Connect with us

Energy

Tesla and Walmart address lawsuit in joint statement

(Credit: Solar Energy Industries Association)

Published

7 years ago

on

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.

 

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)

Advertisement
-

“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

Advertisement
-

Related Topics:

Accidental computer geek, fascinated by most history and the multiplanetary future on its way. Quite keen on the democratization of space. | It's pronounced day-sha, but I answer to almost any variation thereof.

Advertisement
Comments

Energy

Tesla Semi factory is getting a celebration nobody expected

Tesla will inaugurate its Nevada Semi factory September 24, five months after production quietly began ramping.

Published

3 weeks ago

on

August 24, 2026

By

Tesla says it will officially inaugurate its new Semi factory in Nevada next month. The Tesla Semi account posted the announcement on X, sharing a graphic titled “Semi Rollout” with a date of September 24. No further details were given about the format of the event or who would attend.

While Tesla’s dedicated Semi plant in Sparks, adjacent to Gigafactory Nevada, opened back in April, with the first trucks rolling off the high volume line on April 29, the timing for the factory inauguration comes at a surprise. The ribbon cutting event five months into production is a break from how Tesla has usually handled its other factories, where the first truck or car off the line typically served as the milestone moment.

The 1.7 million square foot factory was built as part of a $3.6 billion expansion Tesla announced in early 2023, and it shares a site with the battery cell lines that feed the Semi’s structural pack, a decision meant to remove the supply bottleneck that delayed the truck for years. The plant is designed for 50,000 trucks a year at full ramp. Semi program director Dan Priestley has said production “is now ramping” rather than claiming it has reached scale.

Nine years passed between the Semi’s 2017 unveiling and this stage of production, with the truck slipping from an original 2019 target through hand built pilot units for PepsiCo and a slow build out of the Nevada plant. An inauguration event now gives Tesla a stage to talk up that ramp and reset expectations for how many trucks it can begin delivering at scale.

Advertisement
-

The September date also lines up with the Semi’s next milestone. Tesla confirmed the truck is heading to Europe with a full unveiling at the IAA Transportation trade show in Hannover, Germany, running September 15 through 20. Between the Nevada event and the Hannover reveal, Tesla has roughly a week and a half in September to make the case that the Semi is now a truck being built and sold on two continents rather than tested in a handful of fleets.

Continue Reading

Energy

Tesla launches Powerwall Lease for affordable home backup

Published

4 weeks ago

on

August 13, 2026

By

Credit: Tesla

Tesla Energy has introduced the Powerwall Lease in conjunction with Tesla Electric, making the service available in Texas. This new option delivers whole-home backup power using two Powerwall units for a net monthly cost of $35 after credits, accompanied by a low fixed electricity rate.

Under the lease terms, customers pay a one-time order fee of $100. The base lease payment for the two Powerwalls is approximately $122 per month during the first year, subject to a 3 percent annual escalator thereafter. Enrollment in a qualifying Tesla Electric Backup plan or Virtual Power Plant plan provides an $87 monthly credit.

Advertisement
-

This credit lowers the effective cost to roughly $35 per month plus applicable tax.

Installation of the standard system carries no additional charge. The package features Storm Watch for outage protection and allows complete management through a single Tesla application. The system supplies continuous whole-home backup capability.

The Powerwall system enables households to maintain electricity during severe storms that disrupt the utility grid. When outages occur, the batteries automatically provide seamless backup power to the home.

Tesla announces 100k Powerwalls are participating in Virtual Power Plants

Tesla Storm Watch monitors weather forecasts and ensures the units are fully charged ahead of anticipated severe weather events so that power remains available throughout the disruption, keeping lights, refrigeration, and other essential systems operating without interruption.

Availability is restricted to select Texas locations where retail electric choice exists. Participants must lease exactly two Powerwall units and maintain continuous enrollment with Tesla Electric. Solar panels cannot be included under this particular lease arrangement.

Advertisement
-

The monthly credit activates automatically once the system is installed, receives permission to operate, and enrollment is confirmed. To retain the credit, customers are required to stay enrolled in Tesla Electric and fulfill all program conditions.

Nonstandard installations that involve electrical upgrades or special permitting may lead to extra expenses and might impact eligibility for the credit, so be sure to check with either your installer or Tesla to ensure you will still qualify.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Inside Tesla’s secretive $10 Billion “Project Crystal Sun” filing

Tesla filed for a $10.1 billion Fort Bend solar factory, but the site isn’t confirmed.

Published

1 month ago

on

August 9, 2026

By

Tesla has filed paperwork in Texas for a second massive manufacturing project in the same week it locked down its chip fabrication site, this time for a $10.1 billion solar cell plant in Fort Bend County. The filing, submitted July 22 under the state’s Jobs, Energy, Technology and Innovation Act and first surfaced by Sawyer Merritt on X, lists an internal project name of “Project Crystal Sun” and targets a site off FM 762 and FM 1994 near Richmond, about 40 minutes outside Houston.

The application, prepared by Kroll Tax Services on Tesla’s behalf, spans five parcels totaling roughly 3,000 acres within the Lamar Consolidated Independent School District. Tesla wants a 10 year property tax limitation in exchange for the investment, split as $1.5 billion in real property and $8.6 billion in equipment and personal property. The company projects 9,712 permanent jobs once the plant reaches full operation, with 1,147 peak construction jobs during a build window running from this year through 2028 and commercial operations targeted for the first quarter of 2029.

Tesla is not fully committed to Fort Bend County yet. The filing states the company is weighing the site against an unnamed out of state alternative, and frames the tax abatement as what would make Texas competitive against that option. If the district and county decline the incentive, Tesla says it may build elsewhere.

Advertisement
-

Tesla Megapack Megafactory in Texas advances with major property sale

The plant would handle the full solar cell production chain in one facility, according to the filing, covering wafer and ingot manufacturing, coating, metallization and printing lines, cell testing, automated material handling and cleanroom infrastructure. That scope points to Tesla vertically integrating a part of its supply chain it currently sources largely from overseas partners, mirroring the approach behind its expanding Megapack production in Brookshire, Texas, where Tesla has already built out two buildings for its grid battery business.

The timing lines up closely with Tesla and SpaceX’s other big Texas commitment this month. SpaceX confirmed its Terafab chip factory would land in Grimes County days before this filing surfaced, with construction on that $16.8 billion project starting almost immediately after local officials met with residents. Terafab is meant to produce the AI chips running Tesla’s Optimus robots and Full Self-Driving software, while a solar cell plant would feed a different part of the business, the panels and storage systems Tesla sells to homeowners, businesses and utilities, and increasingly needs to power its own data centers.

Musk has talked about building domestic solar manufacturing capacity before, tying it to the amount of power Tesla’s AI ambitions will require.

Continue Reading