News
SolarCity Struggles: What Tesla? (Part 1)

SolarCity reference from TeslaMotors.com
Shortly after ordering my Tesla Model S I contacted SolarCity, as referred through TeslaMotors.com, with the premise that I would be getting solar panels installed on my property. I wrote about the positive sales process that I experienced and wanted to round out the rest of the story through a multi-part series.
Background
I live on a horse farm in Massachusetts. We have one address, but two electric meters for accounting purposes. So, when I signed up for SolarCity I actually signed up twice – once for each meter.
We receive two plans with separate systems sized for the needs of each meter. The initial house plan was for a system to generate 24,000 kWh/year while the system for the farm would generate 21,000 kWh/year.
That’s where we left off with the sales process before moving onto the design process. That’s when things started to go sideways.
“What Tesla?”
Despite the fact that I signed up through the Tesla Motors site and mentioned several times I was getting a Tesla Model S, the additional energy usage was not considered in any of the planning. I was naïve at the time and hadn’t thought about how much the Tesla would actually affect my energy usage, and if you thought the SolarCity folks would be well-versed in this, they weren’t.
SolarCity knew little about what the Tesla Model S would consume in power.
When you initially sign up with SolarCity they collect all sorts of data from you. They collect a years worth of prior electricity bills; they perform a thorough site survey; they take 360 degree pictures from your roof, and they do a home energy assessment. In my case this was done twice since I had two meters across the properties. The design process sounds impressive but it was flawed.
The home energy assessment is generic and not very tailored to your exact situation. They provide generic advice about getting more efficient appliances and energy efficient bulbs and electronic devices, which to me was pure common sense. SolarCity’s break-even analysis was based off of those generic recommendations which, to me, made no sense. They also missed the fact I was getting a Tesla in all of the planning. My electricity usage was already high to begin with, and now with a Tesla Model S that would be seeing at least 30k miles a year, the Tesla would be a significant factor in my future energy use. It turned out that I needed about 30% more solar capacity to cover the Tesla.
After pointing this out to them and going through another round of engineering design rework, we ended up with a plan for a 37,000 kWh/year system for the house.
Commitment
Before I dive into the struggles that were encountered throughout the process, it’s important to note that my proposed system costs upwards of $170,000 distributed over 20 years, but with no upfront costs. One of the sales folks said the proposed combined system would be the largest residential system in New England.
All of this should have tipped me off to the troubles that would follow. But I figured with Elon Musk backing SolarCity and the company’s perception as the fastest growing full-service solar company, I was in good hands since they knew what they were doing. I was wrong.
More on SolarCity’s execution challenges in the part 2 of this series.
News
Tesla is making two big upgrades to the Model 3, coding shows
According to coding found in the European and Chinese configurators, Tesla is planning to make two big upgrades: Black Headliner offerings and a new 16-inch QHD display, similar to that on the Model Y Performance.
Tesla is making two big upgrades to the Model 3, one of which is widely requested by owners and fans, and another that it has already started to make on some trim levels of other models within the lineup.
The changes appear to be taking effect in the European and Chinese markets, but these are expected to come to the United States based on what Tesla has done with the Model Y.
According to coding found in the European and Chinese configurators, Tesla is planning to make two big upgrades: Black Headliner offerings and a new 16-inch QHD display, similar to that on the Model Y Performance.
These changes in the coding were spotted by X user BERKANT, who shared the findings on the social media platform this morning:
🚨 Model 3 changes spotted in Tesla backend
• New interior code: IN3PB (Interior 3 Premium Black)
• Linked to Alcantara-style black headliner
• Mapped to 2026 Model 3 Performance and Premium VINs• EPC now shows: “Display_16_QHD”
• Multiple 2026 builds marked with… pic.twitter.com/OkDM5EdbTu— BERKANT (@Tesla_NL_TR) February 23, 2026
It appears these new upgrades will roll out with the Model 3 Performance and Tesla’s Premium trim levels of the all-electric sedan.
The changes are welcome. Tesla fans have been requesting that its Model 3 and Model Y offerings receive a black headliner, as even with the black interior options, the headliner is grey.
Tesla recently upgraded Model Y vehicles to this black headliner option, even in the United States, so it seems as if the Model 3 will get the same treatment as it appears to be getting in the Eastern hemisphere.
Tesla has been basically accentuating the Model 3 and Model Y with small upgrades that owners have been wanting, and it has been a focal point of the company’s future plans as it phases out other vehicles like the Model S and Model X.
Additionally, Tesla offered an excellent 0.99% APR last week on the Model 3, hoping to push more units out the door to support a strong Q1 delivery figure at the beginning of April.
Elon Musk
SpaceX secures FAA approval for 44 annual Starship launches in Florida
The FAA’s environmental review covers up to 44 launches annually, along with 44 Super Heavy booster landings and 44 upper-stage landings.
SpaceX has received environmental approval from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to conduct up to 44 Starship-Super Heavy launches per year from Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39A in Florida.
The decision allows the company to proceed with plans tied to its next-generation launch system and future satellite deployments.
The FAA’s environmental review covers up to 44 launches annually, along with 44 Super Heavy booster landings and 44 upper-stage landings. The approval concludes the agency’s public comment period and outlines required mitigation measures related to noise, emissions, wildlife, and airspace management.
Construction of Starship infrastructure at Launch Complex 39A is nearing completion. The site, previously used for Apollo and space shuttle missions, is transitioning to support Starship operations, as noted in a Florida Today report.
If fully deployed across Kennedy Space Center and nearby Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Starship activity on the Space Coast could exceed 120 launches annually, excluding tests. Separately, the U.S. Air Force has authorized repurposing Space Launch Complex 37 for potential additional Starship activity, pending further FAA airspace analysis.
The approval supports SpaceX’s long-term strategy, which includes deploying a large constellation of satellites intended to power space-based artificial intelligence data infrastructure. The company has previously indicated that expanded Starship capacity will be central to that effort.
The FAA review identified likely impacts from increased noise, nitrogen oxide emissions, and temporary airspace closures. Commercial flights may experience periodic delays during launch windows. The agency, however, determined these effects would be intermittent and manageable through scheduling, public notification, and worker safety protocols.
Wildlife protections are required under the approval, Florida Today noted. These include lighting controls to protect sea turtles, seasonal monitoring of scrub jays and beach mice, and restrictions on offshore landings to avoid coral reefs and right whale critical habitat. Recovery vessels must also carry trained observers to prevent collisions with protected marine species.
Elon Musk
Texas township wants The Boring Company to build it a Loop system
The township’s board unanimously approved an application to The Boring Company’s “Tunnel Vision Challenge.”
The Woodlands Township, Texas, has formally entered The Boring Company’s tunneling sweepstakes.
The township’s board unanimously approved an application to The Boring Company’s “Tunnel Vision Challenge,” which offers up to one mile of tunnel construction at no cost to a selected community.
The Woodlands’ proposal, dubbed “The Current,” features two parallel 12-foot-diameter tunnels beneath the Town Center corridor near The Waterway. Teslas would shuttle passengers between Waterway Square, Cynthia Woods Mitchell Pavilion, Town Green Park and nearby hotels during concerts and large-scale events, as noted in a Chron report.
Township officials framed the tunnel as a solution for the township’s traffic congestion issues. The Pavilion alone hosts more than 60 shows each year and can accommodate crowds of up to 16,500, often straining Lake Robbins Drive and surrounding intersections.
“We know we have traffic impacts and pedestrian movement challenges, especially in the Town Center area,” Chris Nunes, chief operating officer of The Woodlands Township, stated during the meeting.
“The Current” mirrors the Loop system operating beneath the Las Vegas Convention Center, where Tesla vehicles transport passengers through underground tunnels between venues and resorts.
The Boring Company issued its request for proposals (RFP) in mid-January, inviting cities and districts to pitch local uses for its tunneling technology. The Woodlands must submit its application by Feb. 23, though no timeline has been provided for when a winning community will be announced.
Nunes confirmed that the board has authorized a submission for “The Current’s” proposal, though he emphasized that the project is still in its preliminary stages.
“The Woodlands Township Board of Directors has authorized staff to submit an application to The Boring Company, which has issued an RFP for communities interested in leveraging their technology to address community challenges,” he said in a statement.
“The Board believes that an underground tunnel would provide a safe and efficient means to transport people to and from various high-use community amenities in our Town Center.”
