News
Tesla denied grant applications in Texas for Superchargers despite fractional costs
Tesla recently applied for a series of grants through a program in the State of Texas that would cover up to 70 percent of an electric vehicle charging stall installation. However, the applications from the United States’ leading electric automaker were denied, despite costs being a fraction of what competitor installations would cost. According to a report from Forbes, which examined the rejected applications and what would instead be installed, Texas is doing itself a disservice, selecting “the most expensive stations in the worst locations for their money.”
Despite a laid out sheet of ground rules, which tend to gravitate toward impartial and unbiased selections, it does not always work out that way. The $21 million in grants, which are awarded on a first-come-first-serve basis, provided enough funding for 170 chargers at 41 stations. Tesla’s applications were not selected for a single project, despite aligning with the grant’s requirements, which would have made Tesla install CHAdeMO or CCS connectors, which would open the Superchargers up to other car manufacturers.
Interestingly, the article states that around 70 percent of EVs on the road would benefit from even more Tesla Superchargers. The robust network of global charging stations for Tesla, which recently eclipsed 30,000 worldwide, provides energy for the industry’s best EVs. Sales figures for Tesla are simply incomparable to other EV companies, as it is the only company in the United States to consistently mark hundreds of thousands of deliveries per quarter, with each one being an electric powertrain.
Tesla’s Superchargers would not have only benefitted drivers of the all-electric automaker’s products. The Forbes report indicates Tesla had only applied for a “small portion” of the money to build its first four stations, which would also accept non-Tesla EVs, much like a “pilot” program the company has started to test in Europe.
Tesla’s non-Tesla Supercharger pilot program expands to France, Norway
While it has not yet happened in the United States, Tesla Superchargers could be used to provide energy to other EV manufacturer products. Tesla stands to gain in other ways, too, as the company allowing other cars to access its infrastructure would help relieve range anxiety concerns. However, its biggest advantage is having 70 percent of the station covered by grant money.
Even if Tesla planned to use the grant funds to expand its charging infrastructure, the decision not to accept their applications is questionable. The prices in unaccepted grant applications, representing up to 70 percent of the actual cost, are as follows:
- Chargepoint: $150K+ for 2-plex
- EVgo: $150K+ for pair, $126K for 4-plex
- Circle-K: $75K for 4-plex to $150K+ for 2-plex
- 7-11: $126K for 2-plex
- “Retail EV Charging North/South Texas” (Buc-ee’s) $100K/charger for 6-plex
- Various small players: $75K to $150K, averaging at least $133K/charger
- Accepted applications so far from various players average $123K+/charger
- Tesla: $29K for 17-plex, $42K for 9-plex
Opening up potential Supercharger locations to other automakers would be extremely advantageous from a cost perspective. It also would give Tesla the ability to test the waters of a potential pilot program in the United States, with plenty of restrictions that would still give Tesla owners prioritization at the stalls.
Ultimately, the EV infrastructure doesn’t seem to gain any benefits from what the Forbes article’s author, Brad Templeton, calls “misguided grants.” Instead, funding the EV infrastructure with what drivers actually need, which is more stations in advantageous areas, like shopping centers or tourist destinations, is the answer.
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.
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.
The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.
The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.
Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.
The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.
Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.
Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.
Elon Musk clapped back at France’s decision to withhold the approval for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) Supervised system, projecting a clear and blunt message to French Transport Minister Phillippe Tabarot, after he publicly rejected the technology in its current form.
Tabarot outlines several concerns with Tesla Full Self-Driving in a detailed video statement, where he said, “The safety trade-offs are not yet sufficient to authorize it as it currently stands,” he said. He emphasized that FSD is not a true self-driving system and that the driver remains fully responsible.
Key issues Tabarot also brought up included allowing speeding when surrounding traffic exceeds limits and what he believes are insufficient guarantees of driver attention during complex urban maneuvers such as lane changes, intersections, and roundabouts.
Delaying the approval of FSD in France will cost lives
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 22, 2026
While acknowledging technological progress and France’s support for autonomous innovation, Tabarot stressed that deployment must prioritize road safety. He noted ongoing technical discussions with Tesla, the Netherlands, and other European partners, with further ecosystem meetings planned for the fall.
Musk’s rebuke highlights the human cost of regulatory caution. Tesla’s latest safety reports provide compelling data supporting accelerated adoption. In the most recent 12-month period, vehicles using FSD (Supervised) recorded one major collision per approximately 5.1 million miles driven, dramatically better than the U.S. national average of one crash per 698,000 miles.
Even Tesla vehicles driven manually with active safety features outperform the average by a wide margin. These figures come from billions of real-world miles of telemetry, showing FSD vehicles involved in far fewer incidents than both manual Teslas and the broader U.S. fleet.
Critics argue Tesla’s comparisons require careful scrutiny regarding reporting thresholds and fleet demographics, yet the data consistently positions FSD as a potential lifesaver. With road fatalities remaining a leading cause of death worldwide, Musk contends that proven safer technology should not face prolonged bureaucratic hurdles.
France’s measured approach reflects the broader European regulatory caution, which many, especially Musk, have been critical of in the past. However, as autonomous systems from Tesla and competitors like Waymo demonstrate superior safety in independent studies, pressure is mounting for harmonized approvals.
Musk’s warning carries the belief that every month of delay may equate to avoidable tragedies on European roads.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
Tesla stock tumbles after earnings, one of its sharpest single-day declines
