News
CT Dealership said “direct sales EVs like Tesla are a very small percentage of the vehicles sold”
A Connecticut dealership employee said at a planning and zoning meeting that “direct sales EVs like Tesla are expensive luxury vehicles and they are a very small percentage of the vehicles sold.” The dealership employee who made that claim works for Hoffman Auto Group.
This is a follow-up to our earlier report that Tesla cut ties with South Windsor after siding with the local dealerships.
Tesla was looking to purchase a new location for a new service center and gallery. In this area, Tesla would complement stores such as Apple. All Tesla would need the town to do is adjust the zoning laws to allow car sales and service.
The South Windsor, CT Facebook page shared a live stream of the meeting and you can watch the replay here.
Dealership sales rep: “Direct sales EVs Tesla are a very small percentage of the vehicles sold”
Tyrrell Dabrowski, sales director at Hoffman Auto Group could be seen laughing at around 1:30:10 which is when the statement about Hoffman suing towns was read aloud.
He also spoke beginning at 1:58 into the meeting. In his speech, he claimed that Tesla owners can’t get good service. I’m not sure if he was boasting or actually taking himself seriously about this since Hoffman Auto Group is blocking Tesla from serving its customers.
“The Hoffman Auto Group, you know, we’re committed to defending the dealer franchise system because it provides the consumers with benefits and protections.”
Dabrowski added that the dealer franchise system “keeps prices low by fostering fair and healthy competition on a level playing field. Direct sales by manufacturers is not necessary for the rapid introduction of EVs in the State of Connecticut. Direct sales EVs like Tesla are expensive luxury vehicles and they are a very small percentage of the vehicles sold.”
Other Dealership Testimonies
Mitchell Sealing Ford testified that Tesla is terrible and illegal. And the Connecticut Automotive Retailers Association claimed that Tesla is trying to sell vehicles in South Windsor which is illegal.
Unfortunately for Tesla, the change was voted down and the location is dead. It’s another win for dealerships–especially those who are spreading misinformation.
Hoffman Auto Group’s Claim Debunked
The claim that direct sales EVs like Tesla are only luxury cars and make up a small percentage of sales is highly misleading.
Tesla is not only the global EV leader, but during the first half of 2022 alone, Tesla delivered 564,000 vehicles which represented a growth increase of 27% year-over-year.
During Tesla’s Q2 2022 earnings call, Elon Musk said that he is confident that Tesla would be able to get to 5,000 cars a week in Austin and Berlin by the end of this year.
“There’s always a lot of uncertainty like the production looks like S-curve, and that intermediate part of S-curve the difficult to bridge that with high certainty. But the end part of the S-curve, you can say, I think you can have a lot more certainty.”
“And so that’s why I’m confident we’ll get to 5,000 cars a week at — in Austin and Berlin by the end of this year or early next year and probably but not certainly, 10,000 cars a week at both locations by the end of next year.”
Statement from Tesla Owners of Connecticut
The Tesla Owners Club of Connecticut shared the following statement with me in an email:
“Unfortunately, once again Tesla was kicked to the curb. Legacy dealerships have an awful reputation. South Windsor didn’t want to open up pandora’s box to any dealership coming into this beautiful part of their town. “
“It was painful to listen to the dealer’s disparaging testimony. Their backward thinking and anti-competitive remarks will lead them to bankruptcy eventually. “
My Previous coverage of Hoffman Auto Group & Tesla
When I wrote for CleanTechnica, I extensively covered the ongoing drama that Hoffman Auto Group caused.
- In June 2021, Hoffman Auto Group sued Tesla and the Town of East Hartford because they didn’t want Tesla to sell to customers.
- In June 2021, Hoffman’s Bradley Hoffman told Senator Haskell, that dealers have spent millions on charging stations and solar panels. I replied to him on Twitter asking him to share where he got that information from. He never replied.
- In August 2021, East Hartford approved the Tesla Service Center—but that didn’t last for long.
- Once the Tesla service center was approved, Hoffman sued Tesla.
- In September 2021, I wrote about why dealerships don’t want to compete with Tesla.
- And in March 2022, I reported on East Hartford ruling in favor of Hoffman and other dealerships regarding Tesla and its new service center.
- My interview with Senator Will Haskell
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
