News
Tesla and the danger of soft budget constraints
The Wall Street Journal is not always friendly to Elon Musk and Tesla Motors. In an article published August 16, staff writer Holman Jenkins, Jr. suggests that Tesla is one election away from extinction. Why? Holman bases his analysis on a study of John Z. DeLorean and an economic principle known as soft budget constraints.
The study by Graham Brownlow of Queen’s University Belfast was published in October, 2014. It says one of the foundations for DeLorean’s start-up car company was the willingness of the British government to subsidize the enterprise with grants, tax breaks, government backed loans, and other political incentives.
In 1975 when DeLorean Motors began, conflict between Protestants and Catholics in Ireland was at a fever pitch. The economy of Northern Ireland was in tatters and the British government was desperate to attract manufacturing jobs to the area. DeLorean promised to do just that and the government responded with open arms.
Brownlow says the support from the government amounted to what economists refer to as soft budget constraints, meaning the company never had to turn a profit. In effect, as DeLorean boasted at the time, the government was in so deep, it had no choice but to continue funding the operation. In layman’s terms, its like having rich parents and knowing they will cover your losses no matter how foolishly you spend your money.
Jenkins says Tesla Motors is similarly positioned. It is the beneficiary of several indirect government subsidies such as federal and state tax credits, HOV stickers, and the like. He also claims the company benefits from direct government support in the form of loan guarantees and corporate tax credits. Taken together, they provide Tesla with the ability to exceed normal budgetary constraints on a regular basis.
He prefers what he would term the more traditional model, as laid out by Brownlow. “The more [an entrepreneur] expects that the existence and growth of the firm will depend solely on production costs and proceeds from sales, the more he will respect the budget constraint,” Brownlow writes.
Jenkins hints darkly that Musk’s recent decision to bring the start of production of the Model 3 forward by 2 years is a ploy designed to force the federal government to extend the tax credit program for buyers of electric cars. Tesla will be bumping up against the 200,000 vehicle limit in total US sales by the time that car goes on sale.
He also thinks the merger between Tesla and SolarCity is intended to mute the criticism that Teslas are not as environmentally friendly as they are touted to be, since the majority of electricity in the United States comes from burning fossil fuels like natural gas and coal.
Jenkins reminds readers that John DeLorean’s dream came crashing down once Margaret Thatcher came to power. She turned off the financial spigot that had propped him up, with predictable results. The implication is that Tesla is just one election away from a similar fate.
Jenkins could be the designated cheerleader for all the people who have shorted Tesla stock. The comments appended to his story in the Journal make it clear his opinions have plenty of enthusiastic supporters, many of whom view Elon Musk as little more than a scam artist.
In his efforts to advocate for a level playing field where every corporation pays all its bills on time, pays all its taxes, never accepts a hand out from the government, and always does the right thing, he conveniently overlooks the $5 trillion a year in direct and indirect subsidies the International Monetary Fund says are provided to the fossil fuel industry every year.
There is a coda to the DeLorean story, one that is seldom told. It is said that John Z personally selected the spot where his factory in Northern Ireland would be built. The Irish have a long and steadfast belief in what they call “the little people.” We call them leprechauns.
According to the story, the site DeLorean chose required the removal of a whitethorn tree. Now, everyone knows the little people build their homes in the roots of whitethorn trees. Uprooting one is guaranteed to bring some seriously bad mojo down on your head.
What happened to DeLorean only proves that legend may be more powerful than economic theory. The antidote to Jenkins’ gloomy predictions may be to inform Elon he must never cut down a whitethorn tree to build one of his factories.
Source: Wall Street Journal
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
