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
Tesla just trademarked ‘MEGAPOD’ with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), its latest move in what seems to be a hint that the company is incredibly focused on its AI efforts and storage needs as compute increases.
The application carries serial number 99893717 and lists the applicant as Tesla, Inc., located at 1 Tesla Road, Austin, Texas 78725.
The filing remains in ‘live pending’ status, and it is a new application waiting for assignment to an examining attorney. It has not yet been published or registered.
Tesla just trademarked MEGAPOD
Summary:
“Modular data center hardware systems for artificial intelligence computing, comprised of computer servers, computer hardware for artificial intelligence processing, computer networking hardware, electrical power distribution units, and… pic.twitter.com/3l85DsKadl— Robin (@xdNiBoR) June 19, 2026
According to the official goods and services description in the application, Tesla describes ‘MEGAPOD’ as:
“Modular data center hardware systems for artificial intelligence computing, comprised of computer servers, computer hardware for artificial intelligence processing, computer networking hardware, electrical power distribution units, and cooling systems, sold as a unit; self-contained modular computing hardware systems for artificial intelligence workloads; integrated computer hardware platforms for artificial intelligence computing, namely, enclosures containing computer hardware, power distribution hardware, and cooling hardware, sold as a unit; downloadable software for monitoring, managing, optimizing, and regulating modular artificial intelligence computing hardware systems.”
This description specifies complete, self-contained modular units that integrate servers and specialized AI processing hardware with networking components, power distribution, and cooling systems. It also includes associated downloadable software for oversight and optimization of these systems. The language emphasizes hardware sold “as a unit” and enclosures that combine the necessary elements for AI computing workloads.
Tesla has an established history of developing and commercializing modular hardware systems. Its Megapack product line, for example, consists of utility-scale battery energy storage systems designed as containerized units for grid applications. The MEGAPOD filing follows a similar pattern of protecting a name for modular, integrated hardware platforms, this time focused on artificial intelligence computing infrastructure.
This could be an early move, especially as Tesla did not have trademark rights to the word ‘Cybercab,’ the name of its self-driving, ride-hailing-focused vehicle.
Trademark applications of this type allow companies to secure priority rights to a name for defined categories of goods and services. The USPTO examines applications for compliance with legal requirements, including distinctiveness and absence of conflicts with prior marks. If the application proceeds successfully through examination, publication, and any opposition period, it could result in a federal trademark registration providing nationwide protection. This is what Tesla’s obvious intention is with ‘MEGAPOD.’
Public reports and analysis suggest MEGAPOD could represent modular, container-style AI computing pods designed for easy deployment. These would bundle servers, AI accelerators, power systems, and cooling into self-contained units suitable for distributed AI workloads. This approach aligns with Tesla’s announced AI compute strategy.
In March 2026, Elon Musk outlined plans for “Digital Optimus” (also referred to as Macrohard), a joint Tesla-xAI project for AI agents capable of handling complex digital tasks. The plans include running these agents on Tesla’s AI4 hardware in parked vehicles as well as dedicated compute units installed at Supercharger stations, which collectively offer substantial unused electrical capacity.
What is Digital Optimus? The new Tesla and xAI project explained
A modular hardware platform like the one described in the ‘MEGAPOD’ filing would support scalable, rapid deployment of such distributed compute resources. It could complement Tesla’s other AI infrastructure efforts, including the Dojo supercomputer used for training models and the development of AI systems for autonomous driving and robotics, by enabling edge or regional AI inference without reliance on traditional centralized data centers.
In a notable intersection of Big Tech powerhouses, Meta, led by Mark Zuckerberg, has partnered with Canadian energy infrastructure giant Enbridge on a significant renewable energy initiative that will rely on battery technology from Elon Musk’s Tesla.
The project, which was announced this week, marks another step in Meta’s aggressive push to power its expanding data center operations with clean energy, dispelling many of the complaints people have about them.
This new development is located near Cheyenne, Wyoming, and will feature a 365-megawatt (MW) solar farm paired with a 200 MW/1,600 megawatt-hour (MWh) battery energy storage system, also known as BESS. Tesla is providing the batteries for the project, valued at roughly $200 million.
The story was originally reported by Utility Dive.
This Wyoming project represents the first phase of Enbridge and Meta’s joint “Cowboy Project.” Once operational, it will deliver power to Meta’s regional data centers through Cheyenne Light, Fuel, and Power under Wyoming’s Large Power Contract Service tariff.
This tariff, originally developed in collaboration with Microsoft and Black Hills Energy, is designed specifically for large loads like data centers. It ensures that the renewable supply serves hyperscale customers without impacting retail electricity rates for other users.
The battery system will operate under a long-term tolling agreement, providing dispatchable capacity that enhances grid reliability. During periods of high demand, the utility can access the backup generation, addressing one of the key challenges of integrating large-scale renewables with the explosive growth of data center electricity demand driven by artificial intelligence.
This latest collaboration builds on prior joint efforts between Enbridge and Meta in Texas, including the 600 MW Clear Fork Solar, 152 MW Easter Wind, and 300 MW Cone Wind projects. Together with the Wyoming initiative, the companies have now partnered on roughly 1.6 gigawatts (GW) of combined solar, wind, and storage capacity.
The deal highlights the intensifying demand for reliable, low-carbon power from technology giants. Meta has committed to supporting its data center growth with renewable energy, joining peers like Microsoft and Google in seeking large-scale solutions. Enbridge’s Allen Capps described the project as “one of the larger utility-scale battery installations supporting U.S. data center operations and growth.”
The involvement of Tesla’s battery technology adds an intriguing layer, linking two of the world’s most prominent tech leaders—Zuckerberg and Musk—in the clean energy transition.
As data centers continue to drive unprecedented electricity load growth across the United States, projects like this one illustrate how hyperscalers are turning to strategic partnerships with traditional energy players and innovative storage solutions to meet both sustainability goals and reliability needs.
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.
SpaceX’s newest Starmind will make earth data centers obsolete
Tesla pushes back against unfair reporting of accidents
