News
Tesla again urges investors to vote in favor of Musk pay plan, Texas move
Tesla has shared a new video ahead of its upcoming Annual Shareholders Meeting next month, urging voters once again to vote in favor of two proposals: CEO Elon Musk’s recently struck-down compensation plan from 2018 and the company’s re-incorporation in Texas.
As the latest in Tesla’s efforts to get shareholders to vote in favor of the re-incorporation plan and Musk’s previously approved pay package, the company’s main account on X shared a new video on Monday, once again encouraging investors to vote in favor of the proposals. The votes on moving incorporation from Delaware to Texas and the Musk compensation plan re-vote, which are numbered three and four, respectively, follow Judge Kathaleen McCormick’s decision in January to void the CEO’s 2018 pay plan.
In the post, Tesla calls the proposals “especially important,” saying that voting in favor of them will “protect your rights as stockholders & protect the value of your investment.”
The video also includes a past speech from Musk, in which he reiterates the company’s mission to help the world transition to a global, sustainable economy. It also highlights the company’s development of multiple technologies, including its electric vehicles (EVs) and their eventual autonomy, energy storage, and the Optimus humanoid robot.
“Tesla stockholders, YOU have the ability to enhance the future of the company,” writes Tesla near the video’s end. “For the past six years, under Elon Musk’s leadership, you’ve seen the value of your investment increase ~1,100 percent.
“The present and future value creation that Tesla is poised to deliver for all of you is at risk. We need your vote. Protect Tesla.”
You can see the full video below.
We have put forward two especially important proposals for our Annual Meeting of Stockholders—and we need your vote.
Protect your rights as stockholders & protect the value of your investment by voting FOR the ratification of the 2018 CEO Performance Award & FOR Reincorporating… pic.twitter.com/ONmB7oZfyM
— Tesla (@Tesla) May 20, 2024
“The Tesla team put this together of their own volition (I did not ask for it),” Musk wrote in a repost of the video on X. “Thanks!”
The Board of Directors has consistently also voiced their support for the proposals, with Board Chair Robyn Denholm recently sharing her thoughts on the judge’s decision and Musk’s pay package in general.
“Elon has not been paid for any of his work for Tesla for the past six years… That strikes us, and the many stockholders from whom we already have heard, as fundamentally unfair,” Denholm said last month. “We do not think that what the Delaware Court said is how corporate law should or does work. If it is legally advisable, we suggest simply subjecting the original 2018 package to a new shareholder vote.”
Tesla also recently launched a website both encouraging shareholders to vote yes on three and four, and detailing how they can vote through various brokerage platforms. According to a report from Bloomberg, Tesla also hired a strategic adviser to “bolster the campaign,” though shareholders have been divided on how to vote on the proposals.
One of Tesla’s largest individual shareholders, for example, has recently been blasting Musk on X in recent weeks, even going on to describe Musk as a “magician,” and the pay package ratification vote as a “robbery attempt.” Many have criticized Musk specifically for recent, widespread layoffs at the company—especially including the Supercharging team, which was let go before Tesla later re-hired a few people.
Others have voiced strong support for the pay package, saying they voted with the board’s recommendations on both proposals. At the time of writing, about 66 percent of those who have responded to recent Teslarati stories about ratifying Musk’s 2018 pay package said they voted in favor of the proposal, while the remaining 34 percent said they voted against it. Respondents ranged from having just a few Tesla shares to over 7,000, while the vast majority of those who reached out didn’t include how many shares they owned.
The vote is being held between now and Tesla’s Annual Shareholders Meeting, which is scheduled for June 13.
Tesla’s largest retail shareholder continues push against Elon Musk’s $56B pay package
What are your thoughts? How did you vote on these proposals? Let me know at zach@teslarati.com, find me on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send us tips 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
