News
Tesla’s win in Michigan marks a point of no return for traditional auto
After resisting Tesla for years, the heart of American auto, Michigan, finally allowed the electric car maker to establish a foothold in the state. It was a hard-fought battle for Tesla, and a victory well worth more than CEO Elon Musk’s one-word celebration on Twitter. But at the same time, Tesla’s settlement with Michigan, which would allow the company to sell and service its cars in the state, marks a point of no return for traditional auto.
It may not be evident now, but from this point on, it will be twice as difficult for states to resist disruptive new EV makers that do not follow a traditional dealership sales model. This means that even other carmakers such as Rivian will likely have a clear path forward in their expansion into the United States’ auto market, absent of the direct sales roadblocks that the Elon Musk-led company has dealt with for years.
Michigan is considered the heart of the US auto industry, and for good reason. The country’s motoring history was written within the state’s borders, and iconic companies that changed the industry, such as Ford, call Michigan their home. Yet, for all its dedication to the car industry, Michigan has also been very resistant to Tesla, preventing the electric car maker from selling its vehicles in the state due to the company’s direct sales strategy.
Tesla’s difficulties in Michigan were a painful reminder that the company’s goal of transitioning the transportation industry towards sustainability would be marred with difficulties left and right, signified by the state’s dealer franchise laws. This is one of the reasons why the company’s settlement with the state is so important. Daniel Crane, a University of Michigan law professor who specializes in antitrust and regulatory issues, explained these points in an interview with Automotive News.
“The handwriting’s on the wall for the franchised dealer as the exclusive way consumers interact with car companies. It’s pretty clear it’d be impossible for the state to deny someone else; it paves the way for any new EV company that doesn’t want to use traditional dealerships.”
“The legacy companies can’t continue forever to use a dealer model from the 1930s. Being required to use only that, I think, is a competitive disadvantage. They’ll have to find a way to get flexibility in their distribution method, or they’ll be left behind,” he said.
The dealer model deserves some recognition, as the United States’ auto industry would likely not have gotten this far without it. Yet in the age of electrification, dealerships, which are known for their flexible pricing strategies and reliance on regular vehicle maintenance, are starting to become outdated. Tesla is the living representation of this, as the company’s cars are priced like tech devices, and its vehicles require far less maintenance compared to internal combustion cars.
One key takeaway from Tesla’s conquest and subsequent victory in Michigan is the fact that the electric car maker is only the first of many. The state has allowed the company to sell and service its cars within its borders, and it will be hard-pressed to not do the same for other automakers. Tesla may be leading the charge, after all, but it is not alone. There’s Rivian, which is also planning on adopting a non-dealership sales model, and more are likely coming. By allowing Tesla to sell and service its cars within the state, Michigan has just accelerated the industry’s transition to sustainability.
Very few may see it now, but through this little settlement with Tesla, the US auto industry may have just passed the proverbial point of no return.
Tesla’s recent settlement with the state of Michigan can be read below.
Tesla-MI-Joint Stipulation and Motion for Entry of Dismissal 1-22-20 679161 7 by Simon Alvarez on Scribd
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
