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
Reference from TeslaMotors.com – ‘charging’ page
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.
Elon Musk
Tesla confirmed HW3 can’t do Unsupervised FSD but there’s more to the story
Tesla confirmed HW3 vehicles cannot run unsupervised FSD, replacing its free upgrade promise with a discounted trade-in.
Tesla has officially confirmed that early vehicles with its Autopilot Hardware 3 (HW3) will not be capable of unsupervised Full Self-Driving, while extending a path forward for legacy owners through a discounted trade-in program. The announcement came by way of Elon Musk in today’s Tesla Q1 2026 earnings call.
🚨 Our LIVE updates on the Tesla Earnings Call will take place here in a thread 🧵
Follow along below: pic.twitter.com/hzJeBitzJU
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 22, 2026
The history here matters. HW3 launched in April 2019, and Tesla sold Full Self-Driving packages to owners on the understanding that the hardware was sufficient for full autonomy. Some owners paid between $8,000 and $15,000 for FSD during that period. For years, as FSD’s AI models grew more demanding, HW3 vehicles fell progressively further behind, eventually landing on FSD v12.6 in January 2025 while AI4 vehicles moved to v13 and then v14. When Musk acknowledged in January 2025 that HW3 simply could not reach unsupervised operation, and alluded to a difficult hardware retrofit.
The near-term offering is more concrete. Tesla’s head of Autopilot Ashok Elluswamy confirmed on today’s call that a V14-lite will be coming to HW3 vehicles in late June, bringing all the V14 features currently running on AI4 hardware. That is a meaningful software update for owners who have been frozen at v12.6 for over a year, and it represents genuine effort to keep older hardware relevant. Unsupervised FSD for vehicles is now targeted for Q4 2026 at the earliest, with Musk describing it as a gradual, geography-limited rollout.
For HW3 owners, the over-the-air V14-lite update is welcomed, and the discounted trade-in path at least acknowledges an old obligation. What happens next with the trade-in pricing will define how this chapter ultimately gets written. If Tesla prices the hardware path fairly, acknowledges what early adopters are owed, and delivers V14-lite on the June timeline it committed to today, it has a real opportunity to convert one of the longest-running sore subjects among early adopters into a loyalty story.
Elon Musk
Tesla isn’t joking about building Optimus at an industrial scale: Here we go
Tesla’s Optimus factory in Texas targets 10 million robots yearly, with 5.2 million square feet under construction.
Tesla’s Q1 2026 Update Letter, released today, confirms that first generation Optimus production lines are now well underway at its Fremont, California factory, with a pilot line targeting one million robots per year to start. Of bigger note is a shared aerial image of a large piece of land adjacent to Gigafactory Texas, that Tesla has prominently labeled “Optimus factory site preparation.”
Permit documents show Tesla is seeking to add over 5.2 million square feet of new building space to the Giga Texas North Campus by the end of 2026, at an estimated construction investment of $5 billion to $10 billion. The longer term production target for that facility is 10 million Optimus units per year. Giga Texas already sits on 2,500 acres with over 10 million square feet of existing factory floor, and the North Campus expansion is being built to support multiple projects, including the dedicated Optimus factory, the Terafab chip fabrication facility (a joint Tesla/SpaceX/xAI venture), a Cybercab test track, road infrastructure, and supporting facilities.
Credit: TESLA
Texas makes strategic sense beyond the existing infrastructure. The state’s tax structure, lower labor costs relative to California, and the proximity to Tesla’s AI training cluster Cortex 1 and 2, both located at Giga Texas and now totaling over 230,000 H100 equivalent GPUs, means the Optimus software stack and the factory producing the hardware will share the same campus. Tesla’s Q1 report also confirmed completion of the AI5 chip tape out in April, the inference processor designed specifically to power Optimus units in the field.
As Teslarati reported, the Texas facility is intended to house Optimus V4 production at full scale. Musk told the World Economic Forum in January that Tesla plans to sell Optimus to the public by end of 2027 at a price between $20,000 and $30,000, stating, “I think everyone on earth is going to have one and want one.” He has previously pegged long term demand for general purpose humanoid robots at over 20 billion units globally, citing both consumer and industrial use cases.
Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) reported its earnings for the first quarter of 2026 on Wednesday afternoon. Here’s what the company reported compared to what Wall Street analysts expected.
The earnings results come after Tesla reported a miss on vehicle deliveries for the first quarter, delivering 358,023 vehicles and building 408,386 cars during the three-month span.
As Tesla transitions more toward AI and sees itself as less of a car company, expectations for deliveries will begin to become less of a central point in the consensus of how the quarter is perceived.
Nevertheless, Tesla is leaning on its strong foundation as a car company to carry forward its AI ambitions. The first quarter is a good ground layer for the rest of the year.
Tesla Q1 2026 Earnings Results
Tesla’s Earnings Results are as follows:
- Non-GAAP EPS – $0.41 Reported vs. $0.36 Expected
- Revenues – $22.387 billion vs. $22.35 billion Expected
- Free Cash Flow – $1.444 billion
- Profit – $4.72 billion
Tesla beat analyst expectations, so it will be interesting to see how the stock responds. IN the past, we’ve seen Tesla beat analyst expectations considerably, followed by a sharp drop in stock price.
On the same token, we’ve seen Tesla miss and the stock price go up the following trading session.
Tesla will hold its Q1 2026 Earnings Call in about 90 minutes at 5:30 p.m. on the East Coast. Remarks will be made by CEO Elon Musk and other executives, who will shed some light on the investor questions that we covered earlier this week.
You can stream it below. Additionally, we will be doing our Live Blog on X and Facebook.
Q1 2026 Earnings Call at 4:30pm CT https://t.co/pkYIaGJ32y
— Tesla (@Tesla) April 22, 2026
Tesla confirmed HW3 can’t do Unsupervised FSD but there’s more to the story
Tesla isn’t joking about building Optimus at an industrial scale: Here we go
