News
Stop worrying about Tesla Supercharger congestion, it will be alright
If you’ve ever heard the phrase “a solution looking for a problem” then you’ll completely understand what I’m about to say. While I’m at it with catchphrases, Tesla seems to be a living, breathing double-edged sword. When it comes to giving us details, they are “damned if they do, damned if they don’t.”
By now, we all know the Model 3 is going to be huge. We also know that Model S and X vehicles with Supercharging enabled can enjoy “free long distance travel,” which we understand to mean “free for life.” The not so subtle elephant in the room is that free could lead to abuse, which could lead to lines and waiting for Supercharger use. I’ve already discussed what I think is step 1, which is educating folks on some Supercharging best practices they can do to be mindful of our shared asset. I’ve also discussed things Tesla themselves could do to alleviate potential congestion at Supercharger locations.
Here’s my disclaimer: This is a solution looking for a problem! Model 3 is more than a year away and despite what you may hear, MOST superchargers have one or more stalls available MOST of the time. Long waits and lines only plague select locations, and even then, only occur on very few occasions. While I’m no record-holding Supercharger pro I’ve only ever seen an 8-stall location full once. It was Hamilton, NJ and it was before the addition of two Superchargers on the nearby New Jersey Turnpike. I’ve also only ever known of one location to be constantly busy. It was the Newark, DE location, which has recently been upgraded from 4 to 12 stalls. So again, I don’t think this is a problem right now. I don’t even think it will be much a problem when Model 3 hits the streets. Tesla builds new chargers all the time and has committed to both distance and density. They know, more than anyone, which locations are busy and which aren’t. I trust they will plan accordingly.
You will be OK
But since folks love to debate every word – or lack thereof – that Tesla says, let’s have at it. Let’s pretend that the big bad wolf will come to the charger and blow it down just because it’s free and unrestricted once you incur an up-front cost. Let’s further pretend that Tesla considers the idea of a pay per use model of charging. I’ll repeat this later but for the record, I don’t think they’ll do anything like this. Not now, not ever.
- Pay Per Use – kWh. This is a common and seemingly simple idea. You don’t need $2,000 worth of electricity, you only need a few bucks worth a few times a year. You don’t want to pay up front for all the phantom local moochers that you suspect will abuse an unrestricted system. The cars are smart, they can tell how much you’ve used per charging session so it appears they can charge you for it on the basis of that. Maybe you don’t even care if there is a huge markup on the electricity. It’s a win for everyone in that case, because it’s still cheaper than gas. Even if it wasn’t, it’s worth it to take a car as great as a Tesla on a road trip. Plus almost all of your charging is done at home where it’s way cheaper than gas. Fine, points taken. Except, there’s a “but.” But selling electricity is complicated. The United States is complicated! Here, we have 50 states and plenty of lines between them. They get to set their own laws and rules and tax rates. Cities and towns do too. If you thought that gaining approval to build a supercharger was a challenge, imagine trying to become an energy supplier in every municipality as well. This alone is enough to rule out the idea of charging per kWh. Add that in with having to handle point of sale transactions and you’ve completely changed how Tesla must operate. It already takes quite a bit of effort to build out this network, and there is no reason to make it harder. (Let’s pretend that’s why no other automakers have done it.)
Tesla builds new chargers all the time and has committed to both distance and density
- Pay Per Use – Time. There’s a pretty clear precedent for selling time at almost any major municipality on earth: paid parking. In theory, it would result in very few people charging past 90%; that point where your electrons slow drastically and you’d get a lot less bang for your buck. This speaks perfectly to the concept of battling lines with quick turnover. Except, nope. Tesla, in my opinion, won’t be willing or interested in the hassle of point of sale purchases. They’d have to figure out an appropriate price, which I imagine would vary by location. They’d have to employ people to figure out the tax rules and rates for each country, state and city. They’ve have to work with various credit card companies and be able to accept multiple forms of payment. They may even need to carry certain types of liability insurance for providing paid parking. Tesla is in the business of advancing sustainable transport by, primarily, making compelling electric vehicles. Anything else is just noise and takes away brainpower from doing other great things.
- Pay Per Use – Day. Tesla is amazing and has done plenty of things no other company has done before. They continue to surprise us and have stayed alive despite many assumptions that they’d never make it this far. So I’ll humor you, dear reader, and assume they are willing and able to take on the challenges of point of sales purchases. Game on! Rather than selling time or electricity, Tesla can simply sell access to software. Most Teslas on the road, and all that will soon be on the road, will have the hardware required for supercharging. They can undoubtedly figure out how to program an option in your touchscreen (or simpler still, an automated telephone line) that allows you to opt into supercharging access for a day, at a price. They’ve already given away free trials of Autopilot, so we already know opening up software for a limited time is possible. Shoot, maybe they can even get some PR out of it. “Free supercharging on your birthday!” or “Merry Christmas, here’s a free day!” These things sound great, but I still have an objection. Tesla needs money to build more chargers. End of story.
This isn’t about paying for what you use, this is about paying for the building of a network. There will always be owners who use far less electricity from Superchargers than their initial cost would have bought in kilowatt hours. There will also always be some owners who use more. Where I live, property taxes are required whether you send kids to public school or not. We’re all paying for a system.
Which is why – and here’s my promised repeat – I don’t think Tesla will ever adopt a pay per use model for Supercharging. They’ll continue their commitment to density and distance, they’ll continue to monitor busy locations and they’ll continue to keep their eye on the prize. Because remember, the hopefully inevitable adoption of sustainable transport means someone, somewhere, will start building a whole lot more electric car charging stations.
Feature photo of the Tesla Supercharger in Antwerp-Aartselaar, Belgium courtesy of ldubois_BE
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
