Lucid owners will get full access to Tesla's Supercharger network on July 31
That leaves the Air line of luxury EV sedans. These vehicles will be able to roll up to a Tesla Supercharger for a top-off at the end of the month, but there are some major caveats. First of all, Lucid Air EVs will require an official adapter that costs $220, as they don't ship with a built-in NACS ports. This adapter won't work with V1 or V2 charging stations, which whittles down the convenience factor a bit.
There's another problem for Air owners. The adapter is limited to a 50kW peak charge rate, which provides around 200 miles of range per hour of charging. The Air can typically achieve a 300kW peak charge rate. Not only is this hobbled charge rate bad for Lucid Air devotees, it's also annoying for people that own other EVs. Remember, the Air will have to sit at the charger for an entire hour, which will increase traffic at the station.
Luckily, there are other charging stations available that make use of that 300kW peak rate. Air owners can use stations by Electrify America, EVgo and ChargePoint for a quick jolt. It's good to know that the Tesla Superchargers will be there in a pinch, which could come in handy during a road trip. To view this content, you'll need to update your privacy settings. Please click here and view the "Content and social-media partners" setting to do so.
The company also recently unveiled the 2026 lineup of Air EVs. There's the Lucid Air Pure, which is a relatively streamlined option. Prices for this one start at $70,900. The Lucid Air Touring boasts an estimated range of 431 miles per charge, which is a decent metric. It starts at $79,900. Finally, the Lucid Air Grand Touring is the baddest of the bunch, with an estimated range of 512 miles per charge. Prices start at $114,900, but the seats offer a massage feature.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tesla board approves $30 billion alternative pay deal for Musk
Tesla's (TSLA) board approved a $30 billion alternative compensation plan for its billionaire CEO, Elon Musk, as the company and Musk continue a court battle to reinstate his $58 billion pay award, which a Delaware judge struck down. The company announced the new plan in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing on Monday, emphasizing its goal to incentivize Musk to focus on Tesla. The new accord must be approved by Tesla's shareholders. It would act as an alternative method to pay Musk in the event that his original pay deal, first reached in 2018, is ultimately struck down in court. Musk has not been paid under his original deal. 'Today we announce an important first step in compensating Elon Musk for his extraordinary work at Tesla,' the company's directors Robyn Denholm and Kathleen Wilson-Thompson, who approved the plan, wrote in a letter to shareholders. 'As you know, Elon has not received meaningful compensation for eight years since the 2012 CEO Performance Award was last earned in 2017,' the board members added. 'To recognize what Elon has accomplished and the extraordinary value he delivered to Tesla and our shareholders, we believe we must take action to honor the bargain that was struck in 2018.' Tesla's stock came under pressure on July 24 after the company posted an earnings and revenue miss in the second quarter. Musk hinted at a "few rough quarters" amid sagging sales. For the second quarter, Tesla reported revenue of $22.50 billion versus $22.64 billion expected, per Bloomberg consensus. The revenue decrease was 12% lower than Tesla's second quarter last year, when it brought in $25.05 billion. The new compensation plan grants Musk 96 million Tesla shares of common stock at $23.34 per share so long as he remains in continuous service until Aug. 3, 2027, as CEO or as an executive officer of Tesla responsible for product development or operations. The share grant, which matches the exercise price of his 2018 CEO award, is also subject to a mandatory holding period of five years from the grant date, except to cover tax payments or the purchase price of the shares. If the Delaware Supreme Court overturns the Delaware Chancery Court's decision to invalidate the 2018 plan in a non-appealable judgment, any shares granted to Musk under the new plan must be immediately forfeited and returned to Tesla. The case is pending before the court, and there is no set date for a ruling. Musk's original pay plan was thrown into question when a Tesla shareholder sued the company in June 2018, alleging that the shareholder vote that approved the plan was invalid. Delaware Chancery Court judge Kathaleen McCormick agreed with the claim and denied the compensation package once in January 2024 and again for a second time in December, after Tesla shareholders reapproved it. The ruling raised new concerns about Musk's motivations to give as much time as he has to Tesla. Even before the 2018 pay package was invalidated by the Delaware court, Musk's attention was divided between his ventures SpaceX ( (formerly Twitter), and the Boring Co., among other pursuits. That attention was further divided in January when Musk joined the Trump administration to launch the budget-cutting endeavor DOGE. The novel question at the heart of the ongoing lawsuit could not only validate or invalidate Musk's original pay deal but could remake the rules of corporate law: Can stockholders ever overrule a judge? Chancellor McCormick initially voided Musk's 2018 pay pact because of what she called "extensive ties" between Musk and the Tesla board members negotiating the pay package and a lack of public disclosure about Musk's relationships with those who approved the deal. She ruled that Musk, a minority owner of Tesla, held enough influence over the electric car company to count as its de facto controlling shareholder, who must be held to a stricter level of legal scrutiny. When Tesla shareholders approved the pay package a second time in June 2024, Tesla argued that the additional stamp of approval should be enough for McCormick to toss out her initial decision. A single independent director, Kathleen Wilson-Thompson, a former executive at Walgreens Boots Alliance and Kellogg, approved the second package. However, McCormick did not address whether Wilson-Thompson's due diligence fulfilled Delaware's requirements. One reason Tesla fought to reinstate the original accord rather than fashion a new one is the potential cost to replace it. In its 2018 proxy statement, Tesla said it took a $2.3 billion accounting charge in connection with the package. Later, in a court filing in the litigation, Tesla said an equivalent deal would require it to take a charge exceeding $25 billion. That impact on Tesla won't be known until the appeals process plays out. Denholm and Wilson-Thompson stressed in their letter to Tesla shareholders the importance of retaining and motivating talent in the intensifying war to build AI-powered technology, where nine-figure cash compensation packages for non-founder, individual AI engineers have become a norm. Wedbush technology analyst Dan Ives echoed that message in a note on Monday. "We believe this grant will now keep Musk as CEO of Tesla at least until 2030 and removes an overhang on the stock," Ives said, adding that the Big Tech AI talent wars were fully underway. "Musk remains Tesla's big asset and this comp issue has been a constant concern of shareholders once the Delaware soap opera began."Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed.
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tesla board approves $30 billion alternate pay deal for Musk
Tesla (TSLA)'s board approved a $30 billion alternate compensation plan for its billionaire CEO Elon Musk, as the company and Musk continue a court battle to reinstate his $58 billion pay award struck down by a Delaware judge. The company announced the new plan in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing on Monday, emphasizing its goal to incentivize Musk to focus on Tesla. The new accord must be approved by Tesla's shareholders. It would act as an alternative method to pay Musk in the event that his original pay deal, first reached in 2018, is ultimately struck down in court. Musk has not been paid under his original deal. 'Today we announce an important first step in compensating Elon Musk for his extraordinary work at Tesla,' the company's directors Robyn Denholm and Kathleen Wilson-Thompson, who approved the plan, wrote in a letter to shareholders. 'As you know, Elon has not received meaningful compensation for eight years since the 2012 CEO Performance Award was last earned in 2017,' the board members added. 'To recognize what Elon has accomplished and the extraordinary value he delivered to Tesla and our shareholders, we believe we must take action to honor the bargain that was struck in 2018.' Tesla's stock came under pressure on July 24 after it posted an earnings and revenue miss in the second quarter. Musk hinted at a "few rough quarters" amid sagging sales. For the second quarter, Tesla reported revenue of $22.50 billion vs. $22.64 billion expected, per Bloomberg consensus. The revenue decrease was 12% lower than Tesla's second quarter last year where it drove in $25.05 billion. The new compensation plan grants Musk 96 million Tesla shares of common stock at $23.34 per share so long as he remains in continuous service until August 3, 2027 as CEO or as an executive officer of Tesla responsible for product development or operations. The share grant, which matches the exercise price of his 2018 CEO award, is also subject to a mandatory holding period of five years from the grant date, except to cover tax payments or the purchase price of the shares. If the Delaware Supreme Court overturns the Delaware Chancery Court's decision to invalidate the 2018 plan in a non-appealable judgement, any shares granted to Musk under the new plan must be immediately forfeited and returned to Tesla. The case is pending before the court with no set date for a ruling. Musk's original pay plan was thrown into question when a Tesla shareholder sued the company in June 2018 alleging that the shareholder vote that approved the plan was invalid. Delaware Chancery Court judge Kathaleen McCormick agreed with the claim and denied the compensation package once in January 2024, and again for a second time in December, after Tesla shareholders reapproved it. The ruling raised new concerns about Musk's motivations to give as much time as he has to Tesla. Even before the 2018 pay package was invalidated by the Delaware court, Musk's attention was divided between his ventures SpaceX, (formerly Twitter), and the Boring Co., among other pursuits. That attention was further divided in January when Musk joined the Trump administration to launch the budget-cutting endeavor DOGE. The novel question at the heart of the ongoing lawsuit could not only validate or invalidate Musk's original pay deal but could remake the rules of corporate law: Can stockholders ever overrule a judge? Chancellor McCormick initially voided Musk's 2018 pay pact because of what she called "extensive ties" between Musk and the Tesla board members negotiating the pay package and a lack of public disclosure about Musk's relationships with those who approved the deal. She ruled that Musk, a minority owner of Tesla, held enough influence over the electric car company to count as its de facto controlling shareholder, who must be held to a stricter level of legal scrutiny. When Tesla shareholders approved the pay package a second time in June 2024, Tesla argued that the additional stamp of approval should be enough for McCormick to toss out her initial decision. A single independent director, Kathleen Wilson-Thompson, a former executive at Walgreens Boots Alliance and Kellogg, approved the second package. However, McCormick did not address whether Wilson-Thompson's due diligence fulfilled Delaware's requirements. One reason Tesla fought to reinstate the original accord, rather than fashion a new one, is the potential cost to replace it. In its 2018 proxy statement, Tesla said it took a $2.3 billion accounting charge in connection with the package. Later, in a court filing in the litigation, Tesla said an equivalent deal would require it to take a charge exceeding $25 billion. That impact on Tesla won't be known until the appeals process plays out. Denholm and Wilson-Thompson stressed in their letter to Tesla shareholders the importance of retaining and motivating talent in the intensifying war to build AI-powered technology, where nine-figure cash compensation packages for non-founder, individual AI engineers has become a norm. Wedbush technology analyst Dan Ives echoed that message in note on Monday. "We believe this grant will now keep Musk as CEO of Tesla at least until 2030 and removes an overhang on the stock," Ives said, adding that the Big Tech AI talent wars were fully underway. "Musk remains Tesla's big asset and this comp issue has been a constant concern of shareholders once the Delaware soap opera began." Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tesla awards CEO Musk millions of shares valued at about 29 billion dollars
Tesla is awarding CEO Elon Musk 96 million shares of restricted stock valued at approximately 29 billion US dollars (£22 billion), just six months after a judge ordered the company to revoke his massive pay package. The electric vehicle maker said in a regulatory filing on Monday that Mr Musk must first pay Tesla 23.34 dollars per share of restricted stock that vests, which is equal to the exercise price per share of the 2018 pay package that was awarded to the company's CEO. In December, Delaware chancellor Kathaleen St Jude McCormick reaffirmed her earlier ruling that Tesla must revoke Mr Musk's multibillion-dollar pay package. She found that Mr Musk engineered the landmark pay package in sham negotiations with directors who were not independent. At the time, Ms McCormick also rejected an equally unprecedented and massive fee request by plaintiff attorneys, who argued that they were entitled to legal fees in the form of Tesla stock valued at more than five billion dollars. The judge said the attorneys were entitled to a fee award of 345 million dollars. The rulings came in a lawsuit filed by a Tesla stockholder who challenged Mr Musk's 2018 compensation package. That pay package carried a potential maximum value of about 56 billion dollars, but that sum has fluctuated over the years based on Tesla's stock price. Mr Musk appealed against the order in March. A month later Tesla said in a regulatory filing that it was creating a special committee to look at Mr Musk's compensation as CEO. Wedbush analyst Dan Ives feels Mr Musk's stock award may alleviate some Tesla shareholder concerns. 'We believe this grant will now keep Musk as CEO of Tesla at least until 2030 and removes an overhang on the stock,' Mr Ives wrote in a client note. 'Musk remains Tesla's big asset and this comp issue has been a constant concern of shareholders once the Delaware soap opera began.' Tesla shares have plunged 25% this year, largely due to blowback over Mr Musk's affiliation with President Donald Trump. But Tesla also faces intensifying competition from both the big Detroit car makers, and from China. In its most recent quarter, Tesla reported that quarterly profits plunged from 1.39 billion dollars to 409 million dollars. Revenue also fell and the company fell short of even the lowered expectations on Wall Street. Under pressure from shareholders last month, Tesla scheduled an annual shareholders meeting for November to comply with Texas state law. A group of more than 20 Tesla shareholders, which have watched Tesla shares plummet, said in a letter to the company that it needed to at least provide public notice of the annual meeting. Solve the daily Crossword
