General Motors says it has a plan to dethrone Tesla: the undisputed king of electric vehicles.
GM CEO Mary Barra said in November that the company responsible for the Chevy Volt would build a million EVs in 2025. The question is, how will it get there, and what steps will it take to dethrone Tesla, who produced more than 509,000 EVs in 2020 and delivered 98% of them.
“We are committed to fighting for EV market share until we are number one in North America,” Barra said after detailing the plans for 30 EV models by 2025. The project requires a $27 billion investment from one of the U.S’s most notorious automakers. But in the past, car companies have outlined their plans to beat Tesla, and they’ve continuously fallen short, not accounting for Tesla’s planned growth.
In 2012, GM was the undisputed leader in EVs. The Chevy Volt sold 23,461 units that year. Then Tesla came along with the Model S. Five years later, Tesla had figured out that it could build a mass-market vehicle with the Model 3, proving that it’s not about the number of models. Still, the focus should be on affordability and efficiency. Tesla showed that it had figured out the formula for a fun, fast, efficient, and affordable electric car. It was a riddle that legacy automakers that had the cash and infrastructure to develop hadn’t solved.
Credit: U.S. Department of Energy, Alternative Fuel Vehicle Data Key: Blue: Chevy Volt, Burgundy: Tesla Model S, Purple: Tesla Model X, Royal Blue: Chevy Bolt, Yellow: Tesla Model 3
Despite the Model 3 giving Tesla and its frontman Elon Musk significant production issues, the vehicle has become the most popular EV in the U.S., China, and other territories. Led by the Model 3, Tesla held 58 percent of the U.S. EV market share in 2019, and Financial Post states that the automaker could own as much as 80 percent of the market share for 2020.
GM’s plan is simple: depend on its Ultium battery, which will amplify production and the development new, all-electric models. It plans to decrease the cost of battery production to the $100/kWh threshold, which will activate price parity with gas cars, in three years. It then plans to get that down to $75/kWh in 2025. These projections come from Emmanuel Rosner, an analyst with Deutsche Bank.
The problem is: Tesla detailed its complete roadmap to decrease the cost of its price per kWh during the company’s Battery Day event in September 2020, and it shows prices as low as $50/kWh.
This brings in significant possibilities for GM moving forward, especially if it can continue to leverage more affordable battery costs past 2025. However, it will need more help beating Tesla, which at this time, analysts see as the leader for the foreseeable future.
A Tesla Model 3 recently battled a Chevy Bolt on a drag race in Moscow. [Credit: KindelTech/YouTube]
“Price is going to be what determines who is the market leader, and Tesla looks set to win on price for the foreseeable future,” Luke Gear, an analyst at IDTechEX, says.
Past the financials, Tesla’s growth, which is fueled by a strict and non-diversified focus on EVs only, gives the company an explicit advantage moving forward. On the other hand, GM has to combat the development of its 30 planned EVs with its existing fleet of gas-powered vehicles. Tesla can continue developing its EVs without any other distractions. Its name and reputation as the leader in the sector will help attract young and fresh engineering talent, especially in software and manufacturing, which are some of the company’s main focuses.
ALSO READ:
GM watches Tesla go from “graveyard-bound” to inspiration in pursuit of million-mile battery
GM’s goal is considerably lofty, and its words will not win over the Tesla faithful who are critical of the companies who talk a big game but fail to back it up. Many automakers have come along with a plan to disrupt Tesla’s domination in the EV sector, only to figure out that building an effective EV goes past putting a battery pack into a familiar chassis. But even if they don’t become the leader, will it be considered a complete failure?
“If they keep putting out tons of great products…and they take a ton of share from Tesla, are their EV efforts a failure then? I would say no,” David Whiston of Morningstar said.
What do you think? Leave a comment down below. Got a tip? Email us at tips@teslarati.com or reach out to me at joey@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
