It is not rare to see Tesla enthusiasts from India asking CEO Elon Musk about updates on the electric car maker’s entry into the country. This is especially notable considering that some India-based EV enthusiasts have been holding on to their Model 3 deposits for several years now. Musk, for his part, has remarked that it is quite difficult to enter India as an electric car company due to local protectionist policies. But perhaps Tesla’s entry into India does not necessarily have to be driven by its electric cars. Perhaps a more viable strategy is to enter India through Tesla Energy.
Tesla’s entry in India has pretty much been in the air for years. Back in June 2017, Elon Musk noted that Tesla was “In discussions with the government of India requesting temporary relief on import penalties/restrictions until a local factory is built.” Almost a year later, Musk posted an update on Tesla’s impending India push on Twitter, stating that while the company would love to enter the country, there are some “challenging government regulations” that need to be addressed first. The CEO then stated that Tesla will be in India as soon as then CFO Deepak Ahuja, who hails from the country, believes it’s the right time.
References to India’s challenging regulations were echoed by Musk a year later, following the 2019 SpaceX Hyperloop Pod Competition. After the competition, the Avishkar Hyperloop team from IIT Madras asked Musk when Tesla will be in India. Musk reportedly responded that the company may enter the country in about a year’s time. Since then, Musk has been quite silent about Tesla’s India push, until recently, when he apologized to an EV enthusiast from the country who has held a Model 3 reservation for four years now.
Challenging regulations aside, the idea of Tesla establishing a dedicated electric vehicle factory in India may not be the optimal idea for now. As noted by Galileo Russell in a recent livestream on his Hyperchange YouTube channel, vehicle sales in India are dominated largely by two-wheeled or three-wheeled vehicles, thanks in part to the population density of the region. There is an emerging electric vehicle market in the country, but it will likely take years before it matures enough to develop a considerable electric passenger vehicle segment.
Best-selling passenger cars in India tend to be lower-priced and smaller as well, making the market very competitive. This means that Tesla, whose smallest vehicle is a premium midsize sedan in the form of the Model 3, would likely have challenges attracting the conventional Indian car buyer. The story completely changes if Tesla has a smaller, more affordable vehicle in its lineup, of course, but the release of such a car could still be a few years out.
With this in mind, does it mean that it won’t be worth it for Tesla to enter the Indian market? Absolutely not. While India may not be a very attractive market for large premium vehicles, the country is the perfect place to ramp an energy business that’s focused on solar panels and battery storage. Fortunately, Tesla actually has an Energy department that fits this bill, and the company is hard at work in ramping it up. Tesla Energy could then be the perfect entry point in India, on account of the country’s push towards sustainability. India’s power grid is known for its areas of improvement as well, making it a good fit for Tesla’s battery storage solutions.
Provided that Tesla Energy could price its solar panels and battery storage devices competitively, the company could have a good shot at making an impact in the Indian market. Tesla already prices its solar solutions in the United States very aggressively, and with a dedicated facility in India (perhaps a Gigafactory India is in order?), the company could take over a good portion of the country’s residential and commercial market. Such would go hand in hand with Tesla’s next-generation batteries as well, which are expected to be cheaper to produce and far more durable and high powered compared to their predecessors.
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
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
