Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Only thing I can think of is a true $35k model 3? Or this supplier is taking over the output of a different supplier :)

These could be (probably are) parts shared between Model 3 and Model Y. If the supply includes supply to China, that's already a near-50% increase in production of Model 3; they may need to increase the spare parts supply; and starting to line up extra parts for Model Y production makes sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boomer19
13410.jpg.png
 
Starting January 1, 2020, all new homes built in California are required to have solar (with limited exceptions).

So, yeah, would be an excellent time for solar roof to start ramping up ....

California’s Rooftop Solar Mandate Wins Final Approval

The mandate is not exactly straightforward as it reads in the article, or many of the articles out there in fact.

First, this mandate is not a win for customers. Some new home communities and developers in CA already require buyers to buy solar panels on roofs when built. Right now, that’s mostly because it’s profit-focused. So far, with housing demand as high as it has been, developers in desirable areas have been charging almost twice as much for a measly 2-3 kW system. For example, a friend of ours recently moved into a new dev in the Bay Area and they were forced to buy the 3 kW pre-built system for ~$4.50/W. (Or, they could have leased it for an even more outrageous rate).

Look up SunStreet Energy Group. Those are the type of businesses that will profit most from this requirement. And when homeowners find that the original system is insufficient, who will they go to first to add more panels (without having to buy a new system)?

A business like Tesla Energy has very little opportunity to make it onto the roofs of new residential construction from this mandate. (Maybe if they severely underpriced their panels and took a loss to sell into developers).

Also, this CA mandate allows developers, utility companies, local governments, and any other entity, to create a community solar farm (which can be located even on the opposite side of the state) to provide the minimum amount of electricity required for a neighborhood of homes. This mandate doesn’t necessarily require physical panels to be located on the roof.

I don’t see much difference from this requirement and just forcing electricity customers to pay slightly higher rates by buying electricity generation from renewable sources (ie. PG&E Solar Choice or another CCA).

There was definitely lobbying to get this passed, and not just for feel-good sakes of saving the environment.
 
Turned out Jack Welch was essentially faking the numbers at GE.

That said, unrealistic deadlines are demoralizing. It's one thing to set an ambitious target that's a few months ahead. It's another thing to ignore your team when they tell you that robotaxis are definitely not happening next year, no way no how, which appears to be what the team just told Musk. Musk, being a fool, proceeded to fire them, which won't help. You can't pay a woman to make a baby faster than 9 months, and a lot of projects are like that; they actually take time.
Do you have links to these conversations that you allege took place? Would be an interesting read.

Dan
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tim S and PeterJA
The mandate is not exactly straightforward as it reads in the article, or many of the articles out there in fact.

First, this mandate is not a win for customers. Some new home communities and developers in CA already require buyers to buy solar panels on roofs when built. Right now, that’s mostly because it’s profit-focused. So far, with housing demand as high as it has been, developers in desirable areas have been charging almost twice as much for a measly 2-3 kW system. For example, a friend of ours recently moved into a new dev in the Bay Area and they were forced to buy the 3 kW pre-built system for ~$4.50/W. (Or, they could have leased it for an even more outrageous rate).

Look up SunStreet Energy Group. Those are the type of businesses that will profit most from this requirement. And when homeowners find that the original system is insufficient, who will they go to first to add more panels (without having to buy a new system)?

A business like Tesla Energy has very little opportunity to make it onto the roofs of new residential construction from this mandate. (Maybe if they severely underpriced their panels and took a loss to sell into developers).

Also, this CA mandate allows developers, utility companies, local governments, and any other entity, to create a community solar farm (which can be located even on the opposite side of the state) to provide the minimum amount of electricity required for a neighborhood of homes. This mandate doesn’t necessarily require physical panels to be located on the roof.

I don’t see much difference from this requirement and just forcing electricity customers to pay slightly higher rates by buying electricity generation from renewable sources (ie. PG&E Solar Choice or another CCA).

There was definitely lobbying to get this passed, and not just for feel-good sakes of saving the environment.

OT but IMO this is quite a fantastic rule that will save new homeowners money while drastically reducing GHG emissions from new homes. Average homeowners are estimated to save $40 per month or about $500 per year ($80 per month lower electric bills offset by $40 higher mortgage payment). https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/title24/2...2018_Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ.pdf

That is why it had such a broad group of supporters, ranging from Habitat for Humanity -- who was impressed by the savings for low-income households from reduced utility bills -- to environmentalists and developers. Basically a no-brainer.
 
Last edited:
Do you have links to these conversations that you allege took place? Would be an interesting read.

Dan
I read a lot of stuff and I don't keep the links. All of them have been posted in this thread already. To be absolutely clear, this is a compilation of third hand rumors, and highly unreliable. All we know is that Musk fired a bunch of people in the Autopilot team, and the rumor is that he was unhappy with their pushback against Musk's timelines. But it's a poorly sourced rumor, so it could be totally false.

Has the ring of truth to it, though.
 
I read a lot of stuff and I don't keep the links. All of them have been posted in this thread already. To be absolutely clear, this is a compilation of third hand rumors, and highly unreliable. All we know is that Musk fired a bunch of people in the Autopilot team, and the rumor is that he was unhappy with their pushback against Musk's timelines. But it's a poorly sourced rumor, so it could be totally false.

Has the ring of truth to it, though.
Whoa. Have u been radicalized?
 
OT but IMO this is quite a fantastic bill that will save new homeowners money while drastically reducing GHG emissions from new homes. Average homeowners are estimated to save $40 per month or about $500 per year ($80 per month lower electric bills offset by $40 higher mortgage payment). https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/title24/2...2018_Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ.pdf

That is why it had such a broad group of supporters, ranging from Habitat for Humanity -- who was impressed by the savings for low-income households from reduced electricity costs -- to environmentalists and developers. Basically a no-brainer.

OT:

1. When this was first talked about years ago, I tried to find out how the CEC was getting those numbers, but couldn’t. How do they know how much developers (who end up having the final say in all this) will charge going forward? In my previous post, I gave a concrete example of the kind of profits that developers are making off of this same “required” option on new construction. My friend could’ve saved ~$6,000 on a 3 kW system if he didn’t have to buy it from his developer.

2. That net savings quoted is based on the cost spread over 30 years. Many homeowners do not live in the same house for 30 years. So, the effective cost will be higher for an average homeowner who moves in less 30 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doggydogworld
There were on-record cases from earlier, such as the Model 3 production, of Musk firing people who had pushed back against his unrealistic deadlines. Cases in which they were right and he was wrong, in fact. So I wouldn't be surprised if it happened again.

I would be surprised if Elon didn't learn from experience.
 
Or another theory: Since Tesla redesigns things a lot, they could easily just have a new board rev that now requires an extra relay versus the old board. I mean, its a $1 - $5 part probably. As I said before, this is meaningless data unless you have a whole bunch more information.

In the context of the leaked email the supplier story is more noteworthy.
 
OT:

1. <snip> How do they know how much developers (who end up having the final say in all this) will charge going forward?

It is fairly straightforward to estimate the costs of installing solar on a new house and IIRC their calculations are available in the public regulatory record. The market ensures customers won't have to overpay in the same way it ensures you don't overpay for the roof, central air conditioning, furnace, water heater, plumbing, etc., on new homes.

OT:

2. That net savings quoted is based on the cost spread over 30 years. Many homeowners do not live in the same house for 30 years. So, the effective cost will be higher for an average homeowner who moves in less 30 years.

Most people have mortgages and will see instant savings because their electricity bill will be reduced by more than their mortgage increases. People who pay cash for their house will benefit from a reduced electric bill and higher value on resale, which has been well documented for homes with solar. Berkeley Lab Illuminates Price Premiums for U.S. Solar Home Sales

This article has a good summary of the benefits and comments from a variety of perspectives, including:

“Low mortgage payments alone don’t make for affordable housing,” said George Koertzen, construction superintendent at Habitat for Humanity in San Joaquin County, in a statement. “It’s also important to make sure families can afford to pay the energy bills that keep the lights on, the temperature comfortable, and the hot water flowing.” It’s Official. All New California Homes Must Incorporate Solar
 
Last edited:
One reason: if you're a *trader* who bought around 180/200, for sure you're going to sell ahead of earnings. It's a black box, and you're going to lock in gains (of up to 60 points, which is substantial for a trader). If you're a long term investor, that's another matter...

The question is whether long term investors are buying here, enough to outnumber the shorts and traders.

Well put. I wouldn’t be surprised to see it trade somewhat inline into earnings and then expect a larger than usual implied move post-earnings. I think it’s been around 7-8% last few calls. Don’t quote me on that.
 
It's another thing to ignore your team when they tell you that robotaxis are definitely not happening next year, no way no how, which appears to be what the team just told Musk. Musk, being a fool, proceeded to fire them, which won't help.
My guess is - its not about robotaxi next year - but its about feature complete by end of this year. They have to first get to FC before improving the quality.
 
Well put. I wouldn’t be surprised to see it trade somewhat inline into earnings and then expect a larger than usual implied move post-earnings. I think it’s been around 7-8% last few calls. Don’t quote me on that.

Personally, I have no idea what it will do. Could sell off or go up. At earnings, we could be at 200 or 280. Haven't a clue. But my guess is that if it runs up into earnings, it will sell off afterwards, and vice a versa.
 
Probably the latter. Read the Digitimes article: CFTC to hike components shipments to Tesla

Parse the first two paragraphs. First this company just makes metal parts that are used in relays that are then used in Model 3s. They sell to the relay manufacturer. And while orders have increased, parsing the text, it isn't necessarily true that the extra relays are for Tesla. The relay manufacturer could just have gotten another big customer for the same part that is used in Model 3s. Or as you said, maybe they just displaced another relay manufacturer. Anyways, there are so many unknowns here, that this is a useless piece of information. Seems that even a manufacturer of small metal parts sends out clickbait PRs with the word Tesla in it.

Sure, but it is at least somewhat suspicious alongside the news of the strange note sent out by Jerome. Agree it could very well mean nothing.

The key with the Jerome note is thinking about what would be exciting involving production w.r.t. employees...