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.
- 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
Chevy answers Tesla’s new ‘Standard’ offerings with an actually affordable EV

Chevy answered Tesla’s new Standard Model 3 and Model Y offerings with its second-generation Bolt EV, a car that actually appeals to those who were looking for affordability.
Earlier this week, Tesla unveiled the Model 3 and Model Y Standard, two stripped-down versions of the cars of the same name it already offers. The Long Range versions are now labeled as “Premium,” while the Performance configurations stand alone.
Tesla launches two new affordable models with ‘Standard’ Model 3, Y offerings
However, many people were sort of upset with what Tesla came to market with. For well over a year, it has been transparent that it was planning to develop affordable models, and this year, it was forced to take action to counter the loss of the $7,500 EV tax credit.
The Model 3 Standard starts at $36,990, while the Model Y Standard comes in at $39,990. While these are cheaper than the company’s Premium offerings, many fans said that Tesla missed the mark with the pricing, as these numbers are not necessarily “affordable.”
At the very least, they will likely miss the mark in helping Tesla regain annual growth rates for its deliveries. Tesla will likely rely on its “unboxed process,” which will be used to manufacture the Cybercab and potentially other affordable models in the future. These will be priced at below $30,000.
Other carmakers are making their moves and were able to undercut Tesla’s new Standard offerings, Chevrolet being one of them.
This week, the company launched its second-gen Bolt EV, which starts at just $28,995.
Here are the full specs:
- 65 kWh LFP battery
- 255 miles of range (EPA estimated)
- Native NACS port for Tesla Supercharger accessibility without an adapter
- Up to 150 kW charging speed
- Bidirectional power of 9.6 kW
- Front-Wheel-Drive
- 10-80% charging in just 26 minutes
- No Apple CarPlay or Android Auto
- SuperCruise capable
- 11.3″ touchscreen, 11″ digital gauge cluster
- 16 cubic feet of cargo capacity
- Other Trims
- RS – $32,000
- Base LT – $28,995
- Deliveries begin in early 2026
Let’s be frank: Tesla fans are unlikely to bat an eye at other OEM offerings. However, first-time EV buyers might be looking for something more price accessible, so vehicles under $30,000 are where they will look first, at least for most people.
If money isn’t an option, people will consider spending a minimum of $37,000 on a new vehicle, especially an EV, as a first-time owner.
The Bolt EV could be something that does well, especially considering its one of only a handful of EVs that are priced at around $30,000 brand new in the U.S.
The others are:
- Nissan Leaf S ($28,140)
- Mini Cooper SE ($30,900)
- Fiat 500e ($32,500)
While these cars are priced at around $30,000 and are affordable, they each offer minimal range ratings. The Nissan Leaf S and Fiat 500e have just 149 miles, while the Mini Cooper SE has 114 miles.
News
Tesla Model S makes TIME’s list of Best Inventions

Tesla’s flagship sedan, the Model S, has officially been named one of TIME Magazine’s Best Inventions of the 2000s. It joins its sibling, the Model 3, which made the list in 2017.
The Model S is among the most crucial developments in the automotive industry in the last century.
Just as the Ford Model T made its mark on passenger transportation, becoming the first combustion engine vehicle to be successfully developed and marketed at a time when horse and buggy were the preferred mode of transportation, the Model S revolutionized things a step further.
Although it was not the first EV to be developed, the Tesla Model S was the EV that put EVs on the map. In 2012, TIME recognized the Model S as a piece of technology that could truly transform the car industry.
The publication wrote:
“This electric four-door sedan has the lines of a Jaguar, the ability to zip for 265 miles (426 km) on one charge—that’s the equivalent of 89 m.p.g. (2.6 L/100 km)—and touchscreen controls for everything from GPS navigation to adjusting the suspension.”
Looking back, TIME was right on. The Tesla Model S was truly a marvel for its time, and it, along with the OG 2008 Roadster, can be seen as the first two EVs to push electrification to the mainstream.
As TIME described this year, the Model S “proved to be a game-changing experience for electric vehicles,” and it ended up truly catalyzing things for not only the industry, but Tesla as well.
The Model S acted as a fundraiser of sorts for future vehicles, just as the Model X did. They paved the way for the Model 3 and Model Y to be developed and offered by Tesla at a price point that was more acceptable and accessible to the masses.
The Current State of the Tesla Model S
The Model S contributes to a very small percentage of Tesla sales. The company groups the Model S with the Model X and Cybertruck in its quarterly releases.
Last year, that grouping sold 85,133 total units, a small percentage of the 1.789 million cars it delivered to customers in 2024.
Things looked to be changing for the Model S and the Model X this year, as Tesla teased some improvements to the two cars with a refresh. However, it was very underwhelming and only included very minor changes.
Lucid CEO shades Tesla Model S: “Nothing has changed in 12 years now”
It appeared as if Tesla was planning to sunset the two cars, and while it has not taken that stance yet, it seems more likely that the company will begin taking any potential options to heart.
CEO Elon Musk said a few years ago that the two cars were only produced due to “sentimental reasons.”
Investor's Corner
Tesla analysts are expecting the stock to go Plaid Mode soon

Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) has had a few weeks of overwhelmingly bullish events, and it is inciting several analysts to change their price targets as they expect the stock to potentially go Plaid Mode in the near future.
Over the past week, Tesla has not only posted record deliveries for a single quarter, but it has also rolled out its most robust Full Self-Driving (Supervised) update in a year. The new version is more capable than ever before.
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.1 first impressions: Robotaxi-like features arrive
However, these are not the only things moving the company’s overall consensus on Wall Street toward a more bullish tone. There are, in fact, several things that Tesla has in the works that are inciting stronger expectations from analysts in New York.
TD Cowen
TD Cowen increased its price target for Tesla shares from $374 to $509 and gave the stock a ‘Buy’ rating, based on several factors.
Initially, Tesla’s positive deliveries report for Q3 set a bullish tone, which TD Cowen objectively evaluated and recognized as a strong sign. Additionally, the company’s firm stance on ensuring CEO Elon Musk is paid is a positive, as it keeps him with Tesla for more time.
Elon Musk: Trillionaire Tesla pay package is about influence, not wealth
Musk, who achieved each of the tranches on his last pay package, could obtain the elusive title as the world’s first-ever trillionaire, granted he helps Tesla grow considerably over the next decade.
Stifel
Stifel also increased its price target on Tesla from $440 to $483, citing the improvements Tesla made with its Full Self-Driving suite.
The rollout of FSD v14.1 has been a major step forward for the company. Although it’s in its early stages, Musk has said there will be improved versions coming within the next two weeks.
Stifel raises Tesla price target by 9.8% over FSD, Robotaxi advancements
Analysts at the firm also believe the company has a chance to push an Unsupervised version of FSD by the end of the year, but this seems like it’s out of the question currently.
It broke down the company’s FSD suite as worth $213 per share, while Robotaxi and Optimus had a $140 per share and $29 per share analysis, respectively.
Stifel sees Tesla as a major player not only in the self-driving industry but also in AI as a whole, which is something Musk has truly pushed for this year.
UBS
While many firms believe the company is on its way to doing great things and that stock prices will rise from their current level of roughly $430, other firms see it differently.
UBS said it still holds its ‘Sell’ rating on Tesla shares, but it did increase its price target from $215 to $247.
It said this week in a note to investors that it adjusted higher because of the positive deliveries and its potential value with AI and autonomy. However, it also remains cautious on the stock, especially considering the risks in Q4, as nobody truly knows how deliveries will stack up.
In the last month, Tesla shares are up 24 percent.
-
Elon Musk2 weeks ago
Tesla FSD V14 set for early wide release next week: Elon Musk
-
News2 weeks ago
Elon Musk gives update on Tesla Optimus progress
-
News2 weeks ago
Tesla has a new first with its Supercharger network
-
Investor's Corner2 weeks ago
Tesla gets new Street-high price target with high hopes for autonomy domination
-
Lifestyle2 weeks ago
500-mile test proves why Tesla Model Y still humiliates rivals in Europe
-
News1 week ago
Tesla Giga Berlin’s water consumption has achieved the unthinkable
-
Lifestyle2 weeks ago
Tesla Model S Plaid battles China’s 1500 hp monster Nurburgring monster, with surprising results
-
News2 weeks ago
Tesla Model Y makes dramatic comeback in Sweden with 492% rise in registrations