News
Tesla VP Grace Tao explains China’s Model 3 and Model Y price reductions
After a challenging December, Tesla China adopted a number of strategies designed to improve its vehicle sales in the country. Among these was a price reduction on the domestically-produced Model 3 sedan and Model Y crossover. Recent comments from Tesla VP Grace Tao have now provided some insights into these price adjustments.
In a recent interview with local Chinese media, Tao was asked about Tesla China’s rather volatile pricing strategy. Similar to Tesla in the United States, Tesla China saw a number of price adjustments over the past year. This has resulted in some netizens in the country stating that Tesla’s pricing strategy is “too casual.”
Addressing the inquiry, Grace Tao explained that the pricing strategy of Tesla China’s vehicles is “actually a forecast of the company’s cost changes in the next period of time.” She also explained that the landscape had changed now, at least compared to the last year due to the end of the pandemic.
“The biggest difference between 2023 and last year is that the epidemic is basically over, and we believe that the supply chain has largely returned to normal and will not experience the various unpredictable shortages of materials that have occurred in previous years, leading to uncertainty in costs. In my personal opinion, price adjustments reflect our good planning for the supply chain to a certain extent. We expect what the vehicle cost will be approximately and then make such adjustments according to this expectation,” the executive said.
The Tesla VP also addressed the issue of some consumers in China who were upset that they bought vehicles before the recent round of price reductions took effect. So notable were the reactions of some consumers that protests were reportedly held in a number of Tesla stores.
“Maybe some consumers say that ‘I bought it yesterday, and you can’t suddenly change the cost overnight,’ but the fact is that no company calculates the cost every day, but rather calculates it on a time period. At the same time, the price of industrial products cannot be immediately reflected in the terminal products. Some raw materials may still be contracted a few months ago, so it actually has a certain lag.
“In addition, the price of a product is not only affected by its own cost, but also by the market demand and competition. If there is a change in the market demand or competition, it will also affect the price of the product. Therefore, the price adjustment of a product is not a simple matter. It is a comprehensive consideration of the enterprise’s own cost, market demand and competition,” the executive said.
Overall, the executive clarified that Tesla China’s price adjustments are not casual at all. Instead, they are done with a clear understanding of the company’s costs, demand in the market, and competitors. So far, however, Grace Tao noted that Tesla China has not had to change its strategy due to market demand or competition, which bodes well for the company’s footing in the country’s auto market. The executive also highlighted that after this recent round of price reductions, the cost of the domestically-produced Model 3 and Model Y should become more stable.
“In the past, Tesla has made several larger price adjustments due to external factors that have had an impact on costs. For example, when we became a domestic car(maker), the price naturally decreased compared to a pure import, at least the tariff was saved by 15%. For example, after our supply chain stabilized, it would definitely be lower than before when it was shipped from abroad. Tesla’s supply chain localization rate is now 95%, so theoretically, there is not much room for improvement. Therefore, I think after this price adjustment, the price should be relatively stable.
“Tesla’s logic is very simple. When the cost is calculated to have changed, such as changing raw materials, we will immediately increase or decrease the price. Actually, Tesla’s logic is very simple. Consumers seem to think that the price drop was relatively large compared to last month, but in fact, the price rose last month, and compared to the costs before the price increase, the difference is not large,” she said.
The Teslarati team would appreciate hearing from you. If you have any tips, contact me at maria@teslarati.com or via Twitter @Writer_01001101.
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
