News
Tesla’s rivals from legacy auto are facing a day of reckoning due to the pandemic
In Volkswagen’s Zwickau plant in Germany, a storm seems to be brewing. The veteran automaker has put a lot of its cards on the ID.3, its upcoming all-electric hatchback. But with the pandemic still maintaining its hold on the global automotive market, things are starting to look a lot more challenging.
Volkswagen initially planned to produce the ID.3 en masse at the expansive facility. The Zwickau plant is expected to be one of the largest electric car factories in the globe, and it is poised to be a key factor in the German automaker’s attempt at closing the gap between itself and electric vehicle pioneer Tesla. Unfortunately for Volkswagen, the pandemic has thrown a proverbial wrench at its plans.
The effects of the COVID-19 virus will be felt for years to come, and the automotive sector will be among those that will likely take a massive hit. With the economic pressures of the pandemic, car buyers are expected to be more conservative about big ticket purchases. This could prove challenging for veteran automakers and their respective EV programs, as their electric lineup will likely hold a premium price over their more affordable gas-powered cars.
A premium price for electric vehicles will likely be a weight that legacy automakers would have to bear. With dropping oil prices, internal combustion cars could become more attractive to budget-conscious buyers. Tesla is pretty much immune to this, since the company only produces all-electric vehicles, and its cars are only getting more affordable. This was highlighted by the company’s recent decision to drop the price of its Model S, Model 3, and Model X, as well as its release of the Model Y.
In a recent statement to Bloomberg, Volkswagen has stated that when it comes to its shift to electric vehicles, the company has simply reached a point where there is no turning back. The pandemic has pretty much crushed demand for vehicles, and all-electric cars like the ID.3 are poised to enter uncharted territory. This was addressed by Thomas Ulbrich, who runs Volkswagen’s EV business. In a statement, he noted that ultimately, “we all have a historic task to accomplish to protect the health of our employees—and at the same time get business back on track responsibly.”
For VW, this means that the company has to push through with the ID.3 regardless of the existing challenges in the market. CEO Herbert Diess, an avid supporter of the electric car movement who has earned the respect of Tesla’s Elon Musk, hinted at this in previous comments. In a post last month on LinkedIn, Diess stated that he and his colleagues are still hard at work with the ID.3. “My new working week starts together with Thomas Ulbrich at the wheel of a Volkswagen ID.3 – our most important project to meet the European CO2-targets in 2020 and 2021. We are fighting hard to keep our timeline for the launches to come,” the CEO wrote.
Prior to the onset of the coronavirus, Volkswagen was poised to push the ID.3 as the first of its flagship electric vehicle line. But with the pandemic, things are poised for some big changes. The German automaker has already started adapting to these coming changes, and some seem to be partly inspired by younger carmakers such as Tesla. The company, for example, has decided to offer its ID.3 line online. Volkswagen has also started rolling out touchless test drives, just like Tesla in the United States and China.
But things will not be easy. The global automotive market will take a hit this year because of the pandemic, and some companies may end up in dire straits. French finance minister Bruno Le Maire has stated that Renault SA, the maker of the popular Zoe electric car, can “disappear” without state aid. Even Toyota, a company that is largely considered as an immovable pillar in the automotive segment, has warned that its profits will likely tumble to the lowest level in almost a decade.
For now, the best bet for automakers planning on releasing electric cars would be to release vehicles that provide what car buyers in the post pandemic would prefer: value and practicality. Tesla’s bet for this lies in the Model Y and the Model 3, as both cars are reasonably priced and offer the best that the EV industry has to offer. Hopefully, automakers like Volkswagen would be able to accomplish the same.
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
