Investors(TMC posters and otherwise) universally cheered the SolarCity/Tesla shift away from packaged PPA solar leases to outright sales as a logical move toward building shareholder value. While I appreciate the clear-as-day profitability that simple installations provide, I would argue that Tesla has turned it's back on what should be it's core business and primary differentiator moving forward. Sustainable energy as a service. The idea that you could simply sign a contract with Tesla giving you 100% American made solar for zero-down and no need to deal with tax credits, warranties, maintenance, or anything all while actually saving money was astonishing to me. Would I ever consider buying it? No. But that's because I almost always purchase the product itself, most of today's marketplace doesn't act that way. Most people see tremendous value in not having to think about things. I do believe that as we move into the mainstream solar years, the simplicity of PPA models will comprise at least 50% of the market demand. There are just far too many consumers, even in this semi-early adoption phase, that don't want to deal with all the extra nonsense that comes with ownership. Now to the purpose of this thread..... The drawbacks of the traditional SolarCity PPA were rooted in un-scaled soft cost and inefficiency. 20 year PPAs with rate escalators were a necessity to get price points under regional grid prices and supposedly create self-sustaining demand. That clearly did not happen. Sales costs ballooned to $.91/W as SCTY tried to push out into new markets, cost of financing ballooned along-side soft costs, and the whole thing came crashing down under it's own weight. Utilities found the weak point in the model and by pulling the rug out from under SCTY just in Nevada alone, they crumbled the whole operation. The new "solar roofs" will provide all the direct sales demand Tesla will need, but I think there is a much larger market for standard panel PPAs over the next 10-12 years. There are some very simple avenues to a sustainable PPA model if you take out most of the $4-7k in customer acquisition costs. I'd like to hear anyone's thoughts on a PPA for today's market where costs have continued to plummet and the Tesla brand can draw 400k paid reservations for it's new products. In an optimal world where soft cost are minimized, what does a streamlined "first principles" Tesla PPA look like? My initial thoughts..... If sales cost can be nearly eliminated(like in Germany), does the PPA need to run 20 years? Why does the rate have to be static in each market? Why isn't down-payment a more flexible option? A little flexibility gains you much broader appeal. Why not allow consumers to move the dials around and create their own contract? Some people want rock-bottom rates on a 25 year deal, some would rather pay a slight premium to the grid for a 10 year deal with $2k down. A prosumer could even have things like buyouts and extensions inserted into the contract if it makes them more comfortable. A few bucks up front allows you a sliding-scale buyout clause with clear prices to jump out of the deal at any time. A higher rate gets you a 10 year deal and a few bucks up front gets you a 10 year extension option. That all sounds complex, but the customer experience would be as simple as a couple dials on a dashboard with a big BUY NOW button. If the costs could be streamlined, as I fully expect Elon to, the PPA options start looking pretty attractive. P.S. Consider also the value to TSLA shareholders of active on-going relationships with solar customers vs. one-and-done sales interactions. Solar+Storage will be a far more profitable business than automotive manufacturing in the long term. It will constantly evolve and require fresh ideas and build-out along the way. Staying at the top of the solar-as-a-service market has massive value for growing future energy marketshare. Would you rather own Ford or Standard Oil(Exxon)? How about both?