Deloitte, a leading professional services network, has published polling and analysis on the hurdles ahead of EV adoption globally.
Deloitte condensed its findings well in one of the first sentences of its analysis, “interest in electric vehicles grows, but worries about price, range, and charging time remain.” This survey is part of a series that Deloitte has conducted annually for over a decade now called the “Global Automotive Consumer Study.” In this year’s publication, the focus was on electric vehicles.
The first surprising piece of data is how much the United States lags in interest in electric vehicles. Deloitte found that only 8% of respondents were confident that EV was their next vehicle. However, this is an outlier compared to other recent surveys conducted in the U.S. Out of the nations polled by Deloitte, China led in interest in EVs, with over a quarter of respondents saying that their next vehicle would be electric.
Less surprising were the reasons respondents were interested in purchasing an EV. Despite the near-constant messaging from governments, media sites, and automakers alike, the cost of ownership was by far the most significant attractor for consumers. Significantly more swaying than concerns about the environment or concerns about personal health.
Shortly thereafter, Deloitte highlighted the top concerns of consumers if they were to buy an electric vehicle, and unsurprisingly, affordability was the number 1 concern across the board. In the U.S., other top concerns included driving range, charging time, public charging availability, and at-home charging availability. Globally, other than concerns regarding the upfront cost of the EV, charging time, driving range, and charging availability were also top concerns.
Only one country had responses that dramatically differed from the norm, China. Chinese respondents not only stated that the superior driving experience was the top attractor to EVs, but their biggest concern was safety regarding battery technology.
For those who live or have purchased an EV in the U.S., these results should be no surprise. The foremost EV seller in America, Tesla, no longer sells a vehicle below $40,000, and the vast majority of Tesla vehicles sell for much more. To make the problem even worse, traditional budget brands have not yet been able to bring down their prices to parity with gas offerings.
Ford’s F150 Lighting sells for thousands more than its gas counterpart. The first-ever Toyota EV offering, the BZ4X, is multiple times the cost of a base RAV4. And while the Chevy Bolt has become popular specifically for its affordability, it remains far more expensive than gas vehicles in its class.
The other area where EVs aren’t meeting customer expectations is in the driving range they are capable of. An astounding 19% of respondents stated that they would want a vehicle with a minimum range of 600 miles, while the plurality of respondents expected more than 300 miles of range. And while many may believe that these expectations are unfairly high compared to gas vehicles, perhaps this is also a messaging problem that automakers must solve in the coming year.
These results do come with the caveat that they varied quite considerably from market to market. Noticeably, Southeast Asian respondents needed the least amount of range, while respondents from Europe and the U.S. stated they needed the most.
On a more positive note, Deloitte was able to find areas where advancement in EV technology has finally been able to meet consumer expectations. The vast majority of respondents stated that they were willing to wait either between 10-20min or 20-40min for a complete charge, and over 40% of respondents stated they would be willing to wait a max of 20min.
While these expectations are high, they are finally within reach of many popular vehicles. Hyundai’s fastest charging vehicles will charge from 10-80% in 18min, while Teslas that plug into the newest generation Supercharger are charging to 80% in a similar timeframe.
For someone who spends their time immersed in the world of electric vehicles, such as myself, it can come across as a culture shock hearing about the concerns and motivators that are affecting the purchasing choices of the people that live around me. Still, perhaps it is an important exercise to step away from the keyboard and see what others really think. And for manufacturers, data like that collected by Deloitte can be a powerful tool showing where consumer attention is and what is affecting how they spend their money.
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
