News
Tesla gives Fiat a wake up call: ‘fake’ electric cars can still manipulate EU emissions standards
New CO2 regulations set to take effect in Europe have several loopholes in place that could derail the goal of reducing new car emissions by 37.5% in the region by 2030, according to a study published by advocacy group Transport & Environment. In a worst-case modeling scenario, gaming of the rules could also result in almost two million fewer zero or low emissions vehicles coming to market between 2025 and 2030, and of those in the market, half might be plug-in hybrids built for compliance, not innovation.
In order to propel the creation of a battery electric auto industry in the region, European Union members and parties participating in the discussions over the new CO2 regulations included incentives in the agreement that were tied to specific vehicle sales. Auto manufacturers with 15% of their sales coming from zero and low emission vehicles by 2025 and 35% from 2030 onwards will have their CO2 targets reduced by a maximum of 5%. This effectively means a company’s new fleet-wide CO2 output would only need to be reduced to 34.4% by 2030 instead of 37.5%, as calculated in the study.
Companies have further been allowed to pool their fleets together to help reach these goals, something which Tesla has recently taken advantage of by partnering with Fiat Chrysler. As a manufacturer of zero-emission vehicles, counting Tesla’s fleet with Fiat’s lowers the average per-vehicle CO2 output, thus lessening the burden for Fiat to meet the emissions standards while Tesla profits from the deal.
On its face, the 5% trade-off for lower emissions standards would be the entry of new, more innovative clean energy vehicles on the market; however, the inclusion of plug-in hybrids in that calculation could be problematic and used to game the system. In order to qualify as a low emissions vehicle, a hybrid car only needs to be under a threshold of 50 g/km CO2 output during testing which assumes full use of the vehicle’s battery. Because most of these plug-in hybrids have very low battery ranges, they’re often not used in practice in favor of the internal combustion engine, thus increasing their real-world CO2 output to around 120 g/km.
The technology behind plug-in hybrids is less innovative and therefore cheaper to produce, so the financial appeal of producing more of these types of vehicles over battery-only electric vehicles is high. The Transport & Environment study estimates that this effect will lead to about 2 million fewer all-electric cars being produced in favor of the cheaper, ‘fake’ electric compliance hybrids.
Other loopholes in the EU regulations also contribute to a reduction in CO2 outcomes. Fourteen countries where non-existent or nascent low emissions vehicle markets were identified will receive nearly double the emissions credit for eco-friendly cars sold to encourage development in the regions.
Simply, a large manufacturer could register thousands of vehicles in one of these markets, acquire double credit for each vehicle, and then quickly sell the vehicles in an established market where demand is higher. When sold, the cars would technically be “used” for record keeping purposes, but new to consumers and presented that way. This would circumvent the point of developing a low emissions market in those countries, further limiting the expansion of low emissions car availability.
The EU member states where double credits apply are Ireland, Greece, Poland, Slovenia, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Cyprus, and Malta.
The final (possible) loophole identified in the Transport & Environment study lies with the inclusion of Norway in the EU regional calculations. The country has not yet formally been included in the 2025/30 standards but is part of the 2020/1 standards currently in effect and will likely be included in the upcoming rules.
Norway is requiring 100% of its vehicles to have zero emissions by 2025, thus guaranteeing sales of those types of cars in a market where ICE vehicles are not competitive. Automakers could concentrate their sales in that region and make less effort to sell in the rest of Europe, all while still remaining compliant with the regulations. Reaching compliance in this manner is another way the intent of the coming CO2 reduction requirements can be manipulated.
The authors of the Transport & Environment study have laid out their proposals to overcome these loopholes, but considering that they were included to win the support of the auto industry in the region, further changes to the regulations seem unlikely. Also, the study could be taking an overly pessimistic view of the possible outcomes the loopholes could lead to.
Consumer markets, even without significant CO2-related regulation, are already showing trends towards increasing low emission vehicle demands, especially for battery electric vehicles like those sold by Tesla. This “Tesla Effect” has been noted by the upper echelons of legacy auto and several have committed to billions in electric fleet investments. Porsche is unveiling its first production electric vehicle, the Taycan, this September and has plans to retire its diesel-powered lineup and embrace electrification. Ford has also recently committed to electrifying its F-series, most notably the classic F-150, as well as invest $11 billion dollars to produce 40 electrified vehicles by 2022.
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
