News
Tesla battery supplier LG Chem to double production capacity: report
Tesla battery supplier LG Chem will double its cell production capacity over the next year to keep up with the growing demand for Tesla’s electric vehicles in China, a new report says.
An exclusive report from Reuters states that sources familiar with the matter have talked about strategies moving forward to keep up with increasingly popular all-electric vehicles from Tesla. LG Chem, who supplies cells to Tesla in Shanghai for the production of the Model 3 sedan, stated that it would also ship its increased output from China and Korea to Tesla production facilities in the United States and Germany once they are completed. Tesla currently has a new production facility under construction in Austin, Texas, and in Brandenburg, Germany. Reuters indicated that two people who are familiar with the matter have seen LG Chem signal an increased role in the supply chain of Tesla as it continues to grow its lead in the EV production sector.
Tesla is LG Chem’s primary customer, and the plan to double its cell production capacity comes as Tesla begins to expand its global production processes aggressively. Tesla has been manufacturing vehicles in Shanghai for around a year and announced its intentions to build a European production facility around 13 months ago. Rumors also speculate that another factory could be on the way within the next few years, and India could be the location, but nothing has been confirmed.
LG Chem to double China battery capacity to meet Tesla demand | Reuters $TSLA
— David Tayar (@davidtayar5) December 1, 2020
LG Chem has already added additional production lines to increase the possible production capacity in South Korea this year. The main purpose of the expansion was to meet demand from Tesla’s U.S. plants, the two sources told Reuters. “Tesla simply doesn’t have enough battery cells, so LG Chem is going to more than double China outputs,” the person said.
Tesla sources batteries from Panasonic, LG Chem, and CATL, and CEO Elon Musk stated at the company’s Battery Day event in September that it plans to begin making its own 4680 cells that will be less expensive and more efficient. However, the company will continue to source batteries from suppliers for the time being, but could eventually become a battery supplier on its own as it has plans to open several battery cell production facilities across the globe.
Tesla China signs contract with LG Chem for Model Y production
To keep up with global demand, Tesla will have to source batteries from third-party sources for the time being, and an LG Chem spokesperson said that there is an increased demand for cells. However, he could not elaborate on who was the cause of the expansion in cell production capacity.
“We’re continuing to expand capacity for cylindrical battery cells in response to growing demand from automakers, but we can’t comment on specific customers,” an LG Chem spokesman told Reuters.
LG Chem plans to invest $500 million over the next year to raise the annual production of 2170 cells by 8 GWh. The 2170 cells are used in the Model 3 and Model Y, Tesla’s two mass-market vehicles. Currently, eight production lines are operational at the Nanjing, China plant that LG Chem manufactures its batteries, but it plans to expand its available lines to seventeen.
Tesla currently only manufactures the Model 3 at its Chinese production facility, but it plans to begin building the Model Y within the next few months. Because of the overwhelming demand for both the Model 3 and Model Y, the move to expand 2170 cell capacity is a no-brainer, especially considering the Government-offered subsidies that China provides for clean energy vehicles.
The person who spoke with Reuters also indicated that LG Chem’s Chinese factory would initially supply battery cells for Tesla’s Giga Berlin production facility in Germany when it begins production in Summer 2021.
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
