US safety agency pressures Texas-based Tesla over full self-driving claims, crash concerns

The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has raised concerns about Tesla's public messaging on its "Full Self-Driving" system. Photo via tesla.com

The U.S. government's highway safety agency says Tesla is telling drivers in public statements that its vehicles can drive themselves, conflicting with owners manuals and briefings with the agency saying the electric vehicles need human supervision.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is asking the company to “revisit its communications” to make sure messages are consistent with user instructions.

The request came in a May email to the company from Gregory Magno, a division chief with the agency's Office of Defects Investigation. It was attached to a letter seeking information on a probe into crashes involving Tesla's “Full Self-Driving” system in low-visibility conditions. The letter was posted Friday on the agency's website.

The agency began the investigation in October after getting reports of four crashes involving “Full Self-Driving" when Teslas encountered sun glare, fog and airborne dust. An Arizona pedestrian was killed in one of the crashes.

Critics, including Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, have long accused Tesla of using deceptive names for its partially automated driving systems, including “Full Self-Driving” and “Autopilot,” both of which have been viewed by owners as fully autonomous.

The letter and email raise further questions about whether Full Self-Driving will be ready for use without human drivers on public roads, as Tesla CEO Elon Musk has predicted. Much of Tesla's stock valuation hinges on the company deploying a fleet of autonomous robotaxis.

Musk, who has promised autonomous vehicles before, said the company plans to have autonomous Models Y and 3 running without human drivers next year. Robotaxis without steering wheels would be available in 2026 starting in California and Texas, he said.

A message was sent Friday seeking comment from Tesla.

In the email, Magno writes that Tesla briefed the agency in April on an offer of a free trial of “Full Self-Driving” and emphasized that the owner's manual, user interface and a YouTube video tell humans that they have to remain vigilant and in full control of their vehicles.

But Magno cited seven posts or reposts by Tesla's account on X, the social media platform owned by Musk, that Magno said indicated that Full Self-Driving is capable of driving itself.

“Tesla's X account has reposted or endorsed postings that exhibit disengaged driver behavior,” Magno wrote. “We believe that Tesla's postings conflict with its stated messaging that the driver is to maintain continued control over the dynamic driving task."

The postings may encourage drivers to see Full Self-Driving, which now has the word “supervised” next to it in Tesla materials, to view the system as a “chauffeur or robotaxi rather than a partial automation/driver assist system that requires persistent attention and intermittent intervention by the driver,” Magno wrote.

On April 11, for instance, Tesla reposted a story about a man who used Full Self-Driving to travel 13 miles (21 kilometers) from his home to an emergency room during a heart attack just after the free trial began on April 1. A version of Full Self-Driving helped the owner "get to the hospital when he needed immediate medical attention,” the post said.

In addition, Tesla says on its website that use of Full Self-Driving and Autopilot without human supervision depends on “achieving reliability" and regulatory approval, Magno wrote. But the statement is accompanied by a video of a man driving on local roads with his hands on his knees, with a statement that, “The person in the driver's seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself,” the email said.

In the letter seeking information on driving in low-visibility conditions, Magno wrote that the investigation will focus on the system's ability to perform in low-visibility conditions caused by “relatively common traffic occurrences.”

Drivers, he wrote, may not be told by the car that they should decide where Full Self-Driving can safely operate or fully understand the capabilities of the system.

“This investigation will consider the adequacy of feedback or information the system provides to drivers to enable them to make a decision in real time when the capability of the system has been exceeded,” Magno wrote.

The letter asks Tesla to describe all visual or audio warnings that drivers get that the system “is unable to detect and respond to any reduced visibility condition.”

The agency gave Tesla until Dec. 18 to respond to the letter, but the company can ask for an extension.

That means the investigation is unlikely to be finished by the time President-elect Donald Trump takes office in January, and Trump has said he would put Musk in charge of a government efficiency commission to audit agencies and eliminate fraud. Musk spent at least $119 million in a campaign to get Trump elected, and Trump has spoken against government regulations.

Auto safety advocates fear that if Musk gains some control over NHTSA, the Full Self-Driving and other investigations into Tesla could be derailed.

Musk even floated the idea of him helping to develop national safety standards for self-driving vehicles.

“Of course the fox wants to build the henhouse,” said Michael Brooks, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety, a nonprofit watchdog group.

He added that he can't think of anyone who would agree that a business mogul should have direct involvement in regulations that affect the mogul’s companies.

“That’s a huge problem for democracy, really,” Brooks said.

From Your Site Articles

Investigators will look into the ability of “Full Self-Driving” to “detect and respond appropriately to reduced roadway visibility conditions, and if so, the contributing circumstances for these crashes." Photo courtesy of Tesla

US to probe Texas-based Tesla's self-driving system after pedestrian killed in low visibility conditions

eyes on the road

The U.S. government's road safety agency is investigating Tesla's “Full Self-Driving” system after getting reports of crashes in low-visibility conditions, including one that killed a pedestrian.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said in documents that it opened the probe last week after the company reported four crashes when Teslas encountered sun glare, fog and airborne dust.

In addition to the pedestrian's death, another crash involved an injury, the agency said.

The investigation covers roughly 2.4 million Teslas from the 2016 through 2024 model years.

A message was left Friday seeking comment from Tesla, which has repeatedly said the system cannot drive itself and human drivers must be ready to intervene at all times.

Last week Tesla held an event at a Hollywood studio to unveil a fully autonomous robotaxi without a steering wheel or pedals. Musk, who has promised autonomous vehicles before, said the company plans to have autonomous Models Y and 3 running without human drivers next year. Robotaxis without steering wheels would be available in 2026 starting in California and Texas, he said.

The investigation's impact on Tesla's self-driving ambitions isn't clear. NHTSA would have to approve any robotaxi without pedals or a steering wheel, and it's unlikely that would happen while the investigation is in progress. But if the company tries to deploy autonomous vehicles in its existing models, that likely would fall to state regulations. There are no federal regulations specifically focused on autonomous vehicles, although they must meet broader safety rules.

NHTSA also said it would look into whether any other similar crashes involving “Full Self-Driving” have happened in low visibility conditions, and it will seek information from the company on whether any updates affected the system’s performance in those conditions.

“In particular, this review will assess the timing, purpose and capabilities of any such updates, as well as Tesla’s assessment of their safety impact,” the documents said.

Tesla reported the four crashes to NHTSA under an order from the agency covering all automakers. An agency database says the pedestrian was killed in Rimrock, Arizona, in November of 2023 after being hit by a 2021 Tesla Model Y. Rimrock is about 100 miles (161 kilometers) north of Phoenix.

The Arizona Department of Public Safety said in a statement that the crash happened just after 5 p.m. Nov. 27 on Interstate 17. Two vehicles collided on the freeway, blocking the left lane. A Toyota 4Runner stopped, and two people got out to help with traffic control. A red Tesla Model Y then hit the 4Runner and one of the people who exited from it. A 71-year-old woman from Mesa, Arizona, was pronounced dead at the scene.

The collision happened because the sun was in the Tesla driver's eyes, so the Tesla driver was not charged, said Raul Garcia, public information officer for the department. Sun glare also was a contributing factor in the first collision, he added.

Tesla has twice recalled “Full Self-Driving” under pressure from NHTSA, which in July sought information from law enforcement and the company after a Tesla using the system struck and killed a motorcyclist near Seattle.

The recalls were issued because the system was programmed to run stop signs at slow speeds and because the system disobeyed other traffic laws. Both problems were to be fixed with online software updates.

Critics have said that Tesla’s system, which uses only cameras to spot hazards, doesn’t have proper sensors to be fully self driving. Nearly all other companies working on autonomous vehicles use radar and laser sensors in addition to cameras to see better in the dark or poor visibility conditions.

Musk has said that humans drive with only eyesight, so cars should be able to drive with just cameras. He has called lidar (light detection and ranging), which uses lasers to detect objects, a “fool's errand.”

The “Full Self-Driving” recalls arrived after a three-year investigation into Tesla's less-sophisticated Autopilot system crashing into emergency and other vehicles parked on highways, many with warning lights flashing.

That investigation was closed last April after the agency pressured Tesla into recalling its vehicles to bolster a weak system that made sure drivers are paying attention. A few weeks after the recall, NHTSA began investigating whether the recall was working.

NHTSA began its Autopilot crash investigation in 2021, after receiving 11 reports that Teslas that were using Autopilot struck parked emergency vehicles. In documents explaining why the investigation was ended, NHTSA said it ultimately found 467 crashes involving Autopilot resulting in 54 injuries and 14 deaths. Autopilot is a fancy version of cruise control, while “Full Self-Driving” has been billed by Musk as capable of driving without human intervention.

The investigation that was opened Thursday enters new territory for NHTSA, which previously had viewed Tesla's systems as assisting drivers rather than driving themselves. With the new probe, the agency is focusing on the capabilities of “Full Self-Driving" rather than simply making sure drivers are paying attention.

Michael Brooks, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Auto Safety, said the previous investigation of Autopilot didn't look at why the Teslas weren't seeing and stopping for emergency vehicles.

“Before they were kind of putting the onus on the driver rather than the car,” he said. “Here they're saying these systems are not capable of appropriately detecting safety hazards whether the drivers are paying attention or not.”

Ad Placement 300x100

Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Property Showcase

NASA and Houston researcher tackle climate-driven water quality risks

water watch

Climate change means far more to public health than living with hotter days. Transformations in our weather are contributing to challenges in accessing safe drinking water in some communities.

One of the most dire situations is along the US–Mexico border. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is seeking to address that issue with its Water Quality Applications program. An 11-researcher project led by a UTHealth Houston School of Public Health faculty member has been selected to participate.

“Drinking water is one of the most fundamental public health protections, but producing safe drinking water involves a delicate balance,” Yun Hang, assistant professor of environmental and occupational health sciences, said in a news release. Her team’s proposal was one of 93 that were submitted for funding through NASA’s Research Opportunities in Space and Earth Sciences (ROSES)-2025 program.

This is the first time that NASA has worked with a team devoted to water quality applications. The group, which includes researchers from across the nation, will use satellite observations of Earth, as well as hydrologic modeling, to potentially anticipate and act on water quality conditions as they change. Challenges addressed over the course of the three-year program, which kicked off in June, might include problems with water quality due to climate variability and increased pressure on water resources.

Hang’s team will focus on a pair of borderlands: Paso del Norte and the Rio Grande Valley.

“Working closely with El Paso Water ensures that our research addresses real operational needs while helping utilities better prepare for climate-related water quality changes and continue providing safe drinking water to communities across the Texas border region,” Hang added in the release.

She and the team will use data gathered by NASA on both past and future Earth-observing missions, which will allow them to track environmental changes that may affect source water quality. Combined with past water treatment records and hydrologic models, the team will also utilize artificial intelligence to develop predictive tools that aim to stop issues before they become larger hurdles to water safety.

Another one of the project’s goals is to create visualization tools and source water summaries that can be utilized by those without scientific expertise. The tools will be produced in English and Spanish to further broaden their accessibility.

The hope is that the materials made by the team will also go far beyond the border, with protocols that can be adapted or adopted by other areas dealing with water quality issues.

---

This article originally appeared on our sister site, InnovationMap.com.

New research reveals what really drives data center location decisions

Guest Column

Recent power outages and the surge in AI-driven computing have made data center siting decisions more consequential than ever, especially as energy and water constraints tighten. Communities invest public dollars on the promise of jobs and growth, while firms weigh long-term commitments to land, power and connectivity.

Against that evolving backdrop, a critical question comes into focus: Where do data centers get built — and what actually drives those decisions?

A new study by Tommy Pan Fang (Rice Business) and Shane Greenstein (Harvard Business School) provides the first large-scale statistical analysis of data center location strategies across the United States. It offers policymakers and firms a clearer starting point for understanding how different types of data centers respond to economic and strategic incentives.

Published in the journal Strategy Science, the study examines two major types of infrastructure: third-party colocation centers that lease server space to multiple firms, and hyperscale cloud centers owned by providers like Amazon, Google and Microsoft.

Key takeaways:

Third-party colocation centers are physical facilities in close proximity to firms that use them, while cloud providers operate large data centers from a distance and sell access to virtualized computing resources as on‑demand services over the internet.
Hospitals and financial firms often require urban third-party centers for low latency and regulatory compliance, while batch processing and many AI workloads can operate more efficiently from lower-cost cloud hubs.
For policymakers trying to attract data centers, access to reliable power, water and high-capacity internet matter more than tax incentives.

What are the two main data center location strategies?

The study draws on pre-pandemic data from 2018 and 2019, a period of relative geographic stability in supply and demand. This window gives researchers a clean baseline before remote work, AI demand and new infrastructure pressures began reshaping internet traffic patterns.

The findings show that data centers follow a bifurcated geography:

Third-party centers cluster in dense urban markets, where buyers prioritize proximity to customers despite higher land and operating costs.
Cloud providers, by contrast, concentrate massive sites in a small number of lower-density regions, where electricity, land and construction are cheaper and economies of scale are easier to achieve.

Third-party data centers, in other words, follow demand. They locate in urban markets where firms in finance, healthcare and IT value low latency, secure storage, and compliance with regulatory standards.

Using county-level data, the researchers modeled how population density, industry mix and operating costs predict where new centers enter. Every U.S. metro with more than 700,000 residents had at least one third-party provider, while many mid-sized cities had none.

This pattern challenges common assumptions. Third-party facilities are more distributed across urban America than prevailing narratives suggest.

“For industries where speed is everything, being too far from the physical infrastructure can meaningfully affect performance and risk,” Pan Fang says. “Proximity isn’t optional for sectors that can’t absorb delay.”

In critical operations, even slight pauses can have real consequences. For hospital systems, lag can affect performance and risk exposure. And in high-frequency trading, milliseconds can determine whether value is captured or lost in a transaction.

Why does distance matter for cloud data center costs?

For cloud providers, the picture looks very different. Their decisions follow a logic shaped primarily by cost and scale. Because cloud services can be delivered from afar, firms tend to build enormous sites in low-density regions where power is cheap and land is abundant.

These facilities can draw hundreds of megawatts of electricity and operate with far fewer employees than urban centers. “The cloud can serve almost anywhere,” Pan Fang says, “so location is a question of cost before geography.”

The study finds that cloud infrastructure clusters around network backbones and energy economics, not talent pools. Well-known hubs like Ashburn, Virginia — often called “Data Center Alley” — reflect this logic, having benefited from early network infrastructure that made them natural convergence points for digital traffic.

Local governments often try to lure data centers with tax incentives, betting they will create high-tech jobs. But the study suggests other factors matter more to cloud providers, including construction costs, network connectivity and access to reliable, affordable electricity.

When cloud centers need a local presence, distance can sometimes become a constraint. Providers often address this by working alongside third-party operators. “Third-party centers can complement cloud firms when they need a foothold closer to customers,” Pan Fang says.

That hybrid pattern — massive regional hubs complementing strategic colocation — may define the next phase of data center growth.

Looking ahead, shifts in remote work, climate resilience, energy prices and AI-driven computing may reshape where new facilities go. Some workloads may move closer to users, while others may consolidate into large rural hubs. Emerging data-sovereignty rules could also redirect investment beyond the United States.

“The cloud feels weightless,” Pan Fang says, “but it rests on real choices about land, power and proximity.”

---

This article originally appeared on Rice Business Wisdom. Written by Scott Pett. Pan Fang and Greenstein (2025). “Where the Cloud Rests: The Economic Geography of Data Centers,” Strategy Science.

ERock scores Anthropic deal, sees order backlog soar to $1.7B

power deal

Two months after its $400 million IPO, Houston-based ERock (NYSE: EROC) has landed a power-generator deal with AI powerhouse Anthropic, owner of the Claude platform.

In its Q2 earnings report, ERock says it will provide equipment to Anthropic with a 470-megawatt capacity. ERock specializes in utility-grade, onsite microgrid power systems for data centers and other customers. The company previously did business as Enchanted Rock.

The Anthropic deal adds to ERock’s backlog of about $1.7 billion in orders—a figure representing a 1,000 percent year-over-year jump in backorders thanks in large part to the AI boom. ERock expects most of the backlog to convert to revenue by the end of 2027, said Ian Blakely, the company’s chief financial officer.

Bank of America analyst Ross Fowler says the Anthropic contract boosts confidence in ERock’s ability to secure other major deals, according to Traders Union. The Anthropic deal is ERock’s third major data center contract, with separate Anthropic deals for operations and maintenance services expected to follow, Fowler said.

CEO John Carrington says Anthropic’s order “reinforces the momentum” ERock is witnessing across its customer base.

“We are seeing a lot of interest in Texas. It seems to be the easiest place to get a site set up,” company President Corey Amthor said

In its Q2 earnings release—its first as a public company—ERock also reported:

Launching generator-assembly operations at its Hyperion equipment factory in Northwest Houston. The plant will expand ERock’s assembly capabilities to 1.2 gigawatts of capacity by the end of 2026.
Starting construction of a $473 million, 366-megawatt El Paso Electric natural-gas-powered plant to supply power for Meta Platforms’ $14 billion, 1,000-acre AI data center campus in El Paso. Meta is the parent company of the Facebook and Instagram social media companies.

“Meta gains access to an operational data center years earlier than may otherwise be possible, while El Paso Electric gains a flexible, low-cost, low-emissions grid asset that can support long-term system reliability,” Carrington said.

View All Listings

ENERGYCAPITALHTX EMAILS ARE AWESOME