News
Why Tesla wants to open its Supercharger to the competition
In a very bold move, Musk is considering opening the company’s intellectual property (IP) for its Superchargers inviting the competition in, breaking away from outmoded fights.
Just when you think you had Tesla figured out, Elon Musk, Tesla Motors’ CEO, throws in another bit to the overall electric vehicle (EV) picture, once again, changes the background.
Tesla embraces openness
The one thing almost all companies have in common is secrecy. Carmakers are no different and jealously keep trade secrets. What makes Tesla Motors unique and part of its success, is its engineering, which is off limit to GM, Ford and the rest. Companies edge out their products and services by keeping their know-how in-house in order to dominate a market, or a part of it. Even if some things are off limits, all carmakers pull apart others’ cars to see how they were engineered. If this was an effective strategy until now, it has its limits. Pushed to the maximum, it strangles markets and consumers are left to pay the price. There is less choice and innovations. Eventually, someone has to break the trends and breath new life. Is this what Tesla is trying to do? Not so fast.
Supercharge me and everyone else
Elon Musk says someone has to take the first step and Tesla Motors is the company to show the way forward. We couldn’t agree more. We’re tired of living in the stone age, we want a modern world that holds up to its promise and potential.
A company opening up the IP of its Supercharger network to create a “standard technical specification that other electric car makers can adopt,” as Engadget puts it, is a bold move forward.
But is it naïve, or simply a brilliant move forward when the competition is locked in a futile fight? The question is, who stands to gain the most from such a move.
Tesla is willing give away some of its IP in order for other makers to charge at its Superchargers. It also hopes to by-pass the CHAdeMO and SAE fight, as well as the upcoming Chinese charging network with its own protocol. Tesla might charge a modest fee return, but that is nothing for such a juggernaut. Musk sees, as most of us do, that the automobile industry is in disarray and still grapples over how to create a thriving business model with electric vehicles (EV). If the industry, used to making internal combustion engines (ICE), it doesn’t know what to do with an electric motor and batteries, even less with a charging network. Luckily, Tesla took a lead early there.
So far Nissan is one of the only carmaker to grow the network with CHAdeMO chargers at its dealerships. Then, there is the SAE Combo standard trying to muscle its way in, fighting against CHAdeMO. The absurd fight ended last year with a standstill, forcing once again consumers to choose one or the other, losing in the short run. So what can Tesla Motors do with its own Supercharger system watching another Chinese charger standard take advantage of the confusion? Open its doors and leapfrog the infighting competitors. It works to everyone’s advantage and the company comes out on top. Simple, brilliant, and so Tesla.
Standards come in two ways, officially, or de facto. For those of you seasoned enough to remember, we once had a choice between a good quality Betamax, and a rather inferior VHS system. VHS became a de facto standard after a deep pocket campaigns turned a generation on to it. The same almost happened to DVD recording, and there are plenty of other examples still. Tesla opening its IP doors to the competition is a bold move above the fray, and one we can be happy about since it will benefit the entire EV community. Hopefully, it will also stop this infighting caveman mentality companies have, pushing their visions on consumers. When you get down to it, what’s important is to have a nationwide charging network that works for as many cars as possible, regardless of makers, backers or other financial interests. Tesla does it again.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
