News
Tales from Dandelion customers: geothermal heating, cooling, and energy independence
Behind every installation of a Dandelion geothermal heating and air conditioning unit is a story. These stories are different for each customer, but each tale involves a notable common factor — a move towards gaining independence from fossil fuels. Here are a couple of stories from Dandelion customers who turned to geothermal solutions, and never looked back.
The Engineer
An aerial view of Matthew VanDerlofske’s home, which is fitted with solar panels. (Photo: Dandelion Energy)
When software engineer Matthew VanDerlofske came across Dandelion Energy’s heating and air conditioning system, he realized that it was the perfect way to help his family step away from fossil fuels. For VanDerlofske, a key reason behind his adoption of Dandelion’s geothermal solutions is the savings offered by the system.
During the gas spike in 2008 and 2009, the software engineer admitted that his family was budgeting $600 in gas per month for their SUVs alone. They were also spending $1,600 worth of oil per year for heating, on top of 15 megawatts of electricity per year from the grid. Eventually, VanDerlofske and his family realized that it was time to “start weaning ourselves off fossil fuels.”
The family started in 2012, investing $6,700 to have 32 solar panels installed on their roof. They also traded in one of their gas-guzzling SUVs for a Chevy Volt. Later, the family added an additional 24 solar panels, allowing them to produce more power than they consume. The family also acquired a Chevy Bolt, their first all-electric car. VanDerlofske and his wife regarded Dandelion’s geothermal heating and air conditioning system as the next step in their pursuit of energy independence, as it allowed them to get all their heating and air conditioning needs from the ground.
The Environmentalists
Paul and Joanne Coons’ historic home in Clifton Park, NY. (Photo: Dandelion Energy)
Dandelion Energy customers Paul and Joanne Coons have always been passionate about the environment. At one point, Joanne, a high school environmental science teacher, took it upon herself to make her own biodiesel from restaurant waste, which she used on her diesel car. Together with her husband, she also experimented with burning home-brewed biodiesel at home, in order to help offset their house’s $4,500 annual heating cost.
The couple completely embraced the energy-independent lifestyle after they took on the task of renovating a dilapidated, historic house in Clifton Park, NY. The home, which had no buyers due to its condition, was transformed by the couple into one of the most energy-efficient homes in the country. Since then, the house has won several green building awards, and it has become certified as a LEED Platinum and NAHB Certified Green Building Emerald home.
To make their historic home energy independent, the Coons opted to install an array of rooftop and pole-mounted solar panels, which they use to help power the house and charge their Nissan Leaf and Toyota Prius Hybrid. The couple, who also has a reservation for the Tesla Model 3, also opted to have a Dandelion Air unit installed for heating and air conditioning. Referring to their biodiesel-brewing days, Paul stated that ground source heat pumps are the best of both worlds, since “you can heat and cool your home with the power of the sun, and you don’t have to keep fueling the system.”
Ultimately, customers who are already committing to sustainable energy through rooftop solar solutions can’t go wrong with a geothermal heating and air conditioning system. Read more about Dandelion Energy’s geothermal systems here.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
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
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
