News
Tesla to dominate 2021, but other winners and losers in EVs to be determined
It is no secret that Tesla is expected to dominate 2021’s electric vehicle market as the company begins to show it has the robust nature it takes to grow in such a competitive market. After delivering just shy of 500,000 vehicles, according to its own Shareholder Deck via its Investor Relations website, Tesla is poised to increase that number even more this year, especially as two new Gigafactories are expected to take shape and begin rolling out EVs later this year.
Tesla’s undeniable dominance in the EV sector has been accredited to several things: hard work, strategy, luck, and seeing that EVs would be the future well before anyone really knew. Tesla has truly caused an entire industry to rethink its future strategies regarding the development of its products. Instead of slight revisions to an ICE model that has been in production for 40 years, automakers are scrapping the old-faithful vehicles that once ruled production processes for all-electric cars that are supplying the world’s brightest engineers and manufacturing experts with constant headaches.
But past the overwhelming importance for automakers to adopt EV strategies moving forward, 2021 will likely be a “make or break” year for some of the biggest names in vehicle production. While there are undoubtedly going to be winners who will join Tesla on the upward trend toward EV adoption, there are others that will fade away. Unfortunately, there is no way to look into the future and see who will win and who will lose, but the writing that currently appears on the wall will tell many investors of the EV movement who is making a commendable effort of trying to adopt new strategies and move toward sustainable transport. However, others are still stuck with the notion that there is time. However, the longer these companies wait, the further the lead will be for Tesla, who once sat in the shadows of automotive legacy, waiting for its chance to pounce.
Credit: teslaphotographer/Instagram
Deutsche Bank analyst Emmanuel Rosner upped his price target on Tesla stock on Thursday from $705 to $890, The Street reported. After already upgrading Tesla’s outlook once in 2021, Rosner is still convinced of the automaker’s dominance moving forward, looking at 2021 as the year of the EV.
But it’s not all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed for Rosner because he believes that some automakers will eventually phase themselves out of the race to EV dominance. Although nearly every company in the world that makes cars has mentioned a possible adoption to electric transport, there are still some that sit with very vague plans. Interestingly, these companies claim that Tesla will eventually fall and that scalability and software will only last so long. Sure, but Tesla has software nearly perfected, while some of the most robust and refined companies in the world are still stuck with head-scratching as their only outlet to vent their frustration.
Rosner’s note says that 2021 “should indeed see a material acceleration of electric vehicle roll-outs, and provide much clarity on winners and losers from electrification.” It’s true. We will see more EV plans this year than ever before. Companies like Rivian and Lucid plan to launch their first deliveries later this year, Tesla will be opening Giga Berlin and Giga Texas, only increasing production outputs from the automaker, and Ford will eventually begin rolling out Mach-E models after an unexpected delay of hundreds of models. But as most of us know, there is a fine line between launching a product and launching a product successfully.
What will 2021 entail for the EV sector? Mostly good things if you believe that President Joe Biden will replace an emphasis on climate control and pollution reduction. The President reactivated the U.S.’ inclusion in the Paris Agreement yesterday, a move that will excite many of the environmentalists out there. EVs undoubtedly contribute to a cleaner world, but can automakers contribute to the global transition to sustainable passenger transport? Who will win and who will lose?
What do you think? Leave a comment down below. Got a tip? Email us at tips@teslarati.com or reach out to me at joey@teslarati.com.
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
