News
Tesla’s pooling deal with Fiat-Chrysler is proving to be a killer combo in Europe
New data from the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) shows that the pooling deal between Tesla and Fiat-Chrysler Automobiles is proving to be a strong force, as the two companies recently made up for 39% of the total electric vehicles registered in Europe.
According to the ICCT, the FCA-Tesla duo made up for nearly 2 of every five electric vehicles sold in Europe during the first quarter of 2020. The next closest competitor was Volvo, which shared 22% of the market with their electric cars. BMW was third with 14%.
“This is the result of a strong uptake of Tesla battery-electric vehicle sales, with a tenfold increase in deliveries in markets such as the UK, while at the same time sales of the Fiat brand combustion engine vehicles were cut in half compared to the previous month,” an ICCT Fact Sheet said.
⚡️Unprecedented⚡️ EV sales🚗all across European car markets in Q1 2020:
📈Record 10% marketshare in March
🇪🇺Driven by EU car CO2 regulation that kicked in on 1 Jan 2020See @TheICCT @MockPeter analysis:https://t.co/eYe8UrfngZ pic.twitter.com/fi7Q2FMcbe
— T&E (@transenv) April 29, 2020
In April 2019, Tesla and Fiat-Chrysler struck a deal to “pool” together their fleets to meet tough European Union emissions standards. The EU allowed company “pooling” to reach the goal of 95g of CO2 per kilometer at the beginning of 2020, and FCA chose Tesla to help accomplish that feat. Fiat Chrysler will pay Tesla around 1.8 billion euros for the deal, which will help them avoid large fines for having excessive emissions rates.
Fiat-Chrysler has plans to transition some of its most popular vehicles to electric as emissions standards are proving to be a tough task for the company when it is standing alone. The Fiat 500e will roll out for its first deliveries in Europe in July 2020. Meanwhile, the company also has plans to electrify the Fiat Panda, a car that could launch as soon as 2021.
Furthermore, FCA also expressed intentions to build Plug-In Hybrid variants of the Jeep Compass, Renegade, and Wrangler in a $10.5 billion initiative to transition to a more sustainable transportation lineup. But until then, the automaker’s pooling deal with Tesla would be its trump card to avoid emissions fines in Europe.
Tesla’s presence in Europe is notable. The company’s Model 3, Model S, and Model X are currently all available for purchase in the region. The Model Y will be available for purchase when the first phase of Giga Berlin is finished, and Tesla plans to complete that project in July 2021.
The Model 3, for its part, has made waves in the region’s auto sector. While other manufacturers like Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz, and BMW continue to maintain high sales numbers through their lineup of petrol-powered sedans, the Tesla Model 3 has competed with these companies head-on. Figures from JATO Dynamics suggest that the Model 3 was the third most popular car, regardless of power source, in Europe in December 2019.
The partnership between both Tesla and Fiat-Chrysler goes way past selling vehicles. The collaboration between the two companies will, of course, increase sales figures. However, the ultimate goal was to decrease the amount of CO2 emissions into the Earth’s atmosphere, which is an issue that Fiat-Chrysler would have struggled with on its own. However, Tesla has helped FCA come within just three points of its emissions goal of 95g of CO2 per kilometer.
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
