Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

SolarCity (SCTY)

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Despite abundant sunshine, Georgia has little sunshine. Why has SolarCity not entered this market. Up until about 6 months ago, it was illegal for solar installers to lease, unless they happened to be a utility. But our state government has passed legislation to remove that barrier to entry. But SolarCity faces another barrier: power is cheep in Georgia. However, Tesla Energy products may change the economics and open a way for SolarCity to turn a profit in Georgia.I have been helping a condo community sort through options for installing EV chargers. In the process, we have learned more about the commercial rate plan this HOA has. Roughly, this plan prices energy at 9c/kWh and monthly peak demand at $20/kW. SolarCity may not be able to compete with the energy price offering a solar system without storage. While a solar only system can reduce peak energy use when the sun shines brightly and AC hums, but the AC demand at and after sunset as well as monthly variability in solar output can lead to very little relief from demand charges. So without storage, while at 25 kW system could reduce demand in certain hours by 25 kW, the monthly peak demand might only amount to a few kW in hot months. But suppose we pair 25 kW PV with a Powerpack at 100 kWh and 25 kW sustained. The Powerpack along may not be sufficient to reduce peak demand by 25 kW, while it can certainly provide that much power for 4 hours at a time. So if peak loads are sustained longer than 4 hours at anytime in the month, a Powerpack alone cannot reliably cut peak demand by 25 kW , maybe 15 to 20 kW. But suppose the solar and battery can work together synergistically to reduce peak demand by a month average of 30 kW, where solar alone provides upto 5 kW and Powerpack alone upto 20 kW. The extra 5 kW or more demand reduction is the benefit of synergy, and at $20/kW.So let's figure out what this is worth on an average monthly basis.Solar energery. 25 kW × 120 h = 3000 kWh @ $0.09/kWh = $270Solar peak demand reduction. 5 kW @ $20/kW = $100.Powerpack alone peak demand reduction. 20 kW @ $20/kW = $400.Synergistic peak demand reduction. 5 kW @ $20/kW = $100. Thus a PV only system creates a benefit valued at $370 per month or 12.3 c/kWh. Over the course of 20 years this is worth $88,800 or $3.55/W. However, the combined PV + Powerpack system generates a benefit worth $870 per month or 29 c/kWh. Over 20 years the is worth $208,800. Since the Powerpack will need to get replaced in 10 to 15 years, but in that time the cost could drop from $25,000 to $15,00, even $10,000. So let's assume over 20 years time s40,000 will be spent on storage. We net this from the gross benefit to get a net benefit of $168,800 or $6.75/W solar.So we see the potential of storage to increase the benefit per Watt from $3.55 to $6.75, a gain of $3.20. Surely at a benefit of $6.75 there is plenty of opportunity for both customer and SolarCity to profit handsomely. Indeed, both could profit to the tune of $2/W or $50,000 each.Not only does this example illustrate the potential for solar+battery to make economic sense. It also underscores how important the cost of grid capacity is. In most residential rate plans, there is just a rate for energy. This rate includes the cost of grid capacity. But in a plan with demand charges a specific price is put on grid capacity. PV only systems are not well suited to create reductions in required grid capacity and most rate plans do not properly reward owners of these systems for these modest reductions. But rate plans with demand charges do put a specific price on capacity demanded, and solar systems with storage are best suited to optimize rewards for reduced capacity requirements. We make a big mistake in thinking about renewable energy to focus only on energy costs and not recognize capacity costs. In this example, the combined cost that was offset was $870/month or 29 c/kWh, but the energy benefit was only $270/month or 9 c/kWh. So about 2/3 of the benefit was obtained by reducing capacity requirements. Incidentally, Georgia Power does have two residential rate plans with demand charges built into them, but most residential customers choose other plans without demand charges. I'll leave it to the analysts to workout which combination of PV and battery will yield the best return for each specific utility rate plan, but where a specific price is put on capacity, batteries have an opportunity to capture that value. Batteries may well expand SolarCity's addressable market, even into Georgia.
I agree, Solarcity market will only grow stronger with mass market batteries.

SolarCity Now

again, I see 7Gw of production today. Please verify if necessary.
 
It is from a study of home sales by Arizona State University, and supported by appraisers and realtors. The fundamentals of the problem don't change by area. A potential buyer can read the unfavorable lease/PPA terms. Every competent real estate attorney is going to warn their home buyer client.

There is resistance to buying homes with attached solar leases everywhere. This article references what is probably the only university study so far.

I hate to quote such a bad article reference again but it is worth pointing out that you're quoting a real estate agent that has nothing to do with the study and then using to study to try and verify with the real estate agent said. If you look at the graph in the study it shows a very small difference like 3 or 4 dollars per square foot four houses with Leased Solar. From what I can tell they don't take into account the fact that houses that lease solar are most likely lower sales price houses and houses that can purchase solar most likely are higher dollar houses which in itself completely explains the $4 per square foot difference and in my mind is evidence that having Lee solar on your roof does not decrease the value of it. Its a poorly written article and the author clearly has an agenda that lines up with the electricity's
 
PG for the Commercial Sector : Greentech Media

This article underscores the importance complementing storage with solar. PG&E is closing a rate plan without demand charges that had favorable net metering for midsized commercial solar installations. This is a problem for solar systems without storage. As utilities struggle with distributed solar, we may see more efforts to put ratepayers onto plans with demand charges. In all I see this as a good opportunity for Tesla and SolarCity to provide systems with storage. The transition can be difficult for the solar industry, but as a market for battery storage expands, storage prices will decline which will ultimately move toward a leaner and more stable grid.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree, Solarcity market will only grow stronger with mass market batteries.

SolarCity Now

again, I see 7Gw of production today. Please verify if necessary.

I'm frustrated with SolarCity Now because it simply is not reliable. I see numbers move around just by reloading the webpage. I'm afraid it does more reputational harm than good. They need to fix this or take it down.
 
PG for the Commercial Sector : Greentech Media

This article underscores the importance complementing storage with solar. PG&E is closing a rate plan without demand charges that had favorable net metering for midsized commercial solar installations. This is a problem for solar systems without storage. As utilities struggle with distributed solar, we may see more efforts to put ratepayers onto plans with demand charges. In all I see this as a good opportunity for Tesla and SolarCity to provide systems with storage. The transition can be difficult for the solar industry, but as a market for battery storage expands, storage prices will decline which will ultimately move toward a leaner and more stable grid.

- - - Updated - - -



I'm frustrated with SolarCity Now because it simply is not reliable. I see numbers move around just by reloading the webpage. I'm afraid it does more reputational harm than good. They need to fix this or take it down.

Same here although solar city has never publicly talked about the site as far as I know. I think it's on beta testing. I currently see 6.4 :/

On a bright note, it seems like the solar bond site continues to gain momentum. One of the many "barriers to entry" that bears keep repeating don't exist. I am betting local mom and pop shops would have a hard time getting a 9 million dollar short term loan at two and a half percent interest rate

RSF Social Finance Purchases $9 Million in Solar Bonds from SolarCity | 3BL Media
 
Same here although solar city has never publicly talked about the site as far as I know. I think it's on beta testing. I currently see 6.4 :/

On a bright note, it seems like the solar bond site continues to gain momentum. One of the many "barriers to entry" that bears keep repeating don't exist. I am betting local mom and pop shops would have a hard time getting a 9 million dollar short term loan at two and a half percent interest rate

RSF Social Finance Purchases $9 Million in Solar Bonds from SolarCity | 3BL Media

As someone who works in banking, I am in awe of what SolarCity is doing with these solar bonds. These products are quite comparable to CDs, but without FDIC they offer better return. SolarCity is disintermediating banks and the traditional bond market. By going direct to the bond investor they are able to offer better rate. I would add that they are also able to bypass most of the heavy regulatory burden now plaguing banks. People outside of banking do not understand how much this burden has increased in recent years. My expectation is that banks will become increasingly slow to innovate, and this will lead to non-financial institutions like SolarCity becoming the place where real innovation and economically efficient financial product emerge. So good for SolarCity, they are able to provide financial products without massive regulatory overhead.
 
Robert W. Baird upgrades SCTY to Outperform from Neutral and raises their tgt to $71 from $61 as they believe co's pullback of ~14% since May 14 provides an excellent buying opportunity on the stock most levered to the rapidly growing U.S. rooftop market. Additionally, co's cost reductions and scale should strengthen its position in the
 
As of 6/30, short interest was 22.8 M shares or 23% of outstanding. Days to cover was at a staggering 11.7.

So between the Vivint acquisition and recent analyst upgrades, shorts are running a serious risk of a short squeeze. This could get interesting.
 
SCTY is up 3% in premarket. Anybody know why?
I read Massachusetts is looking strong to raise its solar cap in a unnanimous state senate committee vote.Also, Nevada is also looking to raising its cap until they make a decision on a new policy by the end of December.Both Nevada and Mass are key growth states right now. Last night likely cap raise news bode well for Solarcity.My estimation is they will do very well on bookings again, q2 report next Wednesday. I also feel they will beat install guidance. I'm also looking for a surprise amount of capital raised from solar bonds as well. My only question mark is revenue. Not sure about the accuracy of the Solarcity now website, but it did show them hitting above 6GW for the entire last week of q2. Rough indicator revenue potential better then some expected.
 
Last edited:
I read Massachusetts is looking strong to raise its solar cap in a unnanimous state senate committee vote.Also, Nevada is also looking to raising its cap until they make a decision on a new policy by the end of December.Both Nevada and Mass are key growth states right now. Last night likely cap raise news bode well for Solarcity.My estimation is they will do very well on bookings again, q2 report next Wednesday. I also feel they will beat install guidance. I'm also looking for a surprise amount of capital raised from solar bonds as well. My only question mark is revenue. Not sure about the accuracy of the Solarcity now website, but it did show them hitting above 6GW for the entire last week of q2. Rough indicator revenue potential better then some expected.

Nice info on state caps. Short run this is the game utilities can play. Longer term, Powerwalls blast a hole through this barrier.

It's interesting that SunPower and SunEdison are down today inspite of improving macro conditions. I think regulatory risk particularly around net metering is larger for installer that do not have an affordable battery supply chain. I think the backing of Tesla Energy is worth quite alot for SolarCity as it mitigates policy risk.
 
Nice info on state caps. Short run this is the game utilities can play. Longer term, Powerwalls blast a hole through this barrier.

It's interesting that SunPower and SunEdison are down today inspite of improving macro conditions. I think regulatory risk particularly around net metering is larger for installer that do not have an affordable battery supply chain. I think the backing of Tesla Energy is worth quite alot for SolarCity as it mitigates policy risk.


I think it's difficult for investors/analysts to project Solarcity numbers because of the regulatory changes currently happening country wide. Hard to predict when the regulatory goal posts keep moving. Therefore, in my opinion, current stock price reflects more worst case policy outcomes then favorable/best case. So, I think, more then anything, policy news will move Solarcity in either direction decidedly, more so then any company news(at least domestically, international news would move the needle as well as 2016 guidance).

I feel there not much debate on Solarcity growth momentum, but the policy constraints on that growth velocity are still unknown. More policies become clear and framed in time, the more likely Solarcity will reflect an appropriate high growth valuation.

adding to my back-of-the-envelope estimates in previous post, Solarcity should hit $3bln+ on retained value and over $7.1bln on total contracts which might translate to a new base stock price of at least $60 post q2 conference call. It would have to be a really rough political/regulatory outcome in the coming month or two to drop the price from the 60s being baseline soon.
 
Last edited:
SolarCity Corp (SCTY) Stock Upgraded To Outperform By Baird


baird estimates 1.3GW - 1.5GW for 2016 guidance. This to me says they see growth slowing down by 50%-70%. Solarcity has been nearly growing 100% compounded for years now, so would be a significant growth slow down if what they predict is correct. Lyndon has indicated Solarcity could grow at current near 100% rates for "at least a few more years" so 2016 could be a significant catalyst if they decide to give it out 1.6GW or higher guidance next Wednesday. My feeling now is we won't see 2016 guidance until q4 conference call next February. It would be a pleasant surprise if they did it sooner though.
 
SolarCity Corp (SCTY) Stock Upgraded To Outperform By Baird


baird estimates 1.3GW - 1.5GW for 2016 guidance. This to me says they see growth slowing down by 50%-70%. Solarcity has been nearly growing 100% compounded for years now, so would be a significant growth slow down if what they predict is correct. Lyndon has indicated Solarcity could grow at current near 100% rates for "at least a few more years" so 2016 could be a significant catalyst if they decide to give it out 1.6GW or higher guidance next Wednesday. My feeling now is we won't see 2016 guidance until q4 conference call next February. It would be a pleasant surprise if they did it sooner though.

Foghat, I think you may be reading more pessimism into Baird's estimates than necessary. They have raise their expected guidance from 1300MW to 1500MW. That is, 1500 MW is their new estimate. Moreover, SolarCity's guidance for 2015 is 920 to 1000 MW. In Q1, they deployed 153MW, and Baird is filling out the lower guidance to 180, 262, 325 for Q2 to Q4, respectively. Add it up, and you get 920 MW. So Baird is confident that guidance will be met and new guidance will be 1500MW for 2016, a 63% increase. I'd also point out that 503MW were deployed, so 920 MW guidance for 2015 represents an 83% increase. Of course, SolarCity could beat this and deploy 950 to 1000 MW this year.


To get 1 million customers by mid-2018 requires an annualized growth rate of 60%. So I think Baird may be basing the 63% increase in minimum guidance on that, i.e., 920×1.6=1472. Basically, Baird could be mapping out minimal guidance to get to the million customer goal. I might point out that this implies minimum guidance of 2355 MW in 2017 and 3768 MW in 2018. This is a cumulative 5 GW by mid-2018. I think they'll do much better than that.
 
Peak Utility Generation

These data tell an interesting story about how the generation mix has changed over the last 12 months. So fossil and nuclear lost 10.58 GW while renewables gained 10.33 GW, nearly a zero sum game, or is it? (See FERC: Legal Resources - FERC Staff Reports & Papers “Energy Infrastructure” reports.)

US Total Installed Operating Generating Capacity (GW)

Source 2014/62014/122015/62014/12 - 2014/62015/6 - 2014/122015/6 - 2014/6Annual Chg %
Coal329.51326.60311.66-2.91-14.94-17.85-5.4%
Natural Gas486.21492.97495.456.762.489.241.9%
Nuclear107.41106.87106.89-0.540.02-0.52-0.5%
Oil46.4246.0744.97-0.35-1.10-1.45-3.1%
Water99.6498.39100.06-1.251.670.420.4%
Wind 61.4564.7767.823.323.056.3710.4%
Biomass16.0516.1016.310.050.210.261.6%
Geothermal Steam3.873.873.910.000.040.041.0%
Solar9.2511.1712.491.921.323.2435.0%
Waste Heat1.131.131.110.00-0.02-0.02-1.8%
Other0.800.810.770.01-0.04-0.03-3.8%
Total1161.721168.761161.447.04-7.32-0.280.0%

The FERC solar numbers do not include distributed solar. According to this source (U.S. Solar Market Insight | SEIA), total installed solar in US Q1 2015 was 21.3 GW, but FERC reports 12.12 GW at this same point in time. Non-utility solar then is nearly half the total solar in the US.

So accounting for non-utility solar, we may well be reaching over capacity. The FERC total declined 7.32 GW in the first six month of this year. This may be stronger evidence of a glut. Non-utility solar installations were about 2.1 GW in 2014, and this could grow to about 3 GW in 2015. *The utility total capacity hit a peak 2015/2 at 1173.35 GW and has rapidly shed 12 GW in the last 4 months. Is this the beginning of a long decline or just a hiccup along the way? I suspect that with non-utility installing an extra 3 GW this year and doubling every couple of years, this may well be the beginning of a long descent.
 
consumption in the US (only) in --> terawatt hours of Solar and Wind over the last 4 years (note consumption doubles every year)Note 2011 - 2014 wind is up 50%)
2011201220132014
1.84.49.118.5
121.4142.2169.5183.6

The FERC data is only measuring utility installed capacity. Utility solar is definitely slowing its rate of growth.SEIA data bears this out, meanwhile the growth rate of residential is strong. This support my contention that distributed solar will ultimately surpass utility storage. The utilities are running headlong into a glut of generating capacity. Without batteries they need to stabilize the grid with gas peaking capacity. So solar just intensifies this need. Grid batteries will give utilities some relief but they will still be saddled with overcapacity. Assets are becoming stranded.
 
These data tell an interesting story about how the generation mix has changed over the last 12 months. So fossil and nuclear lost 10.58 GW while renewables gained 10.33 GW, nearly a zero sum game, or is it?
Total "electricity generated" from the EIA -- and I don't know for sure whether this includes distributed solar, but I think it doesn't -- is about the same as it was back in 2005. It's important to recognize how *weird* that is -- electricity generation and usage was growing every year for about a century.

The FERC solar numbers do not include distributed solar. According to this source (U.S. Solar Market Insight | SEIA), total installed solar in US Q1 2015 was 21.3 GW, but FERC reports 12.12 GW at this same point in time. Non-utility solar then is nearly half the total solar in the US.
If the EIA numbers are also missing distributed solar, this accounts for part of that puzzle. The actual increase in electricity generation is distributed, and as a result it isn't showing up in the stats.

So accounting for non-utility solar, we may well be reaching over capacity. The FERC total declined 7.32 GW in the first six month of this year. This may be stronger evidence of a glut.
Depends what you mean by a glut. I think the natural effect of this will be accelerated retirement of coal-burning plants, which are already being retired quite quickly, and which have mercury regulations, CO2 regulations, and general public opposition gunning for them. The merit order effect means that the solar (which is still being installed) gets used, while the coal shuts down. There will probably be some nukes shut down too.

So in some sense it's a glut on the electricity market, but I don't think it's going to touch solar or wind deployment, which are going to continue accelerating.

The next major hurdle for solar deployment overall comes when the daytime market is saturated. This still won't stop rooftop solar deployment until the utility companies change their rates to make daytime electricity cheaper than nighttime electricity. Then we have to carefully watch the deployment of batteries to figure out at what rate they will displace nighttime generation.

- - - Updated - - -

The FERC data is only measuring utility installed capacity. Utility solar is definitely slowing its rate of growth.SEIA data bears this out,
Definitely? I'd like to see evidence. It still seems to be doubling every year...

- - - Updated - - -

As someone who works in banking, I am in awe of what SolarCity is doing with these solar bonds. These products are quite comparable to CDs, but without FDIC they offer better return.
They are NOT comparable to CDs precisely because of the default risk. Which SolarCity has not adequately managed to explain.

- - - Updated - - -

Solar is here to stay and grow dramatically given the environmental issues and cost savings.
Nobody's disputing that. (At least nobody here.) The question relates to the financial arrangements. Houses are here to stay, and so are easements, but certain types of easements will sink the value of your house.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.