Connect with us

News

Mayor tied to Tesla Supercharger site questioned over ‘conflict of interest’

Published

on

Tesla Supercharger station in Aberdeen, Washington [Credit: Trebor Thickweb via app check-in]

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.

Advertisement
-->

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.)

Advertisement
-->

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, UtilitiesCity 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]

Key items in the re-negotiated agreement between the city and Tesla include (Aberdeen City Council Meeting Agenda, August 24, 2016. See page 3):
  • 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”?

Advertisement
-->

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.

Advertisement
-->

Some questions:

  1. 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?
  2. 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?
  3. 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

Advertisement
-->
Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla reliability rankings skyrocket significantly in latest assessment

“They definitely have their struggles, but by continuing to refine and not make huge changes in their models, they’re able to make more reliable vehicles, and they’ve moved up our rankings.”

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla ranked in the Top 10 of the most reliable car companies for 2026, as Consumer Reports’ latest index showed significant jumps from the past two years.

In 2022, Tesla ranked 27th out of 28 brands. Last year, it came in 17th.

However, 2026’s rankings were differentCR‘s rankings officially included Tesla in the Top 10, its best performance to date.

Finishing tenth, the full Top 10 is:

  1. Subaru
  2. BMW
  3. Porsche
  4. Honda
  5. Toyota
  6. Lexus
  7. Lincoln
  8. Hyundai
  9. Acura
  10. Tesla

Tesla has had steady improvements in its build quality, and its recent refinements of the Model 3 and Model Y have not gone unnoticed.

The publication’s Senior Director of Auto Testing, Jake Fisher, said about Tesla that the company’s ability to work through the rough patches has resulted in better performance (via CNBC):

“They definitely have their struggles, but by continuing to refine and not make huge changes in their models, they’re able to make more reliable vehicles, and they’ve moved up our rankings.”

Advertisement
-->

He continued to say that Tesla’s vehicles have become more reliable over time, and its decision to avoid making any significant changes to its bread-and-butter vehicles has benefited its performance in these rankings.

Legacy automakers tend to go overboard with changes, sometimes keeping a model name but recognizing a change in its “generation.” This leads to constant growing pains, as the changes in design require intense adjustments on the production side of things.

Instead, Tesla’s changes mostly come from a software standpoint, which are delivered through Over-the-Air updates, which improve the vehicle’s functionality or add new features.

Only one Tesla vehicle scored below average in Consumer Reports’ rankings for 2026 was the Cybertruck. Fisher’s belief that Tesla improves its other models over time might prove to be true with Cybertruck in a few years.

Tesla Cybertruck gets reviewed by Consumer Reports

Advertisement
-->

He continued:

“They’re definitely improving by keeping with things and refining, but if you look at their 5- to 10-year-old models that are out there, when it comes to reliability, they’re dead last of all the brands. They’re able to improve the reliability if they don’t make major changes.”

Regarding Subaru’s gold medal placing on the podium, Fisher said:

“While Subaru models provide good performance and comfort, they also excel in areas that may not be immediately apparent during a test drive.”

Other notable brands to improve are Rivian, which bumped itself slightly from 31 to 26. Chevrolet finished 24th, GMC ended up 29th, and Ford saw itself in 18th.

Advertisement
-->
Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2.1 texting and driving: we tested it

We decided to test it, and our main objective was to try to determine a more definitive label for when it would allow you to grab your phone and look at it without any nudge from the in-car driver monitoring system.

Published

on

Credit: Grok

On Thursday, Tesla CEO Elon Musk said that Full Self-Driving v14.2.1 would enable texting and driving “depending on [the] context of surrounding traffic.”

Tesla CEO Elon Musk announces major update with texting and driving on FSD

We decided to test it, and our main objective was to try to determine a more definitive label for when it would allow you to grab your phone and look at it without any nudge from the in-car driver monitoring system.

I’d also like to add that, while Tesla had said back in early November that it hoped to allow this capability within one to two months, I still would not recommend you do it. Even if Tesla or Musk says it will allow you to do so, you should take into account the fact that many laws do not allow you to look at your phone. Be sure to refer to your local regulations surrounding texting and driving, and stay attentive to the road and its surroundings.

The Process

Based on Musk’s post on X, which said the ability to text and drive would be totally dependent on the “context of surrounding traffic,” I decided to try and find three levels of congestion: low, medium, and high.

Advertisement
-->

I also tried as best as I could to always glance up at the road, a natural reaction, but I spent most of my time, during the spans of when it was in my hand, looking at my phone screen. I limited my time looking at the phone screen to a few seconds, five to seven at most. On local roads, I didn’t go over five seconds; once I got to the highway, I ensured the vehicle had no other cars directly in front of me.

Also, at any time I saw a pedestrian, I put my phone down and was fully attentive to the road. I also made sure there were no law enforcement officers around; I am still very aware of the law, which is why I would never do this myself if I were not testing it.

I also limited the testing to no more than one minute per attempt.

I am fully aware that this test might ruffle some feathers. I’m not one to text and drive, and I tried to keep this test as abbreviated as possible while still getting some insight on how often it would require me to look at the road once again.

The Results

Low Congestion Area

I picked a local road close to where I live at a time when I knew there would be very little traffic. I grabbed my phone and looked at it for no more than five seconds before I would glance up at the road to ensure everything was okay:

Advertisement
-->

Looking up at the road was still regular in frequency; I would glance up at the road after hitting that five-second threshold. Then I would look back down.

I had no nudges during this portion of the test. Traffic was far from even a light volume, and other vehicles around were very infrequently seen.

Medium Congestion Area

This area had significantly more traffic and included a stop at a traffic light. I still kept the consecutive time of looking at my phone to about five seconds.

Advertisement
-->

I would quickly glance at the road to ensure everything was okay, then look back down at my phone, spending enough time looking at a post on Instagram, X, or Facebook to determine what it was about, before then peeking at the road again.

There was once again no alert to look at the road, and I started to question whether I was even looking at my phone long enough to get an alert:

Based on past versions of Full Self-Driving, especially dating back to v13, even looking out the window for too long would get me a nudge, and it was about the same amount of time, sometimes more, sometimes less, I would look out of a window to look at a house or a view.

Advertisement
-->

High Congestion Area

I decided to use the highway as a High Congestion Area, and it finally gave me an alert to look at the road.

As strange as it is, I felt more comfortable looking down at my phone for a longer amount of time on the highway, especially considering there is a lower chance of a sudden stop or a dangerous maneuver by another car, especially as I was traveling just 5 MPH over in the left lane.

This is where I finally got an alert from the driver monitoring system, and I immediately put my phone down and returned to looking at the road:

Advertisement
-->

Once I was able to trigger an alert, I considered the testing over with. I think in the future I’d like to try this again with someone else in the car to keep their eyes on the road, but I’m more than aware that we can’t always have company while driving.

My True Thoughts

Although this is apparently enabled based on what was said, I still do not feel totally comfortable with it. I would not ever consider shooting a text or responding to messages because Full Self-Driving is enabled, and there are two reasons for that.

The first is the fact that if an accident were to happen, it would be my fault. Although it would be my fault, people would take it as Tesla’s fault, just based on what media headlines usually are with accidents involving these cars.

Secondly, I am still well aware that it’s against the law to use your phone while driving. In Pennsylvania, we have the Paul Miller Law, which prohibits people from even holding their phones, even at stop lights.

I’d feel much more comfortable using my phone if liability were taken off of me in case of an accident. I trust FSD, but I am still erring on the side of caution, especially considering Tesla’s website still indicates vehicle operators have to remain attentive while using either FSD or Autopilot.

Advertisement
-->

Check out our full test below:

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla CEO Elon Musk announces major update with texting and driving on FSD

“Depending on context of surrounding traffic, yes,” Musk said in regards to FSD v14.2.1 allowing texting and driving.

Published

on

Credit: carwow/YouTube

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has announced a major update with texting and driving capabilities on Full Self-Driving v14.2.1, the company’s latest version of the FSD suite.

Tesla Full Self-Driving, even in its most mature and capable versions, is still a Level 2 autonomous driving suite, meaning it requires attention from the vehicle operator.

You cannot sleep, and you should not take attention away from driving; ultimately, you are still solely responsible for what happens with the car.

The vehicles utilize a cabin-facing camera to enable attention monitoring, and if you take your eyes off the road for too long, you will be admonished and advised to pay attention. After five strikes, FSD and Autopilot will be disabled.

However, Musk announced at the Annual Shareholder Meeting in early November that the company would look at the statistics, but it aimed to allow people to text and drive “within the next month or two.”

Advertisement
-->

He said:

“I am confident that, within the next month or two, we’re gonna look at the safety statistics, but we will allow you to text and drive.”

Advertisement
-->

Today, Musk confirmed that the current version of Full Self-Driving, which is FSD v14.2.1, does allow for texting and driving “depending on context of surrounding traffic.”

There are some legitimate questions with this capability, especially as laws in all 50 U.S. states specifically prohibit texting and driving. It will be interesting to see the legality of it, because if a police officer sees you texting, they won’t know that you’re on Full Self-Driving, and you’ll likely be pulled over.

Some states prohibit drivers from even holding a phone when the car is in motion.

Advertisement
-->

It is certainly a move toward unsupervised Full Self-Driving operation, but it is worth noting that Musk’s words state it will only allow the vehicle operator to do it depending on the context of surrounding traffic.

He did not outline any specific conditions that FSD would allow a driver to text and drive.

Continue Reading