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 Cybercab is set to launch in Austin, Texas, on September 3, as the company has officially started sending out invitations to a dedicated event it will hold in the city where its headquarters is located.
The Cybercab is Tesla’s dedicated ride-sharing vehicle: it features just two seats and has no steering wheel or pedals. It is aimed at fully autonomous passenger transport, and will operate in the Robotaxi fleet alongside the Tesla Model Y, which has been performing driverless rides for real-world passengers for more than a year.
Thank you so much @Tesla for inviting us to the Cybercab launch in Austin! 🤠 pic.twitter.com/F1rAR8zd5O
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 22, 2026
The launch of the Cybercab marks the next chapter in Tesla’s autonomy story. The company has been developing autonomous transport for years with its Full Self-Driving (Supervised) platform, which is available in any vehicle the company has built with the proper hardware and software capabilities.
Its capabilities vary by hardware and software version, but Tesla says its latest hardware version, known as AI4, can deliver full autonomy. However, future vehicles will operate with even more robust hardware packages, as Tesla will develop AI4.5 and AI5 for even more capability in its vehicles.
Following a report from The Information that surfaced earlier this week, the writing was on the wall that Tesla was set to launch Cybercab in the near term. The report stated Tesla could launch Cybercab as soon as the end of August. Tesla came close and has booked it for September 3.
The big thing with this event being scheduled is not necessarily that Tesla is launching a new vehicle, but instead that it is launching a vehicle that has no steering wheel or pedals and will operate exclusively on a self-driving program that is evidently nearing full autonomy. If the event allows vehicles to take passengers on public roads and drop them off wherever they please within the City of Austin, it will be a drastic advancement in the company’s self-driving story.
People have ridden in Cybercab previously: Tesla had the “We, Robot” event in October 2024, which allowed people to experience fully autonomous rides in a closed circuit at Warner Bros. Studios in Burbank.
🚨 Ride in a Tesla Cybercab with us
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) May 11, 2025
Additionally, Tesla launched employee rides in Cybercab in July.
It’s a drastic step forward for Tesla, whose CEO, Elon Musk, has promised for years that the company would release a fully autonomous vehicle and platform capable of allowing drivers to relinquish any responsibility behind the wheel.
Elon Musk put a number on where he thinks SpaceX’s Starship program is headed by 2030, replying on X a day after President Trump signed a memo pushing the country toward 1,000 space launches and reentries a year.
The exchange started when Aaron Burnett, co-founder of propulsion startup Mach 33, posted that “1,000 launches/reentries is the goal,” quoting White House science adviser Michael Kratsios on the newly signed National Space Transportation Policy. Burnett noted that the FAA’s own bull-case forecast reached only 385 annual launches by 2030, while his firm’s conservative model already put SpaceX alone near 940. Musk responded, “We’re aiming to reach 30+ Starship launches/day in 2030, which is ~10k annualized. Still tiny numbers compared to airplane flights!”
We’re aiming to reach 30+ Starship launches/day in 2030, which is ~10k annualized.
Still tiny numbers compared to airplane flights!
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 21, 2026
That figure is specific to Starship, the rocket SpaceX is still developing for orbital and lunar missions, not the Falcon 9 fleet that carries most of the company’s current launch volume. Starship has flown twice this year, a slower pace than the four and five flights SpaceX managed in 2024 and 2025. Getting from two flights a year to 30 a day is the scale of jump the new federal policy is meant to clear regulatory room for.
Trump’s memo, signed Thursday, directs agencies to identify new launch and reentry sites on federal land, including a new reentry site within 90 days, and to speed up the permitting and environmental reviews that have long slowed cadence growth. It also sets a goal of returning American astronauts to the moon by 2028 and placing initial lunar base elements by 2030, tying the launch buildout directly to NASA’s Artemis program.
SpaceX has already been pushing the FAA toward higher numbers on its own. The agency approved up to 44 annual Starship launches from Kennedy Space Center in February, on top of a 2024 review that raised the cap at Starbase in Texas to 25 a year. Those approvals cover a fraction of the 10,000 annual flights Musk is now describing, which shows how far current permitting still sits from the administration’s stated target.
The near-term test of all this is more modest. SpaceX cleared a full-duration, six-engine static fire on its next Starship vehicle this week, the last major hardware checkpoint before Flight 14, which is targeting no earlier than August 28 and is expected to attempt the vehicle’s first full orbital mission. Musk said last week that a tower catch of the upper stage is still probably months away, a reminder that the immediate roadmap remains far more incremental than the daily launch numbers he just posted.
Tesla will resolve its massive recall of nearly three million vehicles in China with stickers and a software update.
On Friday, Chinese regulators filed recall plans against Tesla, Xiaomi, Leapmotor, Xpeng, Chery, Geely, Dongfeng, Arcfox, and FAW to resolve what is essentially a carbon-copy issue throughout each of the companies’ vehicle models: emergency door release latches are simply not visible enough.
Tesla door handle saga gets its latest chapter and a big change is coming
The companies will be required to add things that will make these latches, which will open the door in the event of an emergency, more visible. Of the 7 million vehicles impacted, Tesla accounts for 2,975,910 units. More than 1.9 million of those are Model Y vehicles, with the rest, just over 970,000, being Model 3s.
To resolve the issue, Tesla is going to add warning labels to the emergency latches free of charge, and then utilize an Over-the-Air update to add a post-crash window-lowering strategy, according to CNEVpost.
This massive effort to fix the all-electric Model Y and Model 3’s emergency latch system comes just months after several probes across various markets identified the trouble some had identifying this latch. Those who had gotten involved in car accidents that stripped the vehicle of its power were not aware that every Tesla has emergency door latches.
China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) said that severe crashes that disable a vehicle’s low-voltage system could not only hinder occupants from getting out, but also make it more difficult for emergency response workers to gain entry.
SAMR is starting to tighten the regulations it has on door handles on vehicles. A new mandatory national standard will take effect for all models starting January 1, 2027, and will require all doors to be equipped with mechanical release mechanisms. This will effectively end purely electronic door handles. Models already on sale with type approval have been granted a two-year transition period, which will enable things to change until January 2029.
Tesla will launch Cybercab on September 3
SpaceX and a new Trump order that could rewrite the next decade of launches
