Tesla’s online configurator for its electric cars primarily shows a price that’s adjusted for incentives and estimated fuel savings. These savings vary depending on the vehicle being ordered, with the company listing estimated gas savings of $4,300 for the Model 3 and Model Y, $5,300 for the Model X, and $5,500 for the Model S. These may seem like optimistic estimates, but as it turns out, these figures are actually conservative, at least for the majority of the United States.
Tesla’s fuel savings estimate is based on the premise that charging an all-electric vehicle is a lot more affordable than filling up the tank of a petrol-powered car. Looking at the company’s estimates, it appears that the listed fuel savings for the Model S, 3, X, and Y are based on the assumption that drivers would drive their Tesla for 10,000 miles annually for a period of six years. The costs of charging a Tesla over this period is then compared to the estimated costs of refueling a comparable vehicle, such as a BMW, with premium gasoline.
This strategy actually makes sense, considering that the all-electric construction of a Tesla will likely allow the vehicle to be used for at least six years. The comparison with BMW’s vehicles is quite sound as well, seeing as both companies offer premium cars that perform and compete in the same segment. That being said, EV charging rate monitoring service Optiwatt noted in a recent report that Tesla’s estimated gas savings are a lot more nuanced than what the company’s online configurator would suggest.
If there is one area where Tesla could be faulted, it is in the way that its estimated fuel savings for the US are the same regardless of the state where the car is being purchased. Different states have different electricity and average fuel prices, which means that there are some places where Tesla drivers could save more than the company’s own estimates, and areas where the opposite will be accurate. Take Hawaii, for example. The state pays 32 cents per kWh of electricity, which is over three times higher than the 9 cents per kWh that are paid by residents in Oklahoma.
Fuel consumption varies across states as well, with drivers in rural areas consuming more petrol and drivers in high-density states like New York consuming less. Wyoming drivers buy the most gas per capita at 609 gallons per person per year, while New York purchases less than half at 292 gallons per person per year. Considering that Tesla’s fuel savings rely on the price discrepancy between electricity and gas, owners who drive more are more likely to meet the company’s fuel savings estimates compared to owners who drive less.
Optiwatt’s analysis notes that ultimately, there are some areas in the United States where owning a Tesla will save drivers far more than what the company’s estimates would suggest, and there are some areas where fuel savings will be underwhelming. Driving a Model Y in Rhode Island for 10,000 miles every year for six years will save owners about $4,235 in fuel costs, which is a bit less than the company’s $4,300 estimate. Driving the all-electric crossover in Wyoming for six years, on the other hand, will give owners fuel savings of $11,122, over two times the company’s estimates.
A look at Optiwatt’s data shows that Tesla’s newer vehicles like the Model 3 and Model Y are more likely to meet the company’s fuel savings estimates, despite the Model S and Model X’s free Supercharging capabilities. Yet on average, across Tesla’s vehicle lineup, it appears that Americans can expect to save about $2,500 more than the company’s estimated savings over a six-year period. This bodes well for electric cars and their economic appeal as a whole. After all, a Tesla is not just designed to run for 6 years. With the company’s million-mile batteries poised to be released soon, Tesla drivers over the years will likely see even more fuel savings for every electric car purchase.
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
