News
EXCLUSIVE: Environmental lawyer tasked with suing Tesla speaks: ‘Win Some, Lose Some’
Since Tesla launched the construction of Giga Berlin, the company’s first European vehicle assembly plant in the State of Brandenburg, nearly every element of the project has been met with pushback and backlash from local citizens and other groups. The necessary removal of trees, the displacement of some species on the once forestry-infested property, groundwater, and a coolant tank have all been subjects of complaints brought to the attention of the California-based automaker.
Thousands of miles and a continent away from its home in Northern California, Tesla has sparred with local environmental groups NABU and the Green League for nearly a year, with lawyer Thorsten Deppner representing the Earth-friendly entities. In an exclusive interview with Teslarati, Deppner told us about his intentions for the lawsuit and what is next to come in a long line of issues that the automaker continues to sift through as production of sustainable passenger vehicles nears at the German plant.
Deppner, casually dressed and inviting me into a Zoom-like chatroom to talk about Tesla, was friendly. Knowing my position as a journalist covering the EV space and Tesla, specifically, Deppner was openly willing to talk about the points of the case that were recently put to rest, which has to do with the coolant tank that sits on the property of Giga Berlin. “Tesla had not filed certain documentation with respect to emergency procedures concerning the storage of a particular coolant. That coolant, if ignited, can produce Hydrogen Fluoride,” Deppner told me. “That was our main concern of this particular case.”
Credit: Twitter | @gigfactory_4
The tank was also the subject of a July 2021 investigation by the State Environment Agency, which was originally reported by Tagesspiegel. According to the report, the tank is reportedly holding the chemical tetrafluoropropene, and Tesla does not have permission to have this on the site. The coolant was not, and still is not present in the tank on site. However, Deppner’s cases were already set in motion when the State Agency decided to launch its investigation.
While somewhat risky for the company applying for the permit, this process is also risky for the citizens. Deppner’s most recent issue dealt with coolant tanks on Giga Berlin’s property, following the lawsuit with sand lizards that he won in December, as he proved Tesla broke German Endangered Species Law. A risk for the people in Deppner’s opinion, Tesla did not have the correct documentation to have the coolant tank on site. Safety regulations were not met, which ultimately could have become a risk to the people, especially if the highly toxic contents of the tank were released.
Many of those who have followed Tesla’s process in Berlin as things continue to progress know that preliminary permits were being issued left and right, giving Tesla permission to erect, construct, and perform nearly any task that it needed concrete authorization to perform. Deppner explained that German environmental law allows for those preliminary permits only if an application is more likely to be ultimately approved than not. Then, the company that filed the application will have the opportunity to begin building what was outlined in the documents, provided that the company is guaranteeing to restore the site to its original state if the application should be denied.
This tank was the subject of the most recent NABU and Green League lawsuit, which the groups and Deppner, their representing attorney, dropped. Deppner and the groups lost the injunction on this case, but it is still being monitored.
Deppner told me throughout the conversation on several occasions that the goal was never to have Tesla Giga Berlin shut down; the complaints and lawsuits were more meant to be “guidance.” The goal was to have Tesla adhere to German environmental law throughout the entire process of building Giga Berlin, a misconception that many people do not realize. “We did not want to have this project shut down; we just want Tesla to follow environmental law,” Deppner added.
Tesla Giga Berlin critic finally drops lawsuit over high costs
This is not to say that these groups don’t exist, the ones who would like nothing more than to shut down Tesla’s German operation and halt the spread of sustainable transportation, but Deppner said he was unwilling to represent those groups, as their funding may have been provided by untrustworthy sources. “I wouldn’t represent people or groups like that, not in the slightest,” Deppner said.
The next steps for Deppner are to continue monitoring the Tesla situation until things are ultimately filed, approved, and completed in Brandenburg. As for the attorney, he likely won’t be driving a Tesla anytime soon, but that is not to say that he doesn’t appreciate what the company is doing. He said that the mission of transitioning the world to sustainable energy and transportation is important, and EVs are undoubtedly a step in the right direction. As for the case, Deppner said, “You win some, you lose some.”
Don’t hesitate to contact us with tips! Email us at tips@teslarati.com, or you can email me directly at joey@teslarati.com.
Elon Musk
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
ARK Invest breaks down six reasons SpaceX’s $1.75 trillion IPO valuation may be justified.
ARK Invest, which holds SpaceX as its largest Venture Fund position at 17% of net assets, has published a detailed investor guide to why a SpaceX IPO may be grounded in a $1.75 trillion target valuation.
The financial case starts with Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet constellation, which has surpassed 10 million active subscribers globally as of early 2026, with 2026 revenue projected to exceed $20 billion. ARK’s research puts the total satellite connectivity market opportunity at roughly $160 billion annually at scale, and Starlink is adding customers faster than any telecom network in history. That growth alone would justify a substantial valuation.
Additionally, ARK notes that SpaceX has reduced the cost per kilogram to orbit from roughly $15,600 in 2008 to under $1,000 today through reusable Falcon 9 hardware. A fully operational Starship targeting sub-$100 per kilogram would represent a significant cost decline and open markets that do not currently exist. SpaceX executed a staggering 165 missions in 2025 and now accounts for approximately 85% of all global orbital launches. That infrastructure position took decades to build and would be nearly impossible to replicate at comparable cost.
SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise
The February 2026 merger with xAI added a layer to the valuation that straightforward financial models struggle to capture. ARK argues that at sub-$100 launch costs, orbital data centers could deliver compute roughly 25% cheaper than ground-based alternatives, without power grid delays, permitting friction, or land constraints. Musk has stated a goal of deploying 100 gigawatts of AI computing capacity per year from orbit.
The $1.75 trillion figure itself is not a conventional earnings multiple. At roughly 95x trailing revenue, it prices in Starlink’s adoption curve, Starship’s cost trajectory, and the orbital compute thesis together. The public S-1 prospectus, due at least 15 days before the June roadshow, will give investors their first complete look at the financials to test those assumptions. ARK’s position is that the track record earns the benefit of the doubt. Fully reusable rockets were considered unrealistic for years. Starlink was considered financially unviable. Both happened on timelines that surprised skeptics.
Elon Musk
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford CEO Jim Farley said in a recent podcast interview that Tesla is not who Americans should look at to beat Chinese carmakers.
The comments have sparked quite a bit of outrage from Tesla fans on X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk.
Farley said that Chinese automakers are better examples of how to beat competitors. He said (via the Rapid Response Podcast):
“If you’re an American and you want us to beat the Chinese in the car business, you’re all going to want to pay attention, not necessarily to Tesla. Nothing against Tesla—they’ve been doing great—but they really don’t have an updated vehicle. The best in the business for us, cost-wise and competition-wise, supply chain, manufacturing expertise, and the I.P. in the vehicle, was really BYD. In this next cycle of EV customers in the U.S., they want pickups and utilities and all these different body styles. But they want them at $30,000, not $50,000. Like the first inning, they want them affordably.”
Despite Farley’s synopsis, it is worth mentioning that Tesla had the best-selling passenger vehicle in the world last year, and in China in March, as the Model Y continued its global dominance over other vehicles.
Musk responded to Farley’s comments by stating:
“This is before Supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.”
This is before supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 19, 2026
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges
Instead, Ford is “doubling down on its affordable” EVs and said it would pivot from its previous plans.
Reaction from Tesla fans was pretty much how you would expect. Many said they have lost a lot of respect for Farley after his comments; others believe he is the last CEO anyone should be taking advice on EVs from.
Nevertheless, Farley’s plans are bold and brash; many consider Tesla the most ideal company to replicate EV efforts from. It will be interesting to see if Ford can rebound from this big adjustment, and hopefully, Farley’s plans to replicate efforts from BYD work out the way he hopes.
Elon Musk
SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch
NASA awarded SpaceX a $175 million Mars rover contract while the White House proposes cutting the mission.
NASA just signed a $175.7 million contract with SpaceX to launch a Mars rover that the White House is simultaneously trying to defund. The contract, awarded on April 16, 2026, tasks SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with launching the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Rosalind Franklin rover from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, no earlier than late 2028. It would mark the first time SpaceX has ever sent a payload to Mars.
Under NASA’s Rosalind Franklin Support and Augmentation project, known as ROSA, the agency is providing braking engines for the rover’s descent stage, radioisotope heater units that use decaying plutonium to keep the rover warm on the Martian surface, additional electronics, and a mass spectrometer instrument, as noted by SpaceNews.
Those nuclear heating units are the reason an American rocket was required at all. U.S. export controls on radioisotope technology mean any payload carrying them must launch on a domestic vehicle, which narrowed the field to SpaceX and United Launch Alliance. Falcon Heavy’s pricing made it the practical choice.
SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket
Falcon Heavy debuted in February 2018 and has 11 launches to its record. The rocket has not flown since October 2024, when it sent NASA’s Europa Clipper toward Jupiter. The three-core design, built from modified Falcon 9 first stages, gives it the lift capacity needed for deep space planetary missions that a single Falcon 9 cannot reach.
The Rosalind Franklin rover has been sitting in storage in Europe for years. It was originally due to launch in 2022 as a joint mission with Russia, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ended that partnership, leaving the rover built but stranded without a launch vehicle or landing hardware. NASA stepped back in through a 2024 agreement with ESA to rescue the mission. The rover is designed to drill up to two meters below the Martian surface in search of evidence of past life, a science objective no previous mission has attempted at that depth.
The contradiction at the center of this story is hard to ignore. The White House’s fiscal year 2027 budget proposal included no funding for ROSA and did not mention the mission at all in the detailed congressional justification document released April 3.
Musk has long argued that reaching Mars is not optional. “We don’t want to be one of those single planet species, we want to be a multi-planet species.” Whether this particular mission survives Washington’s budget fight, the Falcon Heavy contract means SpaceX is now formally on record as the rocket that could get humanity’s next Mars science mission off the ground.
The timing of this contract carries extra weight given that SpaceX filed confidentially with the SEC in early April and is targeting an IPO roadshow in the week of June 8. It would be the largest public offering in history.
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
