News
Gassed Up: Prices at the pump fall, unlike Tesla’s delivery numbers
Welcome to a FREE preview of our weekly newsletter. Each week I go ‘Beyond the News’ and handcraft a special edition that includes my thoughts on the biggest stories, why it matters, and how it could impact the future.
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
—
This week, it came to my attention when driving by my local Sheetz gas station (if you’re ever in the vicinity of one, get the Chicken Tender sub) that gas prices are getting low. Low in the sense that it is much lower than the typical $2.79 that I see on the sign. When they’re sitting at $2.09, it makes me interested in why, especially considering my county and, more specifically, my entire state of Pennsylvania is on a “Stay at Home” order currently. Prices are low, but nobody is driving. When I travel to my Dad’s house or to go on a hike at a local trail, my commute time is typically anywhere from 2-5 minutes quicker as I am not forced to deal with an excess amount of cars on the road.
Most would think that these low gas prices would entice some to buy that vehicle they’ve always wanted—the gas-guzzling truck, maybe that petrol-pounding sports car. Who knows, people want different things. But you’d think low prices would lead to higher petrol-powered sales, and it isn’t. Teslas continue to sell, and they’re selling in record numbers.
But what’s interesting to me is the fact that nobody is driving, and nobody is buying cars. Yet, the overwhelming appeal of low gas prices, combined with the new oh-so-brilliant rollback on emissions that I wrote about last week, is making cars cheaper. With people out of work, there are still people out there getting paid, and some could be interested in buying cars. After all, Tesla owners are, because the company just had its best Q1 yet.
With showrooms of the world’s most popular automakers becoming more and more bloated, inventories rising above what a building can contain, and salespeople out of work, the LA Times says that manufacturers and showroom managers alike are ready to cut a deal. No cars moving out of the building is costing some companies hundreds of thousands of dollars a day. Service is where dealerships make their money, and that is, in reality, how some are managing to survive.
Unless, of course, there was a way that a carmaker could have customers order vehicles over the internet or phone. Then, that vehicle could be built to the buyer’s exact specifications and delivered or picked up without ever needed to come in contact with another human being. Oh, wait. This sounds familiar!
Tesla’s contactless delivery process has helped the company continue delivering vehicles to customers. While COVID-19 shut down some stores and provided barriers for delivery in others, Tesla found a way to work around that. The process was documented on our site a few weeks ago, and it showed that the company’s deliveries could continue without human-to-human contact.
According to the same LA Times article I talked about earlier, a Chevy dealership is “delivering” cars to people’s houses in a safe way. I’ll give credit where credit is due, and that’s a great way to adapt to the changing world we live in.
But as gas vehicles should appeal to people now more than ever because of low fuel prices, there’s plenty of evidence that suggests the tide is changing in favor of electric forms of transportation.
Let’s think about this:
1. Dealerships and petrol car manufacturers require government assistance to stay open. These businesses are laying off massive amounts of people, and they can’t afford to pay them currently at all. Their buildings are shut down, some dealerships are not running currently, and people are not buying gas vehicles anyway.
2. Tesla just released its Q1 2020 numbers. Despite Giga Shanghai being closed for an extended period, and Fremont being closed for the final week of the first quarter (which is where the company seems to push out massive amounts of vehicles to maximize delivery numbers), the company still had its biggest Q1 as a company. Eighty-eight thousand four hundred vehicles delivered in total, well above Wall Street’s estimates.
It is fair to assume a decent amount of these 88,400 cars were delivered before things got dicey here in the United States. Even still, Tesla has a lot to be proud of here.
I think all of us expected a slow Q1, and we all thought it was understandable. Even if things would have been even more impressive if deliveries and production were not affected by COVID, there is still a lot to be happy about. The whole situation is quite impressive, and it seems that Tesla’s ability to adapt to situations has led to its mass-appeal to car buyers.
Join me next week as I go ‘Beyond the News’ and give you my take on the current state of the industry and beyond.
Could it be that COVID is helping Tesla in a way? Not only is the big picture of environmental sustainability being answered through the lack of cars on the road, but the numbers suggest Tesla vehicles are being bought while gas cars are not. How is it that a car company could post its most impressive first quarter amidst a situation that has done nothing but hurt every other company in the world? The proof is in the pudding, and Tesla’s adaptability seems to be appealing to car buyers.
I use this newsletter to share my thoughts on what is going on in the Tesla world. If you want to talk to me directly, you can email me or reach me on Twitter. I don’t bite, be sure to reach out!
-Joey
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
