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.
Investor's Corner
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
