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
News
Tesla Model X shocks everyone by crushing every other used car in America
The Model X is one of Tesla’s flagship models, the other being the Model S. Earlier this year, Tesla confirmed it would discontinue production of both the Model S and Model X to make way for Optimus robot production at the Fremont Factory in Northern California.
The Tesla Model X was the fastest-selling used vehicle in the United States in the first quarter of the year, crushing every other used car in America.
iSeeCars data for the first quarter shows that the Model X was the fastest-selling used car, lasting just 25.6 days on the market on average, two days better than that of the second-place Lexus RX 350h. The Cybertruck, Model Y, and Model S, in seventh, ninth, and thirteenth place, respectively, also made the list.
The Model X is one of Tesla’s flagship models, the other being the Model S. Earlier this year, Tesla confirmed it would discontinue production of both the Model S and Model X to make way for Optimus robot production at the Fremont Factory in Northern California.
Tesla brings closure to flagship ‘sentimental’ models, Musk confirms
Bringing closure to these two vehicles signaled the end of the road for the cars that have effectively built Tesla’s reputation for luxury and high-end passenger vehicles.
Relying on the sales of its mass market Model Y and Model 3, as well as leaning on the success of future products like the Cybercab, is the angle Tesla has chosen to take.
Teslas are also performing extremely well as a whole on the resale market. iSeeCars data shows that, “while the average price of a 1- to 5-year-old non-Tesla EV fell 10.3% in Q1 2026 year-over-year, the average price of a used Tesla was essentially flat at 0.1% lower across the same period. Traditional gas car prices dropped 2.8% during this same period.”
Additionally, market share for gas cars has dropped nearly 3 percent since the same quarter last year. Tesla has remained level, while the non-Tesla EV market share has increased 30 percent, mostly due to more models available.
Nevertheless, those non-Tesla EVs have seen their value drop by over 10 percent, while Tesla’s values have remained level.
Executive Analyst Karl Brauer said:
“Used electric vehicles without a Tesla badge have lost more than 10% of their value in the past year. This compares to stable values for Teslas and hybrids, and a modest 2.8% drop for traditional gasoline vehicles.”
Teslas, as well as non-luxury hybrids, are displaying the strongest resistance in the face of faltering demand, the publication says. But the more impressive performance is that of the Model X alone.
Tesla’s decision to stop production of the Model X may have played some part in the vehicle’s pristine performance in Q1. With the car already placed at a premium price point, used models are already more appealing to consumers. Perhaps second-hand versions were more than enough for those who wanted a Model X, and only a Model X.
Cybertruck
Tesla Cybertruck’s head-scratching trim sold terribly, recall documents reveal
The head-scratching offering was only available for a few months, and evidently, it did not sell very well, which we all suspected. New recall documents on the vehicle from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) now reveal just how poorly it sold.
After Tesla decided to build a Rear-Wheel-Drive Cybertruck trim back in 2025, which was void of many features and only featured a small discount.
The head-scratching offering was only available for a few months, and evidently, it did not sell very well, which we all suspected. New recall documents on the vehicle from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) now reveal just how poorly it sold.
The recall deals with a potentially separating wheel stud and potentially impacts 173 Cybertruck units with the 18-inch steel wheels. The Cybertruck RWD was the only trim level to feature these, and the 173 potentially impacted units represent a portion of the population of pickups. Therefore, it’s not the entire number of RWD Cybertruck sold, but it could show how little interest it gathered.
The NHTSA document states:
“On affected vehicles, higher severity road perturbations and cornering may strain the stud hole in the wheel rotor, causing cracks to form. If cracking propagates with continued use and strain, the wheel stud could eventually separate from the wheel hub.”
Only 5 percent are expected to be impacted, meaning less than 10 units will have the issue if the NHTSA and Tesla estimates are correct. Nevertheless, the true story here is how terribly the RWD Cybertruck sold.
Tesla ended production and stopped offering the RWD Cybertruck to customers last September. For just $10,000 less than the All-Wheel-Drive trim, Tesla offered the RWD Cybertruck with just one motor, textile seats instead of leather, only 7 speakers instead of 15, no Rear Touchscreen, no Powered Tonneau Cover for the truck bed, and no 120v/240v outlets.
For just $10,000 more, at $79,990, owners could have received all of those premium features, as well as a more capable All-Wheel-Drive powertrain that featured Adaptive Air Suspension. The discount simply was not worth the sacrifices.
Orders were few and far between, and sources told us that when it was offered, sales were extremely tempered because customers could not see the value in this trim level.
Even Tesla’s most loyal supporters thought the offering was kind of a joke, and the $10,000 extra was simply worth it.
News
Tesla Semi sends clear message to Diesel rivals with latest move
The truck is being built at a dedicated facility in Sparks, Nevada, just next to its Gigafactory Nevada facility.
Tesla has officially launched Semi production at what will be a mind-boggling rate of approximately 50,000 units per year.
The truck is being built at a dedicated facility in Sparks, Nevada, just next to its Gigafactory Nevada facility.
The company finally announced on April 29 that the first Tesla Semi truck has rolled off its new high-volume production line at the factory. This marks the transition from limited pilot builds to scaled manufacturing for the Class 8 all-electric heavy-duty truck, nearly nine years after its dramatic 2017 unveiling.
🚨 Tesla Semi mass production is underway in Nevada!
HUGE! https://t.co/ohgQIiI2bK pic.twitter.com/23GvWr8D27
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 29, 2026
Tesla initially promised high-volume deliveries by 2019–2020, but battery supply constraints and prioritization for passenger vehicles delayed progress. The new 1.7-million-square-foot factory, purpose-built next to Gigafactory Nevada’s 4680 cell production lines, resolves those bottlenecks through deep vertical integration.
The Semi uses Tesla’s structural battery packs with cylindrical 4680 cells manufactured on-site. This integration enables efficient supply, reduced logistics costs, and the potential for high output. The factory is designed for an eventual annual capacity of approximately 50,000 trucks, positioning Tesla to address growing demand in long-haul freight electrification.
Tesla is using a redesigned Cybertruck battery cell to mitigate Semi challenges
Operating economics favor the Semi through dramatically lower fuel and maintenance costs compared to traditional diesel rigs, and companies involved in a pilot program for the Semi with Tesla have shown that.
Electricity is far cheaper than diesel on a per-mile basis, while the electric powertrain features fewer moving parts, reducing service intervals and lifetime expenses. Early deployments with customers like PepsiCo and others have validated these advantages in real-world service.
The Nevada factory’s ramp-up is targeted for full volume output before the end of June 2026, aligning with broader Tesla production goals for 2026. This includes parallel efforts on other new vehicles while expanding the Megacharger infrastructure to support widespread adoption.
By localizing battery and truck production, Tesla gains advantages in cost, quality control, and scalability that many competitors sourcing cells externally lack. The start of high-volume Semi production represents a pivotal step in Tesla’s strategy to electrify heavy transportation, potentially accelerating the shift toward zero-emission freight across North America and beyond.
As output increases, the Semi could reshape long-haul logistics with its combination of performance, efficiency, and sustainability.
Tesla Model X shocks everyone by crushing every other used car in America
Tesla Cybertruck’s head-scratching trim sold terribly, recall documents reveal
