based company that secures land, infrastructure and power resources for data centers. Sahlstrom previously led Amazon’s energy, water and sustainability teams.
Executives at Amazon, Nvidia and Anthropic would not commit to using coal, mostly dodging the question when asked during the panel at the Oklahoma City conference.
“It’s never a simple answer,” Amazon’s Miller said. “It is a combination of where’s the energy available, what are other alternatives.”
Nvidia is able to be agnostic about what type of power is used because of the position the chipmaker occupies on the AI value chain, said Josh Parker, the company’s senior director of corporate sustainability. “Thankfully, we leave most of those decisions up to our customers.”
Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark said there are a broader set of options available than just coal. “We would certainly consider it but I don’t know if I’d say it’s at the top of our list.”
Sahlstrom said Trump’s executive order seems like a “dog whistle” to coal mining constituents. There is a big difference between looking at existing infrastructure and “actually building new power plants that are cost competitive and are going to be existing 30 to 40 years from now,” the Tract executive said.
Coal is being displaced by renewables, natural gas and existing nuclear as coal plants face increasingly difficult economics, Sahlstrom said. “Coal has kind of found itself without a job,” he said.
“I do not see the hyperscale community going out and signing long term commitments for new coal plants,” the former Amazon executive said. (The tech companies ramping up AI are frequently referred to as “hyperscalers.”)
“I would be shocked if I saw something like that happen,” Sahlstrom said.
Coal retirements strain grid
But coal plant retirements are creating a real challenge for the grid as electricity demand is increasing due to data centers, re-industrialization and the broader electrification of the economy.
The largest grid in the nation, the PJM Interconnection, has forecast electricity demand could surge 40% by 2039. PJM warned in 2023 that 40 gigawatts of existing power generation, mostly coal, is at risk of retirement by 2030, which represents about 21% of PJM’s installed capacity.
Data centers will temporarily prolong coal demand as utilities scramble to maintain grid reliability, delaying their decarbonization goals, according to a Moody’s report from last October. Utilities have already postponed the retirement of coal plants totaling about 39 gigawatts of power, according to data from the National Mining Association.
“If we want to grow America’s electricity production meaningfully over the next five or ten years, we [have] got to stop closing coal plants,” Energy Secretary Chris Wright told CNBC’s “Money Movers” last month.
But natural gas and renewables are the future, Sahlstrom said. Some 60% of the power sector’s emissions reductions over the past 20 years are due to gas displacing coal, with the remainder coming from renewables, Sahlstrom said.
“That’s a pretty powerful combination, and it’s hard for me to see people going backwards by putting more coal into the mix, particularly if you’re a hyperscale customer who has net-zero carbon goals,” he said.
A federal court judge in Michigan has placed the once-promising electric truck brand Bollinger Motors’ assets into receivership following claims that the company’s owners still owe its founder, Robert Bollinger, more than $10 million.
Now, Automotive News is reporting on some of the more convoluted details of the Mullen purchase deal, with Robert (for ease of distinguishing the man from the brand) claiming that Mullen Automotive owes him more than $10 million for a loan he made to the company in 2024.
Just how Robert ended up giving Mullen Automotive $10 million to take his eponymous truck brand off his hands is probably one of those capitalistic mysteries that I’ll never understand, but Mullen’s response was perfectly clear: they didn’t even bother to show up to court.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
Bollinger claims that at least two suppliers are also suing Mullen for unpaid debts. As such, the Honorable Terrence G. Berg has put the Bollinger brand into receivership, and its assets have been frozen in preparation for everything being liquidated. Worse, for Bollinger, the official court filings reveal a company that is really very much doing not awesome:
The testimony and evidence—which Defendant’s counsel conceded accurately reflected Defendant’s finances—showed that Defendant is in crisis. For months Defendant has owed more than twenty million dollars to suppliers, contractors, service providers, and owners of physical space. These debts are owed to parties who are critical for Defendant’s functioning. CEO Bryan Chambers testified that Defendant was locked out of its production facilities on May 5, 2025, and that the owner of the production facilities was seeking to permanently evict Defendant. The Court heard that Defendant had been prevented from accessing its critical manufacturing accounting system for a short time at the end of April 2025, before making a partial payment to restart services.
You can read the full court decision, which I’ve embedded here, below. Once you’ve taken it all in, feel free to rush into the comments to say you told me so, since I really thought hoped the Bollinger B1 had a shot. Silly me.
Mammoth Solar, a 1.3 gigawatt (GW) solar farm in northern Indiana, is now powering into its biggest construction phase yet, cementing its place as one of the largest solar projects in the US.
The solar farm is set to increase Indiana’s solar capacity by more than 20% once it’s fully online. And with construction ramping up this month, developer Doral Renewables has given Bechtel Full Notice to Proceed on the design, engineering, and construction of three major phases of the project: Mammoth South, Mammoth Central I, and Mammoth Central II. Together, these phases will generate 900 MW of clean energy.
That’s enough electricity to power around 200,000 homes with clean energy, helping Indiana shift away from fossil fuels while boosting the local economy.
Construction is already underway, and over the next two years, Bechtel will install around 2 million solar panels, with about half of them made in the US. The company is also handling all engineering, procurement, and construction work, using its digital project management tools and autonomous tech to keep everything on track.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
At the peak of the buildout, Mammoth Solar is expected to create over 1,200 jobs, with at least 15% of those set aside for apprenticeships.
Bechtel says its success will hinge on strong collaboration with local trades and vendors. The company is working closely with craft professionals and is committed to being a reliable community partner throughout construction.
Once the solar farm is complete in 2027, Doral Renewables plans to roll out agrivoltaics across the site. That means livestock grazing and crop cultivation will happen right alongside energy production, giving farmers in the area a way to keep working their land while supporting clean energy development.
If you live in an area that has frequent natural disaster events, and are interested in making your home more resilient to power outages, consider going solar and adding a battery storage system. 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. They have 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 Advisers to help you every step of the way. Get started here. –trusted affiliate link*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.