News
Report: Solar savings through a SolarCity residential system
Having limited winter daylight hours combined with snow covered rooftops doesn’t make for good check out my huge solar savings conversation this month. But putting that aside, the overall economics behind my solar system tells a far greater story.
If you’ve been following along, you’ll recall that my journey with installing a SolarCity system dates back to late 2014. My system consists of 69 panels at 255W each for a total of 17.6kW (more specs on the system can be found on my Solar Generation page).
Solar Pricing
Massachusetts Electricity prices having been rising at approximately 9.5% year-over-year since 2008. When I started with SolarCity, my electricity price was set at $0.1627 per kWh including delivery, supply and taxes. Prices have continued to climb as seen on this chart.
The state went through a fun over-inflation and correction period in 2015, but the current rate I’m paying for electric is $0.1906 kWh with the best supplier I can find.
SolarCity sets their Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) prices based on your current electricity usage and comparable rates for the area that’s receiving their solar system. I had a number of options when I signed up including a variable rate, a fixed rate and an outright purchase but ended up opting for a 20-year fixed rate plan at $0.1420 kWh.
The way the PPA plan works is that I pay $0.1420 for every kWh generated by the SolarCity panels. The kWh they generate offsets the electricity I would consume. My savings initially worked out to be a difference of $0.0207 kWh or approximately 13% less. Recent savings have been in the $0.0486 kWh mark, or 25%, helped by the rise in electricity rates from utilities.
I incurred no installation or service costs when first setting up my SolarCity system, hence my entire cost for set up is based on the amount of power generated at $0.1420 kWh.
Affiliate: Get a solar cost estimate and find out how much solar can save for your home and business in your area.
Solar Costs
In the last 22 months, I’ve generated a whopping 33.8 MWh (33,800 kWh) of power. My cost for that was $4,800. The SolarCity bill will fluctuate depending on the amount of daylight hour and weather conditions.
In that same period, my electric company reported that I used 23,800 kWh of power. Since the solar power offsets that amount, my actual power use for those 22 months was 57,600 kWh — I use a lot of power between my Tesla, pool, A/C and other electronics we have throughout the house.
Follow @Teslaliving
About 59% of the power I need for my house and my Tesla comes from my SolarCity system. I wanted a system that could cover 100% of my needs but National Grid (local electric company) blocked that.
For the 23,800 kWh I purchased from the electric company, I paid $4,595, or $0.1930 kWh (averaged over the 22 months). My total electric cost (money paid to electric company and to SolarCity) for the 22 months was $9,395 or about $427/month.
While I consume a lot of power, 59% of it is provided by the sun.
Solar Savings
When I first signed up with SolarCity, they provided a $1,000 bonus if you registered for a solar system after buying a Tesla. That’s what I did and that’s how I received my $1,000 check form SolarCity.
They also had a referral program at the time which credited you with $250 for each person that signed up for a new system. I managed to get one referral and one more check from SolarCity.
All in all, I started 22 months ago with no money down and $1,250 in my pocket and a nice new solar system on my house. Not a bad start!
Had I purchased all my power from my electricity company at the average of $0.1930 kWh it would have cost me a total of $11,117. But thanks to SolarCity, my total cost was $9,395, so my savings was $1,722 over the 22 months. I expect savings and solar benefits will continue to grow over the next 20 years as the electric company continues to raise their rates.
SolarCity doesn’t fully capture the amount of savings that can be had through their system since the initial quote is based on current electricity rates, at the time of the quote. Rates climb over time especially in dense urban areas.
My savings thus far has been more than twice the amount SolarCity originally outlined! Now, if we add in the referral checks, my savings goes up to $2,972. The referrals don’t necessarily scale over time and may get updated so that needs to be factored into the equation.
Summary
For no money down and no risk, I’ve saved about $3,000 in just under 2 years (27% of what I would have paid) while generating green energy and taking load away from an already overloaded power grid.
When I did the math before signing up I knew the system would be a good deal and I’m very happy to see the results proving out. Since I’m on the power purchase program, I don’t have to worry about equipment depreciation, loss in solar cell effectiveness over time (I only pay for what they generate) or a whole slew of other things. By the time my plan is up, much better systems will be available.
If you’re interested in exploring solar power for your house and have enjoyed my posts thus far, please consider using my referral link to get started. SolarCity will do a free analysis of your situation and let you know if a solar system may work for you: share.solarcity.com/teslaliving
May the Sun be with you!
Tesla has launched a direct campaign targeting its customers in New Jersey, sending emails that warn of pending legislation that could effectively block true driverless technology in the state.
The email focuses on Senate Bill S.1677 and Assembly Bill A.3968, measures intended to create a three-year autonomous vehicle pilot program but laden with requirements that Tesla argues make unsupervised Robotaxis impossible.
Tesla is sending out this email to New Jersey Tesla owners, warning them that NJ could block autonomous vehicles, and to take action.
“Proposed legislation moving through Trenton right now would impose restrictions so severe that true driverless deployment would remain illegal.… pic.twitter.com/2bmY646AUL
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) June 16, 2026
According to the email, the bills impose “restrictions so severe that true driverless deployment would remain illegal.” Specific hurdles include mandates for human safety drivers during operations, multimillion-dollar insurance minimums, reportedly $5 million, and thresholds like 100,000 miles of demonstrated safe autonomous driving before any driverless approval.
Tesla contends these are arbitrary barriers that ignore real-world performance data and favor entrenched competitors over innovative technologies like its Full Self-Driving (FSD) system.
The push comes as Tesla has started expanding Robotaxi operations in states like Texas, where unsupervised vehicles are already providing rides in several cities. New Jersey, by contrast, risks falling behind. The company highlights in the email communication that more than 94 percent of serious crashes result from human error, meaning impairment, distraction, or fatigue. These are all problems that Robotaxis eliminate entirely.
In 2025, New Jersey recorded 582 traffic deaths, underscoring the human cost of delayed adoption.
Tesla’s outreach stresses the transformative potential of robotaxis. For families, they could offer safer school runs without drowsy or distracted drivers. For seniors and people with disabilities, robotaxis promise independence and reliable mobility.
In areas with limited public transit, they could deliver affordable, on-demand transportation, reducing congestion, emissions, and overall transportation costs. Economically, the company warns that restrictive rules could cost New Jersey jobs, innovation investment, and billions in potential growth as autonomous ride-hailing scales elsewhere.
Supporters of the legislation, including Sen. Andrew Zwicker, describe the pilot as a cautious framework with strong safety oversight, including incident reporting, expert task forces, and restrictions in sensitive zones like school areas. They view it as balancing innovation with public protection.
Tesla and pro-AV advocates counter that the bill lacks technology neutrality, creates insurmountable entry barriers for commercial deployment, and prioritizes process over outcomes — effectively functioning as a de facto ban on services like Robotaxi.
This latest clash echoes Tesla’s past battles in New Jersey over direct vehicle sales. The email directs owners to Tesla’s advocacy platform, where they can send customized messages to legislators calling for amendments: outcome-based safety standards, open competition, and clear pathways for fully driverless commercial operations.
As hearings approach, Tesla’s campaign frames the issue as a choice between protecting the status quo and embracing life-saving progress. With robotaxi technology already proving itself in permissive states, New Jersey owners are being asked to ensure their state doesn’t lock out the future of transportation.
Turn-by-turn navigation is not new technology.
For over two decades, drivers have relied on Garmin, TomTom, and later smartphone apps like Google Maps and Waze to receive precise, reliable directions. These systems have guided millions safely through unfamiliar cities, highways, and backroads with remarkable effectiveness. They handle real-time traffic, construction detours, and complex intersections with minimal fuss.
Yet Tesla, the company that promised revolutionary Full Self-Driving (FSD), continues to struggle with this foundational capability. As FSD (Supervised) v14.3.4 has started rolling out to cars this week, navigation remains its glaring Achilles’ heel, undermining the entire autonomous vision.
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Tesla’s FSD excels in many driving behaviors—smooth acceleration, confident lane changes in ideal conditions, and responsive handling of visible obstacles. However, when it comes to following a route accurately, the system falters repeatedly.
Owners report wrong turns, missed exits, inefficient routing through local roads instead of highways, phantom speed limit errors, and even directing vehicles to building rear entrances. Interventions for navigation issues often outnumber those for core driving maneuvers. Tesla has begun surveying owners specifically about these errors, acknowledging the problem after years of complaints.
Navigation is perhaps my biggest complaint when it comes to FSD, because sometimes, we do know better. Some of us have been living in our areas for our entire lives, but even those who have not have years or even decades of experience driving on local roads. We might know a little better about routing.
But the navigation mistakes are more than just FSD potentially taking a slightly different route that may or may not save you a few minutes. Sometimes, they’re genuinely mind-boggling.
This isn’t just annoying; it cascades into broader failures. A flawed route plan confuses the AI’s decision-making, leading to hesitant behavior, unnecessary disengagements, or dangerous maneuvers like attempting impossible U-turns or ignoring clear ramps. In a system meant to operate with minimal supervision, unreliable navigation erodes trust.
More often than not, false or plain incorrect navigation is what causes me to interrupt FSD operation. Unfortunately, I believe the latest FSD version is the worst example of it, and it leads me to believe that Tesla might be making some changes; they’ve just made them in the wrong direction.
It makes you wonder: Why is a company that has done so much with the progress of FSD and autonomy struggling so much with navigation, something that is not new and has been around a long time?
Multiple Data Sources
First, Tesla’s navigation relies on a fragile patchwork of multiple data sources—Google Maps, TomTom, OpenStreetMap, Valhalla, and its own fleet-derived data—stitched together rather than a single authoritative map. When these conflict on lane geometry, road status, or turn details, the system hesitates or chooses incorrectly.
Traditional GPS providers maintain centralized, regularly validated databases with professional curation and rapid updates. Tesla’s hybrid approach, while innovative in crowdsourcing, introduces inconsistencies that a purely vision-based or end-to-end AI approach may not easily reconcile in real time.
Persistent Learning
FSD seems to struggle with persistent learning from driver interventions.
Unlike consumer apps that quickly adapt to repeated corrections or user preferences (e.g., avoiding certain routes or remembering habitual detours), Tesla’s FSD often fails to internalize fixes on the same trip or across similar scenarios. Owners note making the same manual override multiple times without the routing engine updating its behavior meaningfully.
This stems from the neural architecture prioritizing real-time perception and control over long-term route memory and personalization, making navigation feel rigid and “opinionated” compared to the adaptive logic in Waze or Google Maps.
I noticed that when I asked Grok to try and get me home a certain way (a way that FSD routinely took in the past because it was the most efficient), it had to place a waypoint between my location at the time and my house. When I went to edit the waypoint out, as Grok had placed it for a way to get FSD to get off the highway at the right exit, it was stumped again, rerouted, and took a longer way home.
The next thing I’ve noticed, and this might be controversial, is that Nav has gotten even worse.
I think that might actually be a good thing; Tesla seems to be adjusting it. They just need to adjust it the opposite way.
The car is taking extremely strange routes to very… https://t.co/UHg3tVfNA2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
Reasoning, Scaling, and Intuition
Third, scaling navigation for unsupervised or robotaxi ambitions requires not just accuracy but adaptability and user-like reasoning. Current FSD often defaults to single routes that ignore driver preferences or real-world nuances like time-of-day traffic patterns. It fails to match the intuitive, context-aware planning that traditional systems have refined over the years.
Resolving navigation is critical for several reasons. Practically, it is the backbone of any autonomous journey: without trustworthy routing, the car cannot reliably reach destinations, rendering FSD useless for robotaxis or hands-free commutes. Safety depends on it—mismatched plans create hesitation in merges or intersections, increasing accident risk.
Economically, Tesla’s valuation and future hinge on FSD delivering unsupervised driving; persistent navigation flaws delay regulatory approval and erode consumer confidence. For owners who paid premiums for FSD, these issues represent unfulfilled promises. While it is unlikely Tesla will lose too many customers due to bad navigation, some will be frustrated with the constant need for human input.
Tesla has achieved miracles in electric vehicles and battery tech. Mastering turn-by-turn—technology Garmin nailed in the early 2000s—should not be this hard. By investing in tighter data integration, faster learning loops from interventions, and more intuitive routing algorithms, Tesla could close this gap.
Until then, FSD’s navigation struggles highlight a humbling truth: even the most ambitious innovator must sometimes master the basics before conquering the future.
A Tesla Cybertruck driver in the United Kingdom had their all-electric pickup seized by local police in the Greater Manchester area after the department cited “legitimate concerns.”
Last Thursday, police saw the pickup on the roads and decided to pull the driver over. Greater Manchester Police said:
“Whilst this may seem trivial to some, legitimate concerns exist around the safety of other road users or pedestrians if they were involved in a collision with the Cybertruck.”
🚨 A Tesla Cybertruck, which is illegal to drive in the UK due to safety concerns, has been seized by police in Greater Manchester
“Whilst this may seem trivial to some, legitimate concerns exist around the safety of other road users or pedestrians if they were involved in a… pic.twitter.com/cqhdPok3DM
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
The Cybertruck in question was, according to the BBC, registered and insured abroad and was confiscated. The driver, who is a UK resident, was reported.
The Greater Manchester Police Department then added:
“The Tesla Cybertruck is not road-legal in the UK and does not hold a certificate of conformity.”
The Cybertruck cannot be legally driven in the UK because it has no UK Type Approval for operation in the country. This is due to some safety concerns, which are related to its angular shape and design. The stainless steel exoskeleton has sharp edges and projections that violate UK/EU rules on pedestrian protection.
Tesla has considered creating what it referred to as an “international version” that would be approved for operation in Europe. However, there has been no real movement on that front by the company, as it has been focused on the Robotaxi rollout primarily.
Tesla urges New Jersey owners to oppose new bill that could block Robotaxi
Tesla’s Navigation Nightmare: Why the easiest part of FSD might be the hardest
