News
SpaceX’s Starbase environmental review is inches from the finish line
Update: Just two days after the FAA’s latest delay announcement, an online portal documenting SpaceX’s Starbase environmental assessment progress has been updated to show that the last step requiring “interagency consultations” was completed on June 2nd.
In theory, that means that to successfully complete its Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) for orbital Starship launches, SpaceX merely needs to incorporate all recommendations, requirements, or mitigations added during the interagency review process into one final draft and presumably secure the approval of all relevant stakeholders one last time. Once those documents are complete, approved, and published, all Starbase will need to begin orbital Starship test flights is an FAA launch license.
Securing that launch license is its own can of worms with plenty of unique challenges, but it’s highly unlikely that SpaceX and the FAA won’t be able to come to some kind of agreement allowing the company to begin those test flights within a month or two of receiving a good environmental review. According to the FAA, the final results of the Starbase PEA are scheduled to be released on June 13th.
The US Federal Aviation Administration says that its environmental review of SpaceX’s plan to conduct orbital Starship launches out of South Texas has been delayed for the fifth time in five months.
However, despite the chronic delays and the FAA’s odd decision to announce a new delay every month instead of simply acknowledging that it doesn’t know when the process will be finished, there are now even more reasons to expect a positive outcome.
Even though there were attempts to spin the new information into something negative, a document acquired through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) by Bloomberg revealed that the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) had decided to approve its portion of the Starbase environmental review. Their only condition: that SpaceX implement a few small mitigation measures, “including contracting with a qualified biologist to conduct monitoring of vegetation and birds, operating an employee shuttle between the launch facility site and nearby town of Brownsville, reducing vehicle traffic, and adjusting lights to minimize the impact on sea turtles.” Bloomberg chose not to publish the documents it received through the FOIA process.
In the same set of documents, the FWS also revealed that SpaceX has removed a request for permission to build a small desalination plant, a natural gas production and liquefaction plant, and a natural gas power plant at or near Starbase’s launch site from Starbase’s first Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA). That change comes as little surprise. In fact, SpaceX’s decision to pursue a “programmatic” assessment instead of a more common standalone assessment means that the company will be able to pursue additions to a basic Starbase environmental approval without having to rebuild the foundation each time.
In this case, a “basic approval” would mean the ability to conduct at least a few orbital Starship launches per year. Once that foundation is secured, SpaceX should be able to tier new environmental assessments on top of it and pursue permission for a desalination plant, natural gas production, more annual launches, or any other additions that might benefit Starbase. The simpler the foundation, the harder it should be for environmental stakeholders and agencies to protest or prevent SpaceX from receiving a good outcome.
“The FAA now plans to release the Final PEA on June 13, 2022 to account for ongoing interagency consultations concerning Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. All other consultations and analysis have been completed at this time.”
Another cause for optimism: after four delays of one or two months, the FAA’s latest delay announcement only pushes the conclusion of the review from May 31st to June 13th. Additionally, the FAA confirmed that only one small component of the entire review remains unfinished. Every other major component has been completed successfully and will likely result in a Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or Mitigated FONSI that would greenlight the environmental side of conducting orbital Starship launches out of Boca Chica, Texas.
When the draft PEA was first published, the FAA noted several points of contention over Section 4(f) compliance, which is designed to “protect significant publicly owned public parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges, as well as significant historic sites, whether they are publicly or privately owned.” At the time, the main problem was SpaceX’s request to close the public Boca Chica Beach and the only highway to it for up to 500 hours (~42 days), as well as a contingency that would allow for another 300 hours of closures to safely respond to emergencies.
Thanks to an even more in-depth environmental impact statement (EIS) completed in 2014 for a Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch pad where Starship’s launch site now stands, we know that SpaceX has already met Section 4(f) demands with a plan for up to 180 hours of road closures per year. In the absolute worst-case scenario, SpaceX should be able to drastically reduce its road closure request to satisfy the Department of Transportation. Subsisting on roughly 20-30 days of closures per year would undoubtedly maim Starbase’s utility but it would at least allow SpaceX to conduct a few basic orbital test flights and some limited ground testing while it rapidly redirects most of its effort to finishing alternative Starship production and launch facilities in Florida.
Regardless, it’s now quite likely that SpaceX’s Starbase environmental review will finally be over by the end of June, freeing up the FAA and SpaceX to focus fully on the launch license side of the equation. Meanwhile, SpaceX still has weeks or even months of work ahead of it to prepare a Starship and Super Heavy pair for their first orbital launch attempt, so (for now) there is no risk of the company being forced to sit around and wait for the gears of bureaucracy to turn.
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
