News
Inflation Reduction Act supports dealerships & fossil fueled “clean vehicles”
Today, the Senate passed the Inflation Reduction Act which seems like a good thing for EVs and clean energy at first. However, a look at the bill itself takes us into a rabbit hole that smells of fossil fuels and dealership lobbying.
By changing the very definition of electric vehicles of clean vehicles, the Inflation Reduction Act is showing its support for fossil fuels. Let’s take a look at a thread shared by @WholeMarsBlog who took a deep dive into the Inflation Reduction Act.
How Dealerships benefit from the Inflation Reduction Act
As @WholeMarsBlog pointed out in his thread, the Inflation Reduction Act will allow dealerships to benefit from a subsidy. If a consumer purchases an EV from a dealership, they will be able to transfer that tax credit to a dealership.
This will be the only way they can benefit from that tax credit as direct-to-consumer doesn’t qualify.
This gives dealerships an edge over direct-to-consumer sales by allowing consumers to receive a lower monthly payment than ordering directly from a manufacturer such as Tesla or Rivian.
However, it doesn’t make sense to subsidize an industry that is known for dishonest tactics and treating American consumers badly.
Allowing fossil-fueled vehicles to be “clean vehicles”
A vehicle with an internal combustion engine and a small battery is now considered a “clean vehicle” by this bill. Plug-in hybrid EVs have been touted as a cleaner version of the ICE vehicle because it has a battery and can be charged.
However, these are still fossil-fueled powered vehicles and discourage the sales of actual clean vehicles. As @WholeMarsBlog said, “Why buy an F-150 Lightning when an F-150 hybrid qualifies, too?” He also pointed out that hydrogen cars are also now subsidized.
Battery Minerals need to be sourced domestically
This is done in a very tricky way to make it look like the EV tax credit is being extended, but in reality fossil fuel powered hybrids will qualify while electric vehicles will not.
this is so wrong. if people don't plug in these cars they generate MORE emissions due to weight
— Whole Mars Catalog (@WholeMarsBlog) August 7, 2022
Rivian and Lucid along with other automakers will lose their $7,500 tax credit next year due to these battery sourcing requirements making it impossible for any full EV to qualify.
This is why it’s so important for automakers to partner with their domestic suppliers. Talon Metals’ Chief External Affairs Officer & Head of Climate Strategy, Todd Malan spoke with me at length on this topic and you read his thoughts here.
Benchmark Minerals’ take on the Inflation Reduction Act
Interesting commentary on the Inflation Reduction Act from @sdmoores https://t.co/Ma5fFElNjv pic.twitter.com/ePZMHVSX5a
— The Limiting Factor (@LimitingThe) August 7, 2022
Benchmark Minerals published an article on what the Inflation Reduction act means for the EV battery supply chain and I think it’s important to consider some of the points they’ve made.
Simon Mores, CEO of Benchmark said that it’s almost impossible that any of the Fair Trade Alliance countries are able to fill China’s raw material gap for our EV demand between now and 2024.
“The presently proposed $7,500 credit for those EVs that do not contain any critical minerals from China or Russia will effectively be made redundant, considering the proposal ends in 2024 just when a domestic supply chain is beginning to gain momentum.”
“It is almost impossible that any Fair Trade Alliance countries – of which Australia and Chile are the stand out – could fill China’s raw material gap for the USA’s EV demand between now and 2024.”
“This is considering the basic lack of raw material supply in many markets and the fact that most future raw material has already been contracted and accounted for.”
“If the US wants the incentive to really work, it needs to extend this by 4 years to 2028 so the battery supply chain builds into the incentive.”
With this thought in mind, @WholeMarsBlog pointed out that smaller batteries could meet the percentage requirements while larger batteries powering the entire vehicle can not. In other words, this opens the door for plug-in hybrid EVs to meet the rising demand for clean vehicles.
My 2.5¢
I think it’s important to note these flaws in the bill, but I also think that we do need a stronger U.S. battery supply chain. However, we shouldn’t sacrifice EVs for fossil fuels to get that stronger supply chain.
I’ve always thought that it was silly to include plug-in hybrid vehicles as a “clean vehciel” when they use both batteries and fossil fuels. Hybrids are great for those who want both options. I’ve also heard the arguments that they are more affordable than a Tesla, but it’s 2022 and if someone is in the market for a new car, there are options for a variety of EVs.
I think @WholeMarsBlog made an excellent point. I think Todd Malan made excellent points as well. At the end of the day, however, politricksters will politrick. The fact that they all agreed on this bill is, I think, kind of shocking.
Disclaimer: Johnna is long Tesla.
I’d love to hear from you! If you have any comments, concerns, or see a typo, you can email me at johnna@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @JohnnaCrider1
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
