News
Tesla’s $5B giga battery factory will disrupt more than carmakers and utilities
Making sense of Tesla Motors’ giga battery factory means taking a few steps back to see the bigger picture. We invite you to come along this electric ride as we put the pieces together and see just how disruptive Tesla really is.
Tesla is disrupting more than carmakers.
First things first, Tesla Motors isn’t a carmaker. Sorry to break it to you, but Tesla is a statement, an energy company, a lifestyle enabler and much more, wrapping it altogether into sexy computers on wheels. This is the biggest flaw carmakers made, seeing Tesla Motors as competition. Don’t believe us?
Tesla Motors, the energy management company.
Tesla Motors answered all of your electric vehicle (EV) needs, even those you didn’t know you had. What other carmaker offers you free supercharger? What other carmaker gives you soon the possibility to zip from Los Angeles to San Francisco swapping two or three battery packs? And even better, who gives you the option to pick up your original pack or keep the new one for a fee? Tesla is an EV enabler and much more.
Tesla Motors, the energy producing company.
Spending $5 billion on a battery manufacturing plant means serious business. It also means serious competition for a few unsuspecting industries, such as utilities and battery makers. Carmakers can’t make that kind of investment in battery technology, and won’t. It is too far out their business model.
Utilities is the industry segment Tesla is going after. This investment means Tesla will recycle lithium batteries and use them as storage with the solar energy it harvests. Connecting the plant to the grid means deadly competition for utilities, still trying to understand how to use EVs to their advantage. Tesla will force them to buy their energy or create their own micro-grid.
Tesla Motors, the battery company.
Tesla knows the price of lithium batteries has to continue to come down. Traditional companies struck strategic alliances to outlets, but not Tesla. After buying off the shelf, commodity lithium-ion batteries, it now will forgo the middleman to build its own batteries. This is yet another threat to battery makers worldwide. To think of the application this battery manufacturing plant has is staggering.
Tesla Motors, the lifestyle enabler challenges marketing.
More than anything, Tesla is beyond a performance cool car that runs on electrons. Tesla revolutionized the world of marketing and advertising by… not advertising. It’s not only brilliant, it saved the company millions of dollars better spent in R&D. Let’s face it, these advertising campaigns are not efficient. Why would you trust a manufacturer’s claim to be the best? It’s so impartial; everyone knows it and it just doesn’t work. Tesla is shaking the marketing world who is left to figure out what the “next big thing” is.
Tesla simply lets you drive your Model S for others to see that lifestyle statement. Remember that the Model S outsells any other car in its price range. If you think it bothers GM and Ford, imagine how Mercedes, BMW and Audi feel.
Can Tesla do no wrong?
We would be remiss not to point that the company is on a fast track to complete and absolute success in more than one industry. Still, as with such potential success, the opposite is equally valid. Investors are the Achilles heel, as the company’s stock price inflates to ridiculous levels. They could soon make unrealistic demands that could force the company down murky waters. Even Elon Musk agrees Tesla’s stocks are over-inflated.
It’s going to hurt when mainstream carmakers fully understand the wide-reaching scope of the Tesla Motors’ effect. They cannot compete with it, as much as they cannot compete with Apple or IBM. They will desperately try to catch up with a company that isn’t a carmaker. This year, utilities will wake up to the Tesla threat, after they barely get a grasp on what EVs mean for them. They will try to benefit using outdated models, but Tesla will throw a monkey wrench. Remember that if you stand in the way of Tesla, they will remove you by manufacturing it.
As we move away from a national grid to a smart grid system, with localized smart grids, utilities will have to switch from energy producers to energy managers. These are business model changes none of these industries are not equipped to make. Tesla Motors has played a fine chess game, not too many industries fully understand.
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
