News
Tesla’s 62-stall Supercharger project in Santa Monica gains new momentum
Tesla’s 62-stall V3 Supercharger project will be a topic of discussion at this evening’s Santa Monica City Council meeting. The site of 1401 and 1421-1425 Santa Monica Boulevard was originally the planned location of Tesla’s largest V3 Supercharging station in the world. However, an Emergency Interim Zone Ordinance delayed the project. A Santa Monica City Council agenda for the March 30th meeting shows there could be a reconsideration in the Emergency Ordinance for the two lots where Tesla planned to install 62 of its fastest electric car chargers. The ordinance temporarily reserved the area for affordable housing.
On March 4th, the Santa Monica City Council chose to approve the 62-stall Tesla Supercharging station. Just days later, the City Council included the two lots that Tesla had chosen in an Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance that reserved the land for condos and apartments. It didn’t scrap the project completely, but it would delay the Supercharging facility for a minimum of 45 days and could be extended to two years. The March 9th meeting effectively reserved unoccupied lots for prospective housing development. Tesla’s lot fit the bill, and the project lost its momentum.
Tesla’s largest V3 Supercharger facility is coming to Santa Monica
Now, revisions have been made to the Santa Monica City Council’s plan, and new areas are being considered for the affordable housing push. According to the Agenda available on the Santa Monica City Council website, the updates will be discussed at tonight’s meeting.
Instead of having housing be introduced in previously chosen areas, the City Council is now considering new regions of Santa Monica. In particular, regions that have not been used for affordable housing in the past are being considered heavily. This bodes well for Tesla’s Supercharger project on Santa Monica Boulevard because some of the listed areas in the Update show that housing could be pushed further north, several blocks away from the planned area for the V3 Supercharger lot.
The Update says:
“In order to take steps towards addressing Santa Monica’s past history of housing segregation, the Commission supported introducing housing potential, particularly affordable housing, in areas that have historically not accommodated housing, such as Montana Avenue, the Office Campus zone, and Main Street, especially on city-owned properties such as surface parking lots.”
Montana Avenue runs nearly a mile north of Santa Monica Boulevard, just south of the wealthy Brentwood neighborhood. Main Street runs along the coastline of Santa Monica and is perpendicular to Santa Monica Boulevard. The Office Campus Zone is located in several different areas, and all are several miles East of Tesla’s proposed Supercharger location.

The highlighted areas are being considered for Affordable Housing locations. Tesla’s planned V3 Supercharger location is denoted by the Tesla logo and red dot. (Map: Santa Monica Community Development Department)
The City Council was also not supportive of introducing new housing potential in the Industrial Conservation Zone. This is denoted by the dark grey areas located about two blocks south of the planned Supercharger project. Several concerns, including historic racial inequities, existing overconcentration of affordable housing in proximity to the area, and “the need to ensure the City’s economic sustainability by retaining former industrial properties for businesses” make the area ideal for market-rate housing, but not affordable housing. Because of the Supercharger location’s proximity to the area, this bodes well for Tesla’s project, as affordable housing is already available in plentiful amounts and the City Council is more interested in moving housing opportunities to the highlighted areas.
The Update does mention that the “Commission was supportive of increasing housing potential on vacant parking lots associated with commercial uses,” but there are plenty of lots that fit those specifications in Santa Monica.
The Santa Monica City Council will hold a meeting tonight at 5:30 PM PST to discuss the new recommendations. The meeting could bring new momentum to Tesla’s Santa Monica Supercharger project if the area it has chosen is exempt from the Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance.
The Update to the Santa Monica City Council’s Housing Recommendations is available below.
Santa Monica City Council Update by Joey Klender on Scribd
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
Investor's Corner
Lucid CEO dispels any rumors of bankruptcy: ‘So far from the facts’
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.
News
Tesla responds to strange Supercharging pricing error with classy move
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.