Automotive
Tesla stock soars for fourth straight week on Musk Play plan, board shake-up
MxM News
Quick Hit:
Tesla shares surged more than 16% this week, notching a fourth consecutive week of gains and cutting into steep year-to-date losses. The rally is fueled by news of a potential new pay package for Elon Musk and the strategic addition of Jack Hartung, Chipotle’s outgoing president, to Tesla’s board. These developments come amid rising scrutiny over the board’s governance and compensation decisions, especially concerning Musk’s controversial $56 billion pay package from 2018.
Key Details:
- Tesla stock has gained over 16% this week and is now down just 13% for the year, recovering from a 40% loss earlier in 2025.
- Jack Hartung, Chipotle’s president, will join Tesla’s board on June 1, bringing seasoned business leadership.
- A special Tesla board committee is evaluating a new compensation plan for Musk after legal challenges to his previous $56 billion package.
Diving Deeper:
Tesla’s stock (TSLA) closed the week strong at $349.98, climbing 2.09% on Friday alone and marking a fourth straight week of gains. This momentum has helped the electric vehicle maker erase much of its earlier 2025 losses, which had topped 40% at one point. Now down just 13% year-to-date, the turnaround comes as investors digest two pivotal developments that could shape Tesla’s future leadership and direction.
The most immediate catalyst: Tesla’s announcement that Jack Hartung, the president of Chipotle Mexican Grill, will join its board of directors beginning June 1. Hartung will also serve on the audit committee, a significant appointment given Tesla’s board has been under fire for lack of independence and weak oversight of CEO Elon Musk. Hartung brings executive experience from not only Chipotle but also board roles at Portillo’s, the Honest Company, and ZocDoc—credentials that could help restore confidence in Tesla’s boardroom governance.
Hartung’s addition follows the bombshell report from the Financial Times earlier this week that Tesla’s board has formed a special committee to explore a new pay package for Elon Musk. The committee’s task is to find “alternative ways” to reward Musk for past work in case Tesla fails to reinstate the original 2018 compensation deal, which is now under appeal with the Delaware Supreme Court. That deal—valued at $56 billion—has drawn fire from large shareholders, prompting broader questions about Musk’s influence over Tesla and whether the board has effectively served as a rubber stamp for his ambitions.
Critics have warned that Musk’s threat to redirect his artificial intelligence efforts away from Tesla unless he is granted additional stock options represents an outsized concentration of power in the hands of one individual. While Musk continues to be the face of the company’s innovation and success, these governance concerns have given activist investors and institutional shareholders new ammunition.
Tesla board chair Robyn Denholm has also come under scrutiny, particularly after Wall Street Journal reporting suggested the board was considering replacing Musk or had urged him to spend more time at the company. Denholm has publicly denied those claims, but her own record—cashing out more than half a billion dollars in Tesla stock since joining the board in 2014—hasn’t helped stem criticism. In fact, the board recently had to settle a lawsuit over excessive director compensation, refunding millions of dollars to shareholders.
Despite these governance challenges, the market has responded positively to the board’s recent moves, seeing them as steps toward restoring stability and investor confidence. The addition of Hartung and the new pay committee could signal a willingness to address long-standing concerns about independence and oversight, even as Musk remains firmly at the center of Tesla’s orbit.
For now, investors appear to be betting that a more disciplined board—paired with a still-charismatic and high-impact CEO—could be a recipe for renewed growth and focus.
‘Elon Musk introducing the Model X” by Steve Jurvetson licensed under (CC BY-SA 2.0)
From the Fraser Institute
During his victory speech Monday night, Prime Minister Mark Carney repeated one of his favourite campaign slogans and vowed to make Canada a “clean energy superpower.” So, Canadians can expect Ottawa to “invest” more taxpayer money in “clean energy” projects including electric vehicles (EVs), the revolutionary transportation technology that’s been ready to replace internal combustion since 1901 yet still requires government subsidies.
It’s a good time for a little historical review. In 2012 south of the border, the Obama administration poured massive subsidies into companies peddling green tech, only to see a vast swath go belly up including Solyndra, would-be maker of advanced solar panels, which failed so spectacularly CNN called the company the “poster child for well-meaning government policy gone bad.”
One might think that such a spectacular failure might have served as a cautionary tale for today’s politicians. But one would be wrong. Even as the EV transition slammed into stiff headwinds, the Trudeau government and Ontario’s Ford government poured $5 billion in subsidies into Honda to build an EV battery plant and manufacture EVs in Ontario. That “investment” came on top of a long list of other “investments” including $15 billion for Stellantis and LG Energy Solution; $13 billion for Volkswagen (or $16.3 billion, per the Parliamentary Budget Officer), a combined $4.24 billion (federal/Quebec split) to Northvolt, a Swedish battery maker, and a combined $644 million (federal/Quebec split) to Ford Motor Company to build a cathode manufacturing plant in Quebec.
How’s all that working out? Not great.
“Projects announced for Canada’s EV supply chain are in various states of operation, and many remain years away from production,” notes automotive/natural resource reporter Gabriel Friedman, writing in the Financial Post. “Of the four multibillion-dollar battery cell manufacturing plants announced for Canada, only one—a joint venture known as NextStar Energy Inc. between South Korea’s LG Energy Solution Ltd. and European automaker Stellantis NV—progressed into even the construction phase.”
In 2023, Volkswagen said it would invest $7 billion by 2030 to build a battery cell manufacturing complex in St. Thomas, Ontario. However, Friedman notes “construction of the VW plant is not scheduled to begin until this spring [2025] and initial cell production will not begin for years.” Or ever, if Donald Trump’s pledge to end U.S. government support for a broad EV transition comes to pass.
In the meantime, other elements of Canada’s “clean tech” future are also in doubt. In December 2024, Saint-Jérome, Que.-based Lion Electric Co., which had received $100 million in provincial and government support to assemble batteries in Canada for electric school buses and trucks, said it would file for bankruptcy in the United States and creditor protection in Canada. And Ford Motor Company last summer scrapped its planned EV assembly plant in Oakville, Ontario—after $640 million in federal and provincial support.
And of course, there’s Canada’s own poster-child-of-clean-tech-subsidy failure, Northvolt. According to the CBC, the Swedish battery manufacturer, with plans to build a $7 billion factory in Quebec, has declared bankruptcy in Sweden, though Northvolt claims that its North American operations are “solvent.” That’s cold comfort to some Quebec policymakers: “We’re going to be losing hundreds of millions of dollars in a bet that our government in Quebec made on a poorly negotiated investment,” said Parti Québécois MNA Pascal Paradis.
Elections often bring about change. If the Carney government wants to change course and avoid more clean-tech calamities, it should pull the plug on the EV revolution and avoid any more electro-boondoggles.
Kenneth P. Green
Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
MxM News
Quick Hit:
Major automakers are urging Congress to intervene and halt California’s aggressive plan to eliminate gasoline-only vehicles by 2035. With the Biden-era EPA waiver empowering California and 11 other states to enforce the rule, automakers warn of immediate impacts on vehicle availability and consumer choice. The U.S. House is preparing for a critical vote to determine if California’s sweeping environmental mandates will stand.
Key Details:
-
Automakers argue California’s rules will raise prices and limit consumer choices, especially amid high tariffs on auto imports.
-
The House is set to vote this week on repealing the EPA waiver that greenlit California’s mandate.
-
California’s regulations would require 35% of 2026 model year vehicles to be zero-emission, a figure manufacturers say is unrealistic.
Diving Deeper:
The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, representing industry giants such as General Motors, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Hyundai, issued a letter Monday warning Congress about the looming consequences of California’s radical environmental regulations. The automakers stressed that unless Congress acts swiftly, vehicle shipments across the country could be disrupted within months, forcing car companies to artificially limit sales of traditional vehicles to meet electric vehicle quotas.
California’s Air Resources Board rules have already spread to 11 other states—including New York, Massachusetts, and Oregon—together representing roughly 40% of the entire U.S. auto market. Despite repeated concerns from manufacturers, California officials have doubled down, insisting that their measures are essential for meeting lofty greenhouse gas reduction targets and combating smog. However, even some states like Maryland have recognized the impracticality of California’s timeline, opting to delay compliance.
A major legal hurdle complicates the path forward. The Government Accountability Office ruled in March that the EPA waiver issued under former President Joe Biden cannot be revoked under the Congressional Review Act, which requires only a simple Senate majority. This creates uncertainty over whether Congress can truly roll back California’s authority without more complex legislative action.
The House is also gearing up to tackle other elements of California’s environmental regime, including blocking the state from imposing stricter pollution standards on commercial trucks and halting its low-nitrogen oxide emissions regulations for heavy-duty vehicles. These moves reflect growing concerns that California’s progressive regulatory overreach is threatening national commerce and consumer choice.
Under California’s current rules, the state demands that 35% of light-duty vehicles for the 2026 model year be zero-emission, scaling up rapidly to 68% by 2030. Industry experts widely agree that these targets are disconnected from reality, given the current slow pace of electric vehicle adoption among the broader American public, particularly in rural and lower-income areas.
California first unveiled its plan in 2020, aiming to make at least 80% of new cars electric and the remainder plug-in hybrids by 2035. Now, under President Donald Trump’s leadership, the U.S. Transportation Department is working to undo the aggressive fuel economy regulations imposed during former President Joe Biden’s term, offering a much-needed course correction for an auto industry burdened by regulatory overreach.
As Congress debates, the larger question remains: Will America allow one state’s left-wing environmental ideology to dictate terms for the entire country’s auto industry?
Alberta’s oil bankrolls Canada’s public services
Canada’s oil sector is built to last, unlike its U.S. counterpart
Freedom Convoy leader Tamara Lich to face sentencing July 23
RCMP warns Central Alberta property owners of paving contractor scams
-
Alberta6 hours ago
Alberta’s oil bankrolls Canada’s public services
-
Alberta8 hours ago
Canada’s oil sector is built to last, unlike its U.S. counterpart
-
COVID-195 hours ago
Freedom Convoy leader Tamara Lich to face sentencing July 23
-
Crime1 day ago
RCMP warns Central Alberta property owners of paving contractor scams
-
Crime1 day agoVeteran RCMP Investigator Warns of Coordinated Hybrid Warfare Targeting Canada
-
Alberta1 day agoIt’s not just Alberta flirting with western separatism now
-
Business4 hours agoThe ESG Shell Game Behind The U.S. Plastics Pact
-
Alberta7 hours agoAlberta’s industrial carbon tax freeze is a good first step