Transit authorities make surprising decision that will have big impact on Tesla drivers: 'Clearly a step in the wrong direction'
The New Jersey Turnpike Authority's decision to remove Tesla Superchargers from its service plazas means commuters could pay more for charging sessions or be unable to power up. Electric vehicle owners are decrying the move — whether they own a Tesla or not.
On May 30, Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) announced on the social platform X that the NJTA requested the removal and decommissioning of all 64 Supercharger stalls on the New Jersey Turnpike even though the company said it offered "above-market commercial terms."
Tesla has had Superchargers on the turnpike since 2014, according to Not a Tesla App, offering EV drivers 99.9% uptime (representing impressive availability and functionality) and 30% lower charging costs than those of competitors.
However, as Electrek noted, Tesla's 2020 agreement with the NJTA has expired, and the transit authority has bestowed exclusive charging rights to Applegreen Electric. According to The New York Times, Applegreen already manages restaurants and stores along the turnpike.
Tesla has struggled with volatile stock and declining sales this year, with CEO Elon Musk's involvement with the U.S. government and public rift with President Donald Trump key factors, worrying investors and polarizing consumers who view support for Tesla as a political statement.
While Musk alleged that the NJTA's deal with Applegreen and refusal to allow Tesla to relocate its chargers on the turnpike was due to "corruption," he did not provide any evidence to support those claims. NJTA spokesperson Thomas Feeney told the Times that the move was intended to expand charging access to non-Tesla EV drivers.
However, EV owners have been overwhelmingly united in their disdain for the NJTA's decision, arguing that the transit authority is making EV ownership more difficult, according to Not a Tesla App, which pointed out that Tesla's Supercharger network "is becoming the de facto fast-charging standard for a growing number of non-Tesla EVs."
Drivers report that Applegreen's chargers, which feature only CCS1 cables, offer a worse charging experience or don't work at all, giving the company's iOS app a 1.9 rating out of 5.
"This is clearly a step in the wrong direction that will hurt all EV owners," the publication wrote, also pointing to the millions of dollars of charging infrastructure that would be taken away without immediate replacement.
In its statement on X, Tesla indicated that it would like to maintain its presence on the New Jersey Turnpike, saying it supports the addition of third-party chargers because it "drives down costs through optionality and accelerates EV adoption by having sufficient capacity to shoulder peaks."
When you think about owning an EV, what concerns you most about public charging stations?
Chargers not working
Chargers not being available
Charging being too expensive
Charging taking too long
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
While boosting profitability is surely a major motivating factor for Tesla, having more EVs on roads would also benefit communities, reducing asthma-linked heat-trapping pollution from transportation. EV drivers also spend less money on energy and maintenance.
In the meantime, Tesla says it will continue expanding its Supercharger network off the turnpike in New Jersey.
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
8 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Arizona governor caps off quarrelsome legislative session with budget approval
PHOENIX (AP) — Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs signed on Friday a bipartisan budget that boosts pay for first responders and increases spending on social services, capping a quarrelsome session of the Republican-led Legislature that brought the state to the brink of a government shutdown. The first-term Democrat broke her veto record, sparred with Republicans over agency leadership nominations and got on board with bipartisan proposals that ruffled the feathers of some members of her party. The session unfolded while Hobbs' 2026 bid to hold the reins of the battleground state loomed large. Hobbs began the session with an uphill climb, confronting expanded Republican majorities in the House and Senate. Arizona is one of eight states where the governor's office and legislature are controlled by opposing parties. Hobbs' office chose to negotiate on just a handful of issues this session, including water policy, funding for some of Arizona's most vulnerable residents and renovations to a stadium used by the Arizona Diamondbacks. Budget barbs The Legislature sent the governor a $17.6 billion budget after GOP lawmakers traded barbs with each other and Hobbs' office. The Senate approved one version, but it lacked votes in the House, leaving lawmakers in that chamber to introduce a measure meant to keep state operations running while negotiations continued. On Wednesday, Hobbs vetoed the proposal favored by House Republicans and the continuation measure, calling them partisan and reckless. House Speaker Steve Montenegro introduced amendments to the budget proposal Thursday, and the chamber passed it that night, clearing the way for the Senate to sign off. Border security Hobbs indicated last fall that she was willing to work with the Trump administration on border security issues like stopping fentanyl trafficking and followed up in January calling the Laken Riley Act 'an important step forward' in a post on the social platform X. The act requires detention of unauthorized immigrants accused of theft and violent crime. Hobbs' stance drew praise from GOP Senate President Warren Petersen, while members of her own party criticized the measure. She signed an executive order in February to create a task force that would oversee expanded operations at the border, but she later vetoed a measure that would have required local and state officials to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts. Senate Minority Leader Priya Sundareshan, a Democrat, said her caucus pushed Hobbs to limit spending on border support, saying it had 'drawn a hard line' and planned to withhold votes on the state budget until the border funding was reduced. Senate Assistant Minority Leader Sen. Catherine Miranda, who voted against the budget, said last week that she could not support a budget that has language that opens the door to immigration enforcement. 'And while I know that Gov. Hobbs has promised she will not use the Local Border Support Fund to enforce immigrant laws, the language included in a bill has as much impact as the actual policy implementation,' Miranda said. Progressive lobbyist Marilyn Rodriguez said she would have liked to see Hobbs take a less hawkish posture on border security. Despite some frustrations, House Democratic Leader Oscar De Los Santos said the budget delivers on priorities that include public education, Medicaid and expanded health care for certain patients. 'We also make big investments to bring down the cost of childcare and make college tuition free for Arizona's students from working families,' he said in a statement. Hardball with Republicans Hobbs is no stranger to the veto pen, which she has wielded to knock down what she considers proposals that are out of touch with the state's purple electorate. This year, she vetoed about 170 bills, including an attempt to speed up the counting of ballots. She's repeatedly accused state Sen. Jake Hoffman, who chairs the Legislature's Freedom Caucus, for politicizing the confirmations of her agency head nominees. Her fight with Republicans over funding for a state agency that provides services for some of Arizona's most vulnerable residents led to a moratorium on bill signing, and she has criticized Republicans for hitting the breaks on a proposal that could have led to increased regulation of groundwater pumping in rural areas of the drought-stricken state. Hobbs has said she'd take action on the water front in the absence of a legislative deal, which could set up another round of sparring with Republican lawmakers as she prepares to seek another term. With no Democratic challenger, Hobbs is expected to face either Karrin Taylor Robson or U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs, who are both endorsed by the president. ___ The Associated Press' women in the workforce and state government coverage receives financial support from Pivotal Ventures. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
TechCrunch
16 minutes ago
- TechCrunch
Meta is offering multimillion-dollar pay for AI researchers, but not $100M ‘signing bonuses'
Meta is definitely offering hefty multi-million-dollar pay packages to AI researchers when wooing them to its new Superintelligence Lab. But no one is really getting a $100 million 'signing bonus,' according to a poached researcher and comments from a leaked internal meeting. During a company-wide all-hands meeting on Thursday leaked to The Verge, some of Meta's top executives were asked about the bonuses that OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said Meta had offered to top researchers. Meta's CTO Andrew Bosworth implied that only a few people for very senior leadership roles may have been offered that kind of money, but clarified 'the actual terms of the offer' wasn't a 'sign-on bonus. It's all these different things.' In other words, not an instant chunk of cash. Tech companies typically offer the biggest chunks of their pay to senior leaders in restricted stock unit grants (RSUs), dependent on either tenure or performance metrics. A four-year total pay package worth about $100 million for a very senior leader is not inconceivable for Meta. Most of Meta's named officers, including Boswell himself, have earned total compensation of between $20 million and nearly $24 million per year for years. Altman was 'suggesting that we're doing this for every single person,' Bosworth reportedly said at the meeting. 'Look, you guys, the market's hot. It's not that hot.' (Meta did not immediately respond to our request for comment.) On Thursday, researcher Lucas Beyer confirmed he was leaving OpenAI to join Meta along with the two others who led OpenAI's Zurich office. He tweeted: '1) yes, we will be joining Meta. 2) no, we did not get 100M sign-on, that's fake news.' (Beyer politely declined to comment further on his new role to TechCrunch.) Beyer's expertise is in computer vision AI. That aligns with what Meta is pursuing: entertainment AI, rather than productivity AI, Bosworth reportedly said in that meeting. Meta already has a stake in the ground in that area with its Quest VR headsets and its Ray-Ban and Oakley AI glasses. Still, some of the people Meta is trying to nab are indeed worthy of big pay packages in this tight AI talent marketplace. As TechCrunch was first to report, Meta has hired OpenAI's Trapit Bansal, known for his groundbreaking work on AI reasoning models. He had worked at OpenAI since 2022. Certainly, Scale co-founder and CEO Alexandr Wang is getting a healthy chunk of cash, likely more than $100 million, as part of Meta's deal to buy 49% ownership of his company. As we previously reported, the $14 billion Meta is paying is being distributed to shareholders as a cash dividend. Wang is almost certainly a major shareholder in Scale entitled to those dividends. Still, while Meta isn't handing out $100 million willy-nilly, it is still spending big to hire in AI. One investor told TechCrunch that he saw an AI researcher get — and turn down — an $18 million job offer from Meta. That person took a smaller, but still healthy offer, from a buzzier AI startup: Mira Murati's Thinking Machines Lab.
Forbes
17 minutes ago
- Forbes
U.S. - China Rare Earths Minerals Deal Can Be Upscaled Via G20
Samples of rare metals displayed in Sillamae, Estonia, where a company is building a new plant to ... More try and challenge China's grip on rare earth magnets, a vital component of electric vehicles. Photographer: Peter Kollanyi/Bloomberg The announcement of a deal between the United States and China on rare earth magnets for a range of technologies is a welcome reprieve for many technology companies and for the defense sector as well. Yet, this deal remains fragile in the context of capricious tariffs and a dysfunctional dispute resolution system within the World Trade Organization. What is now needed is to capitalize on the deal and use it as a confidence-building measure to establish a longer-term international agreement for managing critical minerals supply. In a recent paper, myself and a coalition of scholars from across a range of mineral producing and consuming countries have argued for a 'minerals trust' for the green transition. We also prepared an accompanying policy brief under the auspices of the United Nations University to provide specific policy recommendations ahead of the G7 meeting in Canada earlier this month. The G7 issued a communique on critical minerals on June 17th which was fairly broad in scope but most noteworthy was the fact that China was not singled out for constraining mineral supply. Furthermore, the communique explicitly mentioned the role of the more multilateral G20 organization in furthering aspirations for investment, particularly through the G20 Compact for Africa. China as well as Russia are of course members of the G20 along with other key mineral producers such as Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, Brazil and South Africa. It would be opportune to now move the conversations on minerals diplomacy to the G20 which will incidentally be chaired by the United States of America in 2026. A key intermediary step will be the planned critical minerals conference this September in Chicago which has been announced already at the G7 meetings. At this conference, there needs to be consensus reached on what are realistic targets for 'near-shoring' and diversification based on thigh quality ore bodies and economically feasible technologies. Mineral extraction sites are geologically determined and any policies that set targets for domestic production need to be predicated in geoscience. The challenge at present is that there are more than 400 national policies on critical minerals in various forms worldwide according to the International Energy Agency's policy tracking tool. Most of these policies are not aligned with geoscience or economics of extraction. Furthermore, they often neglect the prospects for a circular economy as well for minerals. The rare earths deal between the United States and China should be expanded to have a systems level approach towards building a minerals trust, particularly for those metals needed for the Green Transition. The trust would also provide opportunities to have stockpiles and source metals from recycled sources. Currently, less than 5% of rare earth magnets are recycled but this may soon change based on recent technologies that have been developed by Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (ETH). Yet much of the infrastructure from which these magnets would be recycled is also in China. Ultimately, even with diversification efforts, China's role in sourcing rare earths from both primary and secondary source cannot be discounted and pursuing a cooperative approach is both ecologically and economically prudent.
