News
Tesla Cybertruck’s biggest rival is poised for a delay, and GM’s stance against CA’s standards isn’t helping
The Tesla Cybertruck will meet several competitors when it enters the market. There’s the Rivian R1T pickup truck, a luxury vehicle designed for the outdoors. There’s the Ford F-150 Electric, the EV version of America’s most popular pickup truck. But perhaps the Cybertruck’s biggest rival, both in terms of literal size and specs, is GM’s Hummer EV, a vehicle that represents the antithesis of Tesla’s exoskeleton-clad monster.
The GMC Hummer EV and the Tesla Cybertruck come from very different backgrounds. The Cybertruck is what happens when Tesla is unrestrained, and it is unashamedly different in its design and features. The Hummer EV, on the other hand, is a redemption of sorts for GM, as the emergence of the massive, gas-guzzling original Hummer marked one of the nails in the coffin of the veteran automaker’s controversial EV1 electric car.
The Hummer EV has garnered a lot of attention, and it is set for a reveal this May 20. However, the coronavirus pandemic may put a damper on the upcoming vehicle’s official unveiling. With social distancing rules pretty much negating the possibility of a launch event for the truck, sources familiar with the matter have told motoring publication CarBuzz that the Hummer EV’s unveiling will be rescheduled. This is not surprising at all considering the circumstances that have arisen from the pandemic, but it is unfortunate, nonetheless.
This potential delay could cost the Hummer EV a lot of momentum. The vehicle is already entering the all-electric pickup market pretty late, with companies like Rivian and Tesla already poised to release their trucks in the next year or so. Furthermore, the Hummer EV is riding a wave of momentum that resulted from GM’s clever teasers in recent months. Any delays in the vehicle’s unveiling might then result in waning interest from the EV community.
This is bitter pill to swallow for GM, especially since leaked production plans from the automaker have revealed that much of its commitments to electrification are not very serious at all. As indicated by production plans accessed by Reuters, both GM and Ford still intend to adopt a strategy that is heavily skewed towards the internal combustion engine for the next few years. This is despite CEO Mary Barra arguing that GM is dead serious about electrification.
But perhaps the biggest blow to the Hummer EV yet is coming from GM’s standing among car buyers. Earlier this year, GM, together with Toyota and Fiat Chrysler, decided to side with US President Donald Trump in his efforts to revoke California’s higher emissions standards. This promptly resulted in losses for GM, with CA banning the use of the company’s vehicles for its fleet. But it doesn’t end there.
According to the findings of a poll conducted by Matt George Associates for the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), GM’s decision to stand against California’s emissions standards has adversely affected its standing among car buyers. Out of the 1,000 owners surveyed, 51% who initially stated that they would “definitely purchase” another GM vehicle in the future decided to change their minds after learning of the company’s anti-emissions standards stance. GM’s favorability among buyers also saw a steep drop from 93% to just 44%.
These sentiments from the car buying public are the last thing that the Hummer EV needs to be a success. Using the Hummer, a vehicle that is traditionally perceived as the very representation of excess, as an entry into the electric truck market, is a bold move for GM. But successful bold moves usually involve a lot of delicate pieces lining up perfectly enough. Unfortunately for GM, the delays in the Hummer EV’s launch, coupled with negative sentiments against the company, may very well derail the all-electric truck even before its arrival.
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
