News
Solar Power Monitoring and Billing through SolarCity
After experiencing some growing pains with my SolarCity installation, I’m happy to say that I’ve been up and running since February 23rd of 2015 and ready to share my experiences with how the system is monitored and billed.
Savings
The savings on your electricity bill begin immediately after installation of your SolarCity system, and affects both the supply and delivery portions of your bill.
Savings can be pretty dramatic depending on the size of the system and, obviously, how much sunshine your region experiences. The following utility bill is a great example of how I was able to reduce my energy dependence from the grid by over 90%.
However, despite the reduction in energy needs from my utility company, the cost is not directly proportional to the amount of energy used. Here’s why.
Billing
Having such a drastic reduction in kWh needed from the grid actually comes with a price. Almost everyone who signs up with SolarCity opts-in to a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) which means you pay nothing upfront (for the gear, install etc.), but you pay SolarCity for every kWh their system generates. That rate can be variable or fixed. I pay a fixed rate of $0.1420 per kWh generated for 20 years. That may sound high to you but considering my local electricity rate is $0.2470, I’m saving 43% per kWh.
It takes SolarCity some time to get up and running with their billing system. For me it took them 3 months to send me the first bill and because of that I received a hefty bill (thankfully late winter months) for all 3 months in one shot. After that, the bills arrive monthly (note that SolarCity requires EFT/Autopay to be set up).
The bills are simple and only state the amount of kWh generated, the rate you pay, and the total amount owed.
SolarCity collects data generated through their system via a standard internet connection, which they also use for billing purposes. On the first (large/3 month) bill I received, I noticed a difference of 10% (additional cost for me) between the billed amount and the amount the system had reported being generated so I naturally brought this to their attention. The customer service folks that I spoke with weren’t of much help and just told me to read each the meters at the beginning and end of each month if I truly want an accurate reading of how things get billed. So, that’s what I did.
Since inception I’ve saved $320 (over roughly 3 months) or about 42% off what I would have paid National Grid. And the system cost me nothing to install (I actually got a $1,000 Tesla-owner check from them).
They also have an estimated cost savings on the front page when you log in but it’s totally incorrect:
The mistake they made here is that they’re assuming your electricity rate doesn’t change over time. My electricity rate rose significantly after I signed up for SolarCity and because of that I’m getting a larger savings than what they’re reporting.
Monitoring
Monitoring happens online through MySolarCity.com. The interface is geared more towards new referrals than for actual owners of their system. The section I use most often is the Power Guide.
Power Guide gives an hour by hour break out of your energy generation along with the weather pattern for that day (ie. how much daylight, cloud coverage …). Hovering over each colored bar will show you the energy generated per inverter. The data can be downloaded in a CSV format and then imported into Numbers or Excel for your own post processing.
If you have multiple inverters, the CSV data for the day is a bit of a pain to analyze since it also includes the energy generated every 15 minutes per inverter.
Power Guide also includes a summary for the year.
The platform also provides a view of your energy generation as it happens in real-time which updates continuously.
Having this features allows you to watch the sun rise and set as viewed through the perspective of your panels which is kind of fun.
It’s not totally accurate as I’ll see data from certain days which look completely off.
API – Not
I’ve set up automated tweets for detection of Tesla Superchargers in real-time and decided to the same by sharing my SolarCity data through my home-grown program that fetches the data from Power Guide and then tweeting it.
It would be really nice if SolarCity decided to create a simple REST API that would allow owners to fetch their data.
Summary
SolarCity makes a lot of sense when it comes to cost savings and they’re able to provide this with no upfront cost to the owner. One needs to analyze the effective savings based on the cost incurred when generating energy through the SolarCity system versus your electricity cost, and then decide if the savings is worth the hassle. I’d recommend filling out their contact form and sign up for a consultation to get started.
The billing and monitoring side of SolarCity could definitely use some improvement, and hopefully this will improve over time as the business continues to grow.
I hope this post and series has been helpful. Let me know if you have any questions or thoughts in the comments below.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
