News
Tesla Cybertruck factory: Tulsa’s underdog campaign is giving Austin’s bid a run for its money
The site of Tesla’s Cybertruck Gigafactory has not been finalized yet, though reports suggest that there are now only two cities under consideration: Austin, Texas and Tulsa, Oklahoma. Between the two cities, it initially appeared that Austin may be a shoe-in for the electric car maker considering Texas’ ties with SpaceX, Musk’s private space venture. But if there is something that has become evident in recent weeks, it is the fact that Tulsa, Oklahoma will not give up its shot to net Tesla’s next factory without a fight.
The final decision about the site of Tesla’s next electric vehicle factory is expected to be related in a few weeks, perhaps during the company’s upcoming second quarter earnings call. As the days count down to the fateful date, the Tulsa vs Austin race is heating up, with the underdog from Oklahoma seemingly gaining some momentum against Austin, which seems to be encountering some speed bumps in its efforts to secure the Cybertruck Gigafactory.
Travis County, which is home to Austin, is expected to vote this week on a portion of 10 year tax rebates that total over $65 million. However, not everything is going smoothly. Similar to its experience in Gigafactory Berlin, Tesla’s impending arrival has received resistance from a number of local groups. Doing a hearing with the Travis County Commissioners Court last week, for example, representatives from local churches, workers groups, and unions, expressed their concerns about the electric car maker and its proposed incentives.
These issues, at least for now, do not seem to be present at Tulsa. As noted in a Reuters report, Oklahoma has signed a nondisclosure agreement about its incentives package for Tesla, though Commerce Secretary Sean Kouplen noted that its bid is comparable and at parts even better than Austin’s. The bid includes business and personal tax breaks, and most of them are already guaranteed under state law. This meant that the approval of the incentives in Tulsa will not require the kinds of public votes that have already caused several delays in Austin.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Online, the city’s Big F*cking Field Twitter account is on high gear, and all over Tulsa, Tesla fever has pretty much set in. Tulsa’s famous Golden Driller statue has been fitted with a Tesla logo on its chest and a face that eerily resembles CEO Elon Musk. The city has also secured thousands of signatures from engineers who have pledged to move to Tulsa if Tesla decides to set up shop in the city. Local retailers have caught the Tesla bug as well. In a statement to the publication, Kouplen noted that his children came home the other day with a photo of a Tesla-themed snow cone, and a local pizzeria has pledged to give away free pizzas for the city’s would-be Tesla employees.
“The response here continues to be overwhelming. In the time that we’re in, having something positive to hold on to or grab is really making a difference,” Kouplen said.
Quite interestingly, Tesla appeared to have been set on Austin for the site of its Cybertruck Gigafactory. But following reports last month that the company had purchased land in Texas, CEO Elon Musk clarified that Tesla has not made a final decision yet. With this, Tulsa seemed to have put the pedal to the metal, culminating in Musk actually visiting the city earlier this month and being hosted by Oklahoma officials at a massive field that would be the potential site of the upcoming factory. Pictures of the meeting, which featured the CEO candidly speaking with officials, were shared online by Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt.
Oklahoma officials were scheduled to make their pitch to dozens of Tesla executives in a Zoom call on Monday afternoon. Regardless of the results of this, however, one cannot deny the admirable grassroots push that Tulsa has done to make it this far in the race for the Cybertruck Gigafactory. In a previous comment, Kouplen noted that even if Tulsa loses to Austin this time around, it does not mean that the city will never get a Tesla facility. “This won’t be the last factory they build or the last investment they make. We’re building a relationship with Tesla that will continue regardless of what happens this time,” Kouplen said.
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
