You’ll never know how far the Tesla Semi, the Volvo VNR, or other electric semi-trucks will go according to EPA testing standards. The answer is incredibly complex, but simply put, the EPA does not test or evaluate heavy-duty trucks for range ratings. Don’t expect the agency to tell you how far the Tesla Semi or other EV trucks will go because testing simply does not happen.
This allows manufacturers of heavy-duty electric vehicles and semi-trucks to have a profoundly unique ability to control the narrative that surrounds how far their product can go on a full charge. As crazy as it sounds, customers leaping into the all-electric Class 8 sector are putting trust in the companies they buy from when weighing what is arguably the most important metric of the EV ownership experience: range.
Following the certification of the Tesla Semi by the EPA in late October, which Teslarati exclusively reported on, we were bombarded with questions surrounding the vehicle’s EPA-rated range. Light-duty passenger electric vehicles and their success can almost always be gauged by how customers react to range ratings during unveiling events. When Lucid announced it had successfully reached an EPA-rated 520 miles of range on a single charge in the Air Dream Edition, the EV world was astounded. While the vehicle has felt heavy demand on order logs, Lucid still fulfills them to this day.
Meanwhile, other manufacturers bring vehicles to the market with relatively “light” range projections or ratings. It is always disappointing to see a vehicle with so much potential offer so little of what EV owners want: driving range. People do not want to stop at EV chargers. They want to continue their journey on the roads.
Polestar’s recently-unveiled Polestar 3 comes to mind when I (and some others) think of an astounding vehicle with not-so-astounding range and efficiency. Despite its 111 kWh battery pack, the Polestar 3 only offers 379 miles of WLTP-rated range. WLTP ratings are usually much more generous than EPA ratings, so I am anticipating the vehicle to reach around 300 miles of range when the U.S. agency gets its hands on it.
When light-duty vehicles are assessed, approved, and granted Certificates of Conformity from the EPA, they are available for the public to read and include results on efficiency and range testing. This is where heavy-duty vehicles and the testing process differ vastly from light-duty ones.
While these are both vehicle classes that are purchased and used by consumers on public roads, only light-duty vehicles are assessed for range ratings, while heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers do not have their products’ range “evaluated, reported, or included” in an application for certification, the EPA said in an emailed statement.
The EPA has numerous documents relating to this idea, as well as the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). However, the documents never directly specified why heavy-duty vehicles are not required to be tested by federal agencies. That does not mean that reasoning is not available.
The fact of the matter is the agency may not have been prepared to test heavy-duty electric vehicles for range ratings, especially this soon. A document found in the Federal Register that was submitted by the EPA and Department of Transportation (USDOT) in 2016 titled, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles— Phase 2,” which established rules to reduce greenhouse gases, includes an interesting tidbit regarding electric vehicles:
“Given the high up-front costs and the developing nature of this technology, the agencies do not project fully electric vocational vehicles to be widely commercially available in the time frame of the final rules. For this reason, the agencies have not based the Phase 2 standards on adoption of full-electric vocational vehicles. We received many comments on electric trucks and buses. Specifically, EEI provided information on the total cost of ownership for electric trucks, and some applications may see attractive long-term cost.”
The time frame of the final rules is set to end in 2027 and apply to model year 2027 vehicles, according to the document.
The agency recognized in 2016 that these technologies may be in development, and we all know they are. As the EPA and NHTSA may not have been able to predict how quickly all-electric heavy-duty trucks would become a prevalent piece of American logistics, the agencies were aware that this technology was coming in the future:
“Phase 2 will include technology advancing standards that will phase in over the long-term (through model year 2027) to result in an ambitious, yet achievable program that will allow manufacturers to meet standards through a mix of different technologies at reasonable cost. The terminal requirements go into effect in 2027, and would apply to MY 2027 and subsequent model year vehicles, unless modified by future rulemaking. The Phase 2 standards will maintain the underlying regulatory structure developed in the Phase 1 program, such as the general categorization of MDVs and HDVs and the separate standards for vehicles and engines. However, the Phase 2 program will build on and advance Phase 1 in a number of important ways including the following: basing standards not only on currently available technologies but also on utilization of technologies now under development or not yet widely deployed while providing significant lead time to assure adequate time to develop, test, and phase in these controls.”
So, how do manufacturers determine range?
This is where things get very tricky because if the EPA is not testing the range itself as an unbiased government organization, it means manufacturers are required to test the vehicles themselves, leaving consumers to trust the companies that they are buying from.
Technically, manufacturers could say whatever they want regarding their electric trucks. Tesla has maintained significant range ratings for the Semi throughout its development, with Elon Musk recently stating the vehicle will have 500 miles of range per charge, with a sizeable payload. Of course, Tesla has been testing its vehicle internally and with the help of verified customers, like Frito Lay, who will take delivery of the first Semi on December 1.
It really comes down to independent testing. Volvo, for example, tested the range of its all-electric VNR Class 8 heavy-duty truck through a pilot program with third-party companies. Through its LIGHTS (Low Impact Green Heavy Transport Solutions) project, Volvo had companies like NFI Industries test the VNR through its commercial operations to prove and demonstrate the truck’s ability.
“By participating in the Volvo LIGHTS project, NFI is helping to prove that Volvo’s VNR Electric trucks can handle the daily rigors of freight movement. NFI continues to be a leader in sustainability, and it comes across in everything they do,” Peter Voorhoeve, president of Volvo Trucks North America, said. “NFI is realizing the immediate value the electric VNR provides—not just by eliminating emissions but creating an enthusiastic workforce complimenting the experience of driving these electric truck models.”
The LIGHTS project ran through 2021 and provided Volvo with “real-world operational data critical to the successful commercial scaling of these vehicles.”
So how do you know how far an all-electric Class 8 heavy-duty vehicle goes? You might literally have to find out for yourself, or you can trust the manufacturer’s word for it.
I’d love to hear from you! If you have any comments, concerns, or questions, please email me at joey@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @KlenderJoey, or if you have news tips, you can email us at tips@teslarati.com.
Elon Musk broke his silence regarding the jury decision to throw out the case against OpenAI and Sam Altman. The Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI frontman has already indicated that an appeal will be filed regarding the decision, which went against him yesterday.
A Federal jury dismissed this high-profile lawsuit after less than two hours of deliberation due to a statute-of-limitations issue.
In a strongly worded post on X on May 18, Musk addressed the federal jury’s dismissal of his high-profile lawsuit against OpenAI, vowing to appeal the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The decision, according to Musk, was centered not on the substantive claims but on a statute-of-limitations technicality.
Musk’s lawsuit, filed in 2024, accused OpenAI co-founders Sam Altman and Greg Brockman of breaching the organization’s original nonprofit mission. OpenAI was established in 2015 as a non-profit dedicated to developing artificial intelligence for the benefit of all humanity, with Musk as a key early donor and co-founder before departing in 2018.
Musk alleged that Altman and Brockman improperly shifted the company toward a for-profit model, enriched themselves through massive valuations and partnerships (including with Microsoft), and betrayed founding agreements.
In his post, Musk emphasized that the judge and jury “never actually ruled on the merits of the case, just on a calendar technicality.” He stated unequivocally: “There is no question to anyone following the case in detail that Altman & Brockman did in fact enrich themselves by stealing a charity. The only question is WHEN they did it!”
Regarding the OpenAI case, the judge & jury never actually ruled on the merits of the case, just on a calendar technicality.
There is no question to anyone following the case in detail that Altman & Brockman did in fact enrich themselves by stealing a charity. The only question…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 18, 2026
Musk argued that allowing such actions to stand without review sets a dangerous precedent. “I will be filing an appeal with the Ninth Circuit, because creating a precedent to loot charities is incredibly destructive to charitable giving in America,” he wrote. He reiterated OpenAI’s founding purpose: “OpenAI was founded to benefit all of humanity.”
The jury’s unanimous advisory verdict found that Musk’s claims of breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment were filed outside California’s three-year statute of limitations. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers adopted the finding and dismissed the case. OpenAI hailed the outcome as vindication, while Musk’s legal team immediately signaled plans to appeal.
The trial, which featured testimony from Musk, Altman, Brockman, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, and others, exposed deep rifts in Silicon Valley over AI’s direction.
Musk has long warned that profit-driven AI development, especially with closed models and powerful corporate ties, risks endangering humanity—contrasting it with OpenAI’s original open, safety-focused charter. OpenAI countered that the suit stemmed from business rivalry and that Musk himself had explored for-profit paths earlier.
Musk’s appeal could prolong the saga, potentially affecting OpenAI’s valuation (reportedly over $800 billion) and IPO ambitions. Supporters view his stance as defending nonprofit integrity, while critics see it as sour grapes from a competitor whose own xAI is racing in the AI arena.
Regardless of the legal outcome, the case has spotlighted critical questions about trust, governance, and mission drift in the rapidly evolving AI industry. Musk’s willingness to fight on suggests this chapter is far from closed, with broader implications for how charitable organizations—and the tech giants born from them—operate in the future.
Elon Musk
NASA updated Artemis III and SpaceX’s role just got more complicated
SpaceX’s Starship is the key to NASA’s Moon plan and the timeline is already slipping.
SpaceX has been at the center of NASA’s Moon ambitions for five years, and the updated Artemis III plan recently released by NASA makes that relationship more visible than ever. In April 2021, NASA awarded SpaceX a $2.89 billion contract to develop the Starship Human Landing System, selecting it as the sole provider to land astronauts on the Moon under Artemis III. Blue Origin filed legal protests, lost, and eventually received its own contract, but SpaceX was always the program’s primary lander contractor.
The original plan called for Starship to land two astronauts on the lunar south pole. That mission slipped as Starship development ran behind schedule, and in February 2026, NASA officially revised the Artemis III architecture entirely. The mission will now remain in low Earth orbit and serve as a crewed rendezvous and docking test between the Orion spacecraft and both the SpaceX Starship HLS pathfinder and Blue Origin’s Blue Moon Mark 2 pathfinder, with the actual Moon landing pushed to Artemis IV in 2028.
What makes SpaceX’s position particularly significant is the direct line between this week’s Starship V3 launch and the Artemis timeline. The Starship HLS is essentially a modified version of the V3 upper stage, meaning SpaceX cannot realistically prepare a lander for a 2027 docking test until it has demonstrated that the base vehicle flies reliably at scale. Flight 12, targeting this week, is the first data point in that sequence.
NASA has spent nearly $7 billion on Human Landing System development since awarding contracts to SpaceX and Blue Origin in 2021 and 2023, and NASA administrator Jared Isaacman has indicated a desire to drive down costs going forward. As Teslarati reported, before Starship HLS can put anyone on the Moon it has to solve a problem no rocket has demonstrated at scale, which is refueling in orbit, requiring approximately ten tanker launches worth of propellant loaded into a depot before the lander has enough fuel to reach the lunar surface.
The Artemis III mission described by NASA is essentially a stress test for every system that needs to work before any of that happens.
SpaceX has gone from a launch contractor to the single most critical hardware provider in America’s return-to-the-Moon program. With an IPO targeting a $1.75 trillion valuation and Elon Musk’s compensation tied directly to Mars colonization, the pressure on every Starship milestone between now and 2028 has never been higher.
Tesla is continuing to refine and improve its Robotaxi program from A to Z, and it is now going to make some sweeping changes to the smartphone app portion of the suite.
The company is aiming to make some sweeping changes with the release of Robotaxi app version 26.4.5, which was recently decompiled by Tesla App Updates on X. The update reveals significant new code, focused on remote operations, safety protocols, and seamless autonomous ride-hailing.
These improvements evidently signal Tesla’s preparations for scaling unsupervised Cybercab deployments, particularly the steering wheel-less variants spotted in production. The enhancements emphasize providing a reliable experience that gives passengers support when needed, along with operational efficiency.
Version 26.4.5 of the Robotaxi app has been de-compiled and we’ve got some interesting things added this update (https://t.co/jInbED7fOv):
– Remote Operator Voice Calls 📞
– Proactive Remote Assistance 🤖
– Manual Override + Remote Start for wheel-less Cybercabs 🎮
-…
— Tesla App Updates (iOS) (@Tesla_App_iOS) May 16, 2026
Remote Operator Voice Calls
One standout addition is support for remote operator voice calls. The app now includes a dedicated native voice-communication system linking passengers directly to Tesla teleoperators via the vehicle’s cabin microphone and speakers.
This feature allows real-time assistance during rides, addressing issues like navigation questions or comfort adjustments without disrupting the autonomous journey. It builds on existing support protocols, making human intervention more accessible and intuitive.
Proactive Remote Assistance
The update introduces proactive remote assistance capabilities. Rather than waiting for passenger-initiated requests, the system can anticipate and offer help based on monitored conditions.
This might include something like suggesting route changes, climate adjustments, or addressing potential delays. By integrating AI-driven monitoring with human oversight, Tesla aims to deliver a smoother, more attentive experience that exceeds traditional ride-sharing services.
Manual Override and Remote Start for Steering Wheel-less Cybercabs
A key highlight for the wheel-less Cybercab fleet is manual override plus remote start functionality. Fleet operators and technicians can now temporarily take control or remotely start vehicles lacking steering wheels. This is crucial for lower-speed maneuvers, such as getting vehicles from tight parking situations or even performing maintenance.
Controls are strictly limited for safety–typically to speeds under 2 MPH–ensuring these interventions remain emergency measures only.
Tesla is adding a secure “Enable Manual Drive” mode that will allow those fleet operators or others to take control temporarily.
Additionally, a Remote Start feature, which authorizes an empty vehicle to begin a driverless ride alone.
Ride-Hailing and Dispatch Features
Ride dispatch has been enhanced with soft-matching and multi-stop support. The app can intelligently pair riders with available Cybercabs while accommodating multiple destinations in a single trip.
This optimizes fleet utilization, reduces wait times, and improves efficiency for shared rides. Soft-matching likely considers factors like proximity, rider preferences, and vehicle availability for better user satisfaction.
Rider-Cabin Sync, Real-Time Routing
New synchronization tools allow the rider’s app to mirror and control cabin settings like seating, climate, and entertainment directly from their phone. Real-time routing updates adapt dynamically to traffic or road conditions, while dynamic safety monitoring continuously assesses the environment.
The app can now push updates directly to the main screen, enabling Center Display Control. Additionally, there is a dedicated navigation protocol sharing the exact coordinates of road closures and construction, which could prevent the car from getting stuck and needing manual override.
These features create a cohesive, responsive experience where the vehicle and app work in harmony.
Kill Switch
A high-security command lets Tesla completely freeze a vehicle’s ability to drive. This would take the vehicle out of the Robotaxi fleet for any reason Tesla sees fit, and would not allow it to be put into gear even with the correct equipment, like valid keys.
Elon Musk breaks silence on OpenAI trial decision
NASA updated Artemis III and SpaceX’s role just got more complicated
