News
Tesla shuts down battery swap program in favor of Superchargers, for now
Tesla’s battery swap station near the Harris Ranch Supercharger station in Coalinga, CA seems to have been shut down, at least for now. What started out as a company vision to recharge Tesla vehicles in the same amount of time, if not quicker, as refueling a gas vehicle, turned into a pilot program that saw little to no fanfare.
Now, three years after Tesla first demonstrated the ability to quickly swap out the floor-mounted battery on a Model S and replace it with a fully charged battery pack, the company has seemingly closed the pilot program in favor of expanding its global network of Superchargers.
The news comes from a Tesla owner who had been following the development of the battery swap station off Interstate 5 (I-5) since its first debut. TeslaOwner accounts on their blog the experience with using Tesla’s battery swap program.
![Battery Swap station at Harris Ranch [Credit: TeslaOwner]](http://www.teslarati.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/141222enteringswap.jpg)
Battery Swap station at Harris Ranch [Credit: TeslaOwner]
TeslaOwner described the battery swap process as being a mix of machine and human. Any automation that occurred during the exchange was augmented by humans. Swap time was, on average, seven minutes. There was some trepidation that, upon returning the battery, a driver would receive a different battery with more accumulated mileage on it. Onboard technology did not recognize the swap and assumed that the original trip totals were continuing.
“Presently the Battery Swap Program is not accepting any new requests for appointments.”
Since experiencing the battery swap last July, TeslaOwner tells us that the same station has remained relatively quiet and “looked quite closed” each time they’ve driven by the station which appeared to have no activity.
This prompted them to inquire with Tesla about scheduling an appointment for another battery swap. According to TeslaOwner, they received a response from the Service Manager for the battery swap station, indicating that Tesla is no longer taking requests for appointments. “Presently the Battery Swap Program is not accepting any new requests for appointments.”
The viability of battery swaps moving forward
The Tesla proprietary charging station service was projected to be able to support both battery pack swaps as well as fast recharging of the Tesla Model S and Model X electric vehicle battery packs. By December 2014, 18 months after the original announcement, no battery swapping stations had yet opened to the public. Then a single battery-swap station was opened in California as a pilot project, where only invited Model S owners could do battery swaps by appointment, to assess technical and economic aspects of the service. Demand for the priced service would be used to determine whether the company would fully commercialize battery swapping stations more generally.
Photos captured of the Tesla battery swap station at Harris Ranch from December, 2014
By June 2015, the company had indicated that the battery swapping capability was no longer a significant part of Tesla’s plans for on-road energy replacement for their vehicles. Tesla’s standardization of car and the swapping stations alongside battery and battery fasteners prohibited other EV car owners from utilizing the battery swap station. For battery swapping to grow, the following conditions might need to be considered:
- Find strategic locations for battery swapping;
- Use alternative energy onsite to recharge batteries;
- Draw upon grid electricity when it is off-peak, cheapest, or when the more environmental energy generation is available;
- Assure customers that swapped batteries have comparable life expectancy in relation to the original;
- Incorporate fleet vehicles to reduce battery swapping costs overall.
The Tesla battery swap program doesn’t receive much press these days, given the news about the impending SolarCity merger and glass roof tiles, among the other constant Tesla technological innovations. Work on accelerating the rollout of Supercharger stations ahead of the Model 3 coming to market next year seems most critical. Moreover, regular Tesla owners at this moment in time don’t really seem to find the battery swap option as attractive as the Supercharger.
Of course, speculation continues to swirl. Tesla recently hired Audi’s North America commercial account manager to lead a new B2B push for Tesla in “fleet management, rental, government/public sectors & corporate enterprises.” Large commercial fleets of Tesla vehicles could change many aspects of the way that Tesla provides services, including a revisit to the battery swap with special, private fleet stations.
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
