News
Tesla’s ‘skunkworks lab’ for its custom battery cell pilot production line is growing
Tesla’s Battery Day may still be a couple of months away, but hints about the highly-anticipated event’s details are already abounding. With Elon Musk specifically mentioning that the event will be held in Fremont, and that it will include a tour of the company’s pilot battery cell production line, it appears that previous reports, which point to a “skunkworks lab” in the city, were accurate. What’s more, documents filed by the electric car maker in previous months seem to indicate that its mysterious pilot battery cell facility is growing.
Initial leaks and reports about Tesla’s mysterious “skunkworks lab” were posted as early as June 2019, with a CNBC article stating that the facility is located at Kato Road, just a few minutes away from the Fremont factory, where the Model S, Model 3, Model X, and Model Y are built. Citing former and current Tesla employees, the news agency stated that Tesla’s R&D teams were focused on prototyping and designing advanced lithium-ion batteries, as well as new equipment and processes that could usher in the mass production of the next-gen cells.
These batteries are now widely speculated to be the million-mile battery that has been mentioned by the company. The million-mile battery is a significant part of Tesla’s game plan, being the one defining factor that could help electric vehicles achieve price parity with gas powered cars, and allow battery storage devices to last decades when deployed. Amidst the wait for Battery Day, speculations are abounding that Tesla will be conducting a deep dive into its million-mile batteries during the event, similar to how Autonomy Day included an in-depth discussion on the company’s custom Hardware 3.0 computer.
As it turned out, Tesla’s skunkworks lab at Kato Road has been very busy this year. A proposal submitted last March, for example, outlines plans to redevelop the existing site by adding floors to the facility. According to Tesla, the redesigned building will be housing 45 research and development employees and up to 425 manufacturing workers that are spread through several shifts from Monday through Friday. This appears to suggest that the company, as early as March this year, was looking to ramp the battery cell output of its pilot production line.
Interestingly enough, Tesla has also been posting multiple job listings on its Careers page that were specifically focused on battery cell manufacturing. By May 2020, Tesla had posted job listings for Cell Engineers, Production Process Engineers, and Controls Engineers. A look at these listings would show references to a battery cell manufacturing operations, and as luck would have it, the posts listed Fremont, California as their location.
Further documents show that Tesla had also requested to increase its power demand by 6 MW, further hinting that activities in the site are poised to ramp soon. This proposal, based on a response from PG&E that was recently shared online, was approved.
Based on these filings and job listings, it is evident that Tesla’s pilot battery cell manufacturing line has been ramping, or at least is poised to ramp, its operations. This is particularly impressive, considering that the Kato Road facility, which reportedly hosts the company’s skunkworks lab, is a fairly small site, comprising of two buildings that cover 184,880 sq. ft. combined. This means that even in this relatively small location, Tesla has been able to create a pilot line for a new breed of batteries that can change the EV game. This is quite a significant accomplishment, considering that previous battery lines are known to consume a lot of space.
Tesla’s Gigafactory Nevada facility is the perfect example of this. Giga Nevada primarily produces battery cells, and it is poised to be one of the largest buildings in the world by footprint once it’s complete. If Tesla’s pilot battery cell production line in Kato Road is indeed fully functional and ramped, then one can only imagine how much more batteries facilities like Gigafactory Nevada can produce with the company’s next-generation technology.
Tesla’s proposal for an expansion of its Kato Road facility could be accessed below.
Tesla Kato Road Update by Simon Alvarez on Scribd
H/T JPR007
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
