Power

Tesla's bid to keep Fremont factory open revealed in emails, memos

Faced with an order from the county to halt production, senior Tesla staff argued that state and federal guidelines superseded the local shelter-in-place rule.

Tesla plant

Tesla's 10,000-person Silicon Valley plant was covered by federal and state guidance on "critical infrastructure," the Tesla executives said, and therefore shouldn't have to abide by a local order similar to those that have forced many other companies to either lay off employees or have them work from home.

Photo: Lauren Hepler/Protocol

After Tesla's Fremont auto factory was hit with an Alameda County shelter-in-place order related to COVID-19, senior company leaders made a last-ditch legal argument to that city's police force.

The company's 10,000-person Silicon Valley plant was covered by federal and state guidance on "critical infrastructure," the Tesla executives said, and therefore shouldn't have to abide by a local order similar to those that have forced many other companies to either lay off employees or have them work from home.

But that argument doesn't appear to have gone very far with Fremont Police Chief Kimberly Petersen, as shown in emails and memos released by the city to Protocol in response to a public records request. She said the county rules would not be superseded.

On March 18, two days after six Bay Area counties issued strict "shelter-in-place orders," interim Alameda County Health Officer Dr. Erica Pan informed local officials that she "does not consider Tesla to be an essential business, but rather, considers Tesla's manufacturing plant in Fremont to be a public health risk."

The next morning, five senior Tesla executives, led by a senior policy adviser, Dan Chia, joined a virtual meeting with Petersen, one of her captains and the deputy city manager of Fremont, Christina Briggs.

The two sides negotiated details of how Tesla would comply with the local order, emailed notes show, with city officials allowing the company to continue back-office functions such as processing payroll and employee benefits. Tesla was also allowed to keep open its popular charging stations for owners.

More important to Tesla's bottom line: "… all vehicle manufacturing would cease by the morning of March 23," Petersen wrote, adding that Tesla's Chia "explicitly agreed to that understanding. If you were to transition to manufacturing ventilators, or other equipment intended to aid in the fight against COVID-19, these activities would be permitted."

Later on March 19, California Gov. Gavin Newsom issued the statewide shelter-in-place order, prompting Petersen to make clear to Tesla that the order's FAQ section included the following: "This is a statewide order. Depending on the conditions in their area, local officials may enforce stricter public health orders. But they may not loosen the state's order."

Tesla's position that its manufacturing, which is under constant pressure from investors and CEO Elon Musk, should have been exempt from the government's efforts to curb the spread of COVID-19 stands in contrast to the rest of Silicon Valley.

Most other tech companies sent full-time employees to work from home the week prior. Some contractors and hourly workers like security guards remained the week of the shelter in place, but two contractors at Google told Protocol that they were sent home and promised pay the day of the county shutdown.

Tesla told workers in an email provided to Protocol that they were free to take time off if they worried about their health, but the company did not offer additional sick leave.

In a March 17 visit to Tesla's Fremont factory for the daily afternoon shift change, Protocol found the factory buzzing with activity — food trucks dotted packed parking lots, 18-wheelers departed with full loads of Model 3s — while much of the surrounding area hunkered down in response to county health orders.

Several Tesla workers who talked to Protocol on condition of anonymity to protect their jobs worried about getting sick due to few visible precautions. "All lines are running just as normal," said one Fremont manufacturing worker who builds seats for Tesla's electric cars. "Almost no one wearing masks, no actual distancing."

Carl Bergstrom, an infectious disease biologist at the University of Washington, noted that Musk had publicly scoffed at the concern about COVID-19. Bergstrom called Tesla's delay in closing its factory "irresponsible," saying that "when you bring that many people together, it's very hard to prevent transmission from occurring."

According to the records released by Fremont, Tesla's displeasure with the order to halt production came to a head during a call between the company's Chia and the police chief the morning of March 22. During the call, Petersen explained she was "bound to uphold" Pan's determination that Tesla be required to substantially reduce operations at its bustling factory.

"I reiterated that … Tesla was required to reduce all operations to minimum basic operations," Petersen wrote in an email immediately after the call. "We all decided that this legal disagreement would not be settled on this call, and that we would move to other items."

Petersen continued: "You clarified that Tesla was winding down operations in the city of Fremont to the minimum basic operations because it is the 'right thing to do.' You further stated that Tesla is still committed to winding down operations by Monday morning March 23, 2020, to a substantially lower number of employees onsite, who would be doing end-of-line batch work to protect the value of the vehicles and batteries, and other basic minimum operations, such as security, maintenance and cleaning. You agreed that social distancing requirements would be followed."

Tesla leadership extended an "open invitation" to Fremont police to inspect the facility "anytime," the emails show, an offer that Petersen said the department may take them up on in the coming days. It's not clear whether that's happened since. Multiple calls to the Alameda County Public Health Department and the city of Fremont the week of the shelter-in-place order were not returned.

Exactly how Tesla would be covered by either state or federal guidelines on "critical infrastructure" is unclear. The company has not responded to requests for comment about the situation. Emails sent to the five Tesla executives involved in the discussion were not immediately returned.

The Bay Area's shelter-in-place orders, which on Monday were extended to May 1, mirror federal guidelines on what is considered exempt infrastructure during the pandemic. They include emergency services, energy and nuclear industries, as well as food and agriculture, and health care. The manufacturing sector guidelines list "electric motor manufacturing" as well as "vehicles and commercial ships manufacturing."


Get in touch with us: Share information securely with Protocol via encrypted Signal or WhatsApp message, at 415-214-4715 or through our anonymous SecureDrop.


Tesla's stock price was cut in half from the beginning of the month to around the time of the confusion over whether it would close its plant at a critical time for the company: when it had just begun deliveries of its Model Y vehicles, which some analysts have called key to its continued success.

While it has since recouped some of those market losses, analysts do not expect the company to meet their expectations for first-quarter deliveries, which the company is expected to report this week. Some analysts and experts have said the coronavirus crisis is likely to drive down demand for Tesla's vehicles."

"Many of the factors that have shifted in the last month are not generally conducive to electric vehicle sales," said Karl Brauer, executive publisher of Autotrader and Kelley Blue Book.

Tesla may decide to follow up with local officials to plead its case for resuming production at the Fremont factory. But, like seemingly everything in the days of the coronavirus pandemic, that may have to wait a while.

"You are always welcome to send a written response if you would like to," Petersen wrote to Chia on March 24 in the most recent correspondence released to Protocol. "Regardless, none of that will be solved anytime soon."

Climate

A pro-China disinformation campaign is targeting rare earth miners

It’s uncommon for cyber criminals to target private industry. But a new operation has cast doubt on miners looking to gain a foothold in the West in an apparent attempt to protect China’s upper hand in a market that has become increasingly vital.

It is very uncommon for coordinated disinformation operations to target private industry, rather than governments or civil society, a cybersecurity expert says.

Photo: Goh Seng Chong/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Just when we thought the renewable energy supply chains couldn’t get more fraught, a sophisticated disinformation campaign has taken to social media to further complicate things.

Known as Dragonbridge, the campaign has existed for at least three years, but in the last few months it has shifted its focus to target several mining companies “with negative messaging in response to potential or planned rare earths production activities.” It was initially uncovered by cybersecurity firm Mandiant and peddles narratives in the Chinese interest via its network of thousands of fake social media accounts.

Keep Reading Show less
Lisa Martine Jenkins

Lisa Martine Jenkins is a senior reporter at Protocol covering climate. Lisa previously wrote for Morning Consult, Chemical Watch and the Associated Press. Lisa is currently based in Brooklyn, and is originally from the Bay Area. Find her on Twitter ( @l_m_j_) or reach out via email (ljenkins@protocol.com).

Some of the most astounding tech-enabled advances of the next decade, from cutting-edge medical research to urban traffic control and factory floor optimization, will be enabled by a device often smaller than a thumbnail: the memory chip.

While vast amounts of data are created, stored and processed every moment — by some estimates, 2.5 quintillion bytes daily — the insights in that code are unlocked by the memory chips that hold it and transfer it. “Memory will propel the next 10 years into the most transformative years in human history,” said Sanjay Mehrotra, president and CEO of Micron Technology.

Keep Reading Show less
James Daly
James Daly has a deep knowledge of creating brand voice identity, including understanding various audiences and targeting messaging accordingly. He enjoys commissioning, editing, writing, and business development, particularly in launching new ventures and building passionate audiences. Daly has led teams large and small to multiple awards and quantifiable success through a strategy built on teamwork, passion, fact-checking, intelligence, analytics, and audience growth while meeting budget goals and production deadlines in fast-paced environments. Daly is the Editorial Director of 2030 Media and a contributor at Wired.
Fintech

Ripple’s CEO threatens to leave the US if it loses SEC case

CEO Brad Garlinghouse said a few countries have reached out to Ripple about relocating.

"There's no doubt that if the SEC doesn't win their case against us that that is good for crypto in the United States,” Brad Garlinghouse told Protocol.

Photo: Stephen McCarthy/Sportsfile for Collision via Getty Images

Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse said the crypto company will move to another country if it loses in its legal battle with the SEC.

Garlinghouse said he’s confident that Ripple will prevail against the federal regulator, which accused the company of failing to register roughly $1.4 billion in XRP tokens as securities.

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers crypto and fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Google Voice at (925) 307-9342.

Policy

The Supreme Court’s EPA ruling is bad news for tech regulation, too

The justices just gave themselves a lot of discretion to smack down agency rules.

The ruling could also endanger work on competition issues by the FTC and net neutrality by the FCC.

Photo: Geoff Livingston/Getty Images

The Supreme Court’s decision last week gutting the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions didn’t just signal the conservative justices’ dislike of the Clean Air Act at a moment of climate crisis. It also served as a warning for anyone that would like to see more regulation of Big Tech.

At the heart of Chief Justice John Roberts’ decision in West Virginia v. EPA was a codification of the “major questions doctrine,” which, he wrote, requires “clear congressional authorization” when agencies want to regulate on areas of great “economic and political significance.”

Keep Reading Show less
Ben Brody

Ben Brody (@ BenBrodyDC) is a senior reporter at Protocol focusing on how Congress, courts and agencies affect the online world we live in. He formerly covered tech policy and lobbying (including antitrust, Section 230 and privacy) at Bloomberg News, where he previously reported on the influence industry, government ethics and the 2016 presidential election. Before that, Ben covered business news at CNNMoney and AdAge, and all manner of stories in and around New York. He still loves appearing on the New York news radio he grew up with.

Enterprise

Microsoft and Google are still using emotion AI, but with limits

Microsoft said accessibility goals overrode problems with emotion recognition and Google offers off-the-shelf emotion recognition technology amid growing concern over the controversial AI.

Emotion recognition is a well-established field of computer vision research; however, AI-based technologies used in an attempt to assess people’s emotional states have moved beyond the research phase.

Photo: Microsoft

Microsoft said last month it would no longer provide general use of an AI-based cloud software feature used to infer people’s emotions. However, despite its own admission that emotion recognition technology creates “risks,” it turns out the company will retain its emotion recognition capability in an app used by people with vision loss.

In fact, amid growing concerns over development and use of controversial emotion recognition in everyday software, both Microsoft and Google continue to incorporate the AI-based features in their products.

“The Seeing AI person channel enables you to recognize people and to get a description of them, including an estimate of their age and also their emotion,” said Saqib Shaikh, a software engineering manager and project lead for Seeing AI at Microsoft who helped build the app, in a tutorial about the product in a 2017 Microsoft video.

Keep Reading Show less
Kate Kaye

Kate Kaye is an award-winning multimedia reporter digging deep and telling print, digital and audio stories. She covers AI and data for Protocol. Her reporting on AI and tech ethics issues has been published in OneZero, Fast Company, MIT Technology Review, CityLab, Ad Age and Digiday and heard on NPR. Kate is the creator of RedTailMedia.org and is the author of "Campaign '08: A Turning Point for Digital Media," a book about how the 2008 presidential campaigns used digital media and data.

Latest Stories
Bulletins