The Austin, Texas, company supposedly fixed its self-driving software for more than 2 million vehicles, but the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration still has concerns. Photo courtesy of Tesla

Federal highway safety investigators want Austin-based Tesla to tell them how and why it developed the fix in a recall of more than 2 million vehicles equipped with the company's Autopilot partially automated driving system.

Investigators with the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have concerns about whether the recall remedy worked because Tesla has reported 20 crashes since the remedy was sent out as an online software update in December.

The recall fix also was to address whether Autopilot should be allowed to operate on roads other than limited access highways. The fix for that was increased warnings to the driver on roads with intersections.

But in a letter to Tesla posted on the agency's website Tuesday, investigators wrote that they could not find a difference between warnings to the driver to pay attention before the recall and after the new software was released. The agency said it will evaluate whether driver warnings are adequate, especially when a driver-monitoring camera is covered.

The agency asked for volumes of information about how Tesla developed the fix, and zeroed in on how it used human behavior to test the recall effectiveness.

Phil Koopman, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University who studies automated driving safety, said the letter shows that the recall did little to solve problems with Autopilot and was an attempt to pacify NHTSA, which demanded the recall after more than two years of investigation.

“It’s pretty clear to everyone watching that Tesla tried to do the least possible remedy to see what they could get away with,” Koopman said. “And NHTSA has to respond forcefully or other car companies will start pushing out inadequate remedies.”

Safety advocates have long expressed concern that Autopilot, which can keep a vehicle in its lane and a distance from objects in front of it, was not designed to operate on roads other than limited access highways.

Missy Cummings, a professor of engineering and computing at George Mason University who studies automated vehicles, said NHTSA is responding to criticism from legislators for a perceived lack of action on automated vehicles.

“As clunky as our government is, the feedback loop is working,” Cummings said. “I think the NHTSA leadership is convinced now that this is a problem.”

The 18-page NHTSA letter asks how Tesla used human behavior science in designing Autopilot, and the company's assessment of the importance of evaluating human factors.

It also wants Tesla to identify every job involved in human behavior evaluation and the qualifications of the workers. And it asks Tesla to say whether the positions still exist.

A message was left by The Associated Press early Tuesday seeking comment from Tesla about the letter.

Tesla is in the process of laying off about 10% of its workforce, about 14,000 people, in an effort to cut costs to deal with falling global sales.

Cummings said she suspects that CEO Elon Musk would have laid off anyone with human behavior knowledge, a key skill needed to deploy partially automated systems like Autopilot, which can't drive themselves and require humans to be ready to intervene at all times.

“If you're going to have a technology that depends upon human interaction, you better have someone on your team that knows what they are doing in that space,” she said.

Cummings said her research has shown that once a driving system takes over steering from humans, there is little left for the human brain to do. Many drivers tend to overly rely on the system and check out.

“You can have your head fixed in one position, you can potentially have your eyes on the road, and you can be a million miles away in your head,” she said. “All the driver monitoring technologies in the world are still not going to force you to pay attention.”

In its letter, NHTSA also asks Tesla for information about how the recall remedy addresses driver confusion over whether Autopilot has been turned off if force is put on the steering wheel. Previously, if Autopilot was de-activated, drivers might not notice quickly that they have to take over driving.

The recall added a function that gives a “more pronounced slowdown” to alert drivers when Autopilot has been disengaged. But the recall remedy doesn’t activate the function automatically — drivers have to do it. Investigators asked how many drivers have taken that step.

NHTSA is asking Telsa “What do you mean you have a remedy and it doesn’t actually get turned on?” Koopman said.

The letter, he said, shows NHTSA is looking at whether Tesla did tests to make sure the fixes actually worked. “Looking at the remedy I struggled to believe that there’s a lot of analysis proving that these will improve safety,” Koopman said.

The agency also says Tesla made safety updates after the recall fix was sent out, including an attempt to reduce crashes caused by hydroplaning and to reduce collisions in high speed turn lanes. NHTSA said it will look at why Tesla didn't include the updates in the original recall.

NHTSA could seek further recall remedies, make Tesla limit where Autopilot can work, or even force the company to disable the system until it is fixed, safety experts said.

NHTSA began its Autopilot investigation in 2021, after receiving 11 reports that Teslas using Autopilot struck parked emergency vehicles. In documents explaining why the investigation was ended due to the recall, NHTSA said it ultimately found 467 crashes involving Autopilot resulting in 54 injuries and 14 deaths.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Houston's KBR tapped to provide tech for first SAF plant in Kazakhstan

clean deals

Houston-based engineering and technology firm KBR Inc. has been tapped to provide technology for Kazakhstan's first sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) production plant.

KazMunayGas-Aero LLP (KMG-Aero), a subsidiary of Kazakhstan’s national oil and gas company KazMunayGas, and KazFoodProducts awarded the contract to KBR for the project. The plant will use the alcohol-to-jet (AtJ) process for producing aviation fuel and aims to support President Kassym-Jomart Kemeluly Tokayev’s goal of boosting Kazakhstan's profile as a global aviation player, according to a news release from KBR.

"We are honored to support KMG-Aero and KFP in advancing the national commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, recognizing the pivotal role of aviation decarbonization in achieving these strategic objectives,” Jay Ibrahim, president of KBR Sustainable Technology Solutions, said in the release.

KBR will provide its PureSAF technology and engineering design for the project. Invented and developed by Swedish Biofuels AB, the PureSAF tech will be used to convert alcohol-based feedstocks into SAF. The PureSAF Technology can process multiple feedstocks—like bioethanol, syngas, carbon dioxide and hydrogen—and convert them to SAF, diesel and gasoline, according to KBR.

"KBR’s PureSAF is a feed-flexible, bankable technology that is designed to deliver high SAF yields and supports the project across the full lifecycle,” Ibrahim added in the release. “We look forward to closely collaborating and supporting the successful execution of this landmark SAF project.”

Earlier this summer, KBR was also chosen to provide technology for what’s expected to be Asia's first commercial-scale ethanol-to-jet (SAF) plant. The plant has a planned production capacity of up to 100,000 tons of SAF per year.

In addition to the SAF projects, KBR also announced this month that it has been selected by ORNX Green Hydrogen to provide proprietary ammonia technologies for a low-cost green ammonia project in Morocco.

The commitments come as KBR shifts its focus solely toward sustainability technology and services. The company is in the process of spinning off its Mission Technology Solutions business, which KBR recently announced will be named Trinzic. The remaining company, "New KBR," will serve the ammonia and syngas, chemical and petrochemicals, clean refining and circular economy markets.

Army to build nuclear microreactors at 5 U.S. bases, including Texas

Nuclear News

The U.S. Army announced Wednesday that it plans to add nuclear microreactors at five military bases from New York to Texas as a reliable source of energy independent of the commercial electric grid.

The announcement comes as the Trump administration pushes hard to develop the next generation of nuclear power, including billions in loans for large nuclear reactors to meet skyrocketing power demand from data centers and a pilot program to boost advanced reactor designs and projects for military and civilian use. No nuclear microreactors are supplying power to the commercial electric grid in the United States today.

Five companies selected by the Army will be awarded up to $2.2 billion in total over five years to own, construct and operate the microreactors, if they hit set milestones along the way for their performance. The Army expects that more than 20 nuclear microreactors will be built and operated.

Army and industry officials say microreactors offer a resilient power source for critical infrastructure at military installations in case the grid fails. Reactors can run for years without refueling.

Army Secretary Dan Driscoll said the awards will accelerate the military’s ability “to deliver safe, reliable baseload power directly to our installations. We are building the energy resilience necessary to project combat power globally, without relying on potentially vulnerable external grids,” he said.

The grants are part of the Army's “Janus Program” launched last year to deliver next-generation nuclear energy. Officials hope to push nuclear development forward so that advanced reactor designs move beyond experiments and prototypes to provide power for years to come. This will be the “spear tip,” said Jeff Waksman, principal deputy assistant secretary of the Army for installations, energy and environment.

“That is the transition that we are trying to effect here,” he said on a call with reporters Wednesday. “These are not meant to be Army-specific designs.”

Critics of building more nuclear reactors say they’re too expensive and riskier than other energy sources. The Army program is using the military's “deep pockets to provide a hidden subsidy” to nuclear companies that can't find private-sector customers for their hypothetical and uneconomical reactors, said Alan J. Kuperman, associate professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin and coordinator of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project.

The reactors will be licensed by the Army, rather than the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which licenses commercial nuclear reactors. Kuperman said it's “a dangerous scam on many levels.”

Waksman said these reactors will shut down safely in case of a failure, they're small and the Army wouldn't add them to installations without being certain they are safe. He said the Army is working on a deal with the Energy Department to remove radioactive waste, and there won't be any long-term storage on these installations.

The Army is working to align its regulatory processes as much as possible, Waksman said, so that companies won’t need major changes to their designs to be later licensed by the NRC. Along with federal funding, the Army expects billions of dollars in private capital investment.

Army leads the military’s adoption of nuclear energy

President Donald Trump signed executive orders in May 2025 to speed up the development of nuclear power. The Army was tasked with ensuring that an advanced reactor would start operating at a domestic military installation no later than Sept. 30, 2028. The Janus program is named for the ancient Roman god of transitions.

Officials know that delivering nuclear power to a military base will be a challenge, so they picked five companies in case one or more fail, Waksman said. The selected companies are: Antares Nuclear at Fort Bragg in North Carolina; BWXT at Fort Campbell in Kentucky; General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems at Fort Hood in Texas; Radiant Industries at Fort Benning in Georgia; and Westinghouse Government Services at Fort Drum in New York.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer asked the Army to select Fort Drum. The critical missions Fort Drum supports require secure power generation, the New York Democrat said.

The military installations will remain connected to the grid. The reactors would not completely power them. Each reactor will provide between 1 megawatt to 20 megawatts of power, depending on the company's design. Major bases use as much power as a small city. Antares and Radiant are planning to deliver their reactors in three-packs, Waksman said.

The Army now uses diesel as a primary backup for critical infrastructure. But in a conflict, Waksman said, the Army may not be able to move fossil fuels easily wherever it needs them.

“That makes nuclear energy just a natural game changer,” he said. “It makes sense for the Army to take the lead here.”

A reactor at Fort Belvoir in Virginia, completed in 1957, was the first nuclear power reactor to provide electricity to a commercial power grid in the United States for an extended period, according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Companies say this will accelerate US nuclear development

California-based Antares reached a crucial milestone under the U.S. pilot program that could allow it to produce electricity at Idaho National Lab next year. The company said the Army's announcement extends its momentum. Westinghouse Government Services said it’s proud to support the Army’s efforts to strengthen energy security and innovate.

Tori Shivanandan, president and chief operating officer of California-based Radiant, said the Army’s $750 million award “shows confidence in Radiant’s product and ability to manufacture, deploy and safely operate nuclear microreactors for the American military.” The Janus program “will build a stronger and more resilient America,” she said.

General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems said its reactor is designed to operate in remote, off-grid and extreme environments for 40 years. It said it will draw on more than 70 years of nuclear expertise to provide safe, dependable and independent power for the military.

Rex Geveden, BWXT's president and chief executive officer, said, “As we commence work on the Janus program, we are delivering the nation’s most credible and reliable path to deployable nuclear power.”

Energy giant Shell lists Houston HQ for sale for $325 million

asset offload

Energy giant Shell has put its U.S. headquarters in Houston’s Energy Corridor on the market and is exploring the sale of its U.S. chemical business.

Green Street News reported Shell just listed its longtime Energy Corridor campus at 150 N. Dairy Ashford Road. The asking price is $325 million, The Real Deal reported. Shell plans to lease back half of the nearly 1.5 million-square-foot Woodcreek campus for 15 years.

A sale-leaseback deal could transform the 43.6-acre campus into a multitenant hub, CoStar News reported.

“Houston is a critical hub for Shell globally and the headquarters of our U.S. businesses,” a Shell spokesperson told the Houston Business Journal. “We remain committed to Houston and are evaluating opportunities to optimize our Woodcreek campus as part of our ongoing review of workplace needs while maintaining a strong presence in the city.”

Shell occupied its first building at the West Houston campus in 1980. The company employs more than 6,000 people in Texas.

Shell is one of the highest-profile businesses occupying space in the Energy Corridor. It’s home to 67,000 workers, more than 27 million square feet of office and mixed-use space, and 3.8 million square feet of retail and restaurant space.

Shell considers $8B sale of chemical business

As the company seeks to unload its Woodcreek campus, The Financial Times reported Shell is looking into selling its U.S. chemical business. The price tag: $8 billion.

Potential buyers include Spring-based ExxonMobil and Houston-based LyondellBasell.

Shell operates four chemical plants in Texas, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, producing an array of chemicals for use in plastics, detergents and pharmaceuticals.

Shell CEO Wael Sawan said last year that the company had spent $45 billion in capital “that is underperforming for us,” split between its chemical business and renewable energy arm.

Shell also agreed to sell its solar and wind power business in India this summer. Read more here.