Tesla Canada says its shady $43 million incentive grab was a misunderstanding
Tesla has sent a response to Transport Canada about its sudden incentive cash grab from March, stating that this is standard process and suggesting that the incentives were for backdated sales that Tesla hadn’t filed yet.
Until recently, Canada had a $5,000 incentive for electric vehicle purchases, similar to the US $7,500 federal incentive from Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act.
That ended earlier this year, though as the incentive program ran out of money more quickly than expected, and it didn’t look like the government was going to refill the program anytime soon. Canada is also currently going through a contentious federal election process, so it was unlikely for its government to move on refilling this incentive while things are shaken up.
So, the government communicated in January that the program would run out of money soon – very soon – giving dealers only a few days to claim incentives.
Then in March, it was reported by the Toronto Star that something suspicious had happened with Tesla, as it had filed for 8,653 EV sales within the last 72 hours of the Canadian rebate incentive, an abnormally high number.
One Tesla locations in particular, Quebec City, claimed 4,000 rebates over the course of a weekend, which is physically impossible for a location of that size, and represents about a ~20x spike in daily deliveries for the location. Another location in Etobicoke reportedly claimed 2,528 rebates over the weekend, which is more than all the rebates that location had previously claimed combined.
The alarm was raised by the Canadian Auto Dealers Association, which said its dealers as a whole had been left out of around $10 million in rebates representing 2,295 cars. Dealerships claimed that “Tesla gamed the system” and that “they cleared everyone else out.”
As a result of this, on March 25 Tesla had $43 million in rebates frozen as the government investigated what went on with this sudden spike in incentive filings.
Fast forward to now, and Tesla Canada has responded to the back-and-forth claiming that it didn’t do anything weird, simply filed a number of backlogged applications, as is normal for the program.
In a letter dated March 28 obtained by Electrek, Fereshteh Zeineddin, Tesla’s director of sales and service for Canada, says that Tesla’s filings were normal and that Transport Canada, the government office responsible for administering the incentive program, should know better.
The incentive is structured such that a dealership can offer a discount upfront to customers, then get reimbursed later by the government after filing for that incentive. Which Tesla points out means these are not grants to Tesla, but rather grants to Canadian customers which are then handled by Tesla.
Tesla claims that backlogged filings have always been allowed, and says that it has always complied with program rules and has had good standing with the Canadian government as a result.
However, Tesla does not specifically state in the letter how many of its weekend filings were for backdated sales.
Tesla says it was “shocked” that it didn’t hear about the incentive investigation directly from the government, and instead had to learn about it through the media. It suggests that it might pursue legal action if payments aren’t resumed, though that it does understand that it may not get payments for every delivery depending on program funding.
Finally, Tesla plays the victim in the letter, saying that as a result of Transport Canada’s investigation into these incentive filings, Tesla employees have suffered negative public perception and are increasingly facing harassment and verbal abuse by Canadians.
Electrek’s Take
We’re still skeptical of Tesla’s incentive claims, even after reading the letter.
The thousands of incentives filed over the course of one weekend would represent several months of incentive backlog. While disorganization is nothing new for Tesla, it still does seem questionable that Tesla’s 1,400-employee Canadian subsidiary would ignore tens of millions of dollars of revenue for several months.
And complaints about a lack of communication from the government could fall under that same umbrella – if Tesla is truly disorganized enough to leave these tens of millions on the table, maybe they’re also disorganized enough not to receive communication from the government regarding the incentive program.
Tesla does, after all, have no communications department and recently lost its head of policy who had previously been acting as an impromptu communications department on twitter. Instead, Tesla now uses the twitter feed of its CEO as its primary form of communication, but he’s apparently too busy literally defending Hitler instead of managing the company that made him the vast majority of the wealth that he is now channeling into anti-EV entities.
So, surely the reason for Tesla’s negative public perception in Canada is all because of this Transport Canada investigation, and it couldn’t possibly have any other source… right?
Tesla’s policy personnel and overseas employees are definitely having to walk a thin line right now, and this seems like another example of that.
Currently, public perception of the company is down specifically because of its CEO, Elon Musk, who seems determined to embarrass himself in public every day and bring his company down with him.
He’s attached his own persona to Tesla so loudly and publicly over its existence that the two are inextricable in the minds of many – we even quite often hear people refer to Tesla, a company that has over a hundred thousand employees, as “he,” rather than the proper “it” or “they,” with people using Elon Musk himself as synecdoche for the entire company (which he barely does any work at).
But Tesla employees can’t say that, because it is also well known that Musk has a vindictive management style, and that anything that is even perceived as a lack of support can result in retaliation (remember when we were blocked by a so-called first amendment lover for protecting his customers?).
So they’re having to walk a thin line right now – advocating for Tesla’s interests without pointing out the elephant in the room, which is that the company is being run by an idiot who is determined to run it into the ground while also doing all he can to spread white supremacy around the globe.
More specifically, Canadian public perception of Tesla is down more than most due to Musk’s close association with convicted felon Donald Trump, who recently wandered back into the Oval Office (despite that there exists a clear legal remedy for insurrectionists), and who has been working to shatter the close friendship between US and Canada by restricting the free trade of goods across the longest border in the world.
Tesla knows this, as it submitted a letter to the US Trade Representative stating that Tesla could become target of retaliatory tariffs, and it already has.
This incentive pause is one of those examples. Chrystia Freeland, Canada’s transport minister, specifically mentioned the illegal tariffs imposed upon Canada as part of the government’s skepticism about these incentives:
No payments will be made until we are confident that the claims are valid. I also directed my department to change the eligibility criteria for future iZEV programs to ensure that Tesla vehicles will not be eligible for incentives so long as the illegitimate and illegal U.S. tariffs are imposed against Canada.
That’s not the only Canadian government representative who has made a similar statement about Tesla. When British Columbia Energy Minister Adrian Dix recently removed Tesla products from a charging incentive rebate program, he stated:
I thought they shouldn’t be made available on a public subsidy program right now. I don’t think anyone in British Columbia needs to be told why, and I think most people would support their removal from that list.
It’s ironic that Tesla’s incentive grab was pointed out by the Canadian dealer lobby. Dealer lobbies have long been the largest legal thorn in Tesla’s side, even moreso than the oil industry – while oil has done its fair share of propaganda to discredit electric cars, dealer lobbies have been responsible for stopping Tesla’s ability to sell in several areas, specifically in the US and also around the world, due to Tesla’s direct sales model which threatens traditional auto dealers.
The irony here is that Musk’s current political allies include auto dealerships, which are one of the most republican sectors in America. They are feeling more represented than ever on the federal level, which could lead to more trouble for Tesla’s sales model.
Another irony lies in Tesla’s mention of the 1,400 Canadians employed by Tesla. While those employees, like most Tesla employees, are either just doing it as a job or are truly interested in advancing EVs, that number does pale in comparison to the thousands of Canadian job losses already caused by the administration that Elon Musk is the world’s biggest monetary and rhetorical supporter of. And while some employees might still care about the mission, Tesla’s CEO doesn’t. So spare us the crocodile tears on that one.
So its clear that the “public perception” problem isn’t about one report, it’s about the one guy who we all know is the source of the public perception problem – and basically every other problem with Tesla right now.
Charge your electric vehicle at home using rooftop solar panels. Find a reliable and competitively priced solar installer near you on EnergySage, for free. They have pre-vetted installers competing for your business, ensuring high-quality solutions and 20-30% savings. It’s free, with no sales calls until you choose an installer. Compare personalized solar quotes online and receive guidance from unbiased Energy Advisers. Get started here. – ad*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Elon Musk isn’t happy about Trump passing the Big Beautiful Bill and killing off the $7,500 EV tax credit – but there’s a lot more bad news for Tesla baked into the BBB. We’ve got all that and more on today’s budget-busting episode of Quick Charge!
We also present ongoing coverage of the 2025 Electrek Formula Sun Grand Prix and dive into some two wheeled reports on the new electric Honda Ruckus e:Zoomer, the latest BMW electric two-wheeler, and more!
Source Links
Prefer listening to your podcasts? Audio-only versions of Quick Charge are now available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, TuneIn, and our RSS feed for Overcast and other podcast players.
New episodes of Quick Charge are recorded, usually, Monday through Thursday (and sometimes Sunday). We’ll be posting bonus audio content from time to time as well, so be sure to follow and subscribe so you don’t miss a minute of Electrek’s high-voltage daily news.
Got news? Let us know!
Drop us a line at tips@electrek.co. You can also rate us on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, or recommend us in Overcast to help more people discover the show.
If you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Environment
FERC: Solar + wind made up 96% of new US power generating capacity in first third of 2025
Solar and wind accounted for almost 96% of new US electrical generating capacity added in the first third of 2025. In April, solar provided 87% of new capacity, making it the 20th consecutive month solar has taken the lead, according to data belatedly posted on July 1 by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and reviewed by the SUN DAY Campaign.
Solar’s new generating capacity in April 2025 and YTD
In its latest monthly “Energy Infrastructure Update” report (with data through April 30, 2025), FERC says 50 “units” of solar totaling 2,284 megawatts (MW) were placed into service in April, accounting for 86.7% of all new generating capacity added during the month.
In addition, the 9,451 MW of solar added during the first four months of 2025 was 77.7% of the new generation placed into service.
Solar has now been the largest source of new generating capacity added each month for 20 consecutive months, from September 2023 to April 2025.
Solar + wind were >95% of new capacity in 1st third of 2025
Between January and April 2025, new wind provided 2,183 MW of capacity additions, accounting for 18.0% of new additions in the first third.
In the same period, the combination of solar and wind was 95.7% of new capacity while natural gas (511 MW) provided just 4.2%; the remaining 0.1% came from oil (11 MW).
Solar + wind are >22% of US utility-scale generating capacity
The installed capacities of solar (11.0%) and wind (11.8%) are now each more than a tenth of the US total. Together, they make up almost one-fourth (22.8%) of the US’s total available installed utility-scale generating capacity.
Moreover, at least 25-30% of US solar capacity is in small-scale (e.g., rooftop) systems that are not reflected in FERC’s data. Including that additional solar capacity would bring the share provided by solar + wind to more than a quarter of the US total.
With the inclusion of hydropower (7.7%), biomass (1.1%), and geothermal (0.3%), renewables currently claim a 31.8% share of total US utility-scale generating capacity. If small-scale solar capacity is included, renewables are now about one-third of total US generating capacity.
Solar is on track to become No. 2 source of US generating capacity
FERC reports that net “high probability” additions of solar between May 2025 and April 2028 total 90,158 MW – an amount almost four times the forecast net “high probability” additions for wind (22,793 MW), the second-fastest growing resource. Notably, both three-year projections are higher than those provided just a month earlier.
FERC also foresees net growth for hydropower (596 MW) and geothermal (92 MW) but a decrease of 123 MW in biomass capacity.
Taken together, the net new “high probability” capacity additions by all renewable energy sources over the next three years – i.e., the bulk of the Trump administration’s remaining time in office – would total 113,516 MW.
FERC doesn’t include any nuclear capacity in its three-year forecast, while coal and oil are projected to contract by 24,373 MW and 1,915 MW, respectively. Natural gas capacity would expand by 5,730 MW.
Thus, adjusting for the different capacity factors of gas (59.7%), wind (34.3%), and utility-scale solar (23.4%), electricity generated by the projected new solar capacity to be added in the coming three years should be at least six times greater than that produced by the new natural gas capacity, while the electrical output by new wind capacity would be more than double that by gas.
If FERC’s current “high probability” additions materialize, by May 1, 2028, solar will account for one-sixth (16.6%) of US installed utility-scale generating capacity. Wind would provide an additional one-eighth (12.6%) of the total. That would make each greater than coal (12.2%) and substantially more than nuclear power or hydropower (7.3% and 7.2%, respectively).
In fact, assuming current growth rates continue, the installed capacity of utility-scale solar is likely to surpass that of either coal or wind within two years, placing solar in second place for installed generating capacity, behind only natural gas.
Renewables + small-scale solar may overtake natural gas within 3 years
The mix of all utility-scale (ie, >1 MW) renewables is now adding about two percentage points each year to its share of generating capacity. At that pace, by May 1, 2028, renewables would account for 37.7% of total available installed utility-scale generating capacity – rapidly approaching that of natural gas (40.1%). Solar and wind would constitute more than three-quarters of installed renewable energy capacity. If those trend lines continue, utility-scale renewable energy capacity should surpass that of natural gas in 2029 or sooner.
However, as noted, FERC’s data do not account for the capacity of small-scale solar systems. If that’s factored in, within three years, total US solar capacity could exceed 300 GW. In turn, the mix of all renewables would then be about 40% of total installed capacity while the share of natural gas would drop to about 38%.
Moreover, FERC reports that there may actually be as much as 224,426 MW of net new solar additions in the current three-year pipeline in addition to 69,530 MW of new wind, 9,072 MW of new hydropower, 202 MW of new geothermal, and 39 MW of new biomass. By contrast, net new natural gas capacity potentially in the three-year pipeline totals just 26,818 MW. Consequently, renewables’ share could be even greater by mid-spring 2028.
“The Trump Administration’s ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ … poses a clear threat to solar and wind in the years to come,” noted the SUN DAY Campaign’s executive director, Ken Bossong. “Nonetheless, FERC’s latest data and forecasts suggest cleaner and lower-cost renewable energy sources may still dominate and surpass nuclear power, coal, and natural gas.”
To limit power outages and make your home more resilient, consider going solar with a battery storage system. In order to find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. They have hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and you share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisers to help you every step of the way. Get started here. –trusted affiliate link*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Tesla has been forced to reimburse a customer’s Full Self-Driving package after an arbitrator determined that the automaker failed to deliver it.
Tesla has been promising its car owners that every vehicle it has built since 2016 has all the hardware capable of unsupervised self-driving.
The automaker has been selling a “Full Self-Driving” (FSD) package that is supposed to deliver this unsupervised self-driving capability through over-the-air software updates.
Almost a decade later, Tesla has yet to deliver on its promise, and its claim that the cars’ hardware is capable of self-driving has been proven wrong. Tesla had to update all cars with HW2 and 2.5 computers to HW3 computers.
In January 2025, CEO Elon Musk finally admitted that HW3 also won’t be able to support self-driving and said that Tesla will have to upgrade the computers. 6 months later, Tesla has yet to communicate a plan for retrofits to owners.
Tesla is now attempting to deliver its promise of unsupervised self-driving on HW4 cars, which have been in production since 2023-2024, depending on the model. However, there are still significant doubts about this being possible, as the best available data indicate that Tesla only achieves about 500 miles between critical disengagements with the latest software on the hardware.
The situation is creating a significant liability for Tesla, which already needs to replace computers in millions of vehicles, and it may need to do so in millions more.
On the other hand, many customers are losing faith in Tesla’s ability to deliver on its promise and manage this computer retrofit situation. Some of them have been seeking to be reimbursed for their purchase of the Full Self-Driving package, which Tesla sold from $8,000 to $15,000.
A Tesla owner in Washington managed to get the automaker to reimburse the FSD package, but it wasn’t easy.
The 2021 Model Y was Marc Dobin and his wife’s third Tesla. Due to his wife’s declining mobility, Dobin was intrigued about the FSD package as a potential way to give her more independence. He wrote in a blog post:
But FSD was more than hype for us. The promise of a car that could drive my wife around gave us hope that she’d maintain independence as her motor skills declined. We paid an extra $10,000 for FSD.
Tesla’s FSD quickly disillusioned Dobin. First, he couldn’t even enable it due to Tesla restricting the Beta access through a “safety score” system, something he pointed out was never mentioned in the contract.
Furthermore, the feature required the supervision of a driver at all times, which was not what Tesla sold to customers.
Tesla doesn’t make it easy for customers in the US to seek a refund or to sue Tesla as it forces buyers to go through arbitration through its sales contract.
That didn’t deter Dobin, who happens to be a lawyer with years of experience in arbitration. It took almost a year, but Tesla and Dobin eventually found themselves in arbitration, and it didn’t go well for the automaker:
Almost a year after filing, the evidentiary hearing was held via Zoom. Tesla produced one witness: a Field Technical Specialist who admitted he hadn’t checked what equipment shipped with our car, hadn’t reviewed our driving logs, and didn’t know details about the FSD system installed on our car, if any. He hadn’t spoken to any sales rep we dealt with or reviewed the contract’s integration clause.
There were both a Tesla lawyer and an outside counsel representing Tesla at the hearing, but the witness was not equipped to answer questions.
Dobin wrote:
He was a service technician, not a lawyer or salesperson. But that’s who Tesla brought to the hearing. At the end, I genuinely felt bad for him because Tesla set him up to be a human punching bag—someone unprepared to answer key questions, forced to defend a system he clearly didn’t understand. While I was examining him, a Tesla in-house lawyer sat silently, while the company’s outside counsel tried to soften the blows of the witness’ testimony.
He focused on Tesla’s lack of disclosure regarding the safety score and the fact that the system does not meet the promises made to customers.
The arbitrator sided with Dobin and wrote:
The evidence is persuasive that the feature was not functional, operational, or otherwise available.”
Tesla was forced to reimburse the FSD package $10,000 plus taxes, and pay for the almost $8,000 in arbitration fees.
Since Tesla forces arbitration through its contracts, it is required to cover the cost.
Electrek’s Take
This is interesting. Tesla assigned two lawyers to this case in an attempt to avoid reimbursing $10,000, knowing it would have to cover the expensive arbitration fees – most likely losing tens of thousands of dollars in the process.
It makes no sense to me. Tesla should have a standing offer to reimburse FSD for anyone who requests it until it can actually deliver on its promise of unsupervised self-driving.
That’s the right thing to do, and the fact that Tesla would waste money trying to fight customers requesting a refund is really telling.
Tesla is simply not ready to do the right thing here, and it doesn’t bode well for the computer retrofits and all the other liabilities around Tesla FSD.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike