News
GM’s Mary Barra stands by Cruise’s cautious strategy amid Tesla’s full self-driving push
A recent interview with GM CEO Mary Barra from Axios has provided some of the executive’s insights about full self-driving solutions, competition from Tesla, and the Detroit-based company’s strategy for the deployment of its autonomous driving tech. Barra proved conservative, emphasizing that GM will not deploy its full self-driving suite until it is safer than a human driver.
The emergence of full self-driving technologies is all but inevitable at this point, with companies such as Waymo and electric car makers such as Tesla actively pursuing the development and refinement of autonomous driving solutions. Among the industry’s players, Tesla appears to have the momentum, as the company has the largest amount of real-world driving data gathered from hundreds of thousands of vehicles currently on the road. Augmented by the rollout of Tesla’s custom self-driving computer, Elon Musk has been optimistic with the company’s full self-driving rollout plans. Musk has stated that the company’s FSD suite will be “feature complete” by the end of 2019, and that it will have around a million vehicles capable of being used as autonomous “robotaxis” next year.
When asked by the publication about the competition from Tesla and if it is essential for a company to be the first to deploy an autonomous driving system, the GM CEO response was cautious. “We want to be safe. And so that’s what’s motivating us. We understand this is life-changing technology,” Barra said, later adding that “there are so many different ways that we can improve our customers’ lives by having this technology, not only from a safety, but from a productivity (standpoint), what they can do. But what they do, we want to make sure they do safely.”
Barra’s rather conservative statements in her recent interview feature a rather different tone than her previous forecasts for GM’s full self-driving solutions. Speaking at the Dealbook conference last November, Barra stated that GM was on schedule to deploy its full self-driving technology in 2019. “We’re on track, with our rate of learning, to be able to do that next year,” she said. During her segment, Barra noted that GM had a strategy to show that its vehicles are safer than human drivers. She also mentioned that GM Cruise’s autonomous cars were already capable of running safely at around 30 mph, though the service was limited to a small area.
GM eventually softened its stance on its 2019 target release. In a statement to The Detroit News in April, GM noted that Cruise’s driverless taxi service would be “gated by safety” when it goes get deployed. A report from The Information published this June also suggested that in April, GM Cruise’s full self-driving technology experienced a massive failure in the presence of Honda Motor CEO Takahiro Hachigo, a major investor in the company. During the demo, the vehicle’s autonomous driving system reportedly stopped, forcing the car’s backup driver to take control. The vehicle then refused to reactivate, forcing the Honda CEO to wait until he was picked up by an operational GM Cruise autonomous car.
Amidst these reports, Barra did not commit to a launch date for the company’s driverless vehicle service. Nevertheless, in her Axios interview, Barra stated that she does not regret the company’s aggressive 2019 target. “It’s a rallying cry. And I think it’s been motivational,” she said.
While GM Cruise might have less real-world miles compared to Tesla and Waymo, the self-driving unit of the Detroit-based carmaker has attracted a notable number of investors nonetheless. In its latest fundraising round alone, GM Cruise was valued at $19 billion on its own. That’s quite impressive, considering the company’s progress with its technology so far. Tesla, on the other hand, is valued at $39 billion as of writing, and that covers the company’s electric vehicle and energy storage business, as well as its full self-driving technology. This was addressed in a previous note from Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas, who noted that TSLA investors are “undervaluing” the company’s autonomous driving systems. “We believe investors underappreciate/undervalue Tesla’s Autonomy business. Many investors to whom we speak do not explicitly include Tesla’s Autonomy business in their valuation of the company,” Jonas said.
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
