Connect with us

News

A Giant Game of Telephone: The Revel Tesla Model Y Taxi Situation Explained

Credit: Revel

Published

on

This is a preview from our weekly newsletter. Each week I go ‘Beyond the News’ and handcraft a special edition that includes my thoughts on the biggest stories, why it matters, and how it could impact the future.


Earlier this week, there was plenty of talk about the Revel taxi fleet in New York City, comprised of 50 Tesla Model Y all-electric crossovers that would contribute to the ride-sharing services that the Big Apple has long been accustomed to over the past century. As the automotive sector has transitioned to a more sustainable look and feel, taxi companies are also putting their hand in the cookie jar, adding sustainable vehicles to their fleets, and taking gas-powered machines off the road.

Revel is an independent company attempting to make this happen. The company has 50 Model Y taxis ready to take on the streets of Manhattan and the other boroughs of New York. However, reports circulated earlier this week that the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission blocked this possibility overwhelmingly with a five-to-one vote.

New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission: A Giant Game of Telephone

While the reports from various media outlets, including our own, highlighted the spectacle, which seemed to be an incredible chance of corruption, there was actually a huge misunderstanding. New York City TLC’s Deputy Chief of Public Affairs, Allan Fromberg, took some time out of a busy Thursday to talk to me, clarifying the situation that has been misconstrued since its original report.

Advertisement

Tesla Model Y taxi fleet successfully blocked by NY commission

After getting in touch with Mr. Fromberg on Thursday, we talked about the initial reports. “The whole narrative that Revel would have to buy 50 gas cars to then convert to EVs is just a giant game of telephone. In fact, for Revel to bring on its 50 BEVs, they would have to replace 50 existing, already-licensed vehicles, and not new vehicles.”

Initial reports indicated that TLC Commissioner Aloysee Heredia Jarmoszuk stated that congestion was why Revel wasn’t granted licenses. In fact, this is true. Revel was never required to purchase 50 gas vehicles, which didn’t make much sense from the get-go. In my initial communication to Mr. Fromberg, I stated that the contradictory nature of the TLC’s implied decision to block Revel’s Model Y fleet because of congestion, but then suggest 50 additional gas-powered vehicles needed to be purchased didn’t make much sense.

Fromberg agreed and said that this misconception was due to the aggregation of media reports looking to push out this controversial angle of the story quickly.

Advertisement

Mr. Fromberg then explained what the vote on Tuesday evening entailed, straight from the TLC Commissioner’s mouth.

2018 Legislation: The Taxi Cab “Cap”

Ms. Jarmoszuk said:

“First and foremost, no one and no entity has been blocked. The public meeting/vote was neither about electric vehicles nor about any particular company nor about car models. Rather, the public meeting was about vehicle licenses, which are presently capped since the market is saturated and distressed, with low performance as a result of the pandemic and previous market stressors. Presently, there are nearly 100K vehicle licenses, which is too large a supply for current passenger demand. The public meeting was about ensuring mechanisms to properly manage applications for new/additional licenses against current ridership numbers/needs.”

This is actually in reference to series of five pieces of legislation that were passed in 2018. According to the New York City Office of the Mayo, on August 14th, 2018, Mayor Bill de Blasio signed the following pieces:

Advertisement

144-B: Requiring the TLC to stop issuing for-hire vehicle licenses for 12 months, to study congestion and various aspects of the industry, and after the study, allows the TLC to establish vehicle utilization standards and regulate the number of for-hire vehicle licenses;

634-B: Waiving licensing fees for accessible taxi-cabs and for-hire vehicles;

838-C: Pertaining to the licensing and regulation of high-volume for-hire vehicle services;

890-B: Directs the TLC to establish rules to provide minimum payments to high-volume for-hire vehicle drivers;

Advertisement

958-A: Reducing penalties for unauthorized street hails.

Really, 144-B, 634-B, 838-C, and 890-B are the four pieces that are relevant to this story. In 2018, 144-B halted the licensing of any additional “For-Hire” vehicles, meaning taxis or ride-hailing vehicles. Simply put, there was an incredible number of vehicles on the streets of New York, and congestion was becoming a real issue there. The “cap” limit on the number of vehicles was enforced in 2018 and was set to last one year. Mr. Fromberg informed me that this legislation has been extended and renewed several times and is still effective to this day. Therefore, the City still will not license any additional vehicles. When one fails or loses its license, a new vehicle takes its place.

There are several other reasons for this, including fair wages for drivers and affordability for taxi companies. But, unfortunately, drivers were suffering and still are due to the COVID-19 pandemic. While many of the economic negativities are finally beginning to subside, 2020 was an ugly year for the NYC taxi sector. Many drivers weren’t making enough money to afford loan payments on medallions. Unfortunately, some of these drivers took their own lives, and it is an absolute tragedy that this occurred.

With that being said, taxi drivers are hard-working, and they deserve to make enough money to feed their families. In the 2018 passing of these legislative pieces, De Blasio said, “We’re putting hardworking New Yorkers ahead of corporations. We are taking immediate action for the benefit of more than 100,000 hard-working New Yorkers who deserve a fair wage and halting the flood of new cars, grinding our streets to a halt.” The changes increased take-home pay for drivers by approximately 20 percent on average — more than $6,000 per year.

Advertisement

With all of that being said, New York City is operating with a substantial number of taxis, and the TLC has granted nearly 100,000 vehicle licenses. Before any more vehicles can obtain one of these licenses, some of the current vehicles must lose their licenses through expiration or vehicle removal in a company’s fleet. When 50 licenses open up, Revel will have the ability to obtain them, giving the company full rights to operate as a ride-sharing service, just as it aims to do.

To Mr. Fromberg’s knowledge, there would be no cost for Revel to go through the normal administrative procedure to obtain the licenses.

Revel’s Response: EV Taxis are a necessity to NYC

Revel CEO Frank Reig is under the impression that the TLC is operating under “shortsighted bureaucracy and entrenched interests,” according to a Tweet from Wednesday night.

After the Tuesday hearing, Reig said:

Advertisement

“At today’s hearing, the Taxi and Limousine Commission offered no evidence or analysis to support ending the EV exemption. The Commissioners sat through almost 3 hours of testimony on all sides yet asked zero questions and spent zero time deliberating before making a policy decision with profound consequences. The TLC never intended to consider what drivers and New Yorkers had to say, and only cared about jamming through this vote on Primary Day with as little scrutiny as possible. This decision doesn’t change the fact that New York City needs an alternative to the predatory leasing system that exploits drivers and pollutes our environment, and Revel is exploring ways to accomplish that.” 

Revel told Teslarati earlier today that it is aware that the TLC is not recommending the purchase of 50 gas-powered cars. The company is also aware that the TLC has capped the number of licenses it would issue. In order to encourage the adoption of electric cars, Revel spokespeople said that additional licenses would be given to wheelchair-accessible vehicles and EVs. A few hundred EVs have been added to the NYC Taxi fleet in the past two years, but these cars only account for .5% of the total number of For-Hire vehicles on NYC’s streets.

Tesla Model 3 wins hearts as famed NYC Taxi, picks up where Nissan Leaf couldn’t

This rule is brought up every six months and was last addressed and subsequently renewed in February. That means that it was due for review in August. However, the TLC brought the issue to light early and revoked the rule. The TLC says that if Reval wants to operate a rideshare service with its fleet of 50 Model Ys, they will have to obtain the licenses from displaced and no-longer-active taxis in the city.

Advertisement

Revel states that it would take two to three additional vehicles off of the street because the company will hire TLC-licensed drivers, who will no longer lease gas-powered vehicles. In addition, revel owns the vehicles, and different drivers will use the same car through different shifts, which could become a long-term advantage for the TLC as fewer cars will be on the street.

This would also line up with the Legislature items 634-B and 890-B, which would alleviate short-term leases and provide drivers with guaranteed wages, benefits, and vacation time.

The Bottom Line

The issue is this: Congestion is a real issue in the city. And while EVs only making up .5% of the total taxi fleet in the Big Apple, there is evidently no room for more vehicles, of any kind, in the City. Over time, the concentration of EV Taxis in the City that Never Sleeps will surely rise, but the existing vehicles need to be removed from the licensing pool before Revel can unleash its 50 all-electric Model Y taxis.

To summarize it easily, Fromberg said: “The TLC is fully committed to a 100% electrified future, just not at the cost of additional congestion.”

Advertisement

A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.

I use this newsletter to share my thoughts on what is going on in the Tesla world. If you want to talk to me directly, you can email me or reach me on Twitter. I don’t bite, be sure to reach out!

-Joey


On behalf of the entire Teslarati team, we’re working hard behind the scenes on bringing you more personalized members benefits, and can’t thank you enough for your continued support!

Advertisement

Joey has been a journalist covering electric mobility at TESLARATI since August 2019. In his spare time, Joey is playing golf, watching MMA, or cheering on any of his favorite sports teams, including the Baltimore Ravens and Orioles, Miami Heat, Washington Capitals, and Penn State Nittany Lions. You can get in touch with joey at joey@teslarati.com. He is also on X @KlenderJoey. If you're looking for great Tesla accessories, check out shop.teslarati.com

Advertisement
Comments

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.

Published

on

By

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.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Lucid CEO dispels any rumors of bankruptcy: ‘So far from the facts’

Published

on

Credit: Lucid

Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.

The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.

The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

Lucid denies rumors of bankruptcy after over 40% stock drop

Advertisement

Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”

Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”

Napoli said:

“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.

Advertisement

As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.

We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.

My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.

I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”

Advertisement

It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.

Advertisement

Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.

Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla responds to strange Supercharging pricing error with classy move

Published

on

(Credit: Tesla)

Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.

The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.

One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.

These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.

To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.

At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.

Advertisement

Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line

By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.

The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.

Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.

Advertisement

It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.

The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.

In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.

Advertisement
Continue Reading