News
Ford seemingly denies Tesla’s existence as it supports CA’s zero-emissions initiative
A recent press conference from California Governor Gavin Newsom proved to be quite interesting for the Tesla and electric car community. During his speech, where he praised California’s place as the leader in the United States’ electric vehicle movement, the governor dubbed veteran automaker Ford as the leader in the EV sector. Even more interestingly, the CA governor seemed almost intent to leave Tesla out when he was speaking about the state’s EV milestones.
The governor’s speech was shared on Twitter by Ford COO Jim Farley, who noted that the veteran carmaker is the only American automaker to stand behind California in its efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This statement promptly raised some eyebrows and sarcastic jokes from the online EV community, considering that Tesla, an all-American automaker, has been mass-producing zero-emissions cars in the state for years. The fact that there was a Model 3 parked beside a Ford Mustang Mach-E during the speech was just icing on the cake.
“I want to thank in particular a number of automobile manufacturers that get it and are starting to get it done, led by Bill Ford and Ford. They have been a leader in this space. They’re not a laggard, and they’re not willing to just suffer the fate of a future of dirtier air, dirtier water, and more climate disruption. They want to lead and they are leading with innovation and an entrepreneurial mindset that’s leading to more customer choice, that’s leading to new technological advancements, and allow them to be on the vanguard of leadership, not just in the United States as a manufacturer, but around the rest of the world,” the governor said.
As noted by tech YouTuber and EV advocate Jeremy Judkins, things get even more interesting when one looks at the governor’s statements before his comments on Ford’s EV leadership. Newsom highlighted that California has 34 manufactures of electric vehicles, and he also remarked that EVs represent the second-largest export of the state. The governor added that the market caps of the publicly-traded electric car makers in California stand at nearly half a trillion dollars.
“Currently today, the state has 34 manufacturers of electric vehicles. No state in America comes close. This state represents just shy of 50% of all the electric vehicle purchases in the United States of America. We have, by one estimate, close to three-quarters of a million electric vehicles in the State of California — 726,000 at last count— no state comes close. Our second-largest export, rather, in the State of California is electric vehicles.
“Those 34 manufacturers represent — those publicly traded manufacturers — represent close to one half a trillion dollars of market capitalization. Some $500 billion. This is an economic opportunity, the opportunity to transform our economy across sectors, the opportunity to accelerate innovation in the entrepreneurial spirit, the opportunity to bring more companies here into the State of California, creating more jobs,” Newsom said.
It should be noted that Tesla represents the lion’s share of the EV exports that the California governor was referring to. The company also represents the majority of the combined $500 billion market cap of the state’s electric car makers, considering that Tesla currently has a market cap of about $360 billion on its own. These figures, as well as the presence of a literal Tesla just a few feet away from Newsom’s podium, made the governor’s speech rather peculiar on its own.
Granted, Ford could probably justify its statements by claiming that Tesla is not a pure automaker, but a tech company per se. Still, the rather discrete denial of the electric car maker’s existence in an event about reducing greenhouse gas emissions is still quite strange nonetheless. That being said, Ford could not claim to be a purely American carmaker either, considering that some of the vehicles it sells in the country are produced in foreign territories. The Mustang Mach-E, for example, will be made in Ford’s Cuautitlán Izcalli, Mexico plant, making the vehicle not quite as “American” as its competitor, the Tesla Model Y, which is produced in California.
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
