News
EXCLUSIVE: Tesla Cybertruck battery packs to be built at Fremont Factory
Tesla plans to start building battery packs for the upcoming Cybertruck on a new cell manufacturing line in the Fremont factory, people with knowledge of the project told Teslarati.
In August, we reported that Tesla had filed to build a new battery manufacturing equipment line on the second floor of the Fremont factory. This filing, which was submitted to the City of Fremont on August 30, relates to the module portion of the line, Tesla said.
Tesla described the project as “CTA Battery B-Build,” the filing shows.
Credit: City of Fremont
Tesla is ultimately planning to build the Cybertruck in Austin at Gigafactory Texas. However, battery cells and cell pack manufacturing are not yet ready to take off at the new Tesla plant, which is located just outside Austin. Tesla applied to build a battery and cathode manufacturing building at Gigafactory Texas earlier this year, and while the project has been started, it likely will not be ready for the Cybertruck’s projected launch in mid-2023.
With an extensive order log that features over 1 million total reservations, Tesla is preparing for Cybertruck manufacturing by building the battery packs at a plant that is already operational. The Fremont facility, the only Tesla plant manufacturing all four vehicles the company builds, was ultimately chosen for the task of kicking off Cybertruck pack manufacturing, Teslarati confirmed with sources familiar with the matter.
Cybertruck Battery Pack Manufacturing will start in Fremont
Sources familiar with the matter told Teslarati the second-floor manufacturing line that Tesla filed to build in August will manufacture the Cybertruck packs. Tesla will take the 4680 battery cells produced at the Kato Road facility or another previously utilized cell design manufactured at Gigafactory Nevada and put them into modules and packs that are manufactured on the new Fremont battery line.
Currently, the line is being completed by construction crews on site, who are making daily progress. Additionally, Tesla engineers are installing automation equipment to produce the Cybertruck battery packs.
Tesla did not immediately respond to our request for comment.
Kicking Cybertruck Module Production into “Plaid Mode”
Tesla is also working hard to kick off Cybertruck pack production as time is extremely limited. Tesla has a series of vehicles, referred to as “carriers,” which transport batteries throughout the factory. The company recently ordered around 300 new carriers for the factory as cell and battery pack manufacturing is set to ramp drastically.
The sources also said the Cybertruck battery pack line is currently being tested with Tesla’s automation equipment. Tesla is working to ramp the line quickly as Cybertruck vehicle manufacturing is planned for next year at Gigafactory Texas.
2023: The Year of the Tesla Cybertruck?
Tesla is set to build the Cybertruck at Gigafactory Texas. After unveiling the all-electric pickup in 2019, Tesla has delayed initial production on several occasions due to supply chain issues and other challenges.
“In 2022, supply chain will continue to be the fundamental limiter of output across all factories,” Musk said during Tesla’s Q4 and 2021 Full Year Earnings Call in January. So the chip shortage, while better than last year, is still an issue. And, yeah, so that’s — there are multiple supply chain challenges.”
Musk went on to say that the challenges would delay the launch of any new products in 2022. “We will, however, do a lot of engineering and tooling, what not to create those vehicles: Cybertruck, Semi, Roadster, Optimus, and be ready to bring those to production hopefully next year. That is most likely.”
Although Tesla is planning to begin deliveries of the Semi on December 1, all other projects have been effectively delayed until next year, but preparation to launch those projects is evidently a priority within the factories.
4680 cells are not constrained but are they going into the Cybertruck?
Tesla’s Vice President of Powertrain Drew Baglino detailed earlier this year that the company was not constrained in terms of 4680 battery cell availability.
“So throughout 2021, we focused on growing cell supply alongside our in-house 4680 effort to provide us flexibility and insurance as we attempt to grow as fast as possible,” Baglino said on the Q4 and Full Year 2021 Earnings Call in January. “4680 cells are not a constraint to our 2022 volume plans based on the information we have.”
What Baglino said next on the call likely indicates what Tesla was preparing the Cybertruck for: pack manufacturing at Fremont, shipping the packs to Texas, and then installing them into vehicles:
“But we are making meaningful progress of the ramp curve in Kato. We’re building 4680 structural packs every day, which are being assembled into vehicles in Texas. I was driving one yesterday and the day before. And we believe our first 4680 vehicles will be delivered this quarter.”
The Kato Road facility has supported Tesla’s 4680 cell needs thus far. The 4680 packs were installed on some Gigafactory Texas-built Model Ys, and were reviewed by Munro Live earlier this year. Fremont will likely support Cybertruck pack manufacturing for some time, utilizing cells from Kato Road and from suppliers like Panasonic when they ultimately being manufacturing the battery for Tesla.
As Cybertruck manufacturing ramps up into late 2023, 2024, and beyond, packs will then be at Fremont and Gigafactory Texas, which would likely entirely support Cybertruck production.
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.
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
