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.
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
