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
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
