News
Tesla combats Uber, Lyft congestion in New York City with Supercharger Congestion Fees
Tesla is combatting Uber and Lyft congestion at its Superchargers in New York City with Supercharger fees after the ride-sharing services have backed up EV chargers.
This week, it appears the Superchargers are more congested than normal, and it could be due to the influx of Uber and Lyft vehicles at locations in Brooklyn and Queens.
Dear @elonmusk and @Tesla please consider increased demand for the superchargers (240kw) and make the new ones nearby these locations- #Brooklyn #BayRidge #BathBeach #Bensonhurst #DykerHeights #Forthamilton
Please, cooperate with Tesla – @NYCMayorsOffice @nyctaxi @Uber pic.twitter.com/fYmPNr9EOt
— Vako Ormotsadze (@VOrmotsadze) January 12, 2024
This is not a great experience.
We need more supercharger locations in NYC. As a Tesla customer we shouldn’t have to go through this, second time this week. @elonmusk @Tesla @TeslaCharging @WholeMarsBlog @heydave7 @SawyerMerritt @DirtyTesLa @DillonLoomis22 pic.twitter.com/GVybsMdq8w— Tesla Shill (@TeslaShill) January 17, 2024
Tesla has sent this message to drivers in the area, indicating that Active Supercharger Congestion Fees will be applied:
“Idle fees have been replaced by congestion fees at select Superchargers near you. Congestion fees accrue when your Supercharger is busy and your vehicle’s battery is above a certain level. This change helps reduce wait times and ensures that everyone has access to Superchargers when they need it.
Congestion fees apply when:
- Supercharger is busy
- Your vehicle’s charge is above the congestion fee charge level
View congestion fees and charge levels at which they apply on your touchscreen.”
The number of Lyft and Uber vehicles that applied for licenses through the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) was well over 9,000 units last year, and several NYC Councilmembers warned that this could cause congestion.
The TLC eliminated the cap on for-hire drivers as long as the vehicles are electric or handicap accessible, but there are now so many in the city that it is causing issues.
On top of this, there are only so many charging stations in the City, and several are operated by Revel, the ride-sharing service that fought the TLC for more for-hire licenses several years ago.
Tesla Model 3 wins hearts as famed NYC Taxi, picks up where Nissan Leaf couldn’t
As for congestion fees, Tesla launched them last year in an attempt to keep Supercharger lines moving when certain locations are congested.
Code from Tesla hacker green stated that the congestion fees would apply when vehicles are charging over 80 percent.
Potential Solutions
The big issue and core problem is that there are a lot of EV drivers in New York, but the infrastructure just has not gotten to a point where it can routinely handle an influx of cars that need a charge.
Revel has been expanding its network of EV chargers throughout New York City and plans to open more stations this year.
Spokesperson Robert Familiar told us:
“Revel’s public fast-charging Superhubs have seen about four times more public utilization in the last two months, which we see as a direct outcome of the Green Rides initiative. We’re anticipating an even greater uptick as more drivers look to skip long lines and hidden fees by charging at our higher-volume Superhubs.”
The 2018 Green Rides initiative has been great for EV adoption, but it surged demand so much that it generally outpaced infrastructure availability.
Jason Kersten, the Press Secretary of the NYC TLC, told me that there will be growing pains until the City is able to build out the appropriate amount of infrastructure. EVs are obviously a great thing for New York, and we talked in detail about the transitional phase that the City will go through over the next 11 years as it gears up for a 100 percent zero-emissions fleet.
TLC Commissioner David Do believes infrastructure will need to catch up as drivers under the Commission jumped at the opportunity to own EVs last year:
“In October, we gave TLC drivers the option of owning their own EV plates instead of continuing to lease gas-powered vehicles, and many of them jumped at it. They’re now hitting the road, leading the charge towards a cleaner and more sustainable city and sending a very clear message: We need more charging infrastructure. We’re doing everything we can to meet that demand as quickly as possible. That includes the city’s commitment to install 13 fast charging hubs in municipal parking facilities citywide, a new Bronx charging depot, and 30 fast chargers at TLC’s Woodside inspection facility.”
88 percent of the 9,756 applications the TLC received between October 18 and November 13 were from individual drivers, not companies. The TLC has, so far, approved 4,732 and continues to process applications.
The TLC and the City of New York have worked together to increase charging infrastructure moving forward. The efforts have resulted in $15 million in federal funding for a charging depot in the Bronx, 30 fast-chargers at the TLC’s Woodside inspection facility, and 13 municipal parking facilities citywide, among other things.
I’d love to hear from you! If you have any comments, concerns, or questions, please email me at joey@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @KlenderJoey, or if you have news tips, you can email us at tips@teslarati.com.
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.
Investor's Corner
Tesla uber bull Ron Baron says ‘the time to buy the stock is now’
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.