News
Ford’s Farley shows Tesla Motors some love
You know the Mahatma Gandhi saying: “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.” We would probably change it to: “At first, they ignore you. Then, they mock you. Finally, they embrace you” And so this past week, James Farley, Ford’s CMO publicly praised Tesla’s technical fluency and distribution models. Thus begins a new chapter in the evolution of electric vehicles, EV.
When Ford shows the way
Others mainstream carmakers follow. You have to give Ford credit for a few things. They were agile enough, with the right amount of vision to lead the way in the late 2008, revitalizing our nation’s dying car industry. I’ve met with Alan Mullaly and heard Ford Jr. on more than one occasion to know that this dynamic duo saved the carmaker. Ford was the first carmaker to reach out to everyone to spread the message. Today, the media sees this company as one of the most open and inclusive, a starch contrast to many others in the industry.
Although we can argue at length as to Ford’s commitment to EVs, the Focus Electric is one of the best EV in its segment. It drives very well, has decent autonomy and performs exactly as you would expect it. In many ways, it is an ideal second EV. Still, many are frustrated Ford isn’t pushing its Focus Electric more. However, Ford’s number one preoccupation until now was to remain solvent and diversify their wide automotive choice. They created what they called Power of Choice by offering cars with various drivetrains, something they did with brio and more or less, according to public demand. Still, what James proclaimed will probably force other carmakers to acknowledge the wild success and brilliant maneuvering of the small California electric vehicle maker, Tesla Motors.
According to Jim Farley on Seeking Alpha, “Tesla’s achievements have produced benefits for the entire automotive industry.”
Tesla’s distribution, sales and service
If you read further into the article, you will pick up on something very interesting. Ford is impressed with the company’s distribution, sales and service. In other words, Ford, a carmaker, which relies on dealership distributions is saying it is impressed with Tesla’s distribution system, or lack, thereof. Ford is saying that Tesla devised of a working and successful business plan around electric cars, something that has stumped almost all car makers.
Almost all carmakers face the same dilemma when it comes to EVs. How to make money on the electric drivetrain when it requires close to no maintenance. Since carmakers enjoy a steady cash flow from planned maintenance and obsolescence strategy, EVs are a serious thorn for their business plans. In short, carmakers make a bundle on spare parts, maintenance and frequent planed failures. Electric vehicle makers don’t have that luxury and need to have a radically different business model in order to survive. Maybe if everyone fully understood this, few would complain about the relatively high price of EVs. You either pay upfront, or down the road — the choice is yours.
Ford has shown a very progressive stance in the past and has been one of the rare carmakers with a vision solid enough to get it going in the middle one of the worst global financial crisis. Mullaly and Ford have been instrumental in maneuvering the company out of the 2008 financial meltdown, and have shown an uncanny ability to appeal to population segments otherwise discarded by other makers. Today, Ford enjoys a good reputation, with better cars, good energy savings and much better quality control. If a mainstream carmaker such as Ford publicly praises a disruptive electric vehicle lifestyle startup in California, such as Tesla Motors, you know things are about to change.
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
