News
Tesla Solar Roof is becoming a stealthy killer, and no one is standing in its way
Tesla executives like CEO Elon Musk may emphasize that the company’s Energy business is just as important as its electric vehicle division, there is little doubt that stationary batteries and solar products are just not as sexy or exciting as, say, all-electric supercars, futuristic pickups, or Full Self-Driving software. Yet as Tesla Energy hits its stride, it is becoming evident that some of the company’s products like the Solar Roof could very well develop into stealthy disruptors on their own.
Tesla Energy’s flagship solar product is the Solar Roof, which was initially unveiled in 2016. Since then, the attractive solar shingles have not really seen a serious ramp, at least until now. Over the following years since its debut, Tesla focused on optimizing and improving the Solar Roof, and the result of these initiatives was the V3 tiles, which were rolled out last year. Tesla’s Solar Roof installations have been steadily ramping then, but just like the company’s energy division, its growth was mostly in the background.
Prior to the third-quarter earnings call, Tesla Energy made headlines after roofing company Weddle and Sons Roofing announced that it was able to complete a full Solar Roof installation in just four days. The project was no joke either, as the system was comprised of 15 kW of Solar Roof tiles that covered about 4,000 sq.ft. (about 372 sq.m). This was a milestone for the company, but as noted by Tesla in its Q3 2020 Update Letter, this installation was not even the fastest to date.
Tesla revealed in its third-quarter Update Letter that it has been able to complete a full Solar Roof installation in just 1.5 days. The company did not indicate the size of the system, though it did provide images depicting the installation’s progress. This update, together with the recent report from Weddle and Sons Roofing, shows that steadily, Tesla’s Solar Roof tiles are becoming faster and easier to install.
Tesla Energy’s growth in the third quarter was incredibly impressive, with the company deploying 57 MW of solar, a 111% growth from the second quarter. The company also announced that 759 MWh worth of battery storage was deployed, an 81% increase from Q2 2020. These milestones tend to be pushed aside by the company’s FSD and EV developments, but if Tesla Energy continues at this pace, it would only be a matter of time before the company’s solar and battery storage systems end up becoming a force that will be incredibly difficult to ignore.
Interestingly enough, the Tesla Solar Roof does not really have a lot of competition in the residential solar market in the United States. Granted, products like the SunTegra Solar Shingles could provide some competition, but the overall lineup of rivals for the electric car maker’s V3 tiles are relatively few. With this in mind, the potential path to dominance for the Tesla Solar Roof seems to be mostly clear. Tesla just has to produce them at volumes that meet demand.
Tesla’s reach into the residential market has actually been growing. EnergySage’s eleventh semiannual Solar Marketplace Intel Report, for one, concluded that the Tesla Powerwall 2 is pretty much dominating the US residential market for stationary storage. The competition, comprised of battery storage units from companies like LG Chem, lie far behind, with the Powerwall dominating about half of the quotes given in EnergySage’s Marketplace.
Elon Musk spoke about the Solar Roof’s potential in Tesla’s recently-held earnings call. Just like before, Musk was optimistic about the shingles, though this time around, the CEO seemed to be more certain about its upcoming disruption. Musk even remarked that the Solar Roof’s status as a “killer product” will become evident next year.
“When you look around the neighborhood in the future, decade from now, what do you want? What products are going to make your life better? What future do you want? And I think a future where we’ve got beautiful roofs generating energy that are tough and resilient and better in every way than a regular roof and alive with energy, that’s the future we want. Solar Roof is a killer product. This will become obvious next year,” he said.
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
