News
Elon Musk shares details on Tesla Model Y redesign, battery cell production in Giga Berlin
One of the most notable moments in Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s visit to the Gigafactory Berlin complex was an impromptu interview with several members of the media. Musk discussed numerous topics in his 9-minute interview, from the quick buildout of Giga Berlin, the upcoming facility’s next-generation paint shop, and why it is pertinent for the German electric vehicle factory to be constructed as soon as possible. But beyond this, Musk also shared details about a couple of pertinent initiatives that will be rolled out in Gigafactory Berlin: the Model Y redesign and local battery cell production.
Based on Musk’s comments, it appears that Giga Berlin is poised to be Tesla’s most advanced factory yet. After candidly admitting that the vehicles from the German plant will likely have better paint than those produced in the United States, Musk noted that the Made-in-Germany Model Y will also be undergoing a radical redesign. Musk stated that some of these updates to the Model Y will be discussed during Battery Day. Following is Musk’s statement as transcribed by Tesla bull and enthusiast James Stephenson.
“Like I was saying, you know, we build the factory and then also there’s a bunch of innovative stuff that we will be doing here that we will tell you about in the future… It’s not just a copy of the Model Y. It’s actually a radical redesign of the core technology of building a car. And some of this, when I do Battery Day in September, I’ll be talking about what we are going to be doing here in Berlin. But it will be the first time there’s going to be a transformation in the core structural design of the vehicle. It’s quite, quite a big thing,” Musk remarked.
Apart from providing new details about the Model Y redesign, Musk also confirmed that Tesla is looking to produce battery cells in the Gigafactory Berlin complex. The Tesla CEO shared this detail while explaining why there is such a rush to get Giga Berlin online as soon as possible. According to Musk, it is pertinent to move fast because of Tesla’s mission, which is to accelerate the advent of sustainable energy. Ultimately, Musk noted that for the sake of the climate, companies like Tesla must move as fast as they can.
“I believe in speed. And I think also, well, to be serious for a second, I think it’s very important for our climate that we move quickly. It matters. I think it’s very important that we accelerate the transition to sustainable energy and that we move as quickly as possible. So this is the reason for the sense of urgency… And I’ve been saying this for a long time. It’s good to see some companies like VW taking this seriously now, but still only a very small percentage of cars that are made are electric.
“And then I think we will probably do more than cars here. I think we will provably be building some battery cells here. I think that’ll be good for stationary storage of wind and solar. Essentially, the three elements that are necessary for a sustainable energy future are energy generation, energy storage, and electric transportation — electric cars, and eventually, electric aircraft. Ironically, everything will go electric except rockets,” Musk said.
Interestingly enough, initial plans for Gigafactory Berlin actually had large areas of the site allotted for a battery cell facility. With this in mind, it appears that Tesla has been pondering local battery cell production for Giga Berlin for some time now. Perhaps the bigger question now is if the company will be utilizing a partner for the Berlin site, similar to its strategy with Panasonic in Gigafactory Nevada, or if Tesla will operate its own custom battery cell lines, similar to the “Roadrunner” project in Fremont.
Watch Elon Musk’s full interview at Gigafactory Berlin in the video below.
H/T James Stephenson.
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
