News
SolarCity poised for rapid growth as residential solar installations soar
The recent merger of Tesla and SolarCity introduces a new era in residential solar energy generation. With the demand for solar energy in the U.S. rising each year, benefits to both our environment and the nation’s economy increase. The trend toward residential solar installations does require efficient planning and execution of public policies. It also calls for analysis of the status of residential solar in order to move toward an enhanced solar integration across the U.S.
What does residential solar look like today in the U.S.?
Residential solar today is primarily a coastal phenomenon, although more than half of the states have enough residential solar to power at least a few thousand homes. Yet, in the third quarter of 2016, the U.S. surpassed all previous quarterly solar photovoltaic (PV) installation records: 4,143 megawatts (MW), or a rate of one megawatt (MW) every 32 minutes. That pace is even faster today, as the fourth quarter will surpass this past quarter’s historic total, according to the Solar Energies Industry Association (SEIA).
“The solar market now enjoys an economically-winning hand that pays off both financially and environmentally, and American taxpayers have noticed,” Tom Kimbis, SEIA’s interim president, said of the recent rise in residential solar. “With a 90 percent favorability rating and 209,000 plus jobs, the U.S. solar industry has proven that when you combine smart policies with smart 21st century technology, consumers and businesses both benefit.”
Here are the top five U.S. states with residential solar rooftops in September, 2016:
- California: 3,258 MW
- Arizona: 539 MW
- New York: 444 MW
- New Jersey: 386 MW
- Massachusetts: 361 MW
These levels are considered ample to power a significant number of homes in their regions.
What’s the potential for other states to increase residential solar in the near future?
In order to power more than a few thousand homes and to become a major energy source across America, solar saturation must become deeper across existing states and more widespread among states that currently provide limited residential solar. Rooftops provide a large expanse of untapped area for solar energy generation, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). What’s needed to reduce costs and losses often associated with transmission and distribution of electricity? Onsite distributed generation, such as that which is available from SolarCity and others. Yet, to create a paradigm in which onsite distributed generation can become a reality, different and sometimes dissonant potentials must be addressed.
Technical potential considers multiple factors in a given region, such as resource availability and quality, technical system performance, and the physical availability of a suitable area for development. In other words, it measures how much of the total resource can actually be captured. It is often the only area of focus when residential solar is discussed.
However, in order for solar to reduce pollution, help homeowners to lower utility bills and gain more energy independence, technical aspects of the larger solar equation must work in sync with resource, economic and market potential.
- Resource potential is the entire amount of energy in a particular form for the region;
- Economic potential is possible generation quantity that results as a positive return on the
investment of constructing the systems; and, - Market potential estimates the quantity of energy expected to be generated from the deployment of a technology into the market. It considers factors such as policies, competition with other technologies, and rate of adoption.
A study from the NREL indicates that, taking into account these four types of potential, there are broad regional trends in both the suitability and electric-generation possibilities of rooftops. Although only 26% of the total rooftop area on small buildings is suitable for PV deployment, the sheer number of buildings in this class gives small buildings the greatest technical potential.
What factors contribute to successful onsite distributed solar generation?
Small building rooftops could accommodate 731 GW of PV capacity and generate 926 TWh of PV energy annually, according to NREL, which represents approximately 65% of the total technical potential of rooftop PV. Think about how much energy could be generated by rooftop solar panels in each state if they were installed on all suitable roofs. Of course, the amount of suitable roof area, which takes into account factors such as shading, roof tilt, roof position, and roof size, must be included in any potential residential solar project planning.
The folks at SolarCity truly believe that, in every state, home rooftop solar could be a major energy resource. With research data backing their conclusions, they feel that U.S. total home solar capacity could increase 100 times over, and each state could meet 10-45% of its electricity needs from residential solar alone.
Add in roofs of medium and large buildings, and the solar integration number rises to 40 percent of all the electric demand in the continental U.S. By comparison, all rooftop solar today combined provides less than 0.5 percent of the nation’s electricity.
The potential for home rooftop solar to become a major energy source is enormous — in every state. And SolarCity argues that, the sooner that homes across the country become a part of that future, the more years they’ll have to enjoy its benefits.
Sources: Solar Energy Industries Association, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, SolarCity
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
