Tesla’s V4 Supercharger appeared in new project plans for a site in Danvers, Massachusetts, with a design that is strikingly similar to the company’s 72 kW Urban Supercharger. However, project details outlined in blueprints for the Danvers Supercharger seem to indicate this is Tesla’s next big development in its next-gen charging posts, but some questions still remain.
Tesla’s V4 Supercharger
Tesla’s V4 Supercharger will, of course, succeed the 250 kW-capable V3 Superchargers that were released in 2019. The V3 Supercharger was an outrageous update and a huge development to the expedited process of charging Tesla’s EVs. Rates of up to 1,000 miles of range added per hour are capable with the V3 Superchargers, but they are also only available to Tesla vehicles, which is where the V4 may be coming into play.
Along with the rumored CSS support that the V4 Supercharger will pack, Tesla seems to be revising a recently-released 72 kW Urban Supercharger design for the new stalls. In the project outline for the Danvers, Massachusetts Supercharger, the design for the “Alternative Supercharger Post” is strikingly similar, but there are a few details that lead us to believe this is what Tesla is planning to utilize for the new design.
Tesla’s Urban Supercharger can be wall-mounted and installed virtually anywhere
Initially, the Alternative design in the blueprints is massive: 6′ 4.5″, weighing 200 pounds. That’s significantly larger than the Urban Supercharger, which is compact and perhaps only four feet or less in height. It towers over the V3 Supercharger design, which is also present in the blueprints and seems to be the project’s more-likely outfitting when it is complete (courtesy of @JH_Beford on Twitter).
Credit: John Bedford @JH_Bedford on Twitter
We recently reported on some rumors surrounding the V4 Supercharger design, and it does appear to be somewhat similar from a very elementary perspective to what descriptions of the new shell would be. However, there are some things that still remain in question as the V4 Supercharger design has not yet been made public by Tesla.
CCS Support
The project design lacks any mention of potential CCS Support on the V4 Supercharger, which is what most people would expect moving forward from Tesla. The automaker has been utilizing a Pilot Program in Europe that allows other EV brands to utilize Supercharger stalls. This project is available in sixteen countries in Europe, and Tesla has made it clear that, eventually, the capability will be available in the United States. For now, it is too much of an advantage as Tesla continues to grow, and the company keeps it exclusive to Tesla vehicles in the U.S.
However, as we are already a month into the second half of 2022, it gives Tesla less time to roll out the “new Supercharger equipment that will enable non-Tesla EV drivers in North America to use Tesla Superchargers.” These quoted words come courtesy of the White House.
CCS Support may not be on these designs for several reasons, and it could be that Tesla simply hasn’t finalized a design for that Supercharger. Additionally, this could be an entirely different design altogether, and while it could be the V4 Supercharger, Tesla may not have plans to put CCS Support on the V4. That could perhaps be saved for another design.
900v Architecture
Tesla’s V4 Supercharger will also likely support ultra-fast charging architectures like a rumored 900V setup for the Cybertruck. These higher-voltage architectures enable ultra-fast charging and can supply high-performance or high-workload vehicles with range in short amounts of time.
Tesla is also likely to head toward a 350 kW charging rate, which is present in Electrify America chargers. These chargers are perfect for high-voltage vehicles as they can charge vehicles faster, and most importantly, the vehicles can support them. Their higher voltage architecture can stabilize the charging process for these higher-powered chargers. The Porsche Taycan has an 800v architecture, which enables faster charging, less weight, and high performance, all at lower temperatures.
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
