Tesla CEO Elon Musk has landed in Germany for a “technical” visit to Giga Berlin, the European production facility Tesla plans to launch later this year. During an interview with local media, Musk stated that he hopes production can begin by the end of 2021.
According to Jörg Steinbach, the Minister of Economics, Labor, and Energy for the State of Brandenburg, his team was informed by Tesla directly last week that Musk would be visiting Germany on May 14th. This meeting didn’t take place, but Musk did arrive in Germany yesterday, May 16th, according to his plane tracker. Musk left London for Berlin Brandenburg Airport and arrived in Germany after a quick, 76-minute flight.
Steinbach said the nature of the visit is “mainly technical” and that Musk has not scheduled meetings with either him or Dietmar Woidke, who is Brandenburg’s Minister-President.
We have been informed by @Tesla on Friday, May 14th, that a visit of @elonmusk of Grünheide was expected to happen. As the purpose of this visit is mainly technical in character political meetings with Ministerpräsident #Woidke or myself have not been scheduled. @Stk_Brandenburg
— Jörg Steinbach (@joergstb) May 16, 2021
After visiting Giga Berlin on Monday, Musk indicated that he hopes the site will be ready for production by the end of 2021.
“It looks like we could start production at the end of the year,” Musk said. “You can only build cars when all the parts are in place.”
Musk has visited Germany on two previous occasions, with his first appearance being in September 2020 and the second in November, where he personally interviewed engineering applicants who desired to work at Giga Berlin. The factory has encountered exceptional support from local politicians, including Steinbach and Woidke. Steinbach recently confirmed to Teslarati that the rumored production delays until early 2022 were not accurate and that he expected Tesla to begin producing vehicles in Germany as early as late-Summer.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk receives rockstar welcome in first visit to Giga Berlin
Tesla’s application for Giga Berlin continues to work its way through the approval process. Local sources indicate that it could take anywhere from 3-5 years for Tesla to gain ultimate approval, but this will not prevent the automaker from producing its vehicles at the facility. Ultimately, the deliberate process that is utilized by politicians to approve a project gives the government plenty of time to examine all of the implications of allowing a massive industrial project to operate in the region. The chances for rejection are extremely slim, even though the process will take several years to be finalized.
Musk commented on the process during the interview at the Giga Berlin site today.
“I think it would be better if there was less bureaucracy. On the other hand,” Musk continued, “more and more rules accumulate over time, and in the end, you can’t do anything.”
Elon continued
“On the other hand, more and more rules accumulate over time, and in the end you can’t do anything.”
But he is confident about Giga Berlin, “I think it will work well”
— Alex (@alex_avoigt) May 17, 2021
Tesla recently added plans for a battery cell plant to the application, increasing its production rate for the new, less expensive, but more effective 4680 battery cells. Tesla will not build this factory in time for the initial production phase in a few months and will instead depend on cells from its Kato Road cell manufacturing plant in Northern California.
Tesla said it expects Giga Berlin to begin limited production by the end of the year in its Q1 2021 Earnings Call Update Letter. Volume production at the plant is expected to begin in 2022, the company 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
