Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2018
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 12 – Commitments and Contingencies Non-Cancellable Leases We have entered into various non-cancellable operating lease agreements 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 We have a build-to-suit lease arrangement with the Research Foundation for the State University of New York (the “SUNY Foundation”) where the SUNY 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. During the three months ended March 31, 2018, we began production at the manufacturing facility, although construction has not been fully completed. Legal Proceedings Securities Litigation Relating to SolarCity’s Financial Statements and Guidance On March 28, 2014, a purported stockholder class action was filed in the U.S. 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 filed a notice of appeal, and on December 4, 2017, the Court heard oral argument on the appeal. On March 8, 2018, the Court upheld the District Court ruling of dismissal and judgment in our favor. The case is concluded. Securities 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 Tesla’s 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, 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, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On December 13, 2017, the Court heard oral argument on the motion. On March 28, 2018, the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants filed a request for interlocutory appeal, but the Delaware Supreme Court denied that request, electing not to hear an appeal at this early stage of the case. Defendants filed their answer on May 18, 2018. This case will now proceed. These plaintiffs and others filed parallel actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on April 21, 2017. Those actions have been consolidated and are stayed pending the Chancery Court litigation. They include claims for violations of the federal securities laws and breach of fiduciary duties by Tesla's board of directors. That action is stayed pending the Chancery Court litigation. On February 6, 2017, a purported stockholder made a demand to inspect Tesla’s books and records, purportedly to investigate potential breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the SolarCity acquisition. We believe that claims challenging the SolarCity acquisition are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously. We are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with these claims. Securities Litigation Relating to Production of Model 3 Vehicles On October 10, 2017, a purported stockholder class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Tesla, Inc., two of its current officers, and a former officer. 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 Tesla securities from May 4, 2016 to October 6, 2017. The lawsuit claims that Tesla supposedly made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s preparedness to produce Model 3 vehicles. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 23, 2018, and defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 25, 2018. The court hearing on the motion to dismiss is set for August 24, 2018. We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend against this lawsuit vigorously. We are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit. Litigation Relating to 2018 CEO Performance Award On February 21, 2018, a purported Tesla stockholder made a demand to inspect Tesla’s books and records, purportedly to investigate potential breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the Tesla board’s approval of a conditional stock-based compensation plan for Elon Musk, Tesla’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, in January 2018. On June 4, 2018, that stockholder filed a putative class and derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery alleging that Tesla’s directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the stock-based compensation plan. The complaint seeks, among other things, monetary damages and rescission or reformation of the stock-based compensation plan. We believe the claims asserted in this lawsuit are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously. 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 business, results of operations, prospects, cash flows, financial position and brand. Indemnification and Guaranteed Returns We are contractually obligated 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, a distribution payable for 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 amounts already recognized by us, which were immaterial, 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. 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, 2018, we had $163.8 million of unused letters of credit outstanding.

Note 12 – Commitments and Contingencies

Non-Cancellable Leases

We have entered into various non-cancellable operating lease agreements 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

We have a build-to-suit lease arrangement with the Research Foundation for the State University of New York (the “SUNY Foundation”) where the SUNY 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. During the three months ended March 31, 2018, we began production at the manufacturing facility, although construction has not been fully completed.

Legal Proceedings

Securities Litigation Relating to SolarCity’s Financial Statements and Guidance

On March 28, 2014, a purported stockholder class action was filed in the U.S. 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 filed a notice of appeal, and on December 4, 2017, the Court heard oral argument on the appeal. On March 8, 2018, the Court upheld the District Court ruling of dismissal and judgment in our favor. The case is concluded.

Securities 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 Tesla’s 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, 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, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On December 13, 2017, the Court heard oral argument on the motion. On March 28, 2018, the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants filed a request for interlocutory appeal, but the Delaware Supreme Court denied that request, electing not to hear an appeal at this early stage of the case. Defendants filed their answer on May 18, 2018. This case will now proceed.

These plaintiffs and others filed parallel actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on April 21, 2017. Those actions have been consolidated and are stayed pending the Chancery Court litigation. They include claims for violations of the federal securities laws and breach of fiduciary duties by Tesla's board of directors. That action is stayed pending the Chancery Court litigation.

On February 6, 2017, a purported stockholder made a demand to inspect Tesla’s books and records, purportedly to investigate potential breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the SolarCity acquisition.

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

Securities Litigation Relating to Production of Model 3 Vehicles

On October 10, 2017, a purported stockholder class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Tesla, Inc., two of its current officers, and a former officer. 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 Tesla securities from May 4, 2016 to October 6, 2017. The lawsuit claims that Tesla supposedly made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s preparedness to produce Model 3 vehicles. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 23, 2018, and defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 25, 2018. The court hearing on the motion to dismiss is set for August 24, 2018. We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend against this lawsuit vigorously. We are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit.

Litigation Relating to 2018 CEO Performance Award

On February 21, 2018, a purported Tesla stockholder made a demand to inspect Tesla’s books and records, purportedly to investigate potential breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the Tesla board’s approval of a conditional stock-based compensation plan for Elon Musk, Tesla’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, in January 2018. On June 4, 2018, that stockholder filed a putative class and derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery alleging that Tesla’s directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the stock-based compensation plan. The complaint seeks, among other things, monetary damages and rescission or reformation of the stock-based compensation plan. We believe the claims asserted in this lawsuit are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously.

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 business, results of operations, prospects, cash flows, financial position and brand.

Indemnification and Guaranteed Returns

We are contractually obligated 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, a distribution payable for 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 amounts already recognized by us, which were immaterial, 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.

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, 2018, we had $163.8 million of unused letters of credit outstanding.