News
Tesla’s ‘preferential treatment’ justified by Brandenburg Environmental Minister
Tesla’s “preferential treatment” in Berlin has been attacked by numerous environmental groups who disagree with the automaker’s current construction project that is going on in the town of Brandenburg. Since the site’s initial groundbreaking and land preparation efforts in early 2020, citizens and “green” groups have come to pledge their distaste for Tesla’s introductory European production plant. However, local government officials are more than willing to come to justify Tesla’s presence in the area, especially as it provides a substantial economic boost to an area that thirsts for steady, well-paying manufacturing jobs. Brandenburg Environmental Minister Axel Vogel is just one of those politicians coming to Tesla’s rescue, justifying the company’s treatment in the area.
Since the announcement by CEO Elon Musk in late 2019 that provided some context of what would eventually become known as “Giga Berlin,” numerous voices have pushed back against Tesla’s efforts in Germany. Despite this, the company has made reasonable progress in the past 21 months. Tesla has managed to take what was once a regular plot of land covered in low-grade trees used for commercial cardboard production and transform it into one of Earth’s most impressive vehicle production facilities. At least that’s what will be there when the factory becomes operational in several months.
Until then, Tesla will continue building the factory, erecting several portions of the plant that will eventually house the production of the Model Y crossover and Tesla’s recently unveiled 4680 battery cells. The cells, a groundbreaking step in developing Tesla’s EV tech, will provide more range and power to Tesla’s eco-friendly vehicles.
Although Tesla vehicles have saved over 17.9 million tons of CO2 from entering the atmosphere alone, environmental groups are not convinced the company’s factory will provide stable and eco-friendly scenarios based on by-products of vehicle production. In fact, groups who have been identified as NABU and Gruene Liga recently stated that they are not interested in Tesla producing batteries at the plant because of potentially hazardous waste.
Tesla ironically faces pushback at Giga Berlin from environmental groups
The groups told Reuters earlier this month:
“The objection is based on the claim that Tesla has not sufficiently clarified what precautions it will take to prevent highly poisonous gas from escaping from the factory, the objection document showed.”
Now, Brandenburg Environmental Minister Axel Vogel is coming to Tesla’s defense, giving them a justification for their preferential treatment regarding approved documents for certain elements of their factory.
Vogel said (via Maz Online):
“We are convinced that it is right to give Tesla preferential treatment, because the Tesla site has an incredibly positive, Europe-wide impact.”
#GigaBerlin
Brandenburg’s environment minister defends preferential treatment for Tesla.
“We are convinced that it is right to give Tesla preferential treatment, because the Tesla site has an incredibly positive, Europe-wide impact,” says the minister.https://t.co/pecuiVjd7x pic.twitter.com/owZEKH1qQV— @GF4Tesla ?? ?? ?️?️.build #GigaBerlin. (@Gf4Tesla) June 23, 2021
Vogel recognizes the concrete impact that Tesla could have on the region when Giga Berlin begins operation. Not only is the plant going to supply local citizens with jobs that are secure, comfortable, and well paying, but the environmental impacts also align with the strict and ambitious climate goals that Europe and Germany have both set. The European Union has been plotting a ban for ICE vehicles in 2025, according to Euractiv, and Germany has a set target of 2030 for the date it will stop allowing pollution-emitting vehicles to roam the streets.
Environmental groups are concerned with the production of the vehicles, which will result in some pollutants. However, these groups could be protesting any automaker, or basically, any large company in the world as manufacturing does, unfortunately, result in emissions. However, after Tesla cars roll off of production lines, no emissions will leave the vehicle, as the company’s battery-driven powertrains make for the most environmentally friendly form of passenger transportation on Earth.
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
