News
Land for Lucid Motors Arizona factory will reportedly be paid by tax payers
Officials in Pinal County, Arizona are considering ways to raise the money needed to purchase 500 acres of land near the city of Casa Grande where Lucid Motors intends to build its $700 million electric car factory. The proposed manufacturing facility was the subject of a high profile press event earlier this month that featured Arizona governor Doug Ducey. All parties acknowledge Ducey was a key player in landing the project for the state of Arizona.
There is only one problem with the deal — the taxpayers of Arizona are expected to pay for the purchase of the land and contribute a significant amount of money to help it get the factory built and operational. When and if everything goes as planned, the factory is expected to create 2,000 jobs in an area where many are unemployed or underemployed.
The land itself will cost $31.8 million, Financing the purchase over 30 years will add another $41.6 million, but Pinal County spokesperson Joe Pyritz says the plan is to lease the land after is is purchased (presumably to Lucid Motors, although the county is not allowed to say so for the record) and then sell it at the end of 5 years. That arrangement would cap the total cost of the deal at $35 million. The sale price is expected to equal the total outlay made by the county for principal and interest.
However, first someone has to actually buy the land. County supervisors will meet in January to consider how to do that. The leading proposal is to finance the purchase by raising property taxes or imposing a countywide sales tax surcharge. Pyritz says if the supervisors decide on a tax increase, the new tax would only cover the land deal and would end once the tax funding reimburses the county for the purchase cost.
Lucid will get other sweeteners to bring its business to Pinal County. The project involves what the Phoenix New Times calls “a significant amount of corporate welfare.” Lucid Motors will be eligible for up to $46.5 million in various subsidies offered by the state through the Arizona Commerce Authority over the next five years. Those subsidies will be coupled with certain performance targets.
The subsidies include:
- $5 million in grant money over five years, dependent on meeting specified job-creation and capital-investment milestones.
- $1.5 million in grant money for job training. The company would pay for the cost of training employees and the state would reimburse 75 percent of the cost over two years.
- $40 million in refundable tax credits under the Qualified Facility Tax Credit Program the legislature created in 2012.
Susan Marie, spokeswoman for the Arizona Commerce Authority is quick to point out that the total amount is far less than the $335 million in tax credits promised to Faraday Future or the $1.3 billion in similar credits promised to Tesla Motors by the state of Nevada.
Lucid revealed its 1,000 horsepower proposed production car — the Lucid Air — last week. The 4 door sedan is said to have up to a 135 kWh battery capacity and capable of driving 400 miles per single charge. The result is something that tops Tesla’s flagship Model S P100D and by a considerable margin. Does that mean Lucid will win customers away from Tesla?
That’s unlikely. Granted that Lucid may have an edge in some areas, it lacks a charging infrastructure. Without something comparable to Tesla’s Supercharger network while having no brand recognition, peeling customers away from Tesla will be a lot harder than just offering a larger battery. But first, Lucid needs to build a factory. That first step is far from guaranteed despite lofty promises form the company.
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
