The electric vehicle market in Europe seems poised to see some substantial changes in the coming months, with the European Commission telling automakers on Wednesday that China-based EV imports could see additional tariffs of up to 38% from next month. The additional duties would be implemented on top of the current 10% tariff placed on all EVs that are produced in China.
The European Commission’s announcement came following an anti-subsidy probe, as noted in an AFP News report. The tariffs given to China-based EVs would depend on the level of state subsidies that automakers receive. With this in mind, the European Commission has ordered a provisional hike of tariffs on several Chinese automakers.
These include BYD, which is poised to receive additional tariffs of 17.4%; Geely, which will receive 20%, and SAIC, which will receive a substantial 38.1% additional tariff. All other EV companies from China that cooperated with the European Commission’s probe are expected to see an average tariff of 21%, while electric vehicle makers that did not cooperate with the probe would see an additional 38.1% duty. Tesla cooperated in the EU’s probe, and thus, its Model 3 imports to the region are poised to receive an additional 21% tariff.
The much anticipated EU EV tariffs have been announced. In 2023 just shy of half a million China made EVs were sold in the EU making up nearly one-third of the total EVs bought. ? pic.twitter.com/x1G0zs3SfK— Iola Hughes (@RhoMoIola) June 12, 2024
“The Commission has provisionally concluded that the battery electric vehicles (BEV) value chain in China benefits from unfair subsidization, which is causing a threat of economic injury to EU BEV producers. Should discussions with Chinese authorities not lead to an effective solution, these provisional countervailing duties would be introduced,” the European Commission noted.
The additional tariffs are expected to be applied starting July 4, with full implementation being rolled out from November, as noted in a Reuters report. This is, at least, unless a qualified majority of EU states decide against the system. Some members of the European Union, such as Germany, have already spoken up against the additional tariffs.
As per transport minister Volker Wissing, a trade war and market isolation are not the way. “Cars must become cheaper through more competition, open markets, and significantly better business conditions in the EU, not through trade war and market isolation,” Wissing wrote in a post on X.
#Strafzölle der EU-Kommission treffen deutsche Unternehmen und ihre Spitzenprodukte. Durch mehr Wettbewerb, offene Märkte und erheblich bessere Standortbedingungen in der EU müssen Fahrzeuge preiswerter werden, nicht durch Handelskrieg und Marktabschottung.— Volker Wissing (@Wissing) June 12, 2024
China, for its part, has criticized the European Commission’s additional tariffs, stating that such a move would “harm Europe’s own interests.” China also claimed that the additional tariffs amount to protectionism. China foreign ministry spokesman Lin Jian noted that the country would take all necessary measures to protect its EV makers’ interests.
“This anti-subsidy investigation is a typical case of protectionism… It goes against the principles of market economy and international trade rules undermines China-EU economic and trade cooperation as well as the stability of the global automobile production and supply chain. China will take all necessary measures to firmly safeguard its legitimate rights and interests,” the foreign ministry spokesman noted.
Chinese Passenger Car Association (CPCA) Secretary General Cui Dongshu shared a tempered view on the matter. “The EU’s provisional tariffs come basically within our expectations, averaging around 20%, which won’t have much of an impact on the majority of Chinese firms. Those exporting China-made EVs that include Tesla, Geely and BYD still have huge potential for development in Europe in the future,” the CPCA official noted.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
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
