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.
Elon Musk
SpaceX issues statement on Starship V3 Booster 18 anomaly
The incident unfolded during gas-system pressure testing at the company’s Massey facility in Starbase, Texas.
SpaceX has issued an initial statement about Starship Booster 18’s anomaly early Friday. The incident unfolded during gas-system pressure testing at the company’s Massey facility in Starbase, Texas.
SpaceX’s initial comment
As per SpaceX in a post on its official account on social media platform X, Booster 18 was undergoing gas system pressure tests when the anomaly happened. Despite the nature of the incident, the company emphasized that no propellant was loaded, no engines were installed, and personnel were kept at a safe distance from the booster, resulting in zero injuries.
“Booster 18 suffered an anomaly during gas system pressure testing that we were conducting in advance of structural proof testing. No propellant was on the vehicle, and engines were not yet installed. The teams need time to investigate before we are confident of the cause. No one was injured as we maintain a safe distance for personnel during this type of testing. The site remains clear and we are working plans to safely reenter the site,” SpaceX wrote in its post on X.
Incident and aftermath
Livestream footage from LabPadre showed Booster 18’s lower half crumpling around the liquid oxygen tank area at approximately 4:04 a.m. CT. Subsequent images posted by on-site observers revealed extensive deformation across the booster’s lower structure. Needless to say, spaceflight observers have noted that Booster 18 would likely be a complete loss due to its anomaly.
Booster 18 had rolled out only a day earlier and was one of the first vehicles in the Starship V3 program. The V3 series incorporates structural reinforcements and reliability upgrades intended to prepare Starship for rapid-reuse testing and eventual tower-catch operations. Elon Musk has been optimistic about Starship V3, previously noting on X that the spacecraft might be able to complete initial missions to Mars.
Investor's Corner
Tesla analyst maintains $500 PT, says FSD drives better than humans now
The team also met with Tesla leaders for more than an hour to discuss autonomy, chip development, and upcoming deployment plans.
Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) received fresh support from Piper Sandler this week after analysts toured the Fremont Factory and tested the company’s latest Full Self-Driving software. The firm reaffirmed its $500 price target, stating that FSD V14 delivered a notably smooth robotaxi demonstration and may already perform at levels comparable to, if not better than, average human drivers.
The team also met with Tesla leaders for more than an hour to discuss autonomy, chip development, and upcoming deployment plans.
Analysts highlight autonomy progress
During more than 75 minutes of focused discussions, analysts reportedly focused on FSD v14’s updates. Piper Sandler’s team pointed to meaningful strides in perception, object handling, and overall ride smoothness during the robotaxi demo.
The visit also included discussions on updates to Tesla’s in-house chip initiatives, its Optimus program, and the growth of the company’s battery storage business. Analysts noted that Tesla continues refining cost structures and capital expenditure expectations, which are key elements in future margin recovery, as noted in a Yahoo Finance report.
Analyst Alexander Potter noted that “we think FSD is a truly impressive product that is (probably) already better at driving than the average American.” This conclusion was strengthened by what he described as a “flawless robotaxi ride to the hotel.”
Street targets diverge on TSLA
While Piper Sandler stands by its $500 target, it is not the highest estimate on the Street. Wedbush, for one, has a $600 per share price target for TSLA stock.
Other institutions have also weighed in on TSLA stock as of late. HSBC reiterated a Reduce rating with a $131 target, citing a gap between earnings fundamentals and the company’s market value. By contrast, TD Cowen maintained a Buy rating and a $509 target, pointing to strong autonomous driving demonstrations in Austin and the pace of software-driven improvements.
Stifel analysts also lifted their price target for Tesla to $508 per share over the company’s ongoing robotaxi and FSD programs.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Version 3 booster crumples in early testing
Photos of the incident’s aftermath suggest that Booster 18 will likely be retired.
SpaceX’s new Starship first-stage booster, Booster 18, suffered major damage early Friday during its first round of testing in Starbase, Texas, just one day after rolling out of the factory.
Based on videos of the incident, the lower section of the rocket booster appeared to crumple during a pressurization test. Photos of the incident’s aftermath suggest that Booster 18 will likely be retired.
Booster test failure
SpaceX began structural and propellant-system verification tests on Booster 18 Thursday night at the Massey’s Test Site, only a few miles from Starbase’s production facilities, as noted in an Ars Technica report. At 4:04 a.m. CT on Friday, a livestream from LabPadre Space captured the booster’s lower half experiencing a sudden destructive event around its liquid oxygen tank section. Post-incident images, shared on X by @StarshipGazer, showed notable deformation in the booster’s lower structure.
Neither SpaceX nor Elon Musk had commented as of Friday morning, but the vehicle’s condition suggests it is likely a complete loss. This is quite unfortunate, as Booster 18 is already part of the Starship V3 program, which includes design fixes and upgrades intended to improve reliability. While SpaceX maintains a rather rapid Starship production line in Starbase, Booster 18 was generally expected to validate the improvements implemented in the V3 program.
Tight deadlines
SpaceX needs Starship boosters and upper stages to begin demonstrating rapid reuse, tower catches, and early operational Starlink missions over the next two years. More critically, NASA’s Artemis program depends on an on-orbit refueling test in the second half of 2026, a requirement for the vehicle’s expected crewed lunar landing around 2028.
While SpaceX is known for diagnosing failures quickly and returning to testing at unmatched speed, losing the newest-generation booster at the very start of its campaign highlights the immense challenge involved in scaling Starship into a reliable, high-cadence launch system. SpaceX, however, is known for getting things done quickly, so it would not be a surprise if the company manages to figure out what happened to Booster 18 in the near future.
SpaceX issues statement on Starship V3 Booster 18 anomaly
Tesla analyst maintains $500 PT, says FSD drives better than humans now
