News
Adoption of Tesla’s electric truck will be driven by regulation
It’s expected that the commercial trucking industry will begin to transform in the same way that the passenger automotive industry has. Fuel efficiency has become a new priority and electrification is now the go-to plan for achieving higher MPGs in heavy trucking. In much the same way that regulations pushed trucking towards lower pollution at the expense of efficiency in the 1970s, today’s trucking paradigm is seeing a push for more efficiency. At what expense?
A new report from Ravi Shanker at Morgan Stanley urges investors to consider electric and self-driving commercial trucking as an opportunity. Shanker says that regulations and economics will drive the industry towards electrification and autonomous technologies. The analyst says that this could happen as early as 2020, which is when new federal fuel economy regulations on heavy-duty vehicles begin to really gather steam. Although efficiency gains will be had with electrification and self-driving, Shanker makes it clear that this will be secondary to the demand created by regulatory pressure.
As usual, we look to California for a glimpse of what could be coming. California’s Sustainable Freight Action Plan calls for 100,000+ zero-emissions trucks to be on the road by 2030 in that state. There is debate as to whether this plan is realistic, but federal standards are also playing a large role. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (part of the federal Department of Transportation) have proposed emissions and fuel economy standards for heavy-duty vehicles. The first of these began with the 2014 model year.
For our purposes, the regulations affecting “combination tractors” (aka “tractor-trailer” or “18 wheeler”) models are pertinent. The 2018 standards are relatively loose and most in the industry believe they are achievable, but the EPA and NHTSA have proposed further standards to begin in 2021, with incremental increases thereafter through to 2027. The goals are largely aimed towards lower CO2 emissions with reductions of about four percent (depending on the vehicle type) being the goal. The reduction is not the issue with industry insiders, however, it’s the test cycle to be used, which some argue is less realistic and which disfavors other emissions that also have requirements to be met. This Phase 2 of the federal efficiency standards for heavy trucks is not yet finalized, but will very likely be the driving force behind national changes in trucks.
Equating these changes into standard numbers that the general public would understand is difficult. Heavy-duty trucks can range in fuel efficiency from 20 mpg or better down to 2-3 mpg. For most tractor-trailer combinations, MPG averages of 4-9 mpg are the norm, depending on load, tractor type, and area of operation. Most analysts calculate efficiency using fuel use in tons per mile with a relatively long distance (100-500 miles) being the average. Using this method, for example, in my time driving a tractor pulling a refrigerated trailer across all 48 states, my fuel economy average was about average for that sector of the industry at roughly 60 ton-miles per gallon. Today, these numbers are slightly higher, according to the latest U.S. Transportation Energy book. Using this method of calculation, a 2015 Toyota Prius is about a third as efficient at moving freight as was my truck.
This doesn’t mean there isn’t room for improvement, of course. There are more companies than Tesla working towards deleting the smoke stacks from big trucks.
In Europe, Volvo trucks is working hard towards a zero-emissions (at the tailpipe anyway) trucking solution with several approaches being tested. An overhead tram-like charging system has been deployed for a short stretch of highway in Sweden, aiming to improve plug-in trucks’ range in EV mode. Short-haul battery electrics and two different versions of autonomous (or semi-autonomous) systems are also being tested.
Here in the States, Volvo’s Mack Trucks is working on a handful of electrification options for heavy-duty drivetrains. So is Daimler (Freightliner, Western Star in the U.S.). Startups like Nikola also have eyes on this electric trucking future. Other startups have hoped to get into the mix as well, but the failure rate is high with companies like Smith Electric, Vision Industries, and Boulder Electric having designed and marketed innovative commercial truck options that ultimately never caught on.
Meanwhile, the largest maker of electric heavy vehicles is Chinese maker BYD, who branched out from making gadget batteries into building electric buses, trucks, and more. They are currently filling contracts internationally for buses and trucks in places as disparate at California, Malaysia, and Europe. BYD builds battery-electric, hydrogen fuel cell electric, plug-in hybrid, and hybrid drivetrains and machines for several commercial market sectors.
So we can guarantee that changes to the trucking industry are coming, but no one can say how fast or how much change that will be. Current federal regulations will drive the industry forward until 2018 and it’s likely that new standards will be in place to keep carrying change forward after that. California’s ambitious plans for adopting electric trucks will be largely regulation and incentive driven, but that has down sides as well. Many of the startups we’ve seen who’ve created electrified big rigs or delivery trucks ultimately failed when the incentives began to dry up.
For Tesla, this could mean that the financial case for the Tesla Semi will need to be more economics-based and less dependent on single market, incentives-based plans. This means that Elon and Co should be looking beyond California and it’s 100,000 vehicle plans into a broader market. We’ll discuss the potential economic case for a Tesla Semi in a future editorial.
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
