News
Lucid Air to offer vehicle-to-grid and vehicle-to-vehicle charging features
A recent press release from electric car maker Lucid Motors has revealed that the company will be rolling out its flagship Air sedan with a rather interesting feature: V2X. According to the company, “V2X” refers to “vehicle-to-everything,” which means that the Lucid Air will have full bi-directional capabilities built-in, allowing the car to function in both vehicle-to-grid (V2G) and vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) scenarios.
As noted by the company in a press release, the Lucid Air’s bi-directional home charging capabilities could provide a lot of value to owners of the luxury electric sedan. Thanks to bi-directional charging, Lucid Air owners could utilize their vehicles as an energy storage unit to power their homes, which is particularly useful during those occasional trips to off-grid areas. The company described these features as follows.
“Home charging is one of the key benefits of EV ownership. In addition to the standard Lucid Mobile Charging Cord that comes with every Lucid vehicle, Lucid has also developed the Lucid Connected Home Charging Station, one of the first AC charging stations with bi-directional charging ever offered. With bi-directional charging, owners can enjoy not just a more cost-effective charging method, but also use their Lucid Air as a temporary energy reserve to power their homes, including off-grid vacation properties,” the company noted.
The rollout of the bi-directional Lucid Connected Home Charging Station is made possible by the EV maker’s integrated partnership with Qmerit. Owners of the Air who are interested in taking advantage of their vehicles’ bi-directional charging capabilities would be required to complete a digital survey, which Qmerit will then use to manage the installation process using its network of licensed electricians. Pricing for the Connected Home Charging Station is yet to be announced.
The Lucid Air’s vehicle-to-vehicle capabilities were not discussed by the company much in its recent press release, but the practical applications of the function are notable. With such a feature in place, Lucid Air owners would be able to provide power from their vehicles’ batteries to other electric cars that are low on energy. Interestingly enough, Lucid has not stated if its V2V capabilities will be universally compatible with other EVs, or if it is designed to work only between two Air sedans.
Vehicle-to-vehicle charging, while not yet mainstream, appears to be gaining ground in some territories. Just last year, for example, Hyundai launched India’s first V2V charging service, which allows owners with cars low on battery to call for another EV to be sent to their location. Once there, the recently-arrived electric car would be used as a power source for charging the customer’s vehicle.
The use of electric vehicles in V2G and V2V settings seems poised to spread in the near future. Earlier this year, reports emerged suggesting that industry leader Tesla is exploring vehicle-to-grid solutions for its growing fleet of vehicles, with noted Tesla hacker @greentheonly remarking that the company’s vehicles already have logic that allows DC to flow out of the company’s battery packs.
Interestingly enough, V2G is something that was discussed by former CTO JB Straubel, who noted back in 2015 that once there are a million Teslas on the road, the fleet could have substantial controllable load capacity. The 1-million-milestone was reached last March, and with Lucid offering “V2X” features right off the bat, it appears that the race to offer vehicle-to-grid services has just become a lot more interesting.
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
