News
The case for Tesla to operate multiple car factories in the US has never been stronger
The recent controversial events surrounding Tesla and its main electric vehicle production plant in Fremont, CA, is one that will likely have repercussions on the company’s future. But beyond the controversy, the recent events surrounding Fremont highlight one key point: it is in Tesla’s best interests to ensure that its vehicle production facilities will no longer be exclusive to one state.
The Fremont factory and Alameda County’s insistence on keeping it closed has resulted in Tesla filing a case against the county. So far, the mayor of the City of Fremont and the City Palo Alto have sided with Tesla, and Elon Musk has remarked that the company’s HQ and future projects will be relocated to other sites, such as Gigafactory Nevada and a Texas site. In the midst of this all is a County Public Health Officer who has reportedly ignored Tesla’s efforts at proposing a reopening plan for the Fremont factory.
What is pretty ironic is the fact that among the carmakers currently operating a production facility in the United States, Tesla is arguably the most experienced in dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. The electric car maker has successfully dealt with the virus in Shanghai, and following a government-mandated shutdown, Tesla was able to return to regular operations gradually. Once reopened, Gigafactory Shanghai adopted a series of serious anti-coronavirus strategies that helped the company’s workers stay safe despite the pandemic. Tesla intends to do the same in Fremont, if not more.
For now, reopening the Fremont factory will likely be the result of pressure on the county or a serious stroke of fortune that would allow Tesla and the County Public Health Officer eye-to-eye. Each of these requires more than its own stroke of luck, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be. That is, if Tesla has multiple electric vehicle production facilities in the United States. If Tesla has another factory in the US located in an area that is more supportive of the company, it would not have to go through legal means to reopen its primary production facility.
Tesla’s next facility will likely be located in Texas, and so far, Sen. Ted Cruz has stated on Twitter that the state is fully behind the electric car maker. Texas actually makes sense for Tesla, especially considering that SpaceX, Musk’s private space venture, already has a facility in Boca Chica. If speculations prove right, Tesla can very well be building its first Terafactory in the state, which will be making the Cybertruck, and perhaps other vehicles like Model Y and Semi as well.
Tesla is now at a point where it is producing vehicles that are not intended for a small demographic of car buyers. With the advent of the Model 3 and the Model Y, as well as the upcoming Cybertruck, Tesla is taking on the mainstream market, an industry that counts its production numbers in the hundreds of thousands. This means that the company is now poised to meet the juggernauts of the auto industry like General Motors and Volkswagen head-on, provided that it has the resources to do so. It just has to make sure that its vehicle production activities could not be stopped just because of a single factory shutdown.
With this in mind, it may be a good idea for Tesla to expand its vehicle production capabilities far beyond the Texas Gigafactory/Terafactory. Tesla’s vehicle lineup does not end with the Cybertruck, the Roadster, and the Semi, after all. References to a Tesla van have been stated before, and Tesla has also hinted at a vehicle that’s smaller and more affordable than the Model 3. The more successful Tesla gets, and the more advanced the company’s Full Self-Driving suite becomes, the healthier the demand for Tesla’s vehicles will be. To accomplish this, it may be a good idea to look at legacy auto’s playbook for once, and start establishing car factories across the United States.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
