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
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.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
