News
Tesla’s 62-stall Supercharger project in Santa Monica gains new momentum
Tesla’s 62-stall V3 Supercharger project will be a topic of discussion at this evening’s Santa Monica City Council meeting. The site of 1401 and 1421-1425 Santa Monica Boulevard was originally the planned location of Tesla’s largest V3 Supercharging station in the world. However, an Emergency Interim Zone Ordinance delayed the project. A Santa Monica City Council agenda for the March 30th meeting shows there could be a reconsideration in the Emergency Ordinance for the two lots where Tesla planned to install 62 of its fastest electric car chargers. The ordinance temporarily reserved the area for affordable housing.
On March 4th, the Santa Monica City Council chose to approve the 62-stall Tesla Supercharging station. Just days later, the City Council included the two lots that Tesla had chosen in an Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance that reserved the land for condos and apartments. It didn’t scrap the project completely, but it would delay the Supercharging facility for a minimum of 45 days and could be extended to two years. The March 9th meeting effectively reserved unoccupied lots for prospective housing development. Tesla’s lot fit the bill, and the project lost its momentum.
Tesla’s largest V3 Supercharger facility is coming to Santa Monica
Now, revisions have been made to the Santa Monica City Council’s plan, and new areas are being considered for the affordable housing push. According to the Agenda available on the Santa Monica City Council website, the updates will be discussed at tonight’s meeting.
Instead of having housing be introduced in previously chosen areas, the City Council is now considering new regions of Santa Monica. In particular, regions that have not been used for affordable housing in the past are being considered heavily. This bodes well for Tesla’s Supercharger project on Santa Monica Boulevard because some of the listed areas in the Update show that housing could be pushed further north, several blocks away from the planned area for the V3 Supercharger lot.
The Update says:
“In order to take steps towards addressing Santa Monica’s past history of housing segregation, the Commission supported introducing housing potential, particularly affordable housing, in areas that have historically not accommodated housing, such as Montana Avenue, the Office Campus zone, and Main Street, especially on city-owned properties such as surface parking lots.”
Montana Avenue runs nearly a mile north of Santa Monica Boulevard, just south of the wealthy Brentwood neighborhood. Main Street runs along the coastline of Santa Monica and is perpendicular to Santa Monica Boulevard. The Office Campus Zone is located in several different areas, and all are several miles East of Tesla’s proposed Supercharger location.

The highlighted areas are being considered for Affordable Housing locations. Tesla’s planned V3 Supercharger location is denoted by the Tesla logo and red dot. (Map: Santa Monica Community Development Department)
The City Council was also not supportive of introducing new housing potential in the Industrial Conservation Zone. This is denoted by the dark grey areas located about two blocks south of the planned Supercharger project. Several concerns, including historic racial inequities, existing overconcentration of affordable housing in proximity to the area, and “the need to ensure the City’s economic sustainability by retaining former industrial properties for businesses” make the area ideal for market-rate housing, but not affordable housing. Because of the Supercharger location’s proximity to the area, this bodes well for Tesla’s project, as affordable housing is already available in plentiful amounts and the City Council is more interested in moving housing opportunities to the highlighted areas.
The Update does mention that the “Commission was supportive of increasing housing potential on vacant parking lots associated with commercial uses,” but there are plenty of lots that fit those specifications in Santa Monica.
The Santa Monica City Council will hold a meeting tonight at 5:30 PM PST to discuss the new recommendations. The meeting could bring new momentum to Tesla’s Santa Monica Supercharger project if the area it has chosen is exempt from the Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance.
The Update to the Santa Monica City Council’s Housing Recommendations is available below.
Santa Monica City Council Update by Joey Klender on Scribd
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
News
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
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.
News
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
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.