News
Tesla’s invite-only Giga Fest at Gigafactory Texas draws concerns from local citizens
Tesla’s Giga Fest at Gigafactory Texas, an invite-only event, drew a handful of concerns from local citizens over noise complaints from fireworks testing and concerns regarding a lack of public engagement from the automaker as it nears the official opening of the factory.
The April 7th event is now an invite-only event, according to a meeting with Travis County Commissioners Court members yesterday. Judge Andy Brown confirmed with another member of the court the event would be invite-only. “We’re currently working through that invite list, and the invites have not been sent out yet but they will be pretty soon,” the person said.
Previously, it was thought that Tesla would allow prospective attendees to apply for tickets, as it did with Giga Fest at Gigafactory Berlin. However, it seems Tesla will be handling all 15,000 invitations at its own discretion.
Yesterday was an opportunity for members of the public to come forward and voice concerns regarding the April 7th Giga Fest, which will be 30 percent inside the factory and 70 percent on the outdoor grounds, according to Travis County documents. While the court unanimously approved Tesla’s application, which was submitted in February by the automaker, one concern was brought forward by a man named Paul, who has worked on the Colorado River Conservancy Project for “almost a full year.” Paul stated he represented the Environmental Justice Organization based in East Austin.
Tesla Giga Fest at Giga Texas: Attendance figures, time, other details revealed
“It’s a small item, right,” Paul said. “The granting of a mass gathering permit so that Tesla can have a grand opening celebration. I don’t see it that way,” he said. “I see it as an opportunity for us and for you all to do two things.”
Paul, whose last name is DiFiore, according to Bloomberg, went on to detail the lack of community engagement on the project this far, and requested the Commissioner’s Court to “apply pressure on the company to please slow down.”
“Take this analogy: I just moved to a new neighborhood in Austin, and that is Commissioner [Brigid] Shea’s Precinct,” they said. “My partner and I made cookies and made notes and took it to our neighbors and they were reciprocated with thoughtful items and how to if I need tree trimming to let [neighbors] next door know, and we shake hands. What if I moved to the neighborhood and said nothing to anyone for two years? What if I spent every day doing landscaping work and tearing down trees and building stuff and throwing dust all over my neighbors’ houses, and how about re-routing my driveway and discharging polluted water into our neighborhood creek and blocking the street with massive trucks?”
Shea responded, stating Paul’s comments were appreciated, agreeing that Tesla should do more community outreach. “I do think that there is a need for more community outreach and communication and for the Tesla folks listening, I think that you have lots of opportunities to meet more with the community and really form a powerful partnership. So I would really encourage you to do that,” Shea said. “But I am not willing to turn down this permit for this big event they have planned for a while.”
Credit: Joe Tegtmeyer/YouTube
Shea also stated that emails from residents of the neighborhood adjacent to the site had complained about fireworks testing for the event. One resident, who lives in a house furthest away from the Gigafactory Texas facility, said they thought “a bomb went off, a plane went down, or something exploded.”
The Court said it would contact Tesla for more specific plans for fireworks to prepare for potential weather issues and fallout, which would protect residents from potential hazards. “If they were to do a firework show, there would have to be stand-by units and we’d coordinate with the Austin Fire Department in this situation.
I’d love to hear from you! If you have any comments, concerns, or questions, please email me at joey@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @KlenderJoey, or if you have news tips, you can email us at tips@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
