News
Rivian patent application hints at 900V fast charging capabilities
A recently published Rivian patent application titled “Configurable Battery Pack for Fast Charge” describes a method of switching between battery pack connection types to allow for both 450V and 900V fast charging without the need for specialized components. The invention was filed in both the US and internationally, and both applications just published today as US Patent Publication No. 2019/0126761 A1 and International Publication No. WO/2019/084507 A1.
Rivian’s application sets out to solve three specific issues with electric vehicle battery charging. First, increases in charging rates typically require more expensive parts that are rated for the higher current requirements. Second, electronic devices operated while a battery is charging may be impacted via increased voltage when a battery’s charging rate is increased. Finally, when a fault occurs in a battery module, a battery system often needs to be completely disconnected from any loads or the charging voltage must be changed.
The basic concept of the application purports to solve the above-referenced problems. As described, the invention claims that battery modules connected in parallel achieve a targeted maximum high voltage for an electric load (such as 450V), but when connected in series that voltage can be doubled (900V). Details of why this is advantageous are explained in the application as follows:
“A configurable battery system allows the techniques of [this invention] to be applied to an electric vehicle…to more fully utilize a battery charger’s potential [where] it is desirable to achieve a particular charging target. For example, a charging target of 150 kW at 450 V may require a current of 334 A…[and] components may need to be sourced to handle up to 400 A continuously to handle the charging….If a battery system were able to take advantage of charging at 900 V, the charging target of 150 kW could be achieved at just 167 A, which may allow for more numerous, better quality, or cheaper options for charging components. For example, a current of 167 A may allow different hardware to be used than if the current were nearer to 400 A.“
-
- Figure from Rivian’s battery connection switching patent application. | Image: Rivian/USPTO
-
- Figure from Rivian’s battery connection switching patent application. | Image: Rivian/USPTO
-
- Figure from Rivian’s battery connection switching patent application. | Image: Rivian/USPTO
The application also includes a battery management system to determine which connection should be used at a given point and switch the connection type accordingly. This same management system is also used to detect faults in the system while charging and use the switching capability to handle them accordingly rather than disconnecting any battery loads.
The US application for this invention was filed June 8, 2018 and thus has not yet been examined. However, in the international version, an examiner has already searched for related inventions based on the first 10 claims of Rivian’s application. These claims only describe “a configurable battery system in which connection of two batteries can be switched between a series and a parallel connection”, which is not considered novel on its own.
This kind of finding is not uncommon for applications undergoing the international filing process and will be further addressed once filed in specific countries. Three other inventions were determined to be present in the application which will likely be incorporated with the first ten as the invention’s proceedings continue.
Rivian aims to be the leading expert on battery technology, and patent applications such as this one are a nod towards that innovation goal. The Michigan-based all-electric car maker runs a battery lab in Irvine, California where it has picked up several engineers from renowned supercar brand McLaren. This talent pool includes hypercar engineer Richard Farquhar who is their VP of Propulsion, leading Rivian’s battery and powertrain development.
Currently, each Rivian battery module holds 864 cells, stacked evenly on top of one another, with a thin 7mm aluminum plate with liquid coolant in between. In addition to connection testing, the company uses machine learning to adjust battery cell settings to build predictive models and tune the cells based on situations that may be encountered, such as weather conditions.
Altogether, Rivian’s aim to achieve a level of battery technology that’s reliable and optimal for the electric outdoor adventure branding it has embraced looks to be moving in a promising direction.
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
