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!
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
