News
Tesla Energy takes a stand against coal and gas generators in Australia
Tesla Energy firmly argued against using coal and gas generators to support a proposed low-cost, reliable, secure, and zero-emissions grid in Australia.
In March 2019, Australia’s energy ministers tasked the Energy Security Board (ESB) to advise on a national electricity market design, which birthed the Post 2025 Electricity Market Design. The project was aimed at providing a more robust and lower emissions power system for Australians.
In April 2021, the ESB released an options paper and invited companies and innovators to comment on their detailed design thus far. Tesla answered the Board’s invitation.
In a letter to Dr. Kerry Schott—the Chair of the ESB—Tesla Energy’s Head of Energy Policy and Regulation, Emma Fagan, summarized all of Tesla’s recommendations and feedback on the P2025 Market Design Options Paper.
Two main points were driven in the letter. First, Tesla is firmly against the idea of extending the life span of existing coal and gas generators.
In the letter, Fagan stated that “Tesla does not support the introduction of PRRO or any other mechanism to artificially extend the life of the existing thermal fleet of generation.”
Tesla attached a White Paper to the letter, highlighting the significant benefits of deploying a battery storage system at a scale that would complement Australia’s growing wind and solar energy intake.
In the White Paper, Tesla Energy argued that battery storage is capable of replacing essential system services provided by thermal plants. As an example, Tesla recalls the time Tesla Powerpacks from the Hornsdale Power Reserve helped stabilize the grid after Callide’s coal power plant exploded in New South Wales.
Second, Tesla strongly recommended building a market that would incentivize the use of new technology or infrastructure to handle the energy coming from a sustainable grid.
“Tesla’s mission is to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy. In Australia, forward looking market design will be critical to achieving this outcome,” Fagan wrote to Dr. Schott.
In the letter, Tesla Energy proposed a tailored ‘flexibility market,’ arguing that it would address the risk of “disorderly coal plant exits by ensuring new capacity is incentivized to enter the market before old plants are retired.”
Fagan included a list of design principles to consider for a flexibility market, which are listed below.
- Eligible assets provide a combination of ‘flexible services,’ such as fast response and fast ramp dispatch.
- Incentive payments linked to service provision (covering essential system services), as opposed to simply paying based on registered ‘peak MW’ capacity.
- Provisions for locational and temporal specific needs (e.g., load-side response for low operational demand risks)
- Co-optimization with existing NEM dispatch of energy and frequency control ancillary services
- Technology neutral without being prescriptive on technology type or commercial model
- Low/zero emission requirements to align with existing state targets and goals.
Tesla hopes that Australia takes the opportunity to introduce structural reform to its power grid through this project.
“As the ESB progresses towards its final recommendations, it should use this rare window of opportunity for structural reform to be visionary and design a future-focused market that facilitates investment in new technologies,” Fagan stated in the letter.
Read Tesla’s White Paper on the benefits of battery storage systems below.
Tesla Energy: Battery Storage as a Key Enabler for 100% Renewables by Maria Merano on Scribd
The Teslarati team would appreciate hearing from you. If you have any tips, email us at tips@teslarati.com or reach out to me at maria@teslarati.com.
Tesla’s Supercharger Diner in Los Angeles dominated the company’s global usage rankings after just one year, proving the concept is more than just a one-off novelty location that will fade away.
The performance could incite the company to build more locations, something that CEO Elon Musk has hinted at for some time.
Tesla’s Supercharger Diner delivered 21.2 GWh of energy in its first year of operation, the company’s head of Charging, Max de Zegher, revealed on X. Of the top 10 most utilized Supercharger locations in Tesla’s global infrastructure, the Diner in Los Angeles was the most used by drivers, and it wasn’t particularly close:
Tesla Diner opened exactly 1 year ago. Inspiring that futuristic places like this exist.
It’s our highest usage Supercharger in the world: 21.2 GWh delivered in a year, 1.6k sessions/day.
Top 10 Superchargers by energy delivered: https://t.co/9YvJ8lw696 pic.twitter.com/koB3AUJHws
— Max (@MdeZegher) July 21, 2026
On its launch day one year ago, nobody was too sure what the Tesla Diner would be about. It seemed like an interesting concept, and considering it had been in the works for years, it was a highly anticipated launch that many were looking forward to.
Based on its success, we could see additional Diners with Superchargers built throughout the United States, and potentially beyond. Musk has said on several occasions that the company would be willing to bring the Diner idea to more markets.
Tesla makes major change at Supercharger Diner amid epic demand
Of the markets that Musk has mentioned, both Palo Alto and Austin have come to be perceived as ideal selections. However, there are no concrete plans as of now to build new Supercharger Diners anywhere; the location on Santa Monica Boulevard will remain the exclusive spot to pick up Tesla-inspired eats, at least for the time being.
Tesla short sellers won big following the company’s massive fall on Wall Street after it reported subpar Earnings on Wednesday.
Tesla short sellers collected about $4.12 billion in single-day profits on Thursday, according to Bloomberg. Shares fell as much as 15 percent during Thursday’s session. It closed as one of the worst days for Tesla on Wall Street in the past three years.
Investors sold off the stock after Tesla said it would aggressively direct its spending toward AI and its Optimus robot project. The company had record revenues, which were driven by one of the strongest quarters in terms of vehicle deliveries in company history.
However, it missed EPS estimates by reporting just $0.33, a far cry from the $0.53 analysts expected.
S3 Partners reported that about 3 percent of Tesla’s outstanding stock is sold short. Managing Director at S3, Ihor Dusaniwsky, provided the short seller’s potential profit, as well as another figure: shorts have likely had paper gains of $8.92 billion this year, as Tesla shares are down 30 percent in 2026.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla has burned short sellers many times in the past, but the company’s latest Earnings Call was a chance for those skeptics to taste some payback. Although the company gave some very transparent information regarding future projects, the rollout of Robotaxi, Optimus, and Semi, many investors took their profits on Thursday.
Notable short sellers like Michael Burry have been transparent about their skepticism around Tesla shares. Burry just revealed three weeks ago that he had opened up a new short on the stock, stating he shorted Tesla shares at $416.22. “Happy it jumped back to this level,” he said in a blog post.
At the time of publication, Tesla shares were down about 3 percent and the stock was trading at $309.92.
Tesla’s long-standing saga regarding its door handles and a manual release has entered its latest chapter, and as a result, a big change is coming.
On Friday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denied Tesla’s petition that was seeking a defect investigation into roughly 180,000 Model 3 vehicles for an issue involving the emergency mechanical door release.
🚨 The NHTSA denied a petition from Tesla that would have thrown out concerns regarding its door handles.
NHTSA said Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect warranting an investigation. The agency said a rulemaking process would be a better strategy. pic.twitter.com/j6PzUBM1mT
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 24, 2026
NHTSA said that Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect in the door handles or their emergency releases. Instead, the agency determined that it would rather solve the issue of the lack of labeling or location of emergency mechanical door releases and the federal safety rules that govern them.
Essentially, the NHTSA wants to create and enforce rules that would require automakers to make emergency door latch releases more clearly labeled in a car. Despite a Tesla having manual door releases on all four passenger doors, many people do not know they exist or how they work.
Tesla addresses door handle complaints with simple engineering fix
In recent times, Tesla has faced some criticism involving its door handles, specifically because some occupants have reported that they are unable to exit their vehicles after losing power. The door handles on a Tesla are electronically operated, but in the event that the 12V battery dies, there is a manual release that can be used.
The NHTSA only identified a single complaint involving the mechanical door releases: a 2022 Model 3 owner said the release was concealed and unlabeled after the vehicle lost power after a front-end collision. It has also already started to create a separate rulemaking process to make emergency door-egress systems more obvious.
It should be noted that all Teslas have mechanical emergency door releases, but they are placed in various locations as the vehicles have aged and been redesigned from year to year. Refer to the safety manual for your vehicle if you have any confusion about where the emergency releases are and how they work.
Tesla’s Supercharger Diner probably just secured more locations
Tesla short sellers win big after shares fall after earnings
