Tesla announced this morning that it would open some of its United States Supercharger Network to competitors in an effort to not only make some of the $7.5 billion in funds from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law available to the automaker, but also to make EV charging more available to consumers.
Tesla officially confirmed this morning that it would open select Superchargers in the U.S. to all EVs, an unprecedented move in the company’s history. In the past, Tesla has offered an exclusive strength to its owners by offering an expansive, robust, and dependable EV charging network. It has been arguably one of Tesla’s biggest advantages, and since CEO Elon Musk said in 2021 that the Supercharging Network would be opened to competitors that year, the automaker has reluctantly moved toward that goal.
EV charging to receive $7.5 billion in Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal: White House
Now, it has finally come to fruition.
This morning, The White House confirmed the plan with further details, stating:
“Tesla, for the first time, will open a portion of its U.S. Supercharger and Destination Charger network to non-Tesla EVs, making at least 7,500 chargers available for all EVs by the end of 2024. The open chargers will be distributed across the United States. They will include at least 3,500 new and existing 250 kW Superchargers along highway corridors to expand freedom of travel for all EVs, and Level 2 Destination Charging at locations like hotels and restaurants in urban and rural locations. All EV drivers will be able to access these stations using the Tesla app or website. Additionally, Tesla will more than double its full nationwide network of Superchargers, manufactured in Buffalo, New York.”
Last week, it was confirmed that Musk’s late January meeting with White House staff dealt with the potential opening of the Supercharger Network. Unsurprisingly, some Tesla fans were not super pleased with the idea. Superchargers are already relatively crowded, and the admittance of other non-Tesla brands to these chargers would only make matters worse. However, this is not always the case, as Superchargers in some areas of rural America, where EVs have yet to make a significant impact on the overall automotive market, are not always completely occupied.
While the locations that Tesla will choose are still up in the air, at least 7,500 piles of the U.S. Supercharger Network will be open to all EVs, and this is a win-win for everyone. Why?
Tesla owners will still have a distinct advantage
While 7,500 of the Superchargers will be open to other manufacturers by the end of next year, Tesla owners will still be the only ones to have the ability to utilize all of them.
This freedom gives prospective EV owners the ability to have a wide variety of options in terms of which company they will purchase from. However, Tesla will still have a significant advantage because it is the only manufacturer that will allow unlimited access to any Supercharger in the United States. It is important to emphasize this fact, because while other manufacturers will have access to some of the network, only Tesla owners will have access to all of it.
It eliminates a lot of the “There is not enough charging” argument
Even in 2023, as EVs continue to grab a more significant share of the total U.S. automotive market, we still hear that there are not enough chargers to justify an EV purchase.
While home charging is an option, those who rent or are apart of a strict Home Owners Association (HOA) may not have the ability to charge at their residence. This requires more public charging options to be available to those people, and the expansion of the charging network through Tesla’s decision to open select locations to all EVs only makes this outdated argument a lot less valid.
Even still, there are plenty of other companies out there that support the other manufactuers. Electrify America, ChargePoint, Blink, EVgo, and many others help electric vehicle owners get a charge before their drives.
Tesla’s decision shows its commitment to its mission
Tesla has always maintained that its goal is to “accelerate the transition to sustainable energy.” While the company is a business, and a for-profit business at that, Tesla has disrupted the entire automotive sector by showing EV options are sometimes more ideal than others. Because of the company’s influence on consumers, legacy automakers have been working on EVs for several years, and an influx of startups have come to light, hoping to be the next big thing.
Credit: Tesla
If Tesla was not actually committed to pushing more companies to build EVs, it likely would not make this move. As previously stated, many prospective car buyers are still under the impression that EVs are not feasible because of a lack of charging options. However, Tesla’s move to work toward expanding the Superchargers to other companies is further proof that it is more concerned with putting more EVs on the road, even if they’re not Teslas, than hoarding its robust charging infrastructure to itself.
This move is completely and entirely based on Tesla’s push to bring EVs to the mainstream, as if they were not already. However, the move is a further committment to the mentality that any EV is better than a combustion engine, and whatever the company can do to help another EV of any kind get sold is more than acceptable. But, don’t be fooled, Tesla still will take necessary steps to make its EVs more appealing than others, and that is evident with its continuous and relentless development of its vehicles, making them better and better as time goes on.
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.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
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 to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
