News
Tesla gave Morgan Stanley a tour of its CA factory, and expansion sounds like a no-brainer
Morgan Stanley analysts Adam Jonas detailed a recent tour of Tesla’s Fremont Factory in Northern California, which included test drives of the Model 3, Y, and S Plaid. Based on Jonas’ synopsis of the plant, an expansion of the California plant may be just what the company needs, especially as CEO Elon Musk hinted that building onto the factory may be in the cards for Tesla soon, and it sounds like the most logical solution.
Jonas published a lengthy note to investors on Wednesday, indicating the five main takeaways from Morgan Stanley’s plant dealt with a busy work environment, strong margins, supply chain bottlenecks with raw materials, and Full Self-Driving’s take rate with customers.
However, one of the biggest takeaways from the note was Jonas’ number one point: The Tesla Fremont plant is ‘bustling’ to say the least. Jonas says the plant is operating at a rate of 50 percent above its intended capacity. When Toyota operated the plant prior to Tesla’s takeover, the factory produced 300,000 units per year. However, Tesla is building all four vehicle models at the factory currently. Builds from Fremont remain in North America, unless it is a Model S or Model X vehicle, as this is the only plant that produces Tesla’s flagship models. In Europe, the Model 3 and Model Y are currently produced at Gigafactory Shanghai. However, Gigafactory Berlin is set to begin operation in less than a week, which will provide European customers with Model Y builds initially.
Fremont is operating at a tremendously over-worked rate, which is complicating supply chain management and production at the facility, the note said. “The plant was never designed to produce 450k units (at its peak produced ~300k units before Tesla took it over from Toyota) which was immediately apparent at the tour, ” Jonas wrote. “Tesla does not shy away from the fact the plant is inefficiently designed with 4 assembly buildings, one of which is a tent that cars are assembled in,” in reference to GA 4.5, a sprung structure that Tesla filed to make permanent in 2021.
Additionally, Jonas said that, while the plant has an “exciting buzz,” Fremont is simply running out of space. This “was notable and provides little space for trucks to drop off supplies in locations that make sense inside the plant.”
Combining all of the points Jonas brings up in his note fully supports a recent idea from Musk, who indicated in March Tesla was considering an expansion of the Fremont factory, which is the only operational automotive assembly plant remaining in California. Ford had several in the 1900s, but each has closed.
Tesla is considering a significant expansion of its Fremont Factory
“Actually, we still operate our California factory, which is the largest auto plant in North America, at full capacity and are considering expanding it significantly,” Musk said on March 2. “It has built 2/3 of all electric vehicles in North America, twice as much as all other carmakers combined.”
While Tesla continues to expand manufacturing by opening new plants, its current factories have an opportunity for expansion. Gigafactory Shanghai, which has been operational since early 2020, has already received plans for its first batch of expanded production lines, according to filings Tesla submitted last year. Fremont is an integral part of Tesla’s operation, contributing nearly 500,000 vehicles annually to Tesla’s global operation. A significant expansion may be what the automaker needs to fulfill increased guidance, supplementing Gigafactory Texas as the plant continues to pump out production units ahead of initial deliveries. Tesla will need some time to get Gigafactory Texas up and running to full capacity, in which case Fremont will continue its exemplary output.
Perhaps Gigafactory Texas can repay the favor in a few years, if Tesla ultimately decides to expand Fremont by a significant margin, as Musk indicated.
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
