The Tesla Cybertruck’s many features are now appearing as patents that the automaker has submitted to the United States Patent Office, and one of the most notable is the tonneau, or truck bed cover. While the retractable design of the tonneau provides convenience at the touch of a button for owners, it will protect any goods or cargo that drivers will store in the Cybertruck’s massive bed. However, the design is now hinting toward even more versatility and usefulness as the patent describes the potential use as a solar panel that will provide range for the all-electric truck by capturing the sun’s energy.
In Tesla’s newly published “Integrated Tonneau Cover for a Vehicle” patent, several inventors submit their idea and designs for the Cybertruck’s fully mechanical tonneau cover. Guided along a set of channels in the bed of the truck, the tonneau cover will provide protection for any cargo that is stored in the back of the vehicle. Whether it be tools or luggage, the tonneau cover is Tesla’s way of giving owners a way to protect their belongings without having to purchase expensive aftermarket bed covers, which other trucks do not provide. The retractable tonneau is shown in the images below.
Credit: US Patent Office
“In order to mitigate the possibility of such damage, many truck owners install aftermarket truck bed covers that cover the bed of their truck,” the patent states. “However, not only may such aftermarket truck bed covers be difficult to install, they also may not fit exactly with the specifications of the truck beds of different models of trucks. If a truck bed cover does not have an accurate fit it can leak rain or snow through the gaps between the truck bed cover and the walls around the truck bed, and cause cargo damage. In addition, not only are many aftermarket truck bed covers difficult to install and inconvenient to use, but they also take up space in the truck beds and reduce the overall utility of the trucks.”
The tonneau, in a revolutionary new design, will also be able to recharge the vehicle’s battery pack thanks to 110 solar electric cells that are electrically connected to a photovoltaic charging system and battery. “When the tonneau cover is deployed to cover the bed and the solar electric cells that make up the slats are facing the sun, the battery within the electric vehicle can be charged by solar electric cells,” the patent states.
While solar panels on an electric vehicle have been looked at as a possibility in the past, the idea has never come to fruition due to ineffectiveness. Because a car doesn’t provide much surface area, to begin with, the contribution of charge from solar panels would be minimal, and it would require extremely clear and favorable weather conditions to provide any effective additional range to the vehicle. However, CEO Elon Musk hinted just days after the Cybertruck’s unveiling event in November 2019 that Tesla would be adding an option to add solar power that could generate up to 15 miles per day. Musk also hinted toward “fold-out solar wings” that could generate an additional 30-40 miles per day, which could alleviate the need to stop at a Supercharger for some owners.
Will be an option to add solar power that generates 15 miles per day, possibly more. Would love this to be self-powered. Adding fold out solar wings would generate 30 to 40 miles per day. Avg miles per day in US is 30.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 22, 2019
The tonneau would be completely covered in solar electric cells, and the patent claims that when the “truck bed cover is in a closed position, it is configured to recharge the battery pack, the closed position of the truck bed cover enabling the plurality of solar electric cells to face a sun.”
Musk also hinted toward the possibility of installing solar cells on the roof of a potential Tesla van with Joe Rogan in a podcast interview earlier this year. Musk said that the van would be a favorable design due to its “big, flat area,” and “solar could start to make a little more sense.” Because the tonneau is flat and covers a considerable surface area, there is some potential for it to be just as effective as Musk’s idea for the van.
The full patent document is available below.
Tesla Cybertruck Tonneau Solar Patent by Joey Klender on Scribd
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
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
