Energy
Tesla and Walmart address lawsuit in joint statement
After a wake of headlines quick to paint Tesla Energy as an irresponsible solar power company proliferated, it appears there’s more to the story of Walmart’s lawsuit against the all-electric car maker, particularly with regard to Tesla’s attempts to resolve the issues involved. A joint statement released this morning indicates the two parties will be working together to resolve their legal disputes amicably; however, after further review of the parties’ case history and Walmart’s conduct throughout, their statement seems to merely reiterate a problem that has been unresolved since the start of the two companies’ problems with one another.
Walmart and Tesla Joint Statement
“Walmart and Tesla look forward to addressing all issues and re-energizing Tesla solar installations at Walmart stores, once all parties are certain that all concerns have been addressed.”
Tesla’s solar installations currently occupy 248 Walmart locations across the United States, and seven have been the subject of roof fires: One each in 2012, 2016, and 2017; three between March and May of 2018; and one in November 2018. Walmart’s lawsuit involving these instances claims serious negligence and makes damning assertions against Tesla, as to be expected by the plaintiff any lawsuit. Their claims against Tesla include, among many things, that millions of damages have resulted from the fires, that their private inspections of the solar systems reveal widespread negligence and shoddy installations, and that Tesla has refused to provide them with a final ‘root cause’ of the fires.
Seven fires are certainly a cause for concern, and Walmart is justified in some of its remediation requests from Tesla as a result: All of the systems were de-energized while inspections were ongoing, for one, and Tesla agreed to pay for the damages resulting from the fires. From Tesla’s own inspections, there were definitely issues with whichever employees – Tesla’s directly or contractors – were in charge of the installations and maintenance which, unfortunately, did not receive the attention they needed until after major events occurred.
A joint statement from Tesla & Walmart. Looking forward to see some positive outcome. $TSLA #Tesla #Walmart https://t.co/Bq1HIVTlb4 pic.twitter.com/R360RnsORw
— vincent (@vincent13031925) August 23, 2019
However, what’s been left out of the discussion about Walmart’s lawsuit is the role Tesla played throughout the two companies’ ongoing efforts to resolve the issues and Walmart’s lack of willingness to cooperate even after agreeing to certain remediations. Exhibit 249 of the suit, containing a letter from Tesla’s legal counselors to their Walmart counterparts written on July 29, 2019, indicate that even after both Tesla’s and Walmart’s independent inspections of several sites determined their safety and suitability for re-energizing, Walmart still would not agree to return them to service. Instead, Walmart demanded that all of their solar agreements be amended to make Tesla liable for issues that could, for example, be the fault of Walmart’s own negligence or misconduct. If Tesla did not agree to the ‘take it or leave it’ agreement, Walmart would prevent Tesla from re-energizing any of the systems in their previously signed contracts.
Further written in Tesla’s letter was the detailed recount of how ongoing negotiations were continuously stalled by Walmart, how further inspections continued alongside Walmart’s independent inspectors, and how dozens of sites were approved for re-energizing, all without Walmart budging on its position that Tesla accept its terms ‘or else.’ At one point, Tesla wasn’t able to review Walmart’s inspector’s reviews because the company had stopped paying their salary and thus both the inspector and Walmart were ‘unable to release them’ to Tesla. As a final note, although not the final conclusion made in Tesla’s letter, was that at no point did Walmart ask Tesla for a ‘root cause’ of the original fires which prompted the entire issue to begin with. Further, Walmart’s inspectors had provided their final conclusions, though they were not shared with Tesla.
Here are two quotes from the letter expressing Tesla’s frustration with the process:
“My client has had enough. Walmart cannot negotiate (and renegotiate) a protocol for inspection; then try to impose new, extra-contractual conditions on the exercise of Tesla’s contractual rights; then invite negotiation over those improper, unreasonable conditions; and then refuse to negotiate. Walmart has unfortunately wasted time and diverted resources while undermining the goodwill that Tesla had sought to preserve throughout this process.” (p. 8)
“We also disagree with Walmart’s contention that its consultants have ‘confirm[ed] Tesla’s systemic, widespread breaches and negligence.’ The parties’ Agreements anticipate that the systems will require periodic maintenance and repair in a manner that is entirely customary within the solar power industry. The fact that some sites in fact need maintenance and repair – especially sites that have been idle for a year now – is neither surprising nor a breach of any Agreement. The fact that thorough, comprehensive inspections have identified areas for improvement and opportunities for error correction is equally unsurprising. Tesla welcomes the chance to improve its processes, tools, and monitoring, but that too is not evidence of any breach.” (pp. 11-12)
From reviewing both the lawsuit and Tesla’s letter addressing it, it seems that at the core of Walmart’s litigation is the desire to a) break its financial ties with Tesla, which included paying Tesla for the power its solar systems generated; b) recover the damages the fires caused to Walmart’s stores, which Tesla already agreed to; and c) force Tesla to remove all of its solar installations rather than allow for previously agreed to repairs and stringent inspections involving private consultants of Walmart’s choosing.
There are certainly instances where Tesla needed to take action in these cases, and it appears they have and are continually willing to do so under very stringent and expensive conditions. It is hard, though, to see where Walmart’s reaction isn’t overblown considering the risks of anything involving electrical installations or in industry in general. Tesla’s letter cited ten instances of Walmart fires that were completely unrelated to their solar installations to make this point.
Whatever Walmart’s intentions, there is a message forming for any future would-be solar power companies wanting to do business with the enterprise in the future: Beware. If the opportunity to renege on an agreement comes up, no matter how willing the other party is to cooperate, Walmart money and power will decide the new terms no matter what.
Read Tesla’s notice of breach of contract to Walmart below.
Walmart Inc v Tesla Energy … by Simon Alvarez on Scribd
Elon Musk
Why SpaceX just made a $60 billion bet on AI coding ahead of historic IPO
SpaceX has secured an option to acquire Cursor AI for $60 billion ahead of its historic IPO.
SpaceX announced today it has struck a deal with AI coding startup Cursor, securing the option to acquire the company outright for $60 billion later this year, while committing $10 billion for joint development work in the interim. The announcement described the partnership as building “the world’s best coding and knowledge work AI,” and comes just days after Cursor was separately reported to be raising $2 billion at a valuation above $50 billion.
The move makes strategic sense given where each company currently stands. Cursor currently pays retail prices to Anthropic and OpenAI to the same companies competing directly against it with Claude Code and Codex. That means every dollar of revenue Cursor earns partially funds its own competition. With SpaceX bringing computational infrastructure to the Cursor platform, that could reduce Cursor’s dependence on OpenAI and Anthropic’s Claude AI as its providers. Access to SpaceX’s Colossus supercomputer, with compute equivalent to one million Nvidia H100 chips, gives Cursor the infrastructure to run and train its own models at a scale it could never afford independently. That one change restructures the entire unit economics of the business.
Elon Musk teases crazy outlook for xAI against its competitors
Cursor’s $2 billion in annualized revenue and enterprise reach across more than half of Fortune 500 companies gives SpaceX something its xAI subsidiary currently lacks, which is a proven, fast-growing software business with real enterprise distribution.
For Cursor, SpaceX’s $10 billion in joint development funding is transformational. Cursor raised $3.3 billion across all of 2025 to reach that $2 billion in revenue. A single $10 billion commitment from SpaceX, even as a development payment rather than an acquisition, dwarfs everything Cursor has raised in its entire existence. That capital accelerates product development, enterprise sales infrastructure, and proprietary model training simultaneously.
The timing is deliberate. SpaceX filed confidentially with the SEC on April 1, 2026, targeting a June listing at a $1.75 trillion valuation, in what would be the largest public offering in history. The company is expected to begin its roadshow the week of June 8, with Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and Morgan Stanley serving as underwriters. Adding Cursor to the portfolio before that roadshow gives IPO investors a concrete enterprise software revenue story to price in, alongside rockets and satellite internet.
The deal also addresses a weakness that became visible after February’s xAI merger. Several xAI co-founders departed following that acquisition, and SpaceX had already hired two Cursor engineers, signaling where its AI talent strategy was heading. Cursor, for its part, faces a pricing disadvantage competing against Anthropic’s Claude Code.
Whether SpaceX exercises the full acquisition option before its IPO or after remains the open question. Either way, this deal reshapes what investors will be buying into when SpaceX goes public.
Elon Musk
Tesla Supercharger for Business exposes jaw-dropping ROI gap between best and worst locations
Tesla’s new Supercharger for Business calculator reveals an eye-opening all-in cost and location-based ROI projections.
Tesla has launched an online calculator for its Supercharger for Business program, giving property owners their first transparent look at what it really costs to install Superchargers on site and what kind of return they can expect.
The program itself launched in September 2025, allowing businesses to purchase and operate Supercharger hardware on their own property while Tesla handles installation, maintenance, software, and 24/7 driver support. As Teslarati reported at launch, hosts also get their logo placed on the chargers and their location integrated into Tesla’s in-car navigation, meaning drivers are actively routed there. The stalls are open to all EVs, not just Teslas.
We launched Supercharger for Business in 2025 to help companies get charging right. We found simplicity and transparency to be a problem in this industry.
We’re now sharing pricing and a financial calculator to help make informed decisions. The goal is to accelerate investments,…
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) April 8, 2026
The new online calculator, announced by Tesla on Wednesday with the note that “simplicity and transparency” have been a problem in the industry, lets any business enter a U.S. address and get a real cost and revenue model. A standard 8-stall V4 Supercharger site runs approximately $500,000 in hardware and $55,000 per post for installation, bringing an all-in price just shy of $1 million. Tesla charges a flat $0.10 per kWh fee to cover software, billing, and network operations. Businesses set their own retail price and keep the margin above that fee.
Taking a look at Tesla’s Supercharger for Business online calculator, we can see that ROI is not uniform, and the gap between a strong location and a poor one can stretch the breakeven point by several years.
The biggest driver is foot traffic and how long people stay. A busy rest station, hotel, or outlet mall brings in repeat visitors who need to charge while they’re already stopped, pushing utilization numbers higher and shortening payback time.
Tesla Supercharger for Business ROI calculator
Local electricity rates matter just as much on the cost side. Markets like California carry some of the highest commercial electricity rates in the country, which eats into the margin between what a host pays per kWh and what they charge drivers. At the same time, dense urban areas with high EV adoption tend to support higher retail charging prices, which can offset that cost if demand is strong enough. Weather also plays a role. Cold climates reduce battery efficiency and increase charging frequency, but they can also suppress utilization in winter months if drivers avoid stopping in exposed outdoor locations. Suburban and rural sites face a different problem: lower baseline EV traffic, which means a site with cheaper power and lower operating costs can still take longer to pay back simply because the stalls sit idle more often. Tesla’s calculator uses real fleet data to pre-fill utilization estimates by ZIP code, so businesses can run their specific address against these variables rather than relying on averages.
The program has seen real adoption. Wawa, already the largest host of Tesla Superchargers with over 2,100 stalls across 223 locations, opened its first fully owned and branded site in Alachua, Florida earlier this year. Francis Energy of Oklahoma and the city of Alpharetta, Georgia have also deployed branded stations through the program, as Teslarati covered in January.
Tesla now exceeds 80,000 Supercharger stalls worldwide, and the calculator makes the economic case for accelerating that number through private investment rather than company-owned sites alone.
Energy
Tesla’s newest “Folding V4 Superchargers” are key to its most aggressive expansion yet
Tesla’s folding V4 Supercharger ships 33% more per truck, cuts deployment time and cost significantly.
Tesla is rolling out a folding V4 Supercharger design, an engineering change that allows 33% more units to fit on a single delivery truck, cuts deployment time in half, and reduces overall installation cost by roughly 20%.
The folding mechanism addresses one of the least glamorous but most consequential bottlenecks in charging infrastructure: getting hardware from factory floor to job site efficiently. By collapsing the form factor for transit and unfolding into an operational configuration on arrival, the new design dramatically reduces the logistics overhead that has historically slowed Supercharger rollouts, particularly at large or remote sites where multiple units are needed simultaneously.
The timing aligns with a broader acceleration in Tesla’s network strategy. In March 2026, Tesla’s Gigafactory New York produced its final V3 Supercharger cabinet after more than seven years and 15,000 units, pivoting entirely to V4 cabinet production. The V4 cabinet itself is already a generational leap, delivering up to 500 kW per stall for passenger vehicles and up to 1.2 MW for the Tesla Semi, while supporting twice the stalls per cabinet at three times the power density of its predecessor. The folding transport innovation layers logistical efficiency on top of that technical foundation.
Tesla launches first ‘true’ East Coast V4 Supercharger: here’s what that means
Tesla Charging’s Director Max de Zegher, commenting on the V4 cabinet when it launched, captured the operational philosophy behind these changes: “Posts can peak up to 500kW for cars, but we need less than 1MW across 8 posts to deliver maximum power to cars 99% of the time.” The design philosophy has always been about maximizing real-world throughput, not just peak specs, and the folding transport upgrade extends that thinking into the supply chain itself.
Posts can peak up to 500kW for cars, but we need less than 1MW across 8 posts to deliver maximum power to cars 99% of the time.
No more DC busbar between cabinets. Power comes from a single V4 cabinet to 8 stalls. Easier to install, cheaper, more reliable.
Introducing Folding Unit Superchargers
– V4 cabinet with 500kW charging
– 8 posts per unit
– 2 units per truck
– 2 configurations: folded, unfoldedFaster. Cheaper. Better. pic.twitter.com/YyALz0U5cA
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) March 25, 2026
The network is expanding rapidly on multiple fronts. The first true 500 kW V4 Supercharger on the East Coast opened in Kissimmee, Florida in March 2026, followed closely by a new site in Nashville, Tennessee. A public Megacharger for the Tesla Semi launched in Ontario, California in early March, with 37 additional Megacharger sites targeted for completion by end of year. Meanwhile, more than 27,500 Supercharger stalls are now accessible to non-Tesla EVs from brands including Ford, GM, Rivian, Hyundai, and most recently Stellantis, whose Dodge, Jeep, Ram, Fiat, and Maserati BEV customers gained access in March 2026.
As Tesla pushes toward a denser, faster, and more open charging network, innovations like the folding V4 Supercharger reflect the company’s growing focus on deployment velocity, not just hardware performance. Getting chargers to the ground faster, cheaper, and in greater volume per shipment may ultimately matter as much as the kilowatts they deliver.
SpaceX’s triple-rocket that launched a Tesla into space is back on a mission
The FCC just said ‘No’ to SpaceX for now
