Off-take agreements can finance whatever incremental capacity Tesla Energy may need over the next five years or so, and such agreements can be structured to leave less risk to shareholders than financing through debt or equity. So not only would a capital raise for this purpose be nondilutive, it would be non-necessary. Thus, it would only be undertaken if the risk-adjusted returns we're deemed to be greater than offering off-take aggrements. There really is nothing to fear here.
The situation becomes clearer when you look at the needs of large Tesla Energy customers. Consider SolarCity. They absolutely see their business moving to a place where storage is included with each installation. They are also an ambitious growth company that wants to keep doubling every year. In mid-2018, they intend to hit the 1 million customer mark. In the 12 months following that milestone, they will sign up another million customers and keep growing by at least that much each year following. If each new customer required at least 10 kWh of storage, 1 or more Powerwall unit, SolarCity will require a minimum annual supply of 10 GWh starting no later than 2018. More realistically, SolarCity needs to secure twice that, about 20 GWh of annual supply. Moreover, they would want to lock that supply in for their own use and not be subject to waiting on massive backorders. So right now SolarCity needs to invest in about 20 GWh of a Gigafactory. To lock in the supply they need, they should be prepared to invest $2B over the next 3 years. So the question becomes which entity should raise the $2B capital needed for the benefit of SolarCity's ambition. If Tesla and Panasonic raise that capital, then they should be compensated for that in the prices that SolarCity pays for batteries. But more realistically, SolarCity needs to raise most of that capital for itself. More than just a multiyear OTA, I think a JV partnership is in the best interest of SolarCity.
