News
My journey with a SolarCity System: Snow, Net Metering
After 9 months of planning, waiting and negotiating, my SolarCity system installation was finally completed in December of 2014. Following the install, the only steps that remained were to implement updates required for net metering and to finalize the electrical and building inspections.
The electrical inspection went quickly, but the building inspection was a pain. The local building inspector wasn’t very responsive and scheduled inspections shortly after large snow storms, but then refused to do the inspection due to “snow covering the panels”.
While we waited for the inspections, which finally took place in March of 2015, National Grid installed a new Net Meter. Net meters are capable of monitoring the amount of power being sent back into the grid. The meter swap is quick work, but be forewarned that it requires power to be cut from your home during the swap.
Weathering the Storm
We had a brutal Winter here in the Northeast and this was my first year with panels. So I had concerns about the impact of the heavy snow being on top of the panels, and also how one goes about cleaning off the snow. I asked SolarCity about proper handling and they told me not to worry about it:
“We understand your concern with the snow and the load that it would cause. Please be advised that when your system was built, our engineers took into consideration, your roof structure as well as the amount of weight that it would be able to hold. We also have the system approved by the City for load bearings.The City and our engineers did take into consideration, the amount of largest amount of snow that your roof can withstand before we installed. I understand that there was a mass message out to all the people in the area advising them to make sure that they clear the roof. We advised that you allow the snow to melt/slide down on its own., If you are hiring someone to come out to clear the roof. Make sure that they be careful and they only sweep the panels.”
I patiently waited for the snow to slide off the panels and sure enough it did, and with no issues. The snow slides off the black, wet glass-like surface of the solar panels. You definitely don’t want to be anywhere below the roofline when the snow decides to let go!
Early Issues – Broken Gear
Once National Grid completed the net metering install, I was finally approved to turn on the system. The first step involves turning a big dial (on each inverter) from off to on. I have three inverters which means three dials to flip on.
I turned each of them on. Two lit green almost immediately while the remaining inverted displayed a red fault light. There were no instructions on what to do in this scenario; no manuals and no guidance, so my only option was to call for help.
Getting help from SolarCity on the issue at had was a frustrating experience. SolarCity has a lot to learn when it comes to customer service. I spoke to several customer support managers as I continued to escalate my issue.
Finally, after five weeks of follow ups and many phone calls, I got the broken inverter fixed.
Tip:
SolarCity doesn’t bother to tell you this, but what I discovered was a little black button in the middle of the inverter. It’s hard to see but if you press the button you’ll be able to cycle through messages on the digital display, one of which is a fault code. Providing SolarCity with a fault code is much more useful than just letting them know that a red light is blinking.
Early Issues – Snow Fall
As mentioned earlier, snow doesn’t stick to the panels for long, but it does manage to build up before it lets go. Imagine 3 feet of heavy snow mixed with ice over your entire roof all letting go at the same time. It’s not a slow drip. It’s an avalanche.
The end result is dead flowers, dead bushes, and broken branches on vegetation immediately below the roof. As much as it’s common sense that snow will eventually melt from a roof and slide down, I wish SolarCity would have warned us that snow tends to slide from solar panels at a much quicker rate. I would have done something to fortify those flowers and bushes. After all, landscaping is not cheap.
There’s an accident waiting to happen so I think it’s in SolarCity’s best interest to pre-warn people of this, especially newbies to the world of solar panels.
Summary
Eleven months after starting the project, my SolarCity system finally went live (partially) on February 23, 2015. And on April 1, 2015, the third inverter was fixed allowing the system to work in its full capacity.
The image to the right is showing the day when the transformer on my street blew up and the entire street lost power for several hours. I added 33% more power from my large system going back into the network while using very little (Winter time) the same day the transformer blew. But then again, it was also April 1. Nobody made a fuss — National Grid replaced the transformer and all has been stable since. My best guess as to why that happened? Perhaps the transformer was already near its thresholds and my solar installation was the one to tip it over?
I’ll be writing about system monitoring, cost savings and billing errors in upcoming posts. The story isn’t over yet.
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
