News
Tesla ‘a disproportional beneficiary’ of China’s incoming green tidal wave: Dan Ives
Tesla is set to be “a disproportional beneficiary” of China’s growing adoption of electric vehicles and sustainable energy, according to Wedbush analyst and Tesla bull Dan Ives.
After navigating through a difficult few months in China, where Tesla combated unfair PR on several occasions that brought the safety of the company vehicles into question, Ives now believes that the automaker can now focus on expanding on its already solid foundation in the region. The Chinese market has been an exceptionally potent location for electric vehicle makers, becoming a main focus of several OEMs that are working to transition toward electrification. Tesla, while being a mainstay in China’s EV sales leaderboard for over a year, is primed to benefit from the market’s evergrowing love affair with the electric vehicle, continuing a monumental climb toward automotive legacy in the world’s largest car market.
Despite falsified reports of faulty braking systems on several occasions, Tesla has managed to be one of the best-selling EV manufacturers in China. In Q2, Tesla sold over 53,000 cars in China, capped off by an impressive 28,138 cars in the domestic market in June. The strong performance was fueled by demand for the Model 3 and Model Y, the two cars that Tesla manufactures in China at the Giga Shanghai production facility.
Although Tesla’s Q2 was a strong one, it wasn’t all sunshine and rainbows for the Silicon Valley-based electric car company. As previously mentioned, Tesla battled several claims of brake failures in its vehicles. The initial occurrence of this was at the Shanghai Auto Show, where the Tesla booth was infiltrated by a woman who claimed faulty brakes caused a dangerous accident. Tesla navigated through this scandal, along with several others by continuously debunking these claims. The company eventually set up a Special Handling Team to handle these issues, and also threatened legal action for those who were attempting to gain notoriety or money through false claims.
Ives acknowledges Tesla’s bumpy and tumultuous road in China in Q2, but the performance, which is indicated through the strong sales figures during the PR nightmare, essentially proves the company is ready to move on to even more robust sales figures. “We believe Tesla have navigated the safety/PR issues better than expected, and are now in a position to accelerate market share in this key region,” Ives wrote.
In May, Ives also wrote that Tesla, along with other manufacturers like NIO, Xpeng, and Li Auto, would all benefit from an increasing EV market share in China. Ives wrote in the May note that only 5% of total automotive sales in China were EVs and that the next two years would result in a doubling of this market concentration of electrified models.
While China was bumpy during the quarter we believe Tesla have navigated the safety/PR issues better than expected and are now in a position to accelerate market share in this key region. We believe the green tidal wave is on the horizon with Tesla a disproportional beneficiary.
— Daniel Ives (@DivesTech) July 21, 2021
In short, the benefits of a more supported EV market in China are going to fuel many automakers, but Tesla seems to be the one that Ives is putting his money on. This is mostly because of the fact that bad press really didn’t affect sales figures, and Tesla continues to perform in one of the most heavily concentrated EV markets globally.
Ives is ranked 43rd out of 7,591 analysts on TipRanks.com. He has a success rate of 74% and an average return of 35.3%.
Disclosure: Joey Klender is a TSLA Shareholder.
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
