LOS ANGELES (News Service) – As per the three internal company, documents and seven current and former Tesla solar employees, “Electric car maker Tesla Inc’s move last week to cut 9 percent of its workforce will sharply downsize the residential solar business it bought two years ago in a controversial $2.6 billion deal”.

According to the list of an internal company, reviewed by Reuters that About 60 installation facilities are ready to execute. An internal company also emailed, submitting names of 14 facilities slated for closure, but the other list only included 13 of those in locations.

Tesla ignored the comment for which, it was planned to shut down the sites, how many employees would lose their jobs or what percentage of the solar workforce they represent. The company said in a statement to Reuters, “We continue to expect that Tesla’s solar and battery business will be the same size as automotive over the long term”. The company also concluded that cuts to its overall energy team – including batteries to store power – were in line with the broader 9 percent staff cut.

The official closure of the company which previously not disclosed raised a variety of new questions about the viability of cash-strapped Tesla’s solar business and Musk’s rationale for a merger he once called a “no-brainer” – but some investors have panned as a bailout of an affiliated firm at the expense of Tesla shareholders. Now before the merger, Musk was being served as chairman of SolarCity’s board of meeting.

Related Articles
Next Story
Going Viral
16 States Indicts the US President Due to Emergency Declaration on  Border Wall Issue

16 States Indicts the US President Due to Emergency Declaration on Border Wall Issue

by Haimantee Ghosh February 19, 2019
Sixteen United States indicted the US President Donald Trump’s administration over his decision to announce a national emergency to sponsor a wall on the Southern border with Mexico, claiming the move breached the constitution. The litigation, filed in a federal court in California, explained the order by the US President was contradictory to the Presentment Clause which figures out the legal proceedings and the Appropriations Clause, which defines Congress as...