Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2017
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 14 – Commitments and Contingencies Non-Cancellable Leases We have entered into various non-cancellable leases for certain of our offices, manufacturing and warehouse facilities, retail and service locations, equipment, vehicles, solar energy systems and Supercharger sites, throughout the world. Build-to-Suit Lease Arrangement in Buffalo, New York As discussed in Note 8, Property, Plant and Equipment, we have a build-to-suit lease arrangement with the Research Foundation for the State University of New York (the “Foundation”) where the Foundation will construct a solar cell and panel manufacturing facility, referred to as Gigafactory 2, with our participation in the design and construction, install certain utilities and other improvements and acquire certain manufacturing equipment designated by us to be used in the manufacturing facility. The Foundation will cover (i) construction costs related to the manufacturing facility in an amount up to $350.0 million, (ii) the acquisition and commissioning of the manufacturing equipment in an amount up to $274.7 million and (iii) $125.3 million for additional specified scope costs, in cases (i) and (ii) only, subject to the maximum funding allocation from the State of New York, and we will be responsible for any construction and equipment costs in excess of such amounts. The Foundation will own the manufacturing facility and the manufacturing equipment purchased by the Foundation. Following completion of the manufacturing facility, we will lease the manufacturing facility and the manufacturing equipment owned by the Foundation for an initial period of 10 years, with an option to renew, for $2 per year plus utilities. Under the terms of the build-to-suit lease arrangement, we are required to achieve specific operational milestones during the initial term of the lease, which include employing a certain number of employees at the manufacturing facility, within western New York and within the State of New York within specified periods following the completion of the manufacturing facility. We are also required to spend or incur approximately $5.0 billion in combined capital, operational expenses and other costs in the State of New York over the 10 years following the achievement of full production. On an annual basis during the initial lease term, as measured on each anniversary of the commissioning of the manufacturing facility, if we fail to meet these specified investment and job creation requirements, then we would be obligated to pay a $41.2 million “program payment” to the Foundation for each year that we fail to meet these requirements. Furthermore, if the arrangement is terminated due to a material breach by us, then additional amounts might be payable by us. The non-cash investing and financing activities related to the arrangement during the three and six months ended June 30, 2017 amounted to $40.7 million and $81.6 million, respectively. Legal Proceedings Securities Litigation On March 28, 2014, a purported stockholder class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against SolarCity and two of its officers. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of SolarCity’s securities from March 6, 2013 to March 18, 2014. After a series of amendments to the original complaint, the District Court dismissed the amended complaint and entered a judgment in our favor on August 9, 2016. The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal, and the parties anticipate a hearing on the appeal no earlier than November 2017. We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend against this lawsuit and appeal vigorously. We are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit. On August 15, 2016, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against SolarCity, two of its officers and a former officer. On March 20, 2017, the purported stockholder class filed a consolidated complaint that includes the original matter in the same court against SolarCity, one of its officers and three former officers. As consolidated, the complaint alleges that SolarCity made projections of future sales and installations that it failed to achieve and that these projections were fraudulent when made. The plaintiffs claim violations of federal securities laws and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of SolarCity’s securities from May 6, 2015 to May 9, 2016. We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously. On July 25, 2017, the court took our fully-briefed motion to dismiss under submission. We are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit. Litigation Relating to the SolarCity Acquisition Between September 1, 2016 and October 5, 2016, seven lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by purported stockholders of Tesla challenging our acquisition of SolarCity. Following consolidation, the lawsuit names as defendants the members of our board of directors and alleges, among other things, that board members breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the acquisition. The complaint asserts both derivative claims and direct claims on behalf of a purported class and seeks, among other relief, unspecified monetary damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. On January 27, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the operative complaint. Rather than respond to the defendants’ motion, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On March 17, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint; that motion is pending. These same plaintiffs filed a parallel action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on April 21, 2017, adding claims for violations of the federal securities laws. On February 6, 2017, a purported stockholder made a demand to inspect our books and records, purportedly to investigate potential breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the SolarCity acquisition. On April 17, 2017, the purported stockholder filed a petition for a writ of mandate in California Superior Court, seeking to compel us to provide the documents requested in the demand. We filed a demurrer to the writ petition or, in the alternative, a motion to stay the action, which remain pending. On March 24, 2017, another lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware by a purported Tesla stockholder challenging the SolarCity acquisition. The complaint alleges, among other things, that our board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the acquisition and alleges violations of the federal securities laws. We believe that claims challenging the SolarCity acquisition are without merit. We are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with these claims. Proceedings Relating to United States Treasury In July 2012, SolarCity, along with other companies in the solar energy industry, received a subpoena from the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of the Inspector General to deliver certain documents in SolarCity’s possession that were dated, created, revised or referred to after January 1, 2007 and that relate to SolarCity’s applications for U.S. Treasury grants or communications with certain other solar energy development companies or with certain firms that appraise solar energy property for U.S Treasury grant application purposes. The Inspector General and the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice are investigating the administration and implementation of the U.S Treasury grant program relating to the fair market value of the solar energy systems that SolarCity submitted in U.S. Treasury grant applications. We have accrued a reserve for the potential liability associated with this ongoing investigation. In February 2013, two of our financing funds filed a lawsuit in the United States Court of Federal Claims against the U.S. government, seeking to recover $14.0 million that the U.S. Treasury Department was obligated to pay, but failed to pay, under Section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. In February 2016, the U.S. government filed a motion seeking leave to assert a counterclaim against the two plaintiff funds on the grounds that the U.S. government, in fact, paid them more, not less, than they were entitled to as a matter of law. We believe that the U.S. government’s claims are without merit. We are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit. Other Matters From time to time, we have received requests for information from regulators and governmental authorities, such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board and the Securities and Exchange Commission. We are also subject to various other legal proceedings and claims that arise from the normal course of business activities. If an unfavorable ruling were to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our results of operations, prospects, cash flows, financial position and brand. Indemnifications and Guaranteed Returns As disclosed in Note 15, VIE Arrangements, we are contractually committed to compensate certain fund investors for any losses that they may suffer in certain limited circumstances resulting from reductions in U.S. Treasury grants or ITCs. Generally, such obligations would arise as a result of reductions to the value of the underlying solar energy systems as assessed by the U.S. Treasury Department for purposes of claiming U.S. Treasury grants or as assessed by the IRS for purposes of claiming ITCs or U.S. Treasury grants. For each balance sheet date, we assess and recognize, when applicable, the potential exposure from this obligation based on all the information available at that time, including any guidelines issued by the U.S. Treasury Department on solar energy system valuations for purposes of claiming U.S. Treasury grants and any audits undertaken by the IRS. We believe that any payments to the fund investors in excess of the amount already recognized by us for this obligation are not probable based on the facts known at the filing date. The maximum potential future payments that we could have to make under this obligation would depend on the difference between the fair values of the solar energy systems sold or transferred to the funds as determined by us and the values that the U.S. Treasury Department would determine as fair value for the systems for purposes of claiming U.S. Treasury grants or the values the IRS would determine as the fair value for the systems for purposes of claiming ITCs or U.S. Treasury grants. We claim U.S. Treasury grants based on guidelines provided by the U.S. Treasury department and the statutory regulations from the IRS. We use fair values determined with the assistance of independent third-party appraisals commissioned by us as the basis for determining the ITCs that are passed-through to and claimed by the fund investors. Since we cannot determine future revisions to U.S. Treasury Department guidelines governing solar energy system values or how the IRS will evaluate system values used in claiming ITCs or U.S. Treasury grants, we are unable to reliably estimate the maximum potential future payments that it could have to make under this obligation as of each balance sheet date. We are eligible to receive certain state and local incentives that are associated with renewable energy generation. The amount of incentives that can be claimed is based on the projected or actual solar energy system size and/or the amount of solar energy produced. We also currently participate in one state’s incentive program that is based on either the fair market value or the tax basis of solar energy systems placed in service. State and local incentives received are allocated between us and fund investors in accordance with the contractual provisions of each fund. We are not contractually obligated to indemnify any fund investor for any losses they may incur due to a shortfall in the amount of state or local incentives actually received. As disclosed in Note 15, we are contractually required to make payments to one fund investor to ensure that the fund investor achieves a specified minimum internal rate of return. The fund investor has already received a significant portion of the projected economic benefits from U.S. Treasury grant distributions and tax depreciation benefits. The contractual provisions of the fund state that the fund has an indefinite term unless the members agree to dissolve the fund. Based on our current financial projections regarding the amount and timing of future distributions to the fund investor, we do not expect to make any payments as a result of this guarantee and has not accrued any liabilities for this guarantee. The amount of potential future payments under this guarantee is dependent on the amount and timing of future distributions to the fund investor and future tax benefits that accrue to the fund investor. Due to the uncertainties surrounding estimating the amounts of these factors, we are unable to estimate the maximum potential payments under this guarantee. To date, the fund investor has achieved the specified minimum internal rate of return as determined in accordance with the contractual provisions of the fund. Our lease pass-through financing funds have a one-time lease payment reset mechanism that occurs after the installation of all solar energy systems in a fund. As a result of this mechanism, we may be required to refund master lease prepayments previously received from investors. Any refunds of master lease prepayments would reduce the lease pass-through financing obligation. Letters of Credit As of June 30, 2017, we had $89.3 million of unused letters of credit outstanding.

Note 14 – Commitments and Contingencies

Non-Cancellable Leases

We have entered into various non-cancellable leases for certain of our offices, manufacturing and warehouse facilities, retail and service locations, equipment, vehicles, solar energy systems and Supercharger sites, throughout the world.

Build-to-Suit Lease Arrangement in Buffalo, New York

As discussed in Note 8, Property, Plant and Equipment, we have a build-to-suit lease arrangement with the Research Foundation for the State University of New York (the “Foundation”) where the Foundation will construct a solar cell and panel manufacturing facility, referred to as Gigafactory 2, with our participation in the design and construction, install certain utilities and other improvements and acquire certain manufacturing equipment designated by us to be used in the manufacturing facility. The Foundation will cover (i) construction costs related to the manufacturing facility in an amount up to $350.0 million, (ii) the acquisition and commissioning of the manufacturing equipment in an amount up to $274.7 million and (iii) $125.3 million for additional specified scope costs, in cases (i) and (ii) only, subject to the maximum funding allocation from the State of New York, and we will be responsible for any construction and equipment costs in excess of such amounts. The Foundation will own the manufacturing facility and the manufacturing equipment purchased by the Foundation. Following completion of the manufacturing facility, we will lease the manufacturing facility and the manufacturing equipment owned by the Foundation for an initial period of 10 years, with an option to renew, for $2 per year plus utilities.

Under the terms of the build-to-suit lease arrangement, we are required to achieve specific operational milestones during the initial term of the lease, which include employing a certain number of employees at the manufacturing facility, within western New York and within the State of New York within specified periods following the completion of the manufacturing facility. We are also required to spend or incur approximately $5.0 billion in combined capital, operational expenses and other costs in the State of New York over the 10 years following the achievement of full production. On an annual basis during the initial lease term, as measured on each anniversary of the commissioning of the manufacturing facility, if we fail to meet these specified investment and job creation requirements, then we would be obligated to pay a $41.2 million “program payment” to the Foundation for each year that we fail to meet these requirements. Furthermore, if the arrangement is terminated due to a material breach by us, then additional amounts might be payable by us.

The non-cash investing and financing activities related to the arrangement during the three and six months ended June 30, 2017 amounted to $40.7 million and $81.6 million, respectively.

Legal Proceedings

Securities Litigation

On March 28, 2014, a purported stockholder class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against SolarCity and two of its officers. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of SolarCity’s securities from March 6, 2013 to March 18, 2014. After a series of amendments to the original complaint, the District Court dismissed the amended complaint and entered a judgment in our favor on August 9, 2016. The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal, and the parties anticipate a hearing on the appeal no earlier than November 2017. We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend against this lawsuit and appeal vigorously. We are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit.

On August 15, 2016, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against SolarCity, two of its officers and a former officer. On March 20, 2017, the purported stockholder class filed a consolidated complaint that includes the original matter in the same court against SolarCity, one of its officers and three former officers. As consolidated, the complaint alleges that SolarCity made projections of future sales and installations that it failed to achieve and that these projections were fraudulent when made. The plaintiffs claim violations of federal securities laws and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of SolarCity’s securities from May 6, 2015 to May 9, 2016. We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously. On July 25, 2017, the court took our fully-briefed motion to dismiss under submission. We are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit.

Litigation Relating to the SolarCity Acquisition

Between September 1, 2016 and October 5, 2016, seven lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by purported stockholders of Tesla challenging our acquisition of SolarCity. Following consolidation, the lawsuit names as defendants the members of our board of directors and alleges, among other things, that board members breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the acquisition. The complaint asserts both derivative claims and direct claims on behalf of a purported class and seeks, among other relief, unspecified monetary damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. On January 27, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the operative complaint. Rather than respond to the defendants’ motion, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On March 17, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint; that motion is pending. These same plaintiffs filed a parallel action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on April 21, 2017, adding claims for violations of the federal securities laws.

On February 6, 2017, a purported stockholder made a demand to inspect our books and records, purportedly to investigate potential breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the SolarCity acquisition. On April 17, 2017, the purported stockholder filed a petition for a writ of mandate in California Superior Court, seeking to compel us to provide the documents requested in the demand. We filed a demurrer to the writ petition or, in the alternative, a motion to stay the action, which remain pending.

On March 24, 2017, another lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware by a purported Tesla stockholder challenging the SolarCity acquisition. The complaint alleges, among other things, that our board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the acquisition and alleges violations of the federal securities laws.

We believe that claims challenging the SolarCity acquisition are without merit. We are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with these claims.

Proceedings Relating to United States Treasury

In July 2012, SolarCity, along with other companies in the solar energy industry, received a subpoena from the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of the Inspector General to deliver certain documents in SolarCity’s possession that were dated, created, revised or referred to after January 1, 2007 and that relate to SolarCity’s applications for U.S. Treasury grants or communications with certain other solar energy development companies or with certain firms that appraise solar energy property for U.S Treasury grant application purposes. The Inspector General and the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice are investigating the administration and implementation of the U.S Treasury grant program relating to the fair market value of the solar energy systems that SolarCity submitted in U.S. Treasury grant applications. We have accrued a reserve for the potential liability associated with this ongoing investigation.

In February 2013, two of our financing funds filed a lawsuit in the United States Court of Federal Claims against the U.S. government, seeking to recover $14.0 million that the U.S. Treasury Department was obligated to pay, but failed to pay, under Section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. In February 2016, the U.S. government filed a motion seeking leave to assert a counterclaim against the two plaintiff funds on the grounds that the U.S. government, in fact, paid them more, not less, than they were entitled to as a matter of law. We believe that the U.S. government’s claims are without merit. We are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit.

Other Matters

From time to time, we have received requests for information from regulators and governmental authorities, such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board and the Securities and Exchange Commission. We are also subject to various other legal proceedings and claims that arise from the normal course of business activities. If an unfavorable ruling were to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our results of operations, prospects, cash flows, financial position and brand.

Indemnifications and Guaranteed Returns

As disclosed in Note 15, VIE Arrangements, we are contractually committed to compensate certain fund investors for any losses that they may suffer in certain limited circumstances resulting from reductions in U.S. Treasury grants or ITCs. Generally, such obligations would arise as a result of reductions to the value of the underlying solar energy systems as assessed by the U.S. Treasury Department for purposes of claiming U.S. Treasury grants or as assessed by the IRS for purposes of claiming ITCs or U.S. Treasury grants. For each balance sheet date, we assess and recognize, when applicable, the potential exposure from this obligation based on all the information available at that time, including any guidelines issued by the U.S. Treasury Department on solar energy system valuations for purposes of claiming U.S. Treasury grants and any audits undertaken by the IRS. We believe that any payments to the fund investors in excess of the amount already recognized by us for this obligation are not probable based on the facts known at the filing date.

The maximum potential future payments that we could have to make under this obligation would depend on the difference between the fair values of the solar energy systems sold or transferred to the funds as determined by us and the values that the U.S. Treasury Department would determine as fair value for the systems for purposes of claiming U.S. Treasury grants or the values the IRS would determine as the fair value for the systems for purposes of claiming ITCs or U.S. Treasury grants. We claim U.S. Treasury grants based on guidelines provided by the U.S. Treasury department and the statutory regulations from the IRS. We use fair values determined with the assistance of independent third-party appraisals commissioned by us as the basis for determining the ITCs that are passed-through to and claimed by the fund investors. Since we cannot determine future revisions to U.S. Treasury Department guidelines governing solar energy system values or how the IRS will evaluate system values used in claiming ITCs or U.S. Treasury grants, we are unable to reliably estimate the maximum potential future payments that it could have to make under this obligation as of each balance sheet date.

We are eligible to receive certain state and local incentives that are associated with renewable energy generation. The amount of incentives that can be claimed is based on the projected or actual solar energy system size and/or the amount of solar energy produced. We also currently participate in one state’s incentive program that is based on either the fair market value or the tax basis of solar energy systems placed in service. State and local incentives received are allocated between us and fund investors in accordance with the contractual provisions of each fund. We are not contractually obligated to indemnify any fund investor for any losses they may incur due to a shortfall in the amount of state or local incentives actually received.

As disclosed in Note 15, we are contractually required to make payments to one fund investor to ensure that the fund investor achieves a specified minimum internal rate of return. The fund investor has already received a significant portion of the projected economic benefits from U.S. Treasury grant distributions and tax depreciation benefits. The contractual provisions of the fund state that the fund has an indefinite term unless the members agree to dissolve the fund. Based on our current financial projections regarding the amount and timing of future distributions to the fund investor, we do not expect to make any payments as a result of this guarantee and has not accrued any liabilities for this guarantee. The amount of potential future payments under this guarantee is dependent on the amount and timing of future distributions to the fund investor and future tax benefits that accrue to the fund investor. Due to the uncertainties surrounding estimating the amounts of these factors, we are unable to estimate the maximum potential payments under this guarantee. To date, the fund investor has achieved the specified minimum internal rate of return as determined in accordance with the contractual provisions of the fund.

Our lease pass-through financing funds have a one-time lease payment reset mechanism that occurs after the installation of all solar energy systems in a fund. As a result of this mechanism, we may be required to refund master lease prepayments previously received from investors. Any refunds of master lease prepayments would reduce the lease pass-through financing obligation.

Letters of Credit

As of June 30, 2017, we had $89.3 million of unused letters of credit outstanding.