Connect with us

News

Tesla could face New York store ban under this legislation

A new bill could threaten Tesla’s ability to operate in-person, direct sales stores in New York.

Published

on

tesla store in New York City
Credit: Tesla

Tesla could be subject to new legislation in New York that seeks to revoke permits for the company’s stores, as part of a bill introduced this week that sponsors say aims to “foster competition and innovation in the marketplace.”

Democratic State Senator Patricia Fahy and Assembly Member Gabriella Romero introduced S.B. S6894 on Thursday, effectively revoking direct sales permits from five existing Tesla stores in New York, as detailed in a press release. If passed, the New York bill would keep in place a five-store limit placed on direct sales locations, but would require the state’s DMV to re-evaluate existing permits and issue new ones, excluding Tesla, which currently holds all five of the available permits.

“This legislation provides controlled growth of New York’s ZEV market by not granting indefinite privileges to early entrants—currently, all five direct sales locations are located downstate and are operated by Tesla, Inc., which limits consumer choice and prevents other manufacturers from entering the market,” Fahy’s office writes in the release. “The bill would allow new manufacturers to enter the market and ensure that there is an opportunity to expand these locations geographically.”

Fahy also told Politico that the bill intentionally aims to target Tesla CEO Elon Musk in the wake of his efforts under the recently created government efficiency division under the Trump administration.

Advertisement

“No matter what we do, we’ve got to take this from Elon Musk,” Fahy said. “He’s part of an effort to go backwards.”

“The bottom line is, Tesla has lost their right to promote these when they’re part of an administration that wants to go backwards. Elon Musk was handed a privilege here.”

READ MORE ON TESLA NEW YORK: Anti-Musk protests at Tesla store in New York lead to arrests

The release also highlights New York’s target of reaching 100-percent ZEV sales by 2035, as part of the state’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA). The bill also says it hopes to bring zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) direct sales stores to other parts of New York, adding that limited access to direct sales models has prohibited more widespread adoption of electric vehicles (EVs).

“As New York moves toward a clean energy future, we must ensure that consumers have greater access to zero-emission vehicles while fostering competition and innovation in the marketplace,” Fahey says. “This legislation takes a measured approach to inducing the growth of direct sales and opening the door for new ZEV manufacturers to enter New York State’s market, while keeping us on track to meet our ambitious climate goals.”

Advertisement

Other automakers with direct sales models, such as Lucid and Rivian, would also be able to bid for the five permits, potentially giving smaller companies a chance to establish physical store locations.

New York is one of several states that have limits on how many non-dealership franchise stores, or direct sales model stores, are allowed to operate statewide. Still others include complete bans on direct sales, requiring automakers to sell vehicles through franchised dealerships, sometimes even including service locations.

At this time, New York joins eight other U.S. states that have a cap on the number of available direct sales sites, while 13 states — including Tesla’s home state of Texas — still have total or partial bans on direct sales.

Tesla has filed a petition with Wisconsin to allow direct car sales

Advertisement

Zach is a renewable energy reporter who has been covering electric vehicles since 2020. He grew up in Fremont, California, and he currently lives in Colorado. His work has appeared in the Chicago Tribune, KRON4 San Francisco, FOX31 Denver, InsideEVs, CleanTechnica, and many other publications. When he isn't covering Tesla or other EV companies, you can find him writing and performing music, drinking a good cup of coffee, or hanging out with his cats, Banks and Freddie. Reach out at zach@teslarati.com, find him on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send us tips at tips@teslarati.com.

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

SpaceX just forced Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile to team up for the first time in history

AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon just joined forces for one reason: Starlink is winning.

Published

on

By

Starlink D2D direct to device vs Verizon, AT&T (Concept render by Grok)

America’s three largest wireless carriers, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon, announced on On May 14, 2026 that they had agreed in principle to form a joint venture aimed at pooling their spectrum resources to expand satellite-based direct-to-device (D2D) connectivity across the United States in what can be seen as a direct response to SpaceX’s Starlink initiative. D2D, in plain terms, is technology that lets a standard smartphone connect directly to a satellite in orbit, the same way it connects to a cell tower, with no extra hardware required.

The alliance is widely seen as a means to slow Starlink’s rapid expansion in the satellite internet and mobile markets. SpaceX’s Starlink Mobile service launched commercially in July 2025 through a partnership with T-Mobile, starting with messaging before expanding to broadband data. SpaceX secured access to valuable wireless spectrum through its $17 billion deal with EchoStar, paving the way for significantly faster satellite-to-phone speeds.

The FCC just said ‘No’ to SpaceX for now

SpaceX was not shy about its reaction. SpaceX president and COO Gwynne Shotwell responded on X: “Weeeelllll, I guess Starlink Mobile is doing something right! It’s David and Goliath (X3) all over again — I’m bettin’ on David.” SpaceX’s VP of Satellite Policy David Goldman went further, flagging potential antitrust concerns and asking whether the DOJ would even allow three dominant competitors to coordinate in a market where a new rival is actively entering.

Advertisement


Financial analysts at LightShed Partners were blunt, saying the announcement showed the three carriers are “nervous,” and pointed to the timing: “You announce an agreement in principle when the point is the announcement, not the deal. The timing, weeks ahead of the SpaceX roadshow, was the point.”

As Teslarati reported, SpaceX’s next generation Starlink V2 satellites will deliver up to 100 times the data density of the current system, with custom silicon and phased array antennas enabling around 20 times the throughput of the first generation. The carriers’ JV, which has no definitive agreement, no financial structure, and no deployment timeline yet, will need to move quickly to matter.

Elon Musk’s SpaceX is targeting a Nasdaq listing as early as June 12, aiming for what would be the largest IPO in history. With Starlink now serving over 9 million subscribers across 155 countries, holding 59 carrier partnerships globally, and now powering Air Force One, the carriers’ joint venture announcement landed at exactly the wrong time to look like anything other than a defensive move.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Tesla Model Y prices just went up for the first time in two years

Published

on

Credit: Tesla Asia | X

Tesla just raised Model Y prices for the first time in two years, with the largest increase being $1,000.

The move signals shifting dynamics in the competitive electric vehicle market as the company continues to work on balancing demand, profitability, and accessibility.

The new pricing affects premium trims while leaving entry-level options unchanged. The Model Y Premium Rear-Wheel Drive (RWD) now starts at $45,990, a $1,000 increase.

The Model Y Premium All-Wheel Drive (AWD)—previously referred to in the post as simply “Model Y AWD”—rises to $49,990, also up $1,000. The top-tier Model Y Performance sees a more modest $500 bump, bringing its starting price to $57,990.

Advertisement

Base models remain untouched to preserve affordability. The entry-level Model Y RWD holds steady at $39,990, and the base Model Y AWD stays at $41,990. This selective approach keeps the crossover accessible for budget-conscious buyers while extracting more revenue from higher-margin configurations.

Advertisement

After years of aggressive price cuts to stimulate volume amid slowing EV adoption and rising competition from rivals like BYD, Ford, and GM, Tesla appears confident in underlying demand. Recent lineup refreshes for the 2026 Model Y, including refreshed styling and efficiency gains, have helped maintain its status as America’s best-selling EV.

By protecting base prices, Tesla avoids alienating price-sensitive customers while improving margins on the more popular variants.

Tesla Model Y ownership review after six months: What I love and what I don’t

For consumers, the changes are relatively modest—under 3% on affected trims—and still position the Model Y competitively against gas-powered SUVs in the same class. Federal tax credits and potential state incentives may further offset costs for eligible buyers.

Advertisement

This marks a subtle but notable shift from the deep discounting era that defined much of 2024 and 2025. As the EV market matures into 2026, Tesla’s pricing strategy will be closely watched for clues about production ramps, new variants like the rumored longer-wheelbase Model Y, and broader profitability goals.

In short, today’s adjustment reflects a company that remains dominant yet pragmatic—willing to test higher pricing where demand supports it. It is unlikely to deter consumers from choosing other options.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Elon Musk explains why he cannot be fired from SpaceX

Published

on

Credit: SpaceX

Elon Musk cannot be fired from SpaceX, and there’s a reason for that.

In a blunt post on X on Friday, Elon Musk confirmed plans to structurally shield his leadership at SpaceX, ensuring he cannot be fired while tying a potential trillion-dollar compensation package to the company’s long-term goal of establishing a self-sustaining colony on Mars.

The revelation stems from a Financial Times report detailing SpaceX’s intention to restructure its governance and compensation framework. The moves are designed to protect Musk’s control and align his incentives with the company’s founding mission rather than short-term financial pressures. Musk’s reply left no ambiguity:

“Yes, I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars, not pandering to someone’s bullshit quarterly earnings bonus!”

He added that success in this “absurdly difficult goal” would generate value “many orders of magnitude more than the economy of Earth,” though he cautioned that the journey will not be smooth. “Don’t expect entirely smooth sailing along the way,” Musk wrote.

Advertisement

The strategy reflects Musk’s deep concerns about how public-market expectations could derail SpaceX’s core objective. Founded in 2002, SpaceX has repeatedly stated its purpose is to reduce the cost of space travel and ultimately make humanity a multiplanetary species.

Unlike Tesla, which went public in 2010 and has faced repeated battles over Musk’s compensation and board influence, SpaceX remains privately held. Musk has long resisted taking the rocket company public precisely to avoid the quarterly earnings treadmill that forces most CEOs to prioritize short-term stock performance over ambitious, high-risk projects.

By embedding protections against his removal and linking any outsized pay package to verifiable milestones—such as a functioning Mars colony—SpaceX aims to insulate its leadership from activist investors or board members who might demand faster profits or safer bets.

SpaceX Board has set a Mars bonus for Elon Musk

Advertisement

Musk has referenced past experiences, including his ouster from OpenAI and shareholder lawsuits at Tesla, as cautionary tales. In those cases, he argued, external pressures risked diluting the original vision.

Critics may view the arrangement as excessive, especially given Musk’s already substantial voting power and wealth. Supporters, however, argue it is a necessary safeguard for a company pursuing goals measured in decades rather than quarters. Achieving a Mars colony would require sustained investment in Starship development, orbital refueling, life-support systems, and in-situ resource utilization—technologies that may deliver no immediate financial return.

Musk’s post underscores a broader philosophical point: true breakthrough innovation often demands tolerance for volatility and a willingness to ignore conventional business wisdom. As SpaceX prepares for increasingly ambitious Starship test flights and eventual crewed missions, the new governance structure signals that the company’s North Star remains unchanged—humanity’s expansion beyond Earth.

Whether the trillion-dollar package materializes depends on execution, but Musk’s message is clear: SpaceX exists to reach the stars, not to chase the next earnings beat. For investors or employees who share that vision, the protections are not a perk—they are a prerequisite for success.

Advertisement
Continue Reading