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 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
