News
Tesla Supercharger Network allows Model 3 owner to travel from NY to FL for less than $70
One of Tesla’s biggest advantages in the electric vehicle sector is arguably its Supercharger Network, which allows vehicles to recharge their batteries in a convenient, rapid, and affordable fashion. This was highlighted recently by a Model 3 owner who spent less than $70 in Supercharging fees during a two-day trip that spanned over 1,200 miles, from Buffalo, NY to Melbourne, FL.
Tesla owner Richard Clements shared some insights about his 1,248-mile drive in a recent post on the Tesla Owners Club New York State blog. According to the Tesla owner, the trip was not difficult at all, especially since the Model 3 provided all the information necessary to ensure that the vehicle always had sufficient charge.
Thanks to the Supercharger Network’s reasonable rates, the Model 3 owner only spent an average of $0.25/kWh during the New York to Florida trip. This meant that over the course of the two-day drive, Clements only spent a total of $69.96 in Supercharger fees. The Tesla owner noted that this amount was about half of what he used to spend when he was still making the trip with his Jaguar or CR-V. Even with low fuel prices, Clements noted that he would spend about $140 in fuel costs.
The Model 3’s total charging time at Tesla Superchargers stood at about 207 minutes, though 40 minutes of this was done in a hotel, where Clements spent the night. With this in consideration, the Tesla owner noted that the effective charging time of the Model 3 was actually just around 167 minutes. Based on his driving behavior, which involves stopping for bathroom and food breaks every 3.5 hours or so, the Tesla owner noted that the Model 3’s downtime was comparable to his previous ICE vehicles.
“To make a valid time comparison though, our Supercharging time in Wytheville VA was done right in the parking lot of the hotel where we were spending the night, so that charging time had no effect on our overall travel time. Deducting those 40 minutes makes the effective time 167 minutes. To make a valid comparison, there has to be some downtime on a trip like this. Any ICE vehicle still needs about 10 minutes to refuel at least 3 times on a trip of 1,250 miles, so by my estimate that’s 30 minutes for refueling.
“Also, as a practical matter, we don’t generally last more than about 3.5 hours without a need for plumbing or something to eat, so generally, we’d also be stopping for some meals… Assuming lunch and other miscellaneous breaks on our Florida run, that would easily account for about another 2 hours of downtime. So adding those two hours to the gasoline refueling time, the total would be 160 minutes. That compares to the 167 minutes in our Tesla—only an insignificant 7 minute’s difference,” Clements concluded.
Tesla’s ramp of its Supercharger Network would likely accelerate this year, particularly as the company doubles down on the expansion of its V3 chargers across the United States. Overseas, Tesla’s charging network is also making waves, with the electric car maker establishing a dedicated Supercharger factory just a few miles from Gigafactory Shanghai. The facility is expected to have an output of 10,000 Superchargers per year.
Clements’ full account of his sub-$70, 1,248-mile drive from Buffalo, NY to Melbourne, FL could be accessed here.
Don’t hesitate to contact us for news tips. Just send a message to the Teslarati team through tips@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
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
