News
Tesla Powerwall smarter integration with vehicle charging hinted at in API code
Recent observations from Tesla’s Powerwall API hint that the company’s electric cars will soon have a feature that will allow them to communicate better with the home battery system. With such a system in place, Tesla’s electric cars will not drain the Powerwall when the grid goes down.
The upcoming Powerwall and Tesla integration feature was first spotted by Model X owner and Reddit user u/cwiedmann.
“Looking through the data returned from the API, I see there’s now evidence of upcoming features for integrating Powerwalls and car charging as Elon mentioned. This appears to be support for preventing car charging from draining the batteries when the grid is down and maybe to allow the car to absorb surplus solar energy,” u/cwiedmann wrote on the r/TeslaMotors subreddit.
When the grid goes down, Tesla Powerwalls can meet the energy demands of a home, including charging an electric car like the Model 3, Model X, or Model S. That being said, there’s a big room for improvement especially when it comes to how a Tesla vehicle communicates with the home battery system. Tesla’s electric cars have massive battery packs after all, and they can drain an off-grid Powerwall if left unattended.
This appears to have happened in May 2019 to Tesla owner Erik Strait, who also runs the YouTube channel DӔrik. Strait brought up the Powerwall issue they encountered in Colorado and suggested features that may come handy to consumers, such as a setting that allows the home battery system to prevent cars charging when they are off the grid. Tesla CEO Elon Musk responded with a brief “Coming soon.”
Coming soon
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 22, 2019
Elon Musk posted his response to the Tesla owner-enthusiast last May, and there have been few updates on the feature since. Nevertheless, references to the feature in the Powerwall’s API today suggests that the home battery-electric vehicle integration may be coming sooner than expected. How the functionality will be rolled out remains to be seen too, but there’s a good chance that Tesla may introduce the feature through an over-the-air update, similar to how the company activates “Storm Watch” for Powerwall-equipped homes located in areas that are facing natural disasters.
Ultimately, the upcoming Powerwall feature shows that Tesla is making a lot of headway in integrating key features of its energy products and its electric cars. This ecosystem could ultimately encourage buyers of Tesla’s electric cars to adopt the company’s energy and battery storage products too, similar to how Apple has encouraged customers to purchase devices within its product line due to their feature integration.
Very early on, we had the ability to use the car as a battery outputting power. Maybe worth revisiting that.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 4, 2018
These recent observations on the Powerwall API also invoke some thoughts on a feature that was mentioned by Elon Musk back in 2018. In a tweet then, Musk noted that it may be worth revisiting the idea of using its cars as batteries that output power, similar to a V2G (vehicle-to-grid) system. Tesla does seem to be exploring this idea recently, as hinted at by the Cybertruck’s capability to use its massive battery pack to power tools from its onboard outlets.
Teslarati will update you once the Powerwall-Tesla electric vehicle integration feature goes live. For now, this is a welcome development so the habit of “always be charging” does not lead one to a home without power. But of course, there’s always Camp Mode just in case.
Upcoming Powerwall/Vehicle Integration API Leaks from r/teslamotors
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
