SolarCity (SCTY)

[Foghat]

The PUC who made the ruling, the Governor who appointed the PUC, the Legislature who passed the laws....all running for cover and blaming NV Energy. I hope the people of Nevada realize that all here re complicit.

I reiterate, net metering as law in Nevada is not pricing mechanism. It's not about retail rate or wholesale rate, or any monetary value. it is quantity dependent. It is very specific. If a kWh of energy is put on the grid, nv energy must credit one kWh back. It was not changed in SB 374 signed into law.

closely read the following:
Sb374 law:
Neither the utility nor the customer-generator is entitled to compensation for the electricity provided to the other during the billing period. (2) The excess electricity which is fed back to the utility during the billing period is carried forward to the next billing period as an addition to the kilowatt-hours generated by the customer-generator in that billing period. If the customer-generator is billed for electricity pursuant to a time-of-use rate schedule, the excess electricity carried forward must be added to the same time-of-use period as the time-of-use period in which it was generated unless the subsequent billing period lacks a corresponding time-of-use period. In that case, the excess electricity carried forward must be apportioned evenly among the available time-of-use periods.(3) Excess electricity may be carried forward to subsequent billing periods indefinitely, but a customer-generator is not entitled to receive compensation for any excess electricity that remains.


The law is clear: no one is to be compensated. It is clearly a kWh for a kWh. If the utiltiy does not deliver a kWh for a kWh put on the grid, then they are explicitly in violation of SB374.

any rate changes on energy consumed net of credits must be done outside of kWh:KWh policy. It is a violation of law to not deliver a kWh for a kWh put in the grid.

again, net metering was signed into law/policy by the governor and is not a utility designed tariff. It is not a rate or charge. Net metering is clearly defined and stated as a kWh put on the grid, receives an equal kWh back. It's not a kWh for a $ value. It is a kWh for a kWh. It's a cookie for a cookie, a gold nugget for a gold nugget, a piece of paper for a piece of paper, add your own comparison... Anything other then that can not be legally defined as net metering as proscribed by SB374.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

I reiterate, net metering as law in Nevada is not pricing mechanism. It's not about retail rate or wholesale rate, or any monetary value. it is quantity dependent. It is very specific. If a kWh of energy is put on the grid, nv energy must credit one kWh back. It was not changed in SB 374 signed into law.

Maybe I'm missing the point, it was my understanding that NV Energy was given broad power to balance the "cost shift" by modulating rates and fees. Are you taking that first paragraph to mean rate should never enter into the equation so long as usage outpaces pushed generation? Delivering 1 kWh for 1 kWh is still happening if you're talking about selling an 11.8 cent kWh and buying a 2.6 cent kWh. Right? Either way it'll be found illegal either by your point above or by outright abuse of a monopoly.

This is such a great story and I'm getting annoyed that no one major is bothering to give it in depth analysis and explanation. This is Bernie Sanders on a platter and the only one who's mentioned it is Hillary in passing. These types of outright theft and corruption are usually hidden behind algorithms, shell corporations, 3rd party go-betweens, shady banks, etc. This one is right out in the open and easily quantified, Nevadan's are losing millions directly and billions indirectly through economic loss.

This spring/summer will be fun to be sure.

 

[Foghat]

Maybe I'm missing the point, it was my understanding that NV Energy was given broad power to balance the "cost shift" by modulating rates and fees. Are you taking that first paragraph to mean rate should never enter into the equation so long as usage outpaces pushed generation? Delivering 1 kWh for 1 kWh is still happening if you're talking about selling an 11.8 cent kWh and buying a 2.6 cent kWh. Right? Either way it'll be found illegal either by your point above or by outright abuse of a monopoly.

This is such a great story and I'm getting annoyed that no one major is bothering to give it in depth analysis and explanation. This is Bernie Sanders on a platter and the only one who's mentioned it is Hillary in passing. These types of outright theft and corruption are usually hidden behind algorithms, shell corporations, 3rd party go-betweens, shady banks, etc. This one is right out in the open and easily quantified, Nevadan's are losing millions directly and billions indirectly through economic loss.

This spring/summer will be fun to be sure.

as I read it, net metering is defined/outlined by the state law, not by utiltiy. That language was not changed governing 1:1. Utility devises a tariff that PUC approves. PUC is beholden to the confines of the law. The law states "net metering" is a 1:1 that has nothing to do with rates or rules around that are by PUC. If they wanted to change net metering, they needed to change the whole concept as written because the new rate scheme does not comply with 1:1 net metering. The new rate scheme alters 1:1 in that 1kwh put on the grid is then not given back. It now something like 1:.8, for every kWh put on the grid, the utiltiy delivers .8kwh credit. This explicitly not what net metering as stipulated within sb374. As such, the current approved rate scheme can not be enforced as approved by the PUC. It must be redone.

An unreasonable cost shift must be addressed in a utiltiy proposed rate(tariff) and then that tariff approved by the PUC. That's the authority granted to the PUC in oversight of the utiltiy tariff proposal. The law clearly shows that net metering is not a rate based mechanism. In order to address any cost shift, utiltiy can only be applied to grid energy consumed outside of the 1:1 net metering concept defined/outlined and then reaffirmed in SB374.

 

[jhm]

Thanks! So $350M for the building and $400M for the equipment. The government is paying for all of this. That is such a huge deal for SolarCity.

- - - Updated - - -

I believe that SolarCity originally planned on spending about 250 million to get all the equipment installed


From a 2014 article
One PUC spokesman went so far as to say “NV Energy’s rate-impact estimates aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.”
Read more at Did the Feds Back Down In Nevada From Fear of Corruption Being Exposed?

That quote was too good not to share

Thanks for the info. $1B for the whole working factory sounds more believable.

- - - Updated - - -

I reiterate, net metering as law in Nevada is not pricing mechanism. It's not about retail rate or wholesale rate, or any monetary value. it is quantity dependent. It is very specific. If a kWh of energy is put on the grid, nv energy must credit one kWh back. It was not changed in SB 374 signed into law.

closely read the following:
Sb374 law:
Neither the utility nor the customer-generator is entitled to compensation for the electricity provided to the other during the billing period. (2) The excess electricity which is fed back to the utility during the billing period is carried forward to the next billing period as an addition to the kilowatt-hours generated by the customer-generator in that billing period. If the customer-generator is billed for electricity pursuant to a time-of-use rate schedule, the excess electricity carried forward must be added to the same time-of-use period as the time-of-use period in which it was generated unless the subsequent billing period lacks a corresponding time-of-use period. In that case, the excess electricity carried forward must be apportioned evenly among the available time-of-use periods.(3) Excess electricity may be carried forward to subsequent billing periods indefinitely, but a customer-generator is not entitled to receive compensation for any excess electricity that remains.


The law is clear: no one is to be compensated. It is clearly a kWh for a kWh. If the utiltiy does not deliver a kWh for a kWh put on the grid, then they are explicitly in violation of SB374.

any rate changes on energy consumed net of credits must be done outside of kWh:KWh policy. It is a violation of law to not deliver a kWh for a kWh put in the grid.

again, net metering was signed into law/policy by the governor and is not a utility designed tariff. It is not a rate or charge. Net metering is clearly defined and stated as a kWh put on the grid, receives an equal kWh back. It's not a kWh for a $ value. It is a kWh for a kWh. It's a cookie for a cookie, a gold nugget for a gold nugget, a piece of paper for a piece of paper, add your own comparison... Anything other then that can not be legally defined as net metering as proscribed by SB374.

Do you think the class action could make this argument. The provision for time-of-use periods is a bit confusing to me. Does this mean that if you generator power in a particular time of day that is must be redeemed in the same time of day? That could make it impossible to export midday and redeem at night if the time of day plan separated those times of day. But otherwise, it seems clear that this is a transaction energy not monetary units. Net Energy metering, not net Dollar amount metering. Thanks for culling this up.

 

[Far Left Texas]

A number of posts recently have made statements along the lines of, "Nevada is only (tiny portion) of SolarCity's business, why worry since it's nothing in the overall scheme of things?" I disagree.

It can actually be a huge issue for SolarCity going forward. Like ripples in a pond spreading outward from the point of impact, the Nevada PUC decision can and will cause waves and problems in a widely expanding manner:

Example 1 - a hypothetical yet unavoidable situation: Every potential customer sitting down with a SolarCity rep can wonder, "What if the PUC of our state takes the same action that the Nevada PUC did? Then we are hosed." And they tell the sales rep that they need to think about it, and think about it turns into no decision, and no decision becomes no sale as the homeowner sees clearly the potential problem down the road and this single data point overshadows all real and perceived benefits.

Example 2 - an actual situation: In Texas, the Public Utility Commission is currently hearing an application from El Paso Electric Company to raise rates. One aspect of the case is the request to break residential solar customers into a new and separate rate class. EPEC is calling this proposed rate class the "Partial Requirements" class. Just yesterday EPEC filed their rebuttal testimony and managed to ask themselves, "Has any other PUC ever found it proper to discriminate against solar owners by charging them more?" (I paraphrased) and the reply was, "In a decision issued December 23, 2015, [the Nevada] commission found that partial requirement DG customers have different usage characteristics, impose different costs on the utility, and should be treated as a separate class. The Order in Docket No. 15-07041 is accessible at . . ." and it goes on for three more pages cherry picking details from Nevada's ruling. (You can read it here. The pertinent information begins on page 19 of the testimony, which is the 21st page of the document.)

So right now, right here, my electric company is telling my state's PUC, "Look, it's not just us and we aren't being unreasonable. Look what the wise people at the Nevada PUC are doing, you won't be alone if you agree with us."

El Paso Electric's rate case might be even more of a bellweather because they would be the second domino to fall (yes, they are asking for no grandfathering) which adds momentum. And once the third or fourth PUC sides with a utility company then the precedent is set and electric companies across the country will follow the path of their brethren before them in asking for solar price discrimination. And as a Public Utility Commissioner it is so much easier to side with the utility if you are just following along in the footsteps of other states' PUCs.

Which leads me to my last, and scariest, example.

Example 3 - and the lawyer says: What happens when the utility company decides they are "required" to notify consumers BEFORE they switch to solar that the net metering might go away? What happens when a contract to install solar is signed by Helen and Harold Homeowner, SolarCity files the permitting paperwork, and the Electric Company asks Helen and Harold to sign a piece of paper stating something to the effect of, "Net metering in its current form is not guaranteed, it has changed in other states, we cannot promise we will never ask our PUC to allow us to screw solar owners, and we love you as a customer but we feel an obligation to let you know about something that might or might not happen in the future - because we are only thinking of you and what is best for you." (I kind of paraphrased again.) I imagine the utility's marketing department would work hand in hand with the legal department to create a document that the customer would need to sign. A document that is ostensibly a CYA maneuver, but its primary objective is to cause Helen and Harold to exercise their option to cancel.

So even though Nevada is only a small piece of SolarCity's pie, the Nevada PUC decision is the crack in the dam - and the chisel and the sledgehammer needed to destroy that dam - allowing the floodwaters to roar.

 

[jhm]

Doubling of renewables will add $A1.9 trillion to global economy by 2030 : Renew Economy

IRENA estimates that doubling renewables could as $US1.3 trillion to the global economy. Most countries benefit. Stand outs (below) include Ukraine, Japan, India, South Africa, and even the US.

Rainer Bakke, the assistant minister of energy in Germany, and the man now responsible for that country’s “energiewende”, or energy transition, said that the Paris agreement would not have been possible without success storie of renewable energy in last 15 years.

“When we reached the Kyoto agreement (Protocol), renewable energy was looked upon as luxury, as very expensive, and something that only rich countries could afford,.

“That has changed completlely,” he said. He pointed to the huge growth in investment in developing countries such as China and India, but also Mexico, Morocco, and South Africa. “They now run the show. Costs keep falling, and amazingly, we are seeing little negative impact (on this growth) from low fossil fuel prices.”

Bakke noted that Germany’s share of renewables had jumped from 27 per cent to 32 per cent, a growth of five percentage points that was unrivalled. “Such a leap has never been before,” he said.

 

[Foghat]

Thanks for the info. $1B for the whole working factory sounds more believable.

- - - Updated - - -


Do you think the class action could make this argument. The provision for time-of-use periods is a bit confusing to me. Does this mean that if you generator power in a particular time of day that is must be redeemed in the same time of day? That could make it impossible to export midday and redeem at night if the time of day plan separated those times of day. But otherwise, it seems clear that this is a transaction energy not monetary units. Net Energy metering, not net Dollar amount metering. Thanks for culling this up.

The time of use provision is just reiterating the 1:1 mechanism. No matter when the kWh is put on the grid, the customer-generator must be given an equal kWh back as credit. The important piece to remember is that this is all about units of energy as measured in kWh. It is clearly stated net metering, metering of kwhs put on the grid and the metering of credited KWhs consumed from the grid, has nothing to do with pricing or billing. As sb374 is written, billing comes on kwhs consumered from the grid after "net metering" process. That is where the utiltiy can propose a tariff(rules,rates,charges) thst can be adjusted as seen fit by the PUC. Rates are a cost per kWh agreement between all rate payers and the utility as approved by the PUC. Net metering is a regulation stipulating equal kWh credit for kWh put on the grid. It is not a rate. It is not changeable by a utiltiy tariff around a rate agreement.

The other point is that sb374 bill was poorly written. It was cut and paste together from previous net metering regulations and then had basically section 2.3 stitched in there where ever the utiltiy lawyers saw fit. it was clearly rushed together and purposely so it seems to be an "I gotcha."

However, it is clearly arguable that the resulting rate scheme that the utility "gotcha" thought it was capable of creating looks to be completely unenforceable now. It is clear to me the law as written protects the 1:1 kWh:kWh mechanism of net metering. Net metering regulation the entire bill references as the authority law itself was not altered or rewritten, as such all utility tariffs dealing with net metering itself must be applied to the resulting consumed grid energy outside of net metering process.

to add, NV Energy and PUC staff and the PUC itself said net metering rates where never ststed anywhere to be grandfathered for those that made solar investment decisions to go solar.
However, after reviewing Nevada documents over 18 years dealing with net metering, not one word relating to anything relating to rate changes or actually any rates at all with regard to net metering in any of the laws or regulation. That's over 18 years now, not one mention of a PUC having the authority to determine if pre "net metering cap" consumer-generators being subject to changes in future net metering cases.

the section 2.3 provision dealing with the PUCs authorization to determine grandfathering or not (the real utiltiy intended "I gotcha") was the first time in the 18 year history of any net metering legislation or prior regulation dealing with net metering has ever appeared. It has no prescedent, it has no prior legislative intent, it was never indicated to consumer-generators over the course of nearly two decades of net metering policy as ever being such. Legal standing is very low in a suit. That in addition to all governmental literature on net metering promoting net metering and the state incentive programs over the past 18 years said that consumer-generators making the investment in solar would save money. Bait and switch is a very strong legal argument for those affected by non grandfathering.

PUC says this is just like any other rate case in the past, rate payers pay the new rate. However that has no legal merit with regard to net metering since consumer generators made all the capital investment in their kWh production (and legally limited in that production to fit home consumption limit) and had entered into non rate agreement under 18 years of net metering to receive equal kWh credit for their excess kWh put on the grid, and in my opinion still on going agreement which has never been apart of any rate changes that apply to all rate payers in its history. Net metering has always been and continues to be a separate legal provision on kWh for kWh credit.

it can't be treated as a "wholesaler" because of the legal limitation of home system size under the past 18 years of net metering regulation. Net metering has never been a ppa aggrement with the utiltiy nor has that ever been the law described over past 18 years. In applying a "wholesale" approach to net metering customers is an additional a violation under federal contract law. But I don't even think the new rate decision lasts that long to get dinged under...

 

[gene]

@Foghat, forward your posts to Rive and SolarCity, just in case they are not already aware.

 

[Foghat]

@Foghat, forward your posts to Rive and SolarCity, just in case they are not already aware.

I've sent a message to the group requesting stay/reconsideration.

Also, this has implications nationwide for all public utilities in Solarcity markets since the very foundation of net metering is grounded in KWh for kWh credit. It is not a rate agreement for kwhs delivered. For all those traders considering going short because of Nevada, beware of this fundamental legality.

Also so to make very clear is Nevada utilities(and all public utilities)have no control over net metering as a program. Net metering is not a utiltiy program. It is a legislative mandate on public utilities like NV Energy. So for the past 18 years in Nevada, net metering has been promoted and implemented by the people of Nevada, not the utility. The utility has to abide by this program. As regulators of the utiltiy, the appointed PUC also has to act under the legal provisions of mandate.
Net metering as we know it can not be changed through a rate or a rate case. Has to be in the legislature and a change of law. All short hedge fund managers need to think about this.

this also brings up the legality of creating a seperate rate class for solar users under net metering program since they themselves receive the same service as any other rate payer to receive electricity from NV Energy. Since net metering is seperate from rates or a rate case as well as it not being a utiltiy program, it is not a determinate of energy rate structure to serve solar customers. As such, solar customers are no different from all other rate payers in determining service costs to those customers. Thus, there is legal grounds for descrimitory practices on behalf of the utility being perpetrated on specific rate payers for service. PUC has no legal authority to approve such practices.

lastly, this is a different legal case as the one presented in Arizona against SRP. Both deal with very similar actions on behalf of the utiltiy. One is not public utiltiy and the other is a public utility. Therefore, the legal precedent set in each case covers most if not all legal cases that may come down the line regarding net metering and rooftop solar as it relates to rate making. So, simultaneously, Solarcity et al will involved in legal cases this year that will determine how the rest of the country utilties will legally be able to act. As such, and from what I have tentatively gathered in evaluating the nv energy case here, hedge funds/traders looking at this as a short thesis may need to re evaluate how that will play out.

 

[doggusfluffy]

State officials say Oregon energy bill would boost rates, wouldn't cut emissions | OregonLive.com

The energy bill is effectively a new electricity-procurement standard. It would force Portland General Electric and PacifiCorp, which together serve 70 percent of the state, to stop importing "coal by wire" from other states, and boost the percentage of demand served with renewable resources like wind and solar to 50 percent by 2040. That's an increase from the current standard, which calls for 25 percent by 2025.

 

[Foghat]

With regards to the upcoming California PUC decision, I find the California regulations on net metering to be more defined. However, the funadement net metering as defined and directed by law is the same 1:1 mechanism. For every kWh put on the grid, customer generator gets an equal kWh back. Now if they don't consume all of it, and there is an excess put on the grid after a month then retail rates are applied to value that excess. Same goes if the person consumers more grid energy. They have to pay retail. This is calculated on a monthly basis. What happens after that equal exchange of energy consumed/produced within a monthly billing cycle, the tariff rates that the CPUC authorize could be applied.

so, any decision by the PUC in the coming weeks can only apply to the tariff eligible portion at the end of the month bill.

This also brings up a point on charges placed on solar customers. What extra does a utility have to do to deliver energy to a rate payer that has solar? what is the difference to serve a customer without solar that same energy?

if there is no difference in delivering energy, then a California utilty cannot add an additional descrimintory tariff on a rate payer with solar. The Califonia PUC is not authorized to approve that descrimitory tariff.

this also goes to a fundamental legal issue of personal property and being able to reduce your personal energy consumption expense. A energy efficient light bulb is a personal choice, you have the right to install a light. You have the right to put solar panels on your roof to reduce energy you purchase from the utiltiy. All this does nothing to change how a utility delivers energy to all of our homes. Not one thing. If the utility has a revenue problem to serve, they they must raise rates for all rate payers, not discrimate against those that use less of their product.

If they have a problem with revenue, then they must either sell off assets, down size, or ask for government assistance(bailout/subsidization program).

This is not a rate payer problem. This is a utiltiy business problem.

if they have a revenue problem due to government programs like net metering, which promote energy efficiency, the utiltiy must ask the government net metering to be discontinued. They can not legally apply descrimintory rates, nor can PUCs approve such rates.

Secondly, if revenues are cut into, are these revenue losses unreasonable? Meaning, are utilities making less then 10% authorized profit margin? If they are making over the 10% profit margin mandated by law, then there is a strong case net metering revenue loses are not unreasonable and therefore the program is to remain unimcumbered.

ultimately, all legal questions will lead down these roads to these answers whether they will be determined in the PUCs or in the Supreme Court.

 

[BornToFly]

We have had attempts by the power company in Utah to charge solar customers extra fees (in addition to the net metering fee) to pay for "line maintenance." Some proposals have included charging more for a larger solar system, which of course doesn't take into account the needs of the house and what they will pay during the winter when the panels are covered with snow. I don't understand why utility companies don't just separate the line costs from the cost of the electricity. In other words, instead of charging 10 cents per kW, and covering the line maintenance with the profits from that rate, they should charge every house/apartment the same "line fee" of $10 dollars a month (or what ever it needs to be). Then charge 8 cents per kW (for example) for the actual electricity to those that use it.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

I've sent a message to the group requesting stay/reconsideration.

Also, this has implications nationwide for all public utilities in Solarcity markets since the very foundation of net metering is grounded in KWh for kWh credit. It is not a rate agreement for kwhs delivered. For all those traders considering going short because of Nevada, beware of this fundamental legality.

Also so to make very clear is Nevada utilities(and all public utilities)have no control over net metering as a program. Net metering is not a utiltiy program. It is a legislative mandate on public utilities like NV Energy. So for the past 18 years in Nevada, net metering has been promoted and implemented by the people of Nevada, not the utility. The utility has to abide by this program. As regulators of the utiltiy, the appointed PUC also has to act under the legal provisions of mandate.
Net metering as we know it can not be changed through a rate or a rate case. Has to be in the legislature and a change of law. All short hedge fund managers need to think about this.

this also brings up the legality of creating a seperate rate class for solar users under net metering program since they themselves receive the same service as any other rate payer to receive electricity from NV Energy. Since net metering is seperate from rates or a rate case as well as it not being a utiltiy program, it is not a determinate of energy rate structure to serve solar customers. As such, solar customers are no different from all other rate payers in determining service costs to those customers. Thus, there is legal grounds for descrimitory practices on behalf of the utility being perpetrated on specific rate payers for service. PUC has no legal authority to approve such practices.

lastly, this is a different legal case as the one presented in Arizona against SRP. Both deal with very similar actions on behalf of the utiltiy. One is not public utiltiy and the other is a public utility. Therefore, the legal precedent set in each case covers most if not all legal cases that may come down the line regarding net metering and rooftop solar as it relates to rate making. So, simultaneously, Solarcity et al will involved in legal cases this year that will determine how the rest of the country utilties will legally be able to act. As such, and from what I have tentatively gathered in evaluating the nv energy case here, hedge funds/traders looking at this as a short thesis may need to re evaluate how that will play out.

Net metering measures energy. So to get around it they charge people for feed-in power.

 

[Foghat]

We have had attempts by the power company in Utah to charge solar customers extra fees (in addition to the net metering fee) to pay for "line maintenance." Some proposals have included charging more for a larger solar system, which of course doesn't take into account the needs of the house and what they will pay during the winter when the panels are covered with snow. I don't understand why utility companies don't just separate the line costs from the cost of the electricity. In other words, instead of charging 10 cents per kW, and covering the line maintenance with the profits from that rate, they should charge every house/apartment the same "line fee" of $10 dollars a month (or what ever it needs to be). Then charge 8 cents per kW (for example) for the actual electricity to those that use it.

they must prove it costs more to deliver energy to your solar home then it does to provide energy to a non solar home. Does it cost more to provide energy to your home?

if the answer is yes, they must prove it to the PUC. If no, then no extra cost for having solar.

this is squarely a revenue problem. The PUCs must assess if revenue loss due to legally mandated net metering programs is unreasonable. If not unreasonable revenue loss, if it doesn't pull the public utility under the 10% profit margin(or whatever it is in Utah),then carry on.

Its really that simple of a legal argument.

- - - Updated - - -

Net metering measures energy. So to get around it they charge people for feed-in power.

There is no feed in tariff in Nevada. Net metering is the policy. Can't legally get around it.

 

[dakh]

We have had attempts by the power company in Utah to charge solar customers extra fees (in addition to the net metering fee) to pay for "line maintenance." Some proposals have included charging more for a larger solar system, which of course doesn't take into account the needs of the house and what they will pay during the winter when the panels are covered with snow. I don't understand why utility companies don't just separate the line costs from the cost of the electricity. In other words, instead of charging 10 cents per kW, and covering the line maintenance with the profits from that rate, they should charge every house/apartment the same "line fee" of $10 dollars a month (or what ever it needs to be). Then charge 8 cents per kW (for example) for the actual electricity to those that use it.

My understanding is line charge is not even mentioned much because it is a big ugly hairball to change existing law around utility monopoly, and involves all sorts of implicit subsidizing etc., nobody wants/can go the distance to make the change. I could easily be wrong but that's what my googling around yielded when I was investigating this subject.

 

[gigglehertz]

We have had attempts by the power company in Utah to charge solar customers extra fees (in addition to the net metering fee) to pay for "line maintenance." Some proposals have included charging more for a larger solar system, which of course doesn't take into account the needs of the house and what they will pay during the winter when the panels are covered with snow. I don't understand why utility companies don't just separate the line costs from the cost of the electricity. In other words, instead of charging 10 cents per kW, and covering the line maintenance with the profits from that rate, they should charge every house/apartment the same "line fee" of $10 dollars a month (or what ever it needs to be). Then charge 8 cents per kW (for example) for the actual electricity to those that use it.

That is my thought exactly. Instead of rolling it up into a neat little c/kWh for your total energy bill, give every single rate payer an itemized bill separating out the distribution/line maintenance costs from the generation costs. I understand that's not how things are done, and it's hard to change the status quo, but that's the only fair way I can think of to resolve this issue. The utility DOES provide a service to solar and non-solar customers by delivering energy when they need it and maintaining the lines e.g. after a storm, and EVERYBODY should pay for that. Generation is a different matter, and customers should be able to clearly see how much the energy they are using costs to generate by source. Then they can decide for themselves if they want to pay so many cents for coal/nat gas or so many cents for solar/wind. I see this as a necessary step to setting up a marketplace for energy in which solar competes with fossil fuels on a cost basis. "Let the free market decide" like a certain party likes to say all the time.

 

[jhm]

SolarCity Slumps on Nevada Rooftop Fees, Plan to Sell Plants - Bloomberg Business

Here's some clarification from SolarCity on the potential to sell assets. Bernstein was obviously twisting this around to spew FUD.

The additional type of financing arrangement allows the company to monetize more of the asset and improve cash margin, said Jonathan Bass, a SolarCity spokesman.
“We would monetize 100 percent of the cash flows for a portion of our new assets,” Bass said by e-mail. That enables “maintaining the customer relationship and generating more upfront cash, which we can reinvest in growth at attractive rates,” he said.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

That is my thought exactly. Instead of rolling it up into a neat little c/kWh for your total energy bill, give every single rate payer an itemized bill separating out the distribution/line maintenance costs from the generation costs. I understand that's not how things are done, and it's hard to change the status quo, but that's the only fair way I can think of to resolve this issue. The utility DOES provide a service to solar and non-solar customers by delivering energy when they need it and maintaining the lines e.g. after a storm, and EVERYBODY should pay for that. Generation is a different matter, and customers should be able to clearly see how much the energy they are using costs to generate by source. Then they can decide for themselves if they want to pay so many cents for coal/nat gas or so many cents for solar/wind. I see this as a necessary step to setting up a marketplace for energy in which solar competes with fossil fuels on a cost basis. "Let the free market decide" like a certain party likes to say all the time.

Germany is about 5 years ahead of the US and working through what you've pointed out here. In 2014, the most forward thinking utility executives tried to get out in front of dwindling supply profits by announcing a splitting off of the production portions of their companies from the grid/renewables portion. This sounded cute and logical as if the purpose was to "focus on renewables", but really the plan was all about shuttering all the unprofitable parts of the one side and walking away from the costs associated with shutdown. The German government put a freeze on those plans and they're just now moving toward a compromised split off.

Between 2008 and 2013, the market value of these top three German utility companies dropped by 75%. Warren Buffett is well aware of this reality on the horizon and knows that it's inevitable in a place as solar-friendly as Nevada. The shift from +$750M in profit to insolvency will happen quite literally at the flip of a switch as soon as the pressure is taken off and solar is allowed to compete in the state. Hence the full on desperate barrage.

The whole nation will slowly move to something like what you've listed above, it's just going to be difficult with utility interests running a lot of states and the masses walking around in a disinformed and politically charged daze.

 

[jhm]

Australia 5th in world in small scale rooftop solar PV in 2015 : Renew Economy

For the record, Australians installed 713MW of rooftop solar last year at a price of $2.2B. This works out to an average price of $3.09/W. (I do believe this is in US dollars.)

While the rate of installation has been flat for a while due to intense utility pushback, there is potential for growth to accelerate. The price of solar keeps going down, batteries are becoming more attractive, and utility rates keep going up. If installation are up in 2016, I would take that as a signal that rooftop solar is overcoming utility obstruction in Australia. This would be a positive precedence to show that ultimately technology gains will trump political obstruction. So we'll keep watch to see how this plays out.

- - - Updated - - -

Germany is about 5 years ahead of the US and working through what you've pointed out here. In 2014, the most forward thinking utility executives tried to get out in front of dwindling supply profits by announcing a splitting off of the production portions of their companies from the grid/renewables portion. This sounded cute and logical as if the purpose was to "focus on renewables", but really the plan was all about shuttering all the unprofitable parts of the one side and walking away from the costs associated with shutdown. The German government put a freeze on those plans and they're just now moving toward a compromised split off.

Between 2008 and 2013, the market value of these top three German utility companies dropped by 75%. Warren Buffett is well aware of this reality on the horizon and knows that it's inevitable in a place as solar-friendly as Nevada. The shift from +$750M in profit to insolvency will happen quite literally at the flip of a switch as soon as the pressure is taken off and solar is allowed to compete in the state. Hence the full on desperate barrage.

The whole nation will slowly move to something like what you've listed above, it's just going to be difficult with utility interests running a lot of states and the masses walking around in a disinformed and politically charged daze.

Somehow I don't think that Buffet really understand this. NV Energy has been pushing ahead on a $900M NG peaker plant that is not exactly necessary. In fact, NV Energy pushed away a fairly priced PPA on an existing peaker plant so that they could pursue building out this new plant. If Buffett believed that the power generation business was going to be a money looser within five years, then the obvious choice would have been to renew the PPA and avoid risking new capital on a new plant. So I've got to conclude that Buffett really does believe that a brand new gas peaker plant really is a sound investment. Berkshire Hathaway investors, you've been warned.

 

[jhm]

BAU at NV Energy