News
TX fire chief slams inaccurate Tesla crash coverage with firsthand details on Model S fire
Immediately following the fatal Tesla crash in Texas this weekend, reports from both local and national media outlets emerged citing the statements of Harris County Pct. 4 Constable Mark Herman, who remarked that police were 100% certain that there was no one in the driver seat of the ill-fated Model S when it crashed. Herman also commented that the Tesla fire was so severe that it took over 30,000 gallons of water and four hours to extinguish the flames from the crash, and that firefighters had to reach out to the EV maker for help in battling the fire.
These statements have since been debunked (at least to some degree) by Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who noted that data logs that have been recovered so far from the ill-fated Model S indicate that Autopilot was not enabled during the crash, and that the vehicle did not have any Full Sell-Driving functions activated. Musk’s update essentially threw a wrench on the pervading narrative that Autopilot likely caused the tragic crash.
Your research as a private individual is better than professionals @WSJ!
Data logs recovered so far show Autopilot was not enabled & this car did not purchase FSD.
Moreover, standard Autopilot would require lane lines to turn on, which this street did not have.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 19, 2021
And now, even the reports about the Tesla fire have been thrown into question–by the man whose team extinguished the blaze no less. In a statement to the Houston Chronicle, Palmer Buck, fire chief for The Woodlands Township Fire Department, noted that contrary to some reports in the media, the Tesla Model S fire did not burn out of control for four hours.
Interestingly enough, Buck remarked that his team actually managed to put down the fire within two to three minutes, which was enough for authorities to see that there were occupants in the vehicle. After these first two to three minutes, it was only a matter of keeping the batteries as cool as possible by pouring small amounts of water into the damaged battery pack. Buck described the fire department’s strategy in the following statement.
“With respect to the fire fight, unfortunately, those rumors grew way out of control. It did not take us four hours to put out the blaze. Our guys got there and put down the fire within two to three minutes, enough to see the vehicle had occupants. After that, it was simply cooling the car as the batteries continued to have a chain reaction due to damage.
“We could not tear it apart or move it around to get ‘final extinguishment’ because the fact that we had two bodies in there and it was then an investigation-slash-crime scene. We had to keep it cool, were on scene for four hours, but we were simply pouring a little bit of water on it. It was not because flames were coming out. It was a reaction in the battery pan. It was not an active fire,” Buck said.
As for the rumors that the fire department had to call a Tesla hotline for tips on how to handle a battery fire, the Fire Chief stated that these reports were untrue. “We did not (call Tesla), and I do not know where (that rumor) came from. There is a chance someone else did, maybe the Harris County Fire Marshal, but we did not call (Tesla). Tesla has an emergency manual for first responders,” Buck said. He also noted that he is not aware of Tesla having a hotline for tips on how to control a battery fire.
Buck also provided some new details about the Model S crash and how the fire department was involved. According to the fire chief, the first calls about the incident did not involve reports about a car at all. Instead, initial reports were about a fire in the woods. And while the Model S fire was notable when the firefighters arrived, it only took minutes to control the blaze from the vehicle.
“The first calls that came in were a fire in the woods. Then we got at 9:30 p.m. where we got the first call when someone said, ‘I see a car in a tree, and it is on fire. They reported a car hit a tree, and it had exploded… That is when we added extra units (to the response). There is a big lake, and (the accident) was just to the left of the lake, closer to the exiting part of the street, not the end of the cul de sac. It was at an undeveloped lot.
“(The Tesla) was heavily involved in flames. When the fire was put out, it was noticed there were two bodies (inside), and they were deceased. They continued extinguishment of the woods around (the car), putting out the trees and pine needles and what have you. I was there probably five to 10 minutes after that and at that point, every once in a while, the (battery) reaction would flame and it was mainly keeping water pouring on the battery,” Buck explained, adding that this was a process recommended by Tesla in cases of burning batteries.
While a number of the initial reports about the tragic Tesla crash this weekend have been debunked by Elon Musk and now, the fire chief for The Woodlands Township Fire Department, the incident continues to attract some degree of drama. As per recent reports, Harris County Pct. 4 Constable Mark Herman has stated that investigators would be serving a search warrant on Tesla to gain all data from the ill-fated Model S. Federal regulators from the NHTSA and NTSB have also launched an investigation into the crash.
Don’t hesitate to contact us for news tips. Just send a message to tips@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
