Tesla Sweden is seemingly facing its toughest challenge yet in its ongoing conflict with trade union IF Metall. As per recent reports, sympathy strikes from the Swedish Union for Service and Communications Employees (Seko) and the Electricians Union have successfully put a stop to Tesla Sweden’s expansion of its Supercharger Network.
As per a report from Dagens Arbete (DA), Tesla Sweden currently has plans to build about 35 new Supercharger stations in the coming years, from Malmö in the south to Kiruna in the north. This 2024, the electric vehicle maker has been planning to open 20 new Supercharger sites. These plans appear to have been put on hold for now since Seko’s members have stopped connecting Tesla’s Superchargers to local power grids. Seko announced on March 4 that its members will no longer connect Tesla Superchargers to the local power grid, and on March 20, 2024, the Electricians Union expanded its sympathy strike to include new Tesla Supercharger installations.
Janne Halvarsson, group manager at Seko Mellannorrland, stated that he was recently at a new Tesla Supercharger site just north of Sundsvall. As per Halvarsson, the Sundsvall site will probably be the last new Tesla Supercharger for some time, or at least until Tesla Sweden and IF Metall resolve their conflict. “It was connected the week before our blockade started. We had full control of it. I was there myself to see that everything went right,” he said.
IF Metall and its allies have initiated a number of efforts designed to disrupt and stop Tesla Sweden, but the electric vehicle maker has so far been able to bypass the groups’ strikes and blockades. Halvarsson, however, noted that Tesla Sweden will likely find it much harder to deal with the unions’ initiatives against its Supercharger Network. As per Dagens Arbete, the electricity grids are run as local monopolies in Sweden. For example, in Sundsvall, where Tesla’s possible last Supercharger was activated, Sundsvall Elnät AB owns the power infrastructure.
Thus, there is usually only one power grid owner in each geographical area, and only these electricity grid owners are permitted to connect an installation like a Tesla Supercharger to the grid. If the network owner happens to have a collective agreement with Seko, then it would likely deny power to new Tesla Supercharger stations in their respective areas. “I see it as an impossibility to complete this. The signing of collective agreements among the electricity network companies is high. Many of the companies are owned by the municipalities and there are usually collective agreements,” Halvarsson said.
Ann-Charlotte Kling, chairman of Seko Södra, stated that such a scenario has already happened to a Tesla Supercharger in Ljungby in Småland. The Ljungby Tesla Supercharger site features 20 stalls and is ready for activation, but it has not been connected to the grid yet. “The cables are buried, but there is no electricity in them. And there will be no current in them as long as this conflict continues. They simply will not be connected to the electricity grid,” Kling said.
The local electricity company in the area, Ljungby Energi, has confirmed that it is not providing power to the Tesla Supercharger site due to the ongoing conflict between the EV maker and IF Metall. Network manager Jan Olsson described the situation as follows. “The cable is not connected either at their end or in our cables. It will be like this as long as the conflict lasts. Our electricians are connected to Seko,” Olsson noted.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
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
