News
Tesla Superchargers were over 10 times as reliable as these rivals
Tesla and Rivian topped this charger reliability study, outperforming competitors by a wide margin.
A new study shows that many electric vehicle (EV) charging networks were substantially less reliable than Tesla’s Superchargers or Rivian’s Adventure Network (RAN), while hardware problems accounted for the most common issue experienced
In a Consumer Reports study shared last week, Tesla and Rivian’s charging networks were found to be significantly more reliable than those of other companies, though EV owners reported a problem with about one out of every five charging sessions initiated overall. Respondents said they had issues with just 4 percent of charging sessions at Tesla’s Superchargers, making them the most reliable, while issues with Rivian’s network were reported for just 5 percent of sessions.
Comparatively, Shell Recharge users faced the most issues, with respondents detailing problems in 48 percent of charging sessions. The next least reliable networks were EVgo and Blink, which followed with 43 percent and 41 percent problems reported, respectively. DC fast-chargers had a reported issue rate of 34 percent, while owners faced problems with Level 2 chargers in 25 percent of sessions.
“The findings show that the public charging experience can vary widely based on the vehicle and the charging networks operating in one’s community and along frequent trips,” writes Drew Toher, Consumer Reports’ Campaign Manager for Sustainable Transportation projects. “This is an important consideration for those without access to home charging. With these findings, CR is encouraging all charging networks to take ownership of their performance and implement measures to improve reliability.”
The survey included responses from 1,230 owners of BEVs and plug-in hybrid EVs (PHEVs), detailing experiences from roughly 5,700 individual charging sessions. The majority of issues customers faced were related to hardware, while they also reported problems with payment, charging power, and other factors.
Out of those who said they had issues directly with the chargers, 76 percent said they encountered broken or unresponsive screens, or those with error messages.
Credit: Consumer Reports (graphic by Sharon Seidl)
Credit: Consumer Reports (graphic by Sharon Seidl)
Credit: Consumer Reports (graphic by Sharon Seidl)
Credit: Consumer Reports (graphic by Sharon Seidl)
Teslas constant push for improvements in action.💪
Superchargers are already among the best in the industry, but Tesla is still improving the system.⚡️ https://t.co/wD9D2Z1CJe
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 21, 2025
READ MORE ON EV CHARGING: Tesla Superchargers dominate J.D. Power EV Charging Study
“By calling out broken screens, payment issues, and slow charging power, community members are crowdsourcing data that will hold charging networks accountable and improve drivers’ experience with public charging,” Toher adds. “This will help tackle the biggest impediment for consumers looking to purchase a more efficient vehicle.”
The release also notes that EV owners planning to charge beyond their home can take a few steps to help ensure the best experiences possible, including making accounts for several different charging networks, getting apps like A Better Route Planner, Plugshare, and CR partner Chargeway, and performing battery preconditioning, among others.
Tesla’s Superchargers have repeatedly been found to be the most reliable in markets around the world, and in surveys from Consumer Reports, JD Power, and other auto industry research firms. Rivian has also followed Tesla in taking routine measures to keep owners informed about the reliability of chargers. One such example includes the automaker’s deployment last April of “charging scores” for the RAN network, to help improve customer experiences by directing them to working stations.
Tesla exec highlights advantages of prefabricated Superchargers
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
