News
Tesla’s 4680 Kato Rd. facility has a top 10 capacity, and it’s not even close to finished
Tesla CEO Elon Musk disclosed some details about the electric automaker’s 4680 cell plant last week. After stating that the facility is “probably in the top 10 battery cell factories on Earth despite being a pilot plant,” speculation began about how massive Tesla’s new facility that sits just across the street from the Fremont production facility is. Although it is in the top 10, it’s not even close to finished.
Tesla’s introduction of the 4680 battery cell came in September 2020 at the Battery Day event. Musk and others outlined the company’s roadmap for global EV dominance through the most important part of an electric car: the cell. The new cell has 500% more energy, six times the power of the old 2170 cells, and also offers dramatic range increases for more drive time between charges. It was truly revolutionary because Tesla is already the most notable company in electric cars.
With a considerable lead in the EV sector, Tesla was effectively announcing, “eat our (sustainable) dust” after showing the new 4680 cells. Some were skeptical, believing that the new cell wouldn’t be available for some time. Musk immediately silenced those doubts, indicating that the new cells had been deployed in working vehicles for months.
Credit: Tesla
The point is, the Kato Road facility, as it is widely known as, is one of the largest facilities in the world. While we are not sure what the current capacity is, if it is a top 10 facility in terms of capacity, we can speculate how big it may be.
According to Argus Media, the 10 largest battery cell plants range from 24 GWh per year to 70 GWh per year. The largest, an LG Chem facility in Wroclaw, Poland, has the 70 GWh capacity, leading BYD’s Qinghai, China plant by 10 GWh. Tesla and Panasonic’s joint venture at Gigafactory 1 in Nevada is a 35 GWh per year facility, making it the fifth-largest plant globally.
Credit: Argus Research
Because Tesla’s Kato Road facility is a pilot plant, we can likely assume that it is within the bottom half of this list. Especially with Gigafactory 1 being the fifth-largest, it is very likely that Kato Road is simply not producing as many cells or as much battery capacity as Giga 1, but it’s not to say that this won’t happen. The issue is that Tesla is still battery constrained, even with a large-scale facility in Nevada and with several third-party manufacturers pumping cells to the automaker at a massive rate. Kato Road will contribute to the solution to the constrained problem, and the facility will likely be significantly larger than Giga 1, considering the projects that Tesla plans to fulfill with the 4680 cells, the largest being the Tesla Semi.
The Semi is still not ready for production, Musk said on the Q4 Earnings Call last week. “We will have cells group in ourselves for Semi when we were producing the 4680 volume. But for example, Semi would use typically five times the number of cells that a car would use, but it would not sell for five times what a car would sell for. So it kind of doesn’t make…it would not make sense for us to do the Semi right now,” Musk said. The issue is cell availability, and since the Semi is going to equip Tesla’s newest 4680 project, it is safe to assume that Kato Road still has some expanding to do. If it is already a top 10 facility, yet it is still not ready to take on the massive Semi task, along with all of the other vehicles it will eventually fulfill, Kato Road may become a top 3 facility.
Ultimately, Tesla requires more cells. With no plans to eliminate purchases from third-party suppliers in the near-term, Tesla wants to increase purchases from those suppliers. CATL, Panasonic, and LG Chem could supply Tesla with more batteries moving forward, even with the Kato Road facility’s expansion and ramping up. The fact is, Tesla isn’t done solving the battery constraint issue, and it could battle with it for years to come. However, it won’t stop production from increasing because more cells are becoming available almost every day through supplier deals, increased outputs, and in-house manufacturing advancements, all of which make Tesla the company to beat for the foreseeable future.
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
