News
Opinion: Tesla and India is the right thing at the wrong time
Tesla and India will not be working together any time soon, as new reports now indicate that Tesla has pulled its team responsible for entrance into the Indian market to other regions. Tesla and India might be a powerful one-two punch in the future, but in 2022, the two are just the right thing at the wrong time.
When Tesla first started making moves toward entering the Indian automotive market, there was a lot of excitement. The unbelievable potential of a partnership between the world’s leading electric car company and a government that primarily focuses on domestic manufacturing efforts, mainly due to the Make in India initiative, had people buzzing. However, there were still hoops to jump through. Any person with any sort of knowledge about India and cars knows that it is an expensive place to own one, especially if it was not built there. Getting cars from outside of India into the country doubles the cost of the vehicle on most occasions due to import duties. This is when Tesla started to realize how difficult this whole process might be.
Tesla places its India entry on hold after failing to secure lower import taxes: report
In routine negotiations, even with companies and governments, there is always a brief standoff period to see who will budge first. The hypothetical game of chicken can be magnified when dealing with two large entities, but eventually, something happens where someone makes a move, and things start to come together. I thought a great, recent, and relevant example of this would be the Elon Musk-Twitter buyout, where, as the board of the platform mozied over the Tesla CEO’s offer, new developments were few and far between, as expected. Nothing was going to move forward until someone budged.
The issue is that sometimes people choose not to budge because their needs in a particular deal are non-negotiable. When the needs of both sides are non-negotiable, it complicates the entire ordeal, and this is what made the Tesla-India deal stagnate: Two large entities that had specific requirements to make something happen. Neither was asking for a small thing, so it is not necessarily unreasonable that Tesla put its plans for India on hold.
Tesla needed to test demand for its cars. It would only be able to do this by building them in Fremont, California, Austin, Texas, Brandenburg, Germany, or Shanghai, China, and then shipping them to India. The problem with this system was it would not be an accurate representation of what Tesla might be able to sell in the market, as the vehicles would still be subjected to massive import duties that would double the cost of the car in some cases. Only a small percentage of the population would be able to afford that, and with very little EV infrastructure in India, it made the company’s products even less attractive. Tesla was effectively stuck between a rock and a hard place because it had an interest in building and selling cars in India, it just needed to confirm that the people of India wanted to buy the cars. Indian government officials rarely offered commentary that was indicative of a willingness to budge.
India wanted Tesla to commit to building a new Gigafactory in their country, which would align with the government’s focus on domestic manufacturing efforts and would likely give officials enough to pull back import duties for Tesla. However, Tesla could not commit to this: there was no indication that demand would be high enough to justify an entire factory, and Tesla was not sure it would be able to export vehicles from the Indian factory to other countries. Given the economic situations across the world during the past two years due to the COVID-19 pandemic, neither entity would be able to budge from their needs.
India and Tesla were the right thing, just at the wrong time. Given the extreme demands that both Tesla and Indian officials needed, it was best to not beat a dead horse any longer and move on from the potential partnership, at least temporarily. Tesla does have a lot of potential in India, but it cannot justify purchasing massive land plots for a new facility, it cannot justify spending millions more on showrooms and service centers, and it can not adequately test the want for its vehicles with massive import taxes trailing behind every car sent to the market.
Try again in a few years, hopefully.
I’d love to hear from you! If you have any comments, concerns, or questions, please email me at joey@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @KlenderJoey, or if you have news tips, you can 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
