News
SolarCity Struggles: National Gridlock (Part III)
In this final post within my SolarCity Struggles series I’ll be outlining the additional complexities that surfaced after our local power company, National Grid, got involved.
National Grid-Lock
Having already experienced some delays on my solar project due to architectural redesigns, National Grid jumped into the mix to make things even worse by throwing up one road block after another. There was a conflict of interest for National Grid to assist on the project since we would be shifting more than $170,000 of revenue from them to SolarCity. I’d only see a tiny slice of that by way of my energy savings. Despite many city mandates to be “More Green”, the utility companies clearly have no interest in assisting customers to go solar since it would be counter productive for them.
Roadblock #1
National Grid would not allow “net metering” (where you can re-supply energy through solar power) for two different meters at the same address. SolarCity stepped up and offered to join my two meters and upgrade my panel (from 400A to 600A) in order to support net metering. Accounting issues aside, I agreed to the proposed change and moved forward with yet another site visit that would lead to an engineering redesign.
Roadblock #2
Having (verbally) moved past this, National Grid then reported that the transformer for my area was only capable of handling 23kW of generated power and could not support SolarCity’s proposed 56kW system. This was by the most serious setback since it would require a design that would cut my generation down to 23kW or less. This meant dropping the farm completely and scaling the house from 35kW to 23kW.
A 23kW design called for the front of my house to have solar panels while only a portion of the rear of the house would be retrofitted with panels. This would have looked really odd so we decided to scale back the design to a 18kW system and only include panels on the front of the house.
National Grid informed me that the transformers support between 8 – 12 houses in my area so any neighbors that undergo a solar project will be limited to the remaining 5kW that the transformer can support.
Next Steps
Going from a 56kW to 18kW (a 68% drop in planned production) system will reduce my energy coverage to 32% of my power needs through solar. This is unfortunately the case due to National Grid’s limitation despite my property having enough roof surface to generate 100% of my energy needs.
I will save approximately $56,000 over the next 20 years with this smaller set up, a far departure from the original projected savings of $105,000 but still worth pursuing.
A friendly note from SolarCity arrived on September 1st letting me know that my installation was scheduled for December 8th and 9th because of the magnitude of the project. Considering this 18kW system is a third of what would have been, I couldn’t help but wonder how SolarCity would have handled the original plans. I can’t imagine starting this project in the dead of a New England winter. SolarCity indicated that the project would require 4-6 weeks before the “go live” date which meant I wouldn’t be completing until January 2015. That puts the project at about 10 months from start (initial consultation) to finish and assuming all goes well from here on out.
Summary
SolarCity has made a number of mistakes on this project since the beginning; from improperly sizing the system to not knowing the requirements and restrictions of the local power company; to not following owner requests on layout; to not understanding power generation limits imposed by the power company.
My experience with SolarCity has led me to conclude that they’re not ready for widespread adoption outside of key markets and have a lot of work and learning to do before they will be ready for that next stage of growth.
I truly hope the project moves forward. My next updates will be on the post installation experience which will hopefully take place sometime between now and the end of this year. Stay tuned.
SolarCity Struggles Series – Read from the beginning
Image Source: Sun Powered EVs
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
