The Austin, Texas, company supposedly fixed its self-driving software for more than 2 million vehicles, but the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration still has concerns. Photo courtesy of Tesla

Federal highway safety investigators want Austin-based Tesla to tell them how and why it developed the fix in a recall of more than 2 million vehicles equipped with the company's Autopilot partially automated driving system.

Investigators with the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have concerns about whether the recall remedy worked because Tesla has reported 20 crashes since the remedy was sent out as an online software update in December.

The recall fix also was to address whether Autopilot should be allowed to operate on roads other than limited access highways. The fix for that was increased warnings to the driver on roads with intersections.

But in a letter to Tesla posted on the agency's website Tuesday, investigators wrote that they could not find a difference between warnings to the driver to pay attention before the recall and after the new software was released. The agency said it will evaluate whether driver warnings are adequate, especially when a driver-monitoring camera is covered.

The agency asked for volumes of information about how Tesla developed the fix, and zeroed in on how it used human behavior to test the recall effectiveness.

Phil Koopman, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University who studies automated driving safety, said the letter shows that the recall did little to solve problems with Autopilot and was an attempt to pacify NHTSA, which demanded the recall after more than two years of investigation.

“It’s pretty clear to everyone watching that Tesla tried to do the least possible remedy to see what they could get away with,” Koopman said. “And NHTSA has to respond forcefully or other car companies will start pushing out inadequate remedies.”

Safety advocates have long expressed concern that Autopilot, which can keep a vehicle in its lane and a distance from objects in front of it, was not designed to operate on roads other than limited access highways.

Missy Cummings, a professor of engineering and computing at George Mason University who studies automated vehicles, said NHTSA is responding to criticism from legislators for a perceived lack of action on automated vehicles.

“As clunky as our government is, the feedback loop is working,” Cummings said. “I think the NHTSA leadership is convinced now that this is a problem.”

The 18-page NHTSA letter asks how Tesla used human behavior science in designing Autopilot, and the company's assessment of the importance of evaluating human factors.

It also wants Tesla to identify every job involved in human behavior evaluation and the qualifications of the workers. And it asks Tesla to say whether the positions still exist.

A message was left by The Associated Press early Tuesday seeking comment from Tesla about the letter.

Tesla is in the process of laying off about 10% of its workforce, about 14,000 people, in an effort to cut costs to deal with falling global sales.

Cummings said she suspects that CEO Elon Musk would have laid off anyone with human behavior knowledge, a key skill needed to deploy partially automated systems like Autopilot, which can't drive themselves and require humans to be ready to intervene at all times.

“If you're going to have a technology that depends upon human interaction, you better have someone on your team that knows what they are doing in that space,” she said.

Cummings said her research has shown that once a driving system takes over steering from humans, there is little left for the human brain to do. Many drivers tend to overly rely on the system and check out.

“You can have your head fixed in one position, you can potentially have your eyes on the road, and you can be a million miles away in your head,” she said. “All the driver monitoring technologies in the world are still not going to force you to pay attention.”

In its letter, NHTSA also asks Tesla for information about how the recall remedy addresses driver confusion over whether Autopilot has been turned off if force is put on the steering wheel. Previously, if Autopilot was de-activated, drivers might not notice quickly that they have to take over driving.

The recall added a function that gives a “more pronounced slowdown” to alert drivers when Autopilot has been disengaged. But the recall remedy doesn’t activate the function automatically — drivers have to do it. Investigators asked how many drivers have taken that step.

NHTSA is asking Telsa “What do you mean you have a remedy and it doesn’t actually get turned on?” Koopman said.

The letter, he said, shows NHTSA is looking at whether Tesla did tests to make sure the fixes actually worked. “Looking at the remedy I struggled to believe that there’s a lot of analysis proving that these will improve safety,” Koopman said.

The agency also says Tesla made safety updates after the recall fix was sent out, including an attempt to reduce crashes caused by hydroplaning and to reduce collisions in high speed turn lanes. NHTSA said it will look at why Tesla didn't include the updates in the original recall.

NHTSA could seek further recall remedies, make Tesla limit where Autopilot can work, or even force the company to disable the system until it is fixed, safety experts said.

NHTSA began its Autopilot investigation in 2021, after receiving 11 reports that Teslas using Autopilot struck parked emergency vehicles. In documents explaining why the investigation was ended due to the recall, NHTSA said it ultimately found 467 crashes involving Autopilot resulting in 54 injuries and 14 deaths.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

CenterPoint Energy names new COO as resiliency initiatives continue

new hire

CenterPoint Energy has named Jesus Soto Jr. as its new executive vice president and chief operating officer.

An energy industry veteran with deep ties to Texas, Soto will oversee the company's electric operations, gas operations, safety, supply chain, and customer care functions. The company says Soto will also focus on improving reliability and meeting the increased energy needs in the states CenterPoint serves.

"We are pleased to be able to welcome a leader of Jesus Soto's caliber to CenterPoint's executive team,” Jason Wells, CEO and president of CenterPoint, said in a news release. “We have one of the most dynamic growth stories in the industry, and over the next five years we will deliver over $31 billion of investments across our footprint as part of our capital plan. Jesus's deep understanding and background are the perfect match to help us deliver this incredible scope of work at-pace that will foster the economic development and growth demands in our key markets. He will also be instrumental in helping us continue to focus on improving safety and delivering better reliability for all the communities we are fortunate to serve.”

Soto comes to CenterPoint with over 30 years of experience in leading large teams and executing large scale capital projects. As a longtime Houstonian, he served in roles as executive vice president of Quanta Services and COO for Mears Group Inc. He also served in senior leadership roles at other utility and energy companies, including PG&E Corporation in Northern California and El Paso Corp. in Houston.

Soto has a bachelor's degree in civil engineering from the University of Texas at El Paso, and a master's degree in civil engineering from Texas A&M University. He has a second master's degree in business administration from the University of Phoenix.

“I'm excited to join CenterPoint's high-performing team,” Soto said in the news release. “It's a true privilege to be able to serve our 7 million customers in Texas, Indiana, Ohio and Minnesota. We have an incredible amount of capital work ahead of us to help meet the growing energy needs of our customers and communities, especially across Texas.”

Soto will join the company on Aug. 11 and report to Wells as CenterPoint continues on its Greater Houston Resiliency Initiative and Systemwide Resiliency Plan.

“To help realize our resiliency and growth goals, I look forward to helping our teams deliver this work safely while helping our customers experience better outcomes,” Soto added in the news release. “They expect, and deserve, no less.”

Oil markets on edge: Geopolitics, supply risks, and what comes next

guest column

Oil prices are once again riding the waves of geopolitics. Uncertainty remains a key factor shaping global energy trends.

As of June 25, 2025, U.S. gas prices were averaging around $3.22 per gallon, well below last summer’s levels and certainly not near any recent high. Meanwhile, Brent crude is trading near $68 per barrel, though analysts warn that renewed escalation especially involving Iran and the Strait of Hormuz could push prices above $90 or even $100. Trump’s recent comments that China may continue purchasing Iranian oil add yet another layer of geopolitical complexity.

So how should we think about the state of the oil market and what lies ahead over the next year?

That question was explored on the latest episode of The Energy Forum with experts Skip York and Abhi Rajendran, who both bring deep experience in analyzing global oil dynamics.

“About 20% of the world’s oil and LNG flows through the Strait of Hormuz,” said Skip. “When conflict looms, even the perception of disruption can move the market $5 a barrel or more.”

This is exactly what we saw recently: a market reacting not just to actual supply and demand, but to perceived risk. And that risk is compounding existing challenges, where global demand remains steady, but supply has been slow to respond.

Abhi noted that U.S. shale production has been flat so far this year, and that given the market’s volatility, it’s becoming harder to stay short on oil. In his view, a higher price floor may be taking hold, with longer-lasting upward pressure likely if current dynamics continue.

Meanwhile, OPEC+ is signaling supply increases, but actual delivery has underwhelmed. Add in record-breaking summer heat in the Middle East, pulling up seasonal demand, and it’s easy to see why both experts foresee a return to the $70–$80 range, even without a major shock.

Longer-term, structural changes in China’s energy mix are starting to reshape demand patterns globally. Diesel and gasoline may have peaked, while petrochemical feedstock growth continues.

Skip noted that China has chosen to expand mobility through “electrons, not molecules,” a reference to electric vehicles over conventional fuels. He pointed out that EVs now account for over 50% of monthly vehicle sales, a signal of a longer-term shift in China’s energy demand.

But geopolitical context matters as much as market math. In his recent policy brief, Jim Krane points out that Trump’s potential return to a “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran is no longer guaranteed strong support from Gulf allies.

Jim points out that Saudi and Emirati leaders are taking a more cautious approach this time, worried that another clash with Iran could deter investors and disrupt progress on Vision 2030. Past attacks and regional instability continue to shape their more restrained approach.

And Iran, for its part, has evolved. The “dark fleet” of sanctions-evasion tankers has expanded, and exports are booming up to 2 million barrels per day, mostly to China. Disruption won’t be as simple as targeting a single export terminal anymore, with infrastructure like the Jask terminal outside the Strait of Hormuz.

Where do we go from here?

Skip suggests we may see prices drift upward through 2026 as OPEC+ runs out of spare capacity and U.S. shale declines. Abhi is even more bullish, seeing potential for a quicker climb if demand strengthens and supply falters.

We’re entering a phase where geopolitical missteps, whether in Tehran, Beijing, or Washington, can have outsized impacts. Market fundamentals matter, but political risk is the wildcard that could rewrite the price deck overnight.

As these dynamics continue to evolve, one thing is clear: energy policy, diplomacy, and investment strategy must be strategically coordinated to manage risk and maintain market stability. The stakes for global markets are simply too high for misalignment.

------------

Scott Nyquist is a senior advisor at McKinsey & Company and vice chairman, Houston Energy Transition Initiative of the Greater Houston Partnership. The views expressed herein are Nyquist's own and not those of McKinsey & Company or of the Greater Houston Partnership. This article originally appeared on LinkedIn.

New forecast shows impact of 'Big Beautiful Bill' on Texas clean energy generation

energy forecast

Texas is expected to see a 77-gigawatt decrease in power generation capacity within the next 10 years under the federal "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," which President Trump recently signed into law, a new forecast shows.

Primarily due to the act’s repeal of some clean energy tax credits, a forecast, published by energy policy research organization Energy Innovation Policy & Technology, predicts that Texas is expected to experience a:

  • 54-gigawatt decline in capacity from solar power by 2035
  • 23-gigawatt decline in capacity from wind power by 2035
  • 3.1-gigawatt decline in capacity from battery-stored power by 2035
  • 2.5-gigawatt increase in capacity from natural gas by 2035

The legislation “will reduce additions of new, cost-effective electricity capacity in Texas, raising power prices for consumers and decreasing the state’s GDP and job growth in the coming years,” the forecast says.

The forecast also reports that the loss of sources of low-cost renewable energy and the resulting hike in natural gas prices could bump up electric bills in Texas. The forecast envisions a 23 percent to 54 percent hike in electric rates for residential, commercial and industrial customers in Texas.

Household energy bills are expected to increase by $220 per year by 2030 and by $480 per year by 2035, according to the forecast.

Energy Innovation Policy & Technology expects job growth and economic growth to also take a hit under the "Big Beautiful Bill."

The nonprofit organization foresees annual losses of $5.9 billion in Texas economic output (as measured by GDP) by 2030 and $10 billion by 2035. In tandem with the impact on GDP, Texas is projected to lose 42,000 jobs by 2030 and 94,000 jobs by 2035 due to the law’s provisions, according to the organization.

The White House believes the "Big Beautiful Bill" will promote, not harm, U.S. energy production. The law encourages the growth of traditional sources of power such as oil, natural gas, coal and hydropower.

“The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is a historic piece of legislation that will restore energy independence and make life more affordable for American families by reversing disastrous Biden-era policies that constricted domestic energy production,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a news release.

Promoters of renewable energy offer an opposing viewpoint.

“The bill makes steep cuts to solar energy and places new restrictions on energy tax credits that will slow the deployment of residential and utility-scale solar while undermining the growth of U.S. manufacturing,” says the Solar Energy Industries Association.

Jason Grumet, CEO of the American Clean Power Association, complained that the legislation limits energy production, boosts prices for U.S. businesses and families, and jeopardizes the reliability of the country’s power grid.

“Our economic and national security requires that we support all forms of American energy,” Grumet said in a statement. “It is time for the brawlers to get out of the way and let the builders get back to work.”