Dozens of public commenters urge CalPERS to study or divest Tesla; speakers request company‑specific review
Loading...
Summary
Multiple members of the public and stakeholder groups pressed CalPERS to review and consider divesting Tesla stock, citing alleged environmental, safety, labor and governance concerns and asking staff to analyze financial risks and triggers for a company‑specific review.
During public comment at CalPERS’ off‑site meeting, multiple citizens and stakeholder representatives urged CalPERS to sell or study its Tesla holdings.
Speakers voiced a mix of financial and ethical concerns. Aaron Foster, identified as a California resident, said Tesla had “more, environmental violations” than others and referenced safety and labor complaints; he urged divestment on both fiduciary and ethical grounds. Dan Latham cited recent litigation around Tesla’s Autopilot system and urged reevaluation of the company’s risk profile. Mary Jo Walker, a retired CalPERS member, described a letter with seven questions she emailed to board members and requested staff analyze the valuation, risks and triggers that would prompt a review of Tesla holdings.
Several speakers—Edward Hasbrook, Ruth Rudetsky and others—delivered petitions and copies for the board asking that the board direct staff to conduct a company‑specific study of Tesla’s valuation and volatility and to place a resolution on a future agenda if staff does not, immediately, undertake the work. Commenters highlighted stock volatility, insider and discretionary share sales, and regulatory and reputational risk tied to company leadership.
Board members acknowledged receipt of comments and said public comment will be entered into the record. Staff did not present an immediate action or vote on Tesla holdings during the session. CalPERS executives did note that staff provide verified investment reporting and that the board will continue to receive analysis; multiple commenters asked that staff prepare a formal staff report on Tesla’s financial and governance risks for a future meeting.
Speakers and petitioners asked for answers on whether CalPERS has company‑specific review triggers, what the perceived benefits and risks of selling versus holding are, whether Tesla remains appropriate for sustainable investment allocations, and what opportunity costs might exist if funds were reallocated.
