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 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.
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.
The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.
The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.
Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.
The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.
Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.
Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.
Tesla door handle saga gets its latest chapter and a big change is coming
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
