News
Tesla’s snub from White House EV event: the Pros and Cons
As the United States government continues its monumental push of domestic automakers to transition to electrification, President Joe Biden and fellow White House staff have invited companies like Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis to Washington to discuss what steps can be taken at the federal level to reach lofty EV delivery goals. However, perhaps the Biden Administration’s biggest ally, Tesla, wasn’t there because it was not extended an invitation. While CEO Elon Musk called the no-invite “odd,” there are potentially some bright spots in the situation, although the question of whether they outweigh the negatives is up to the reader to decide.
White House Electrification Event for U.S. Automakers
A relatively groundbreaking announcement that comes on the heels of President Biden’s request for legacy automakers to commit to a 40% electrified fleet by 2030, the companies agreed to a loftier but more satisfying figure of 50%. Now that half of all legacy automaker vehicles sold in 2030 will be electric, the big question is, how will it work? How will this plan be carried out?
Effectively, a game plan is likely being discussed among the White House staff and the leaders of the automakers who were invited to the event. With each company outlining specific goals through various announcements over the past several years, it is now time for action. The talking is done, a plan needs to be laid out and completed. The thing about electrification is that it is vastly different from building an ICE car, which each of these companies has long, storied, and successful histories of doing. Building an electric vehicle is a completely different project, and it goes much further than putting some electric motors and batteries in a pack and calling it an EV. There needs to be efficient and effective software, the batteries need to have a specific cell chemistry to operate for a long time, charging infrastructures need to be established, along with many other factors.
Tesla’s absence from White House EV event sidestepped in Pete Buttigieg interview
The overall issue that many of these companies have when transitioning to electrification is finding out how to make EVs operational. Far too many times, we have heard about incredible EVs that will come to the market in a few years, they are going to be amazing and effective, and they will show Tesla who is boss. But every time this has happened, these cars fall short of their mark.
The Cons: Why Tesla should be at the White House, no questions asked
Tesla has the experience to help these automakers navigate through extremely difficult times, which are likely to come based on many of these companies’ current situations with developing electric powertrains. Creating one or two vehicles and selling between thirty and fifty thousand of them definitely helps the cause. However, keeping these delivery rates and simply putting a few new bells and whistles in the interior doesn’t make it a new car. Consumers want new technology, new looks, new aesthetics. This means cars with more range, more features, and sleeker, more modern designs.
The goal should be for these automakers to develop a plan by 2030, about eight and a half years, to have four to five different electrified models on the road by that year. Rolling out that many new models while simultaneously engineering and building effective electric powertrains is extremely difficult. Many companies may find that the road to this goal is not necessarily as simple as they thought.
Ask Tesla about it.
After unveiling the Model 3, Tesla and CEO Elon Musk entered the toughest few years of Tesla’s short life.
However, Tesla overcame all odds by delivering four electric models in just eight years: the Model S in 2012, the Model X in 2015, the Model 3 in 2017, and the Model Y in 2020.
Ideally, Tesla would be the biggest advantage for all of these companies from a consultant standpoint. If Tesla’s goal really is to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy, it would have no issue helping car companies figure out where their shortcomings are. No technological advantages would need to be shared. Still, a roadmap of how Tesla navigated through the toughest portion of its existence by releasing popular, profitable, and effective EVs would undoubtedly help. Not to mention, these companies are much more financially stable than Tesla was while it was ramping up its production of vehicles. That would only help the cause as money really isn’t an issue.
Another negative comes from a perceptive standpoint, but it can’t be a good look for the Biden administration to go through with this event without having the industry leader there. It would be like having a tech event without Apple, an Olympic highlight reel without Phelps, a chef’s get-together without Gordon Ramsay. It just doesn’t make sense, and on top of it, it doesn’t necessarily show that the country’s leaders support Tesla’s efforts. After all, Joe Biden hasn’t uttered the word “Tesla” since he’s taken office.
The Pros: Why it might not be so bad after all
If the purpose of this event is to get automakers on board with electrification, then Tesla really would have no business being there. After all, the companies invited have pledged to have half of their vehicle deliveries be electric in 2030. Tesla already delivers only electric vehicles, and it has since day 1. Some could see it as the Straight A student going to tutoring; it’s really kind of pointless.
Additionally, it might be a good look for Tesla not to go to the event from a political standpoint. Currently, 52% of Americans disapprove of Biden’s job performance. This is according to Rasmussen, which updates the poll daily.
Tesla also does not need any assistance federally, and it does not need any entity to tell it how to handle its business. This is something that Tesla should take pride in. The hard-working giants who have ruled the automotive industry for a century need guidance on continuing to move forward.
For Tesla, the answers came through its own hard work and its own want to change the world for the better.
What do you think? Let us know in the comments below, or be sure to email me at joey@teslarati.com or on Twitter @KlenderJoey.
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
