News
Tesla on hold as Texas court debates Cybertruck factory impact on taxpayers
Texas county officials where Tesla is seriously considering a Cybertruck factory are still debating over an incentive package to help bring the electric carmaker to the Lone Star State.
After two nights of discussion on the pros and cons of the move, the Travis County Commissioners Court has again postponed a vote on the matter to a date next week; however, from the recent comments, it’s clear that while many local executives and business leaders are optimistic about the economic benefits of Tesla’s presence, they have concerns about taxpayers and worker benefits.
During the Court’s session on July 7th, itself a continuation of a discussion on the matter in the prior week, several community call-ins indicated a wariness towards large employers that may not have the local taxpayers and employees’ best interest at heart.
“We are enthusiastic about companies that would like to come and take advantage of our vibrant culture and economy. With regard to Tesla, we’d like to affirm they are welcome, and that as long as they are spending their own money they are welcome to come on their own terms. If, however, they want local taxpayers to help pay for their move, the county needs to hold Tesla accountable to the same standards that it holds itself accountable to. In particular…a livable minimum wage,” commented Michael Floyd, a leader within the All Saints’ Episcopal Church in central Texas.
Jessica Wolff, deputy policy director for Workers Defense Project added, “Tesla has said that they will provide 5,000 middle skilled jobs. Our community needs more transparency. We need specifics. What types of jobs? How many will be temporary vs. permanent? What are the starting wages and benefits each will receive?”
Notably, Tesla seems to have provided fairly specific wage and benefit information in a presentation considered by the Travis County Court on June 23rd this year. Tesla’s impact on the Reno, Nevada community surrounding Gigafactory 1 could also be a positive testament to the carmaker’s potential benefit to Texas.
Manuel Quinto-Pozos, representing the UAW and himself as an employment lawyer, agreed with Wolff’s comments and requested that Tesla expands on its concerns with previously discussed building standards. Jeremy Hendricks, representing local construction labor unions, also requested complete transparency in the onboarding process to ensure minimal pay and safety for workers. On a more negative note, caller Juan Bellman was completely opposed to any incentives being offered by the community. “I wanted to oppose Tesla receiving any economic development incentives,” he said bluntly. “As mentioned, I went to Travis High School and I know that my community does not need a multi-billion [dollar] company coming and receiving those taxes that I know the community needs more than them.”
The Court reconvened on July 8th where the call-in comments were more enthusiastic about the economic prospects from Tesla’s presence.
“I’m calling to urge you to approve this deal and bring Tesla to the region,” rallied executive director Ed Latson of Austin Regional Manufacturers Association (ARMA). “We think it’s an extraordinary opportunity, a political win, a cultural win, and an economic win that we have never seen. This court has the opportunity to bring hundreds of millions of dollars of economic impact to a region that has been neglected economically…[and]…impacted negatively by the current economic conditions and really give them skills and a pathway to the middle class.”
The incentives being discussed are property tax rebates worth around $15 million dollars over the course of ten years. In addition to economic incentives from Travis County, Tesla is pursuing a school tax abatement request with the Del Valle Independent School District which would save the company around $50 million over the same ten year time period. Their application package has been submitted and approved, but the District’s Board has yet to take a vote on the matter. Tesla’s decision on whether to make the Austin area its new home may hinge on gaining these tax approvals and community resistance may also explain CEO Elon Musk’s continued consideration of Tulsa, Oklahoma as an alternative location.
The Travis County Court again postponed a vote on the incentives after the July 8th session, the judge indicating that another discussion would be held on July 14th.
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
