News
Tesla denied grant applications in Texas for Superchargers despite fractional costs
Tesla recently applied for a series of grants through a program in the State of Texas that would cover up to 70 percent of an electric vehicle charging stall installation. However, the applications from the United States’ leading electric automaker were denied, despite costs being a fraction of what competitor installations would cost. According to a report from Forbes, which examined the rejected applications and what would instead be installed, Texas is doing itself a disservice, selecting “the most expensive stations in the worst locations for their money.”
Despite a laid out sheet of ground rules, which tend to gravitate toward impartial and unbiased selections, it does not always work out that way. The $21 million in grants, which are awarded on a first-come-first-serve basis, provided enough funding for 170 chargers at 41 stations. Tesla’s applications were not selected for a single project, despite aligning with the grant’s requirements, which would have made Tesla install CHAdeMO or CCS connectors, which would open the Superchargers up to other car manufacturers.
Interestingly, the article states that around 70 percent of EVs on the road would benefit from even more Tesla Superchargers. The robust network of global charging stations for Tesla, which recently eclipsed 30,000 worldwide, provides energy for the industry’s best EVs. Sales figures for Tesla are simply incomparable to other EV companies, as it is the only company in the United States to consistently mark hundreds of thousands of deliveries per quarter, with each one being an electric powertrain.
Tesla’s Superchargers would not have only benefitted drivers of the all-electric automaker’s products. The Forbes report indicates Tesla had only applied for a “small portion” of the money to build its first four stations, which would also accept non-Tesla EVs, much like a “pilot” program the company has started to test in Europe.
Tesla’s non-Tesla Supercharger pilot program expands to France, Norway
While it has not yet happened in the United States, Tesla Superchargers could be used to provide energy to other EV manufacturer products. Tesla stands to gain in other ways, too, as the company allowing other cars to access its infrastructure would help relieve range anxiety concerns. However, its biggest advantage is having 70 percent of the station covered by grant money.
Even if Tesla planned to use the grant funds to expand its charging infrastructure, the decision not to accept their applications is questionable. The prices in unaccepted grant applications, representing up to 70 percent of the actual cost, are as follows:
- Chargepoint: $150K+ for 2-plex
- EVgo: $150K+ for pair, $126K for 4-plex
- Circle-K: $75K for 4-plex to $150K+ for 2-plex
- 7-11: $126K for 2-plex
- “Retail EV Charging North/South Texas” (Buc-ee’s) $100K/charger for 6-plex
- Various small players: $75K to $150K, averaging at least $133K/charger
- Accepted applications so far from various players average $123K+/charger
- Tesla: $29K for 17-plex, $42K for 9-plex
Opening up potential Supercharger locations to other automakers would be extremely advantageous from a cost perspective. It also would give Tesla the ability to test the waters of a potential pilot program in the United States, with plenty of restrictions that would still give Tesla owners prioritization at the stalls.
Ultimately, the EV infrastructure doesn’t seem to gain any benefits from what the Forbes article’s author, Brad Templeton, calls “misguided grants.” Instead, funding the EV infrastructure with what drivers actually need, which is more stations in advantageous areas, like shopping centers or tourist destinations, is the answer.
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.
News
Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile are trying to shut Starlink out before FCC vote
AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile want 290 MHz cut from an FCC satellite plan before Thursday.
AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile are asking the Federal Communications Commission to pull nearly 300 MHz of spectrum out of a proposal that would let satellite companies like SpaceX offer cell service directly to ordinary phones. The request lands one day before the agency votes on it.
The FCC will vote Thursday, October 29, on a notice of proposed rulemaking that would make an additional 482 MHz available for direct to device service, expanding the number of eligible bands from five to 13, according to the FCC fact sheet. It would also scrap the rule requiring a satellite operator to lease spectrum from carriers, replacing it with a certification that the operator has coexistence agreements in place or holds the terrestrial license itself.
That second path matters for SpaceX. As Teslarati reported earlier this month, SpaceX agreed to buy Grain Management’s nationwide 800 MHz portfolio to turn Starlink Mobile into a full US carrier, adding to the spectrum it already bought from EchoStar.
The carriers want two bands removed, 2.5 GHz and 3.45 GHz, which make up 290 MHz of the 482 MHz on the table. Through industry group CTIA, they argued that about 300 million users depend on those bands and that satellite operations in them are not technically feasible. T-Mobile, which calls 2.5 GHz the foundation of its Ultra Capacity 5G network, said in its own filing that satellite interference could wipe out up to 96% of a cell site’s uplink coverage area and cut uplink speeds by 88% to 99%.
Executives from all three carriers met with FCC staff on October 20, and T-Mobile CEO Srini Gopalan met separately with FCC Chairman Brendan Carr. T-Mobile’s role stands out because it is still SpaceX’s US launch partner for Starlink Mobile. The three carriers have also teamed up on their own satellite joint venture to pool spectrum, a move widely seen as a response to Starlink.
SpaceX is asking for the opposite. In an October 23 filing after meetings with FCC staff and commissioners’ offices, the company asked regulators to add the 902 to 928 MHz band to the proposal. “Doing so now saves time later,” SpaceX wrote. The company also asked the FCC to modernize interference rules and align satellite deployment requirements with those for terrestrial cell networks, saying the goal is to let satellite and ground networks work together so Americans stay connected wherever they are.
The carriers have not been shy about how they view SpaceX as a competitor. On Verizon’s third quarter earnings call Monday, its chief executive said Starlink Mobile “just can’t compete with a terrestrial network” and estimated SpaceX would need four to six years and $300 billion to $500 billion to build a full US carrier network.
Thursday’s vote will not settle which bands survive. Adopting the notice opens a public comment period, with final rules to come later in the proceeding. The FCC already considered and rejected 2.5 GHz for satellite coverage once, in 2024. SpaceX also is not the only satellite player watching: the FCC approved Amazon’s $11.6 billion acquisition of Globalstar on October 27, giving its planned direct to device fleet its own mobile satellite spectrum.
A Tesla Semi caught fire in Hayward, California, which caused both directions of traffic to shut down for hours before being completely reopened early on Wednesday, the California Highway Patrol said.
The fire occurred just after 5:30 local time in Hayward on Tuesday, as the Semi caught fire in the southbound lanes of I-880 before CHP officials made the decision to shut down both lanes of traffic due to potential risks from hazardous chemical smoke.
There were no injuries reported.
🚨 A Tesla Semi reportedly caught fire, with California Highway Patrol confirming. The Semi was on I-880 SB
An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2026
The cause of the fire is currently unknown, as neither Tesla nor the CHP have not determined a cause.
However, some images taken before the Semi was completely destroyed by the fire seem to indicate this might have been an older unit, as it appears to be one of the designs that Tesla shipped as part of its pilot program, before revising it and starting mass production just a month ago.
@Tslachan From on of the videos looks like it’s an old Semi (not the refresh version that recently started production) https://t.co/KzwmR2kXow
— Area Under The Curve 🎗️ (@AreaUnderCurve) October 28, 2026
At the time of publication, CHP had not returned our request for a comment for additional details, including the Semi involved and any potential collaboration on an investigation between the CHP and Tesla. We will update this story when we hear back from them.
The southbound lanes were reopened at 3:30 a.m. on Wednesday, with the northbound lanes opening last night a few hours after the fire began. The CHP did state that the lithium batteries were “incredibly difficult to extinguish,” according to NBC Bay Area.
The truck’s driver said that the Semi caught fire, but he did not have an explanation.
An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year.
Tesla’s launch of the “Emergency Drive Away” function a few months back offered owners a safe option to evacuate an area if they were in reasonable danger. The function finally got its first use in the real world, but it appears it was by mistake.
A video shared by u/Joshalander in the r/TeslaLounge subreddit recorded the instance from his vehicle and said the incident took place in Austin this past weekend during the city’s F1 Race.
“Was charging around 6 AM this past Sunday in Austin before heading to the F1 race and heard a pop. Looked over and saw the new emergency drive-away feature in action. Genuinely felt bad for the dude when he got out and realized what happened, since he looked exhausted and only seemed to half-read the prompts.”
🚨 Here’s the first look at Tesla’s Emergency Drive Away function in action:
Apparently this driver accidentally enabled it and drove forward; you can see the Supercharger pull with the car.
Tesla said previously this would cost up to $25k if not used properly. https://t.co/B4qQRrsO6B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2026
Emergency Drive Away unlatches the Supercharger connector from the vehicle, but still causes damage to both the car and the Supercharger. Tesla has said that it will cost up to $25,000 in repairs to have everything fixed back to normal.
Additionally, the company said that if it were not used in an emergency situation, the driver of the vehicle who activated the Emergency Drive Away feature would be responsible for all repair costs.
Tesla constitutes the following situations as reasonable justifications for activating the feature:
- You face an immediate threat to your life or personal safety.
- You must leave the area immediately.
- Exiting the vehicle is unsafe.
- Unplugging the charge connector would unreasonably delay your departure or expose you to a risk to your personal safety.
After using the feature, Tesla requires the driver to schedule Service so the car can be inspected.
Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile are trying to shut Starlink out before FCC vote
Tesla Semi catches fire in California: what we know
