Tesla is suing the State of Louisiana over a law that restricts its ability to sell EVs directly to customers which violate its constitutional rights, The Wall Street Journal reported. Tesla is also fighting for the freedom of not just me but all Louisiana consumers. Currently, we have one service center in New Orleans and it almost got shut down.
Last year, the Louisiana Motor Vehicle Commission, appointed by Governor John Bel Edwards, was trying to stop Tesla from providing warranty repairs at the New Orleans service center which would have forced Louisianans to travel out of state for warranty service. This also would have led to the shutdown of Tesla’s only service center in our state.
Today, it was announced that Tesla is suing the Louisiana Automobile Dealers Association, multiple officials on the Louisiana Motor Vehicle Commission, and some dealerships in the state for conspiring to bring our current laws and regulations into place. According to Tesla,
“Louisiana consumers’ freedom is being unduly restricted by protectionist, anti-competitive, and inefficient state regulation and laws.”
@elonmusk, anything I can do to help? I flew to New Jersey and San Diego to pick up both of my Tesla. The drive back was so worth it, but most people would not want to travel to pick up a car.
— Price Sicard (@ThePriceSicard) August 29, 2022
A friend of mine from Louisiana who is also active in the Tesla Twitter community, Price Sicard, had to fly to New Jersey to pick up his Tesla. He later flew to San Diego to pick up another Tesla and he drove back both times.
“The drive back was so worth it but most people would not want to travel to pick up a car,” Price said.
He also told me that he learned the hard way that buying a Tesla in California was different from purchasing a car.
“I paid sales tax on the Tesla in California and Louisiana. It wasn’t as much in Louisiana. But I did pay more in taxes.”
My 2.5¢
Naturally, I have some thoughts about this. These laws hurt consumers. You shouldn’t have to pay sales tax twice on a new car.
As a Louisiana resident, I can tell you that some of our laws are just nuts. And although I don’t drive, I do want to learn and eventually own a Tesla someday. However, our state leaders really don’t care about the ‘little people’ as they say.
Although it’s unrelated, I want to point out that what is happening to the residents of New Orleans as a result of politics. It shows the mentality of our state’s leaders.
The Louisiana State Bond Commission has voted twice to delay the approval of a $39 million line of credit that would pay for New Orleans to run its drainage pumps and protect its residents from flooding. This funding is critical. However, our state leaders are so pro-life that they are fine with residents being flooded out of their homes.
Even though it was the city’s officials and not the over 300,000 residents who made that choice, Louisiana is punishing its people for the choices that they had no control over. If our state leaders are willing to do this to their own people, then they will fight Tesla to keep it from selling EVs to its consumers directly.
Whether or not you’re for or against abortion isn’t the issue here. The issue is there are innocent people are vulnerable to flooding which happens often. It’s rained almost every day here since July and I’ve lost power 3 or 4 times due to the summer storms.
And if another hurricane like Ida comes along, it would be bad for those who can’t evacuate.
Again, these two topics are unrelated but I just wanted to emphasize the mentality of our state’s leaders. And I really hope that Tesla wins. Tesla has customers here in Louisiana who would love to not have to deal with the hassles that these backward laws bring.
Note: Johnna is a Tesla shareholder and supports its mission.
Your feedback is important. If you have any comments, or concerns, or see a typo, you can email me at johnna@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @JohnnaCrider1
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
