News
Mayor tied to Tesla Supercharger site questioned over ‘conflict of interest’
He was young. Ambitious. Gifted. One of the greatest players to ever set foot on a professional baseball diamond, “Shoeless” Joe Jackson’s career ended in tatters for his alleged role in the infamous Chicago “Black Sox scandal” of 1919.
Call it a “conflict of interest.” It involved money. Lots of it.
Something else that involves money – lots of it – is afoot in Aberdeen, Washington: A Tesla Supercharger station and a “Gateway Center.” Aberdeen Mayor Erik Larson is a staunch proponent of both.
Updated: Mayor Larson fines himself $500 for violating the state’s conflict of interest ethics code
Mayor Larson is making the rounds looking for funding to help cover the costs of Gateway Center construction which is expected to cost upwards of $8M to complete, and incorporate Tesla’s Supercharger station into the design.
Questions within the community are swirling around what appears to be a conflict of interest regarding the mayor’s involvement in the Tesla deal. Documents have surfaced showing that the mayor has, or had, a financial interest in the electric car company that’s building the Supercharger station, apparently while he was negotiating with the company to bring the project to a city-owned lot. Why the station is being built on publicly owned land rather than on a private site is also in question.
Background
Mayor Larson negotiated the original agreement with Tesla for the charging station, which could have cost the city up to $2,000 a month in utility bills. The lease agreement came before the Aberdeen City Council for approval last summer. Originally, the City of Aberdeen was on the hook for paying electricity costs.
Tesla Supercharger station in Aberdeen, Washington during construction [Credit: Trebor Thickweb via app check-in]
As noted in the Aberdeen City Council meeting agenda dated July 13, 2016, the lease language at that time included (see page three):
“The Mayor has negotiated with Tesla Motors, Inc. for the construction of a Tesla supercharger station in Aberdeen on the city of the former Chevron station. The supercharger will be incorporated into the design of the Gateway Center. … the city will also be responsible for… paying the utility bills for Tesla vehicles that use the charging station, up to monthly cap of $2,000 per month.” (Emphasis added.)
Reading further, Item 8 of that actual lease agreement specifies that:
“Tesla agrees to arrange for all Tesla-related utility services provided or used in or at the Premises… Tesla shall pay directly to the utility company the cost of installation of any all such Tesla-related utility services and shall arrange to have the utility service separately metered. (Counterparty) shall be responsible for paying all utility bills related to such meter after installation, including payment for electricity consumed at the Premises during the Term, up to two thousand dollars ($2,000) per month.” (Emphasis added.)
Other Cities, Other Charging Stations
Tesla lease agreements with city governments aren’t new. Similar charging stations exist in five other Washington cities: Centralia, Burlington, Ellensburg, Kennewick, and Ritzville. There are eleven Supercharger stations in Oregon. All are located on either hotel/resort type private property or some other type of retail/outlet center. But the Aberdeen location is on a city-owned lot.
In California, two Supercharging stations on publicly owned property exist in Ukiah and Crescent City. But the terms negotiated by those cities for the stations are jarringly different from those negotiated for the Aberdeen site:
In Ukiah:
– “Tesla pays for the entire project, including staff time and utility costs.” (Ukiah Daily Journal, August 8, 2015.)
In Crescent City:
- The city is being paid by the tenant for use of its property. A proposal by Recargo, Inc. to build and operate a universal electric vehicle charging station in Crescent City included a $4,800 annual payment from Recargo to the district for use of the property. (Del Norte Triplicate, October 11, 2016.)
- “Essential components” of the city’s lease agreement with Tesla includes: “(1) the term, which is five years with two five-year options to renew, (2) Tesla will build and maintain the facility, and (3) the lease amount is one dollar per month.” (City of Crescent City Council Agenda Report, April 6, 2015.)
- Tenant “agrees to arrange for and pay for all Tenant-related utility services provided or used in or at the Premises during the term of the Lease.” (#10 – Utilities – City of Crescent City Ground Lease for Tesla Supercharging Station, April 6, 2015.)
- “Tenant shall pay directly to the utility company the cost of installation of any and all such Tenant-related utility services and shall arrange to have the utility service separately metered.” (#10, Utilities – City of Crescent City Ground Lease for Tesla Supercharging Station, April 6, 2015.)
In Aberdeen:
- The city (re: taxpayers) could get stuck with “up to 30,000 for the costs of installing the new infrastructure for the city” per the re-negotiated August agreement.
[Credit: Conservelocity]
- The provision requiring the city to pay for electricity used by Tesla vehicles was removed.
- The proposed new lease requires Tesla to pay for all costs of charging Tesla vehicles.
- The lease also requires Tesla to install infrastructure “that would allow the city to add charging stations for other electric vehicles at some point in the future.”
- The city “will reimburse Tesla up to $30,000 for the costs of installing the new infrastructure for the city.” (Emphasis added.)
According to minutes from the August 24, 2016 Aberdeen City Council Meeting, a motion to adopt the re-negotiated lease agreement carried.
An interesting wrinkle, as announced by Tesla on November 7, 2016, is that Tesla has decided to stop offering unlimited free use of its network fast-charging stations worldwide beginning this year.
So, other than hopes of helping “attract potential tenants to the center as the first project participant” and providing “nearby restaurants and retailers with additional business” per Mayor Larson, just how, exactly, does the supercharging station tangibly benefit Aberdeen taxpayers or offset “up to $30,000” in reimbursements to Tesla “for the costs of installing the new infrastructure for the city”?
The Daily World reports that “A $30,000 grant will help Aberdeen reimburse Tesla for installing the station.” In light of the agreements hammered out with other cities for charging stations on public land, however, why is Aberdeen on the hook for reimbursing Tesla for any installation costs?
Another wrinkle:
According to an October 28, 2016 story in The Daily World, five Aberdeen sites were in the running as possible locations for the new Supercharger station, including the parking area for the Center. Larson explains:
“They (Tesla) could have easily worked with Gateway Mall or sought out private ownership, but they were interested in the Gateway Center parking lot.”
Why was a publicly owned site selected instead of a privately owned one? Is city government using public funds to compete with private business?
Additional questions swirl around Mayor Larson’s financial interest in Tesla Motors.
Some questions:
- Did Mayor Larson disclose his financial interest/common stock in Tesla Motor Company anywhere other than on his 2015 and 2016 PDC F-1 forms?
- As a candidate, Mayor Larson reported his stock value as $4.5K – $23.9K. After he was elected, he reported the value as $24K – 47.9K. What’s up with that?
- The mayor apparently handled all negotiations with Tesla, even though he had/has a financial interest in the motor company (See PDC F-1 forms, above). Did the city know about his financial interest in this company? If so, did it okay the mayor as negotiator of the Tesla lease agreement anyway? Why?
Perhaps a contract negotiator sans an apparent financial interest in the project under negotiation might be a good idea?
While we’re raising questions, what of Shoeless Joe? After the Black Sox scandal, Jackson never set foot on a professional baseball diamond again. He was banned for life along with seven other Chicago players for their alleged involvement in intentionally throwing the 1919 World Series to the Cincinnati Reds. Jackson’s alleged involvement in the conspiracy is still the subject of hot debate. Some maintain that the only things Joe was guilty of were being young, ambitious, gifted, and a bit naive.
Ring any bells?
Kristine Lowder
This guest post was written by Kristine Lowder of Conservelocity. Do you have a post you’d like to share? Email it to us at info@teslarati.com
Tesla’s new Full Self-Driving pricing strategy will eliminate one recurring complaint that many owners have had in the past: FSD transfers.
In the past, if a Tesla owner purchased the Full Self-Driving suite outright, the company did not allow them to transfer the purchase to a new vehicle, essentially requiring them to buy it all over again, which could obviously get pretty pricey.
This was until Q3 2023, when Tesla allowed a one-time amnesty to transfer Full Self-Driving to a new vehicle, and then again last year.
Tesla is now allowing it to happen again ahead of the February 14th deadline.
The program has given people the opportunity to upgrade to new vehicles with newer Hardware and AI versions, especially those with Hardware 3 who wish to transfer to AI4, without feeling the drastic cost impact of having to buy the $8,000 suite outright on several occasions.
Now, that issue will never be presented again.
Last night, Tesla CEO Elon Musk announced on X that the Full Self-Driving suite would only be available in a subscription platform, which is the other purchase option it currently offers for FSD use, priced at just $99 per month.
Tesla is shifting FSD to a subscription-only model, confirms Elon Musk
Having it available in a subscription-only platform boasts several advantages, including the potential for a tiered system that would potentially offer less expensive options, a pay-per-mile platform, and even coupling the program with other benefits, like Supercharging and vehicle protection programs.
While none of that is confirmed and is purely speculative, the one thing that does appear to be a major advantage is that this will completely eliminate any questions about transferring the Full Self-Driving suite to a new vehicle. This has been a particular point of contention for owners, and it is now completely eliminated, as everyone, apart from those who have purchased the suite on their current vehicle.
Now, everyone will pay month-to-month, and it could make things much easier for those who want to try the suite, justifying it from a financial perspective.
The important thing to note is that Tesla would benefit from a higher take rate, as more drivers using it would result in more data, which would help the company reach its recently-revealed 10 billion-mile threshold to reach an Unsupervised level. It does not cost Tesla anything to run FSD, only to develop it. If it could slice the price significantly, more people would buy it, and more data would be made available.
News
Tesla Model 3 and Model Y dominates U.S. EV market in 2025
The figures were detailed in Kelley Blue Book’s Q4 2025 U.S. Electric Vehicle Sales Report.
Tesla’s Model 3 and Model Y continued to overwhelmingly dominate the United States’ electric vehicle market in 2025. New sales data showed that Tesla’s two mass market cars maintained a commanding segment share, with the Model 3 posting year-to-date growth and the Model Y remaining resilient despite factory shutdowns tied to its refresh.
The figures were detailed in Kelley Blue Book’s Q4 2025 U.S. Electric Vehicle Sales Report.
Model 3 and Model Y are still dominant
According to the report, Tesla delivered an estimated 192,440 Model 3 sedans in the United States in 2025, representing a 1.3% year-to-date increase compared to 2024. The Model 3 alone accounted for 15.9% of all U.S. EV sales, making it one of the highest-volume electric vehicles in the country.
The Model Y was even more dominant. U.S. deliveries of the all-electric crossover reached 357,528 units in 2025, a 4.0% year-to-date decline from the prior year. It should be noted, however, that the drop came during a year that included production shutdowns at Tesla’s Fremont Factory and Gigafactory Texas as the company transitioned to the new Model Y. Even with those disruptions, the Model Y captured an overwhelming 39.5% share of the market, far surpassing any single competitor.
Combined, the Model 3 and Model Y represented more than half of all EVs sold in the United States during 2025, highlighting Tesla’s iron grip on the country’s mass-market EV segment.
Tesla’s challenges in 2025
Tesla’s sustained performance came amid a year of elevated public and political controversy surrounding Elon Musk, whose political activities in the first half of the year ended up fueling a narrative that the CEO’s actions are damaging the automaker’s consumer appeal. However, U.S. sales data suggest that demand for Tesla’s core vehicles has remained remarkably resilient.
Based on Kelley Blue Book’s Q4 2025 U.S. Electric Vehicle Sales Report, Tesla’s most expensive offerings such as the Tesla Cybertruck, Model S, and Model X, all saw steep declines in 2025. This suggests that mainstream EV buyers might have had a price issue with Tesla’s more expensive offerings, not an Elon Musk issue.
Ultimately, despite broader EV market softness, with total U.S. EV sales slipping about 2% year-to-date, Tesla still accounted for 58.9% of all EV deliveries in 2025, according to the report. This means that out of every ten EVs sold in the United States in 2025, more than half of them were Teslas.
News
Tesla Model 3 and Model Y earn Euro NCAP Best in Class safety awards
“The company’s best-selling Model Y proved the gold standard for small SUVs,” Euro NCAP noted.
Tesla won dual categories in the Euro NCAP Best in Class awards, with the Model 3 being named the safest Large Family Car and the Model Y being recognized as the safest Small SUV.
The feat was highlighted by Tesla Europe & Middle East in a post on its official account on social media platform X.
Model 3 and Model Y lead their respective segments
As per a press release from the Euro NCAP, the organization’s Best in Class designation is based on a weighted assessment of four key areas: Adult Occupant, Child Occupant, Vulnerable Road User, and Safety Assist. Only vehicles that achieved a 5-star Euro NCAP rating and were evaluated with standard safety equipment are eligible for the award.
Euro NCAP noted that the updated Tesla Model 3 performed particularly well in Child Occupant protection, while its Safety Assist score reflected Tesla’s ongoing improvements to driver-assistance systems. The Model Y similarly stood out in Child Occupant protection and Safety Assist, reinforcing Tesla’s dual-category win.
“The company’s best-selling Model Y proved the gold standard for small SUVs,” Euro NCAP noted.
Euro NCAP leadership shares insights
Euro NCAP Secretary General Dr. Michiel van Ratingen said the organization’s Best in Class awards are designed to help consumers identify the safest vehicles over the past year.
Van Ratingen noted that 2025 was Euro NCAP’s busiest year to date, with more vehicles tested than ever before, amid a growing variety of electric cars and increasingly sophisticated safety systems. While the Mercedes-Benz CLA ultimately earned the title of Best Performer of 2025, he emphasized that Tesla finished only fractionally behind in the overall rankings.
“It was a close-run competition,” van Ratingen said. “Tesla was only fractionally behind, and new entrants like firefly and Leapmotor show how global competition continues to grow, which can only be a good thing for consumers who value safety as much as style, practicality, driving performance, and running costs from their next car.”
Tesla Full Self-Driving pricing strategy eliminates one recurring complaint
Tesla Model 3 and Model Y dominates U.S. EV market in 2025
