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 has declared that SpaceX has effectively solved one of Starship’s most persistent engineering challenges: the reliability of its heat shield tiles.
During the company’s first-ever Earnings Call, the SpaceX CEO stated:
“I don’t want to jinx it or anything, but I think I would call the heat shield problem solved at this point. All indications from data and visual inspection is we have solved it. That doesn’t mean we won’t make improvements, but we do not see any technical obstacles to achieving rapid reusability at this point.”
Starship’s heat shield consists of roughly 18,000 hexagonal ceramic tiles covering the windward side of the upper stage. These tiles form the thermal protection system that shields the vehicle’s stainless-steel structure from the extreme heat of atmospheric reentry.
Elon says he believes the heat shield problem with Starship is currently solved.
He called it “arguably the single biggest problem” pic.twitter.com/eEE9vM5zlz
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 4, 2026
-
During descent, atmospheric friction generates temperatures exceeding several thousand degrees Celsius and creates plasma flows capable of melting unprotected metal. The tiles absorb, radiate, and insulate against this energy, allowing the vehicle to survive and potentially fly again. Without a durable heat shield, full and rapid reusability, the cornerstone of Starship’s design for frequent launches, satellite deployments, and deep-space missions, would remain impossible.
The tiles have long been a source of difficulty. On earlier test flights, a significant number of tiles detached during ascent due to vibration, aerodynamic loads, and imperfect attachment methods using pins and adhesives. Gaps between tiles allowed hot plasma to infiltrate, causing secondary damage and hot spots on the underlying structure.
These issues echoed challenges faced by NASA’s Space Shuttle, whose ceramic tiles required extensive, labor-intensive inspections and replacements between missions, preventing rapid turnaround. SpaceX has iteratively improved materials, standardized tile shapes, refined attachment techniques, added secondary ablative layers, and tested sealing methods such as “crunch wrap” felt to close gaps.
Progress was visible across Flights 10–12, with steadily better tile retention, yet questions remained about whether the system could support the minimal-refurbishment goal of rapid reuse.
Flight 13 on July 24 provided the decisive evidence. Ship 40 flew a deliberately more demanding profile with higher dynamic pressure to stress the heat shield beyond typical operational loads. It successfully deployed 20 operational Starlink V3 satellites, the first such payload on a Starship mission, performed an in-space Raptor engine relight, and executed a controlled reentry.
Elon Musk sheds two new bits of detail on Starship after 13th test launch
Cameras on six of the satellites and onboard sensors captured extensive imagery and data of the shield throughout the flight. The ship then achieved its softest splashdown to date in the Indian Ocean, remaining intact and floating rather than breaking apart or exploding as on prior missions. This allowed drone inspections and continuous telemetry of the heat shield in near-real time.
-
Post-flight analysis showed the majority of tiles remaining attached with only minor damage and limited plasma streaking at seams. Musk noted that the mission delivered “all the heat shield data we needed and then some.” Combined with visual inspections, these results underpinned his subsequent assessment that the core technical barriers to rapid reusability have been cleared. While refinements will continue, Flight 13 marked a pivotal step toward Starship’s operational future.
SpaceX COO Gwynne Shotwell outlined ambitious plans for Starlink Mobile during the company’s August 4 Earnings call, signaling a direct challenge to U.S. wireless giants like AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon.
Shotwell noted that the three companies generate roughly $600 billion in combined annual revenue. “I anticipate us to be able to acquire quite a few of their customers because I think our service will be better,” she said. “We will eliminate dead zones leveraging the satellites in orbit. It will be better during any natural disaster… I’m quite excited about Starlink Mobile.”
SpaceX President & COO Gwynne Shotwell on @Starlink Mobile and its impact on Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile:
“Roughly, between them, $600 billion a year. I anticipate us to be able to acquire quite a few of their customers. Our service will be better. We will eliminate dead zones… pic.twitter.com/UYZUkrGc0L
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) August 4, 2026
SpaceX intends to combine its satellite constellation with terrestrial infrastructure. The company has acquired about 65 MHz of spectrum from EchoStar and plans to deploy next-generation Starlink Mobile satellites in 2027, with upgraded service targeted for the end of that year.
Shotwell described the enhanced network, leveraging more satellites and spectrum, as potentially “100 times better” than the current direct-to-cell offering, which already supports basic texting and app-based voice/video in coverage gaps through partnerships. She also indicated plans for low-cost cellular base stations that could integrate with existing Starlink dishes, creating a hybrid system for broader capacity in urban, suburban, and rural areas.
-
For the general public, Starlink Mobile promises significant advantages. Satellite connectivity can fill gaps where traditional cell towers fail, delivering service in remote locations, mountains, or during outages caused by storms, wildfires, or infrastructure damage—conditions in which ground networks often collapse.
Users could enjoy more consistent coverage without relying solely on dense tower builds, potentially at competitive prices as SpaceX scales. The hybrid approach aims to support full mobile services, including higher-speed data, while working with unmodified smartphones over time.
These developments revive long-standing but unfounded rumors of a Musk-developed “Tesla phone.” Speculative claims of a “Pi Phone” or similar device with built-in Starlink connectivity have circulated for years on social media, often featuring fabricated images and details. Elon Musk has repeatedly denied any such plans, stating Tesla has no intention of entering the smartphone market unless forced by extreme circumstances with app stores.
No official product, filings, or development announcements have ever materialized; the rumors remain hoaxes.
The announcement quickly pressured telecom stocks. Shares of AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile fell between roughly 2 and 4 percent in after-hours and premarket trading as investors weighed the competitive threat from a hybrid satellite-terrestrial network.
While execution challenges remain—spectrum deployment, infrastructure rollout, and regulatory hurdles—Shotwell’s remarks mark SpaceX’s clearest signal yet of entering the consumer mobile market as a full competitor.
-
Venture capitalist Chamath Palihapitiya has cautioned investors shorting SpaceX shares, drawing a direct parallel to the intense short-selling pressure Tesla faced in its early public years.
Responding to reports of elevated short interest in the newly public rocket, satellite, and AI company, Palihapitiya noted that similar dynamics played out with Tesla, where aggressive short sellers ultimately “went broke.”
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) went public on June 12, 2026, in the largest IPO on record, pricing at $135 per share. Shares quickly surged to an all-time high of $225.64 just days later, briefly implying a valuation exceeding $2 trillion. The stock has since retreated sharply amid valuation concerns, lockup expiration fears, and broader market dynamics.
By early August, it traded near $108–$125, representing a roughly 50 percent decline from the peak and bringing the market capitalization closer to the $1.5–1.7 trillion range. On August 4, shares closed up more than 9 percent at $125.33 ahead of earnings before facing pressure in after-hours and premarket trading.
Short interest has climbed dramatically. According to S3 Partners data widely cited in market reports, short positions reached approximately 219.3 million shares by late July, about 34 percent of the limited public float of roughly 640 million shares, and represented a notional value of around $24.6 billion.
Utilization of shares available to borrow hit 95 percent, with borrow fees rising. This level of shorting exceeded the dollar value of short bets against Tesla at the time and built rapidly ahead of two catalysts: the company’s first post-IPO earnings and an August 6 lockup expiration that could free up to 911.5 million additional shares.
-
CEO Elon Musk has issued warnings of his own. In mid-July, as short interest approached one-third of the float, he posted that “the survival probability of firms who maintain a significant short position in SpaceX over time is very low,” reiterating his view that the company could ultimately be worth more than Earth if it achieves its goals.
On August 4, just before earnings, Musk responded to the latest short-interest data by saying, “I try to warn them, but they just double down.”
SpaceX delivered its first quarterly results as a public company after the close on August 4. Second-quarter revenue rose 92 percent year-over-year to $7.8 billion, beating consensus estimates near $6.8–6.9 billion.
The net loss narrowed to $541 million, or 9 cents per share, better than the roughly 23–24 cent loss expected. Starlink/connectivity contributed about $4.3 billion (up 66 percent), while the AI business generated $2.6 billion (up roughly 250 percent). Capital expenditures were heavy at $18.4 billion, largely tied to AI infrastructure. Management projected a $100 billion annualized revenue run rate by year-end 2026 and outlined a path toward $1 trillion in annual revenue by 2030.
The combination of Chamath’s historical reminder, Musk’s repeated alerts, and the company’s ambitious growth targets underscores the high-stakes debate surrounding SPCX. Short sellers are positioned for near-term supply pressure from the lockup, while long-term bulls point to Starlink scale, Starship progress, and AI compute expansion as reasons the bears may ultimately face the same fate as many early Tesla skeptics.
SpaceX has solved Starship’s biggest challenge, Elon Musk says
SpaceX is coming for wireless giants with Starlink Mobile
