News
SolarCity Struggles: National Gridlock (Part III)
In this final post within my SolarCity Struggles series I’ll be outlining the additional complexities that surfaced after our local power company, National Grid, got involved.
National Grid-Lock
Having already experienced some delays on my solar project due to architectural redesigns, National Grid jumped into the mix to make things even worse by throwing up one road block after another. There was a conflict of interest for National Grid to assist on the project since we would be shifting more than $170,000 of revenue from them to SolarCity. I’d only see a tiny slice of that by way of my energy savings. Despite many city mandates to be “More Green”, the utility companies clearly have no interest in assisting customers to go solar since it would be counter productive for them.
Roadblock #1
National Grid would not allow “net metering” (where you can re-supply energy through solar power) for two different meters at the same address. SolarCity stepped up and offered to join my two meters and upgrade my panel (from 400A to 600A) in order to support net metering. Accounting issues aside, I agreed to the proposed change and moved forward with yet another site visit that would lead to an engineering redesign.
Roadblock #2
Having (verbally) moved past this, National Grid then reported that the transformer for my area was only capable of handling 23kW of generated power and could not support SolarCity’s proposed 56kW system. This was by the most serious setback since it would require a design that would cut my generation down to 23kW or less. This meant dropping the farm completely and scaling the house from 35kW to 23kW.
A 23kW design called for the front of my house to have solar panels while only a portion of the rear of the house would be retrofitted with panels. This would have looked really odd so we decided to scale back the design to a 18kW system and only include panels on the front of the house.
National Grid informed me that the transformers support between 8 – 12 houses in my area so any neighbors that undergo a solar project will be limited to the remaining 5kW that the transformer can support.
Next Steps
Going from a 56kW to 18kW (a 68% drop in planned production) system will reduce my energy coverage to 32% of my power needs through solar. This is unfortunately the case due to National Grid’s limitation despite my property having enough roof surface to generate 100% of my energy needs.
I will save approximately $56,000 over the next 20 years with this smaller set up, a far departure from the original projected savings of $105,000 but still worth pursuing.
A friendly note from SolarCity arrived on September 1st letting me know that my installation was scheduled for December 8th and 9th because of the magnitude of the project. Considering this 18kW system is a third of what would have been, I couldn’t help but wonder how SolarCity would have handled the original plans. I can’t imagine starting this project in the dead of a New England winter. SolarCity indicated that the project would require 4-6 weeks before the “go live” date which meant I wouldn’t be completing until January 2015. That puts the project at about 10 months from start (initial consultation) to finish and assuming all goes well from here on out.
Summary
SolarCity has made a number of mistakes on this project since the beginning; from improperly sizing the system to not knowing the requirements and restrictions of the local power company; to not following owner requests on layout; to not understanding power generation limits imposed by the power company.
My experience with SolarCity has led me to conclude that they’re not ready for widespread adoption outside of key markets and have a lot of work and learning to do before they will be ready for that next stage of growth.
I truly hope the project moves forward. My next updates will be on the post installation experience which will hopefully take place sometime between now and the end of this year. Stay tuned.
SolarCity Struggles Series – Read from the beginning
Image Source: Sun Powered EVs
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
