News
How Tesla Battery Day can silence critics once and for all
The hype surrounding Tesla’s Battery Day is very real. Enthusiasts and unknowns are talking about the potential findings that Elon Musk and his crew could unveil on September 22nd, and the event could make way for Tesla to become much larger than it already is. However, there is a good chance that the critics of the electric automaker will have little to say after the event, and if Tesla plays it right, it could be the beginning of the end of the Tesla FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) movement.
It is understandable to assume that Tesla doubters will always exist. Some companies that have the best intentions still have their haters, and that’s just human nature. While Tesla will always have people who will doubt its intentions as a company, Battery Day could be the proverbial duct tape over the lips of the most vocal skeptics.
Tesla still has work to do, and Battery Day’s total appeal comes down to whether the company can manage to live up to the hype. Many rumors are circulating around what Elon Musk could unveil at the event, some related to batteries, and some aren’t. But whatever happens, it really comes down to the “Wow” factor, and whether Tesla can manage to attain that with their findings and unveilings.
To me, the most significant thing Tesla could announce is price parity, and something that is relatively an extra is the possibility that Musk could unveil the Plaid Powertrain. But if the company really wants to make a mark, several things, in my opinion, have to be confronted during the event.
Million-Mile Battery
Tesla’s Million-Mile Battery is almost certainly the most confirmed element of Battery Day. Developments from Jeff Dahn and his team of researchers have come up big for Tesla recently with electrolyte solutions and new studies that show revolutionary energy density measures. Reports across the globe have essentially confirmed that Tesla will unveil this development at the event, and it will be a big win for the electric automaker.
Having a battery that will last as long as two or three vehicle chassis means that when the increased longevity is combined with increasing production, Tesla will have a relatively large-scale supply of batteries available at their disposal. This opens the doors for many things, including price parity and the possibility of becoming a supplier for other electric car companies.
Price Parity…or close to it
Price parity with gas cars wouldn’t only be monumental for Tesla, but for EVs in general. It would prove that gas cars are not always going to be the most economical option for drivers, and the price of battery-powered cars would drop. Having Tesla announce price parity or something close would mean the premium EV brand would have the most affordable vehicles in terms of EV tech and range. It could mean the company’s growth may accelerate much quicker than initially anticipated. If the cars are cheaper, a lot of people will buy them, obviously. While $35,000 is reasonable for the Model 3 Standard Range, many people still are unwilling to spend that much on any car.
Getting the price of batteries down would literally begin the destruction of legacy automakers as if it hasn’t already started. Tesla being the best EV brand and having the best prices per kWh would be so massive, I don’t think many people can begin to fathom the possibilities.
This is a preview from our weekly newsletter. Each week I go ‘Beyond the News’ and handcraft a special edition that includes my thoughts on the biggest stories, why it matters, and how it could impact the future.
Status as a cell supplier for other companies
If Tesla can figure out price parity and long lifespan battery cells, the company will be well on its way to becoming a battery supplier. Long term battery life, combined with affordability, will be a big plus for Tesla’s plans to become a supplier for other EV brands. Having cheap batteries that are high-quality and offer an extended lifespan will be a no brainer. Tesla’s most notable competitors will be forced to source their cells from the Silicon Valley-based company.
Plaid Powertrain for the Model S
The Plaid Powertrain has been highly-anticipated for about a year, and there is a good chance Tesla unveils it at Battery Day. It seems that the issue with putting it into production last year was along the same lines as putting the Semi into production too early: battery shortages. The Plaid Powertrain will have a larger pack, meaning more cells, and putting it on Tesla’s menu too early would have spoiled their plans for the cars that are more crucial to the future of the company. The Model 3 is an excellent example of this. It’s a mass-market car, and the batteries should go toward these efforts instead of a sedan that has increased performance.
The Semi was not put into production because battery cells were not plentiful enough. Creating the Semi and fulfilling the preorders that the company had would have been troublesome for Tesla’s mass-market vehicle push, and it certainly wouldn’t have been the smartest strategy. However, Musk said that a “volume production” push of the Semi needed to occur soon, which basically confirms that the shortage is no longer an issue. The Plaid Powertrain will likely be the next piece of Tesla’s puzzle to be announced.
Is there the possibility that Tesla will shock us with something completely unexpected?
Of course, we’re talking about Elon Musk. The guy that unveiled the next-Gen Roadster as a surprise and the guy that rolled off a Cyberquad after the Cybertruck unveiling. While those are just a vehicle and a four-wheeler, we’re talking about Tesla’s most anticipated event, perhaps ever. There is a lot of potential for groundbreaking announcements next Tuesday, and there is no shortage of things that Musk could announce.
He has said on numerous occasions that Battery Day is going to be insanity and that it will likely blow a lot of minds. But what will transpire exactly, only a few people really know, and there is little sense in trying to guess what Musk will have for us on September 22nd.
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
I use this newsletter to share my thoughts on what is going on in the Tesla world. If you want to talk to me directly, you can email me or reach me on Twitter. I don’t bite, be sure to reach out!
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
