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
Elon Musk
SpaceX just cleared a key FCC hurdle in its fight with Verizon and AT&T
The FCC accepted SpaceX’s bid for Grain’s 800 MHz spectrum, opening review for Starlink Mobile.
The Federal Communications Commission has formally opened its review of SpaceX’s plan to buy a nationwide block of 800 MHz spectrum from Grain Management, moving Starlink Mobile one step closer to operating as a full U.S. wireless carrier.
In a public notice issued Tuesday, the FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau said it accepted for filing the applications to transfer control of two Grain license companies, Prism License Co. 1 and Prism License Co. 2, to Starlink Spectrum Holdings, a wholly owned SpaceX subsidiary. The deal covers 546 paired licenses across 3,224 counties, reaching roughly 100% of the U.S. population in all 50 states, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The proceeding sits under WT Docket No. 26-313.
Acceptance is not approval. It means the applications cleared an initial review and the public comment window is now open. Comments and petitions to deny are due December 1, and oppositions are due December 8. The bureau also said the conditions attached to Grain’s July purchase of the licenses from T-Mobile, which require rapid buildout for terrestrial and direct to device service, would carry over to SpaceX if the transfer is approved.
SpaceX announced the agreement on October 8, saying the new airwaves would let Starlink Mobile’s signal reach phones inside buildings, something its 2 GHz spectrum from EchoStar cannot do as well. The portfolio includes up to 14 MHz of paired spectrum in the 817 to 824 MHz and 862 to 869 MHz bands, which most existing phones already support. Elon Musk called it “the last critical piece of the spectrum puzzle needed for SpaceX to provide complete phone coverage in America.”
According to the filing, SpaceX would hold up to 89 MHz of total spectrum in any given market after the deal closes, including up to 14 MHz below 1 GHz. That is far under the 385 MHz threshold the FCC uses to flag a transaction for closer competitive scrutiny, and well short of the roughly 300 MHz each of AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile holds.
Tuesday’s notice does not decide how SpaceX can use the spectrum from orbit. A separate application SpaceX filed on October 27 seeking authority to provide supplemental coverage from space on the same frequencies, along with related waiver requests, is still pending before the commission.
The ground network is already taking shape. Last week, SpaceX picked Qualcomm to supply radios, baseband units and software for a nationwide 5G build, with deployment across tens of thousands of U.S. cell sites starting in 2027. The FCC also voted on October 29 to advance a proposal opening another 482 MHz to direct to device service, though AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile hacritive pushed to strip nearly 300 MHz from it. SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell has said service on SpaceX’s own airwaves is targeted for early 2028.
A Tesla upfitter has offered to take over Cybertruck lines from the company in a last-ditch effort to save the all-electric pickup from being completely canceled in the middle of 2027.
Unplugged Performance, the Hawthorne, California-based Tesla aftermarket specialist, has publicly offered to take over Cybertruck production from Tesla, funding the effort “through a consortium of investors.”
An open offer to Tesla: We fully support putting Cybercab first, and we’d be glad to take the Cybertruck line off your hands.
We’d fund it with a consortium of investors and run it at no cost to Tesla’s floor space, headcount, or focus. All of that goes to Cybercab. Cybercab gets first call on battery cells too. We’ll wait our turn.
Tesla gains incremental profit: a license fee, plus FSD and Robotaxi network revenues on every vehicle built.
We’d build the Cybertruck, a three-row CyberSUV, and an unmanned CyberCargo hauler. More autonomous miles, across every surface of this planet and beyond.
Worth a conversation?— UP (@UnpluggedTesla) November 10, 2026
The proposal comes as Tesla prioritizes its Cybercab Robotaxi program and prepares to wind down Cybertruck assembly at Gigafactory Texas around mid-2027.
Founded in 2013 by Ben Schaffer and located adjacent to Tesla’s Design Studio and SpaceX, Unplugged Performance has become a leading provider of premium upgrades for Tesla vehicles, including extensive Cybertruck packages under its UP INVINCIBLE line.
Through its UP.FIT division, the company has also developed purpose-built police and fleet versions of the Cybertruck, including deliveries to agencies such as the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.
In an X post on Tuesday, Unplugged said:
“An open offer to Tesla: We fully support putting Cybercab first, and we’d be glad to take the Cybertruck line off your hands. We’d fund it with a consortium of investors and run it at no cost to Tesla’s floor space, headcount, or focus. All of that goes to Cybercab. Cybercab gets first call on battery cells too. We’ll wait our turn. Tesla gains incremental profit: a license fee, plus FSD and Robotaxi network revenues on every vehicle built. We’d build the Cybertruck, a three-row CyberSUV, and an unmanned CyberCargo hauler. More autonomous miles, across every surface of this planet and beyond. Worth a conversation?”
The arrangement would free Tesla resources and manufacturing capacity for Cybercab while allowing continued production of the stainless-steel pickup and expanded variants. Unplugged Performance indicated it would wait for battery cells after Cybercab needs are met and would generate ongoing revenue for Tesla through licensing and software/network services on the vehicles it produces.
Following strong initial interest, Unplugged Performance posted a follow-up inviting potential investors and strategic partners to email cyber@unpluggedperformance.com. The company clarified that the outreach is solely to gauge interest and does not constitute an offer to sell securities or acceptance of funds at this stage.
The proposal arrives shortly after Elon Musk indicated that Cybertruck production in Texas would be phased out by roughly the middle of 2027 to expand Cybercab output.
Whether Tesla engages with the offer remains to be seen, but the public overture highlights both the aftermarket specialist’s deep experience with the Cybertruck platform and the growing focus on autonomy within Tesla’s manufacturing plans.
Elon Musk said the Tesla Cybercab will perform “a majority of all passenger miles” where it is allowed to operate and that point is “obvious to anyone with eyes and a brain.”
Musk used the point to double down on the company’s decision to ax the cult-favorite Cybertruck, as its production space will be removed and transitioned into additional Cybercab lines. The move has catalyzed a polarizing conversation on whether its right or wrong.
Whatever side you are on — it’s happening.
Dodge ended the Viper.
Audi retired the R8.
Mitsubishi said goodbye to the Lancer Evo.
Ford bid farewell to the Bronco (at one point).
Chevrolet sunset the Camaro.Tesla is ending the Cybertruck. I’m pissed. I’m upset.
Fans of those five automakers mentioned did the same thing. It happens. It sucks. I don’t like it.
But I still love Tesla. I love my Model Y. I hoped to be in a Cybertruck in a little under two years.
I won’t be. But I still won’t put my family in anything else. Too safe. Too advanced. Too much better than everything else.
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 10, 2026
Regardless, Musk seems to be getting to the point that he is done talking about the choice. At some point, you have to think that this was truly a difficult decision for him and the company as well, and this is not something he took lightly. In fact, he’s probably a little bit disappointed with it, too.
But the point remains that the Cybertruck is gone. Musk’s focus is purely on developing an autonomous platform that the world will utilize for transportation, and he’s telling you that anyone “with eyes and a brain” can see it:
@PalmerLuckey @carlhancock Cybercab will do a majority of all passenger miles in any jurisdiction where it is not prohibited by law.
Obvious to anyone with eyes and a brain.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 10, 2026
Tesla is betting that all of its passengers in the future will be okay with not owning their own personal cars and will be fine with ride-hailing for the rest of their lives. Every dinner, every errand, every trip to the airport and transportation thereafter, will all be operated by ride-sharing, and in Tesla’s perfect world, it will happen in a Cybercab.
As of now, Cybercab is only active in Austin, but it has been spotted all over the country with a driver behind the wheel in those prototypes. In Austin, the car has no steering wheel or pedals for people to control the vehicle.
The Cybertruck dilemma is one that has truly come across the entire Tesla community and while it seems to be a great idea to keep it because people love it, the business side of things is steering Musk and Tesla in another direction.
SpaceX just cleared a key FCC hurdle in its fight with Verizon and AT&T
Tesla upfitter offers to keep Cybertruck alive
