With the Climate Bill that includes funding for EV buying incentives approaching its final round of voting and news about possible details on the funding running rampant, I will attempt to consolidate as much knowledge as possible into one place.
First of all, I and others here at Teslarati have written numerous articles covering EV incentives. These articles will help you understand how incentives have been voted on recently and how EV incentives in the US compared to the rest of the world. Some of the most notable include this article about US State level EV incentives, this article about how the “union made” incentive was scrapped earlier this year and this opinion piece about what Elon Musk thinks about EV incentives and how he hopes the US will move away from ICE vehicles.
A personal favorite from outside of Teslarati, Martyn Lee of the EV News Daily podcast has laid out a couple of perspectives from Twitter in one of his most recent episodes.
Martyn does a fantastic job of laying out a couple of perspectives on the EV incentives, how some are proposing to pay for them, and reading from experts examining the bill. One such expert is Tom Randall of Reuters, who has posted numerous Twitter threads on the topic. His most notable is the one linked below, where he covers the basics of incentives, who will qualify, and other notes surrounding the legislative process/votes.
Interesting EV tax credit details in the new Manchin deal: $7.5k credit per new vehicle and $4k for a used EV (or 30% of price, whichever is less). The credits expire at the end of 2032—with no manufacturer caps. A bunch of new limitations include ?1/
— Tom Randall (@tsrandall) July 28, 2022
Some important notes from the thread are that used cars will also qualify for a tax rebate of up to $4,000 (as long as your salary is below $75,000 individually or $150,000 for joint filers), and new cars will only qualify if they are under $55,000, new SUVs and trucks will have to be below $80,000, and used vehicles must cost less than $25,000 to qualify.
For those who need a consolidated explanation of what will allow a vehicle to access the incentive, u/mad691 on the r/Electric Vehicles subreddit has posted a spreadsheet that includes all current plugin models and their possible federal rebates if the bill, in its current form, passes. The sheet consists of the qualifications that manufacturers must meet for customers to access the tax rebate along the top row.
Listed on the left are the current incentives available for each model. Then the following five columns highlight whether the vehicle may qualify in the future under the new proposal. These qualifications would disqualify the vehicle from the incentives. Finally, on the right are two columns that highlight the possible rebate of the vehicle and the change in rebate from the current system (red being negative, black being positive change).
Possible Federal EV Incentives from u/Mad691 on Reddit
While the sheet is not fleshed out completely, especially looking at the battery material clause and battery component clause columns, it can at least give a sense of what vehicles may qualify and which may not. Any of the three middle columns (Car Price, Truck+SUV Price, and Assembled in America) are instant disqualifiers and represent the vast majority of disqualifications from the incentives.
Some surprising results from the table include GM’s offerings that would once again be available for the rebate, the laundry list of vehicles not assembled in the US that would no longer qualify for the tax credits, as well as the long list of PHEVs that will continue to receive the full $7,500 in tax credits despite small batteries and lackluster fuel economy (specifically looking at the Jeep Wrangler 4xe with 14 miles of EV range and the BMW X5 with 30 miles of EV range).
This news should be taken with a huge grain of salt as voting and editing the bill have not yet been completed. However, it can give a basic understanding of what incentives may become available if the bill were to pass.
What do you think of the article? Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns? Shoot me an email at william@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @WilliamWritin. If you have news tips, email us at tips@teslarati.com!
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
