Recent rumors have emerged that point to the idea of a Tesla Gigafactory being established in the United Kingdom. This is a bit surprising considering that the company is already in the process of building Gigafactory Berlin, which is located nearby in Germany. Yet in the grand scheme of things, establishing a dedicated facility in the UK actually makes a lot of sense. It could even be a stroke of minor genius.
The rumors of a potential Gigafactory UK initially emerged after European news agency AM-Online posted a report stating that the UK’s Department of International Trade (DIT) was on the hunt for a 4 million sq ft plot of land that would be utilized as a space to build an R&D center and manufacturing plant for Tesla. A DIT spokesperson initially related the information to local publication Property Week, which reports on commercial and residential real estate news in the area.
Even more interestingly, avid Tesla critics who were prone to following the flight paths of Elon Musk’s private plane have noted that the CEO had landed at the Luton Airport on Wednesday. The purpose of Musk’s visit remains unknown, of course, though his presence in the country added fuel to the rumors of a potential Tesla facility hosted in the United Kingdom.
In a way, a dedicated Tesla facility in the UK makes perfect sense, especially considering that the country uses vehicles that are Right Hand Drive (RHD). Over the years, Tesla has started vehicle deliveries in the UK later compared to other countries due to this reason. The Model 3 is a perfect example, with the UK only receiving the all-electric sedan in mid-2019, far later than countries that are Left Hand Drive.
The UK is not the only country that follows RHD. Thus, if Tesla could make RHD-only vehicles from a dedicated UK plant, it would allow the company to ramp and roll out electric cars faster to countries that are Right Hand Drive. The size of the facility would probably not even need to be as expansive as Gigafactory Shanghai or Gigafactory Berlin, as the facility would only be making vehicles of a specific variation.
Tesla’s vehicle business may not be the only reason behind Musk’s recent visit to the United Kingdom as well. A ramp of Tesla Energy in the country may also be a key reason behind the CEO’s recent trip. Just last month, after all, reports revealed that Tesla had applied to become an electricity generator in the UK. In its application to the UK’s Gas and Electricity Markets Authority, Tesla requested for a license that would allow it to generate electricity to supply “any premises” in Great Britain.
With this in mind, it appears that Tesla’s rumored Gigafactory UK might actually be allotted for the ramp of Tesla Energy in the country. Such a facility would benefit the company if it intends to become a key player in the UK’s utility sector, and it complements Gigafactory Berlin very well. With a facility in Berlin producing vehicles and a factory in the UK focusing on the energy side of the company’s business, Tesla would be able to adopt an aggressive two-pronged ramp in the European region.
While addressing investors and analysts at the first quarter earnings call, Elon Musk stated that the next Gigafactory would be announced within the next three months or so. When the CEO stated this, it was widely assumed that Musk was referring to the Cybertruck Gigafactory, which will be established in the United States. But perhaps Musk was referring to more than one Gigafactory announcement. Or perhaps the Cybertruck facility is not considered a Gigafactory anymore due to its speculated “Terafactory” moniker. If that’s the case, then perhaps Gigafactory UK may very well be feasible.
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
