Tesla’s potential as a future battery supplier for other automakers is being paved by the ongoing struggles of the company’s rivals today. This idea is becoming more and more feasible as more and more veteran automakers experience battery-related challenges in their respective electric car programs.
Building electric cars is no easy task. As evidenced by the issues plaguing the rollout of the mass-market Volkswagen ID.3, making good electric vehicles is not just a matter of stuffing an electric motor and batteries in an existing platform for an internal combustion car. Making EVs, especially good, high-performing ones like the Tesla Model 3, requires mastery of a different set of skills, such as software management and battery optimizations.
The latter is where a vast divide exists between Tesla and legacy automakers today. Tesla utilizes its own proprietary battery tech for its vehicles. The 2170 cells for its Model 3 sedan are even being produced at Giga Nevada, a massive factory that is poised to become one of the largest in the world by footprint once it’s completed. Veteran automakers, on the other hand, rely on suppliers such as LG Chem to supply their EVs’ batteries.
LG Chem supplies cells to several automakers, including Audi and Jaguar, whose e-tron and I-PACE both utilize the company’s batteries. Rivian, which uses 2170 cells for the R1T pickup and the R1S SUV, source their cells from the South Korean firm as well. More recently, even startup Lucid Motors, which is reportedly on the cusp of releasing its first vehicle, the Air, also announced that it would be sourcing cells from LG Chem. This is great for LG Chem, as it validates the quality and capabilities of its batteries, but it also does not bode well for all the companies looking to acquire adequate battery supply for their electric cars.
As it is, LG Chem appears to be having difficulties meeting the demand for its vehicles already. Shortages of cells from the battery manufacturer have reportedly become the cause for the recent halts in the Audi e-tron and the Jaguar I-PACE’s production. And this is just with premium-priced, mid-volume SUVs. When high-volume vehicles enter the market, such as the Volkswagen ID.3 (which also gets some of its cells from LG Chem), the South Korean firm will likely find it even more challenging to supply batteries to all its clients.
This supply issue could become a serious challenge to the electric car revolution. With this in mind, and with even more electric cars coming in the next few years, a need for another battery supplier emerges. This is where Tesla comes in. Tesla has been expanding its business to not just focus on building electric cars, as evidenced by the company’s energy and battery storage initiatives. Considering Tesla’s experience in building EVs, as well as the industry-leading quality of its batteries, the company may very well be poised to become one of the leading suppliers of cells for other electric car makers.
Interestingly enough, CEO Elon Musk has mentioned the possibility of Tesla serving as a supplier of batteries and powertrains to other automakers in the past. This was explained by Musk himself during the Q3 2019 earnings call. “It would be consistent with the mission of Tesla to help other car companies with electric vehicles on the battery and powertrain front, possibly on other fronts. So it’s something we’re open to. We’re definitely open to supplying batteries and powertrains and perhaps other things to other car companies,” he said.
Fiat-Chrysler CEO Steve Manley also suggested the idea during a Q&A session. Speaking about the company’s electric vehicle strategy, Manley mentioned that Fiat-Chrysler would likely be purchasing key electric car components from the Silicon Valley-based company. “It would be wrong of me to say no,” Manley said, adding that batteries and drivetrains will likely be among the parts that FCA will be purchasing from Tesla. The CEO also expressed the possibility of FCA acquiring a “skateboard” platform from Tesla, which it would use for its own vehicles.
Tesla is at a point where its lead in the electric car space is undeniable. The company is also at a point where its manufacturing systems are more refined than before. Tesla may thus be reaching a stage where it is large and robust enough to support other automakers that are also adopting electric cars. As veteran carmakers transition into EVs, those who can secure battery supply from Tesla will likely be the ones that will survive what could very well be a painful and costly move towards sustainability.
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
