News
Tesla Model Y from Giga Texas is just one EPA approval away from first deliveries
Hundreds of Tesla Model Y all-electric crossovers have been spotted in the lots of Gigafactory Texas in the past few weeks, with some being spotted on haulers to be driven to destinations not known. However, haulers will likely be back soon for another logistics mission: to pick up the “Austin-made” Model Ys and take them to customers for delivery.
Tesla will be able to begin delivering units of its Austin-made Model Y all-electric crossover from Gigafactory Texas following the EPA approval of the vehicle, the agency told Teslarati. Currently, the Model Y from Gigafactory Texas is being produced with Tesla’s newest 4680 battery cells and new structural battery pack, has not gained its Certificate of Conformity, a document needed for a vehicle to be introduced into commerce.
Certificates of Conformity are effectively approval by the EPA that a vehicle can enter the stream of commerce. If it is introduced into commerce, the vehicle must have a Certificate of Conformity. The certifications are valid for a single model year, and new model year vehicles make their way to the EPA’s testing facility in Ann Arbor, Michigan every year to confirm they align with the EPA’s emissions standards.
“Prior to offering a vehicle for sale, all carlines in the Light-duty sector must be certified and Fuel Economy test data representing each model type must be submitted to EPA,” the EPA said to Teslarati in a statement. “EPA can confirm that Tesla has received a Certificate of Conformity for the 2022 Model Y Long Range AWD, Model Y Performance AWD (Test Group NTSLV00.0L2Y) and a Certificate for the Model Y RWD (Test Group NTSLV00.0L1Y).” These test groups were certified by the EPA last year, with the 2022 Model Y Long Range AWD and Performance variants gaining their Certificate of Conformity on November 1, 2021. It does not expire until December 31, 2022. The 2022 Model Y RWD, which is the variant that Tesla ultimately did not sell, gained its Certificate of Conformity from the EPA on September 28.
(Credit: Jeff Roberts)
Tesla’s Model Y made in Austin will also be a 2022 Model Y, which would mean it would technically align with the EPA’s Certificates of Conformity, especially as the geographic location of manufacture does not determine whether a vehicle conforms to the EPA’s standards or not. “EPA does not use the build location as a descriptor for a new test group or Certificate of Conformity,” the agency said. Instead, updates in the vehicle’s battery pack can prompt the EPA to consider certifying a vehicle again, even if the changes occur to a car in the same model year. However, the changes made to the vehicle prompted the EPA to certify the Austin-made Model Y separately.
In its 2017 document titled, “EPA Test Procedures for Electric Vehicles and Plug-in Hybrids,” the agency says that Confirmatory Testing for vehicles with the same model year is determined on a case-by-case basis, and the EPA can make a choice to certify a vehicle based on the changes:
“Currently, EPA performs confirmatory testing on all new light-duty electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid vehicles at EPA’s emission testing laboratory in Ann Arbor Michigan. If the manufacturer makes changes to an EV or PHEV that was previously tested at EPA, EPA will decide on a case-by-case basis whether additional EPA confirmatory testing is needed.”
What were the changes Tesla made exactly? The EPA confirmed to us that it could not comment on the status “of preproduction vehicles that are pending new emissions certification until manufacturers introduce them into commerce,” which means the Model Y’s changes are confidential until the car earns its Certificate of Conformity. Tesla did not respond to our inquiries to clarify why the vehicle needed to go through the EPA’s conformity procedure once again. However, Tesla’s most recent Earnings Call provided plenty of color to what the changes that prompted a new certification process likely are, and it has to do with Tesla’s 4680 battery cell.
The Battery Pack likely required the EPA to certify the Model Y once again
During the Q4 2021 Earnings Call, Tesla said that “after final certification of Austin-made Model Y, we plan to start deliveries to customers.” Additionally, during the Earnings Call CEO Elon Musk stated that Tesla was “building the Model Ys with the structural battery pack and the 4680 cells, and we’ll start delivering after final certification of the vehicle, which should be fairly soon.” Read More.
Previous builds of the Model Y, even 2022 model year vehicles, which were built at the Fremont Factory, have not yet used Tesla’s 4680 battery pack or the structural battery pack. Instead, Model Ys built at Fremont in the United States have used the automaker’s previous cell chemistry, the 2170 cell. When the EPA certified Tesla’s 2022 model year vehicles in August 2021, the certifications were for the previous battery pack. Read More.
Tesla Model Y from Giga Texas will equip Structural Battery Pack, 4680 cells
The 4680 batteries differ significantly from the 2170 cell in power, range, and efficiency. Therefore, the Model Y from Texas will have ratings that are substantially different from previous builds from Fremont. The Model Y from Austin needs eMPG ratings for FuelEconomy.gov and Monroney stickers.
Once Tesla is granted a Certificate of Conformity for Model Ys that are set to be produced at Gigafactory Texas, the automaker will be able to deliver the vehicles to customers.
Documents obtained by Teslarati show Tesla’s application to have the Model Y’s AWD and Performance variants certified together, while the RWD build of the car was certified separately. The documents state that each variant of the car conformed with California Air and Resource Board (CARB) standards, as well as Federal Emissions Standards that States which do not align with the CARB standards utilize. Texas withdrew its intentions to adopt CARB standards in 2007, State documents revealed.
States that have adopted CARB standards are New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Washington, Oregon, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and most recently, Colorado, which adopted the standards this year.
How long until the Tesla Model Y from Gigafactory Texas is approved by the EPA?
The EPA cannot predict the timing of the certification process, and it varies from vehicle to vehicle. Rough timeframes are available by determining when Tesla submitted an application for a vehicle and when the vehicle gained its Certificate of Conformity.
Tesla’s application for the 2022 Model Y Long Range AWD and Performance variants is dated for October 21, while the Certificate of Conformity is dated November 1. However, this vehicle had a previous model year and utilized the same battery pack. The timeframe may be quicker as the 4680 pack has not been previously tested by the EPA for a passenger vehicle.
When Tesla submitted its application for the 2021 Model Y, it was the first certification process for the vehicle. Tesla submitted the application on December 13, 2019, with the Model Y gaining its Certificate of Conformity about a month later on January 8.
If Tesla submitted its application for the new Model Y on January 26 when it announced it was awaiting certification, deliveries could be approved within the coming days.
4680 Battery Cell
In September 2020, Tesla held “Battery Day” to unveil a new cell and manufacturing design that would increase vehicle safety and structural integrity. Musk unveiled the 4680 cell, a new electric vehicle battery capable of more range, power, and performance while offering a longer life cycle. Tesla has been producing the cell in volume at a facility known as Kato Road near the company’s Fremont factory in Northern California. Until now, no customer has driven a Tesla vehicle equipping the 4680 cell. The Model Y built at the Texas factory will be the first Tesla vehicle to utilize the new 4680 battery pack. Read More.
The vehicle will also utilize Tesla’s structural battery pack, the automaker confirmed. The structural battery pack uses engineering similar to an aircraft wing to use negative mass to increase structural integrity and density. The packs will also use a structural adhesive and flame retardant, attaching cells to the floor and ceiling of the pack, increasing stiffness and preventing major deformation in the event of a crash. Read More.
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.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
