-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
jhm
Well-Known Member
jhm
Well-Known Member
SolarEdge now down 7.4% post-earnings; downgrade, target hikes arrive - SolarEdge Technologies (NASDAQ:SEDG) | Seeking Alpha
This has some information on SolarEdge, but none of it explains the severity of pullback.
Honestly, I'd like to see Tesla acquire SolarEdge to round out Tesla Energy. Short of that I'd like to see both Tesla and SolarCity each do manufacturing line JVs with SolarEdge. Given Tesla's secondary today, I am tempted to fantasize that something like this may be in the works. The market cap on SolarEdge is just $1B. So with $500M cash in hand, Tesla could make a solid offer of cash and stock. So if the stock price on SolarEdge should crash, I am not worried. It just makes for an easier acquisition.
This has some information on SolarEdge, but none of it explains the severity of pullback.
Honestly, I'd like to see Tesla acquire SolarEdge to round out Tesla Energy. Short of that I'd like to see both Tesla and SolarCity each do manufacturing line JVs with SolarEdge. Given Tesla's secondary today, I am tempted to fantasize that something like this may be in the works. The market cap on SolarEdge is just $1B. So with $500M cash in hand, Tesla could make a solid offer of cash and stock. So if the stock price on SolarEdge should crash, I am not worried. It just makes for an easier acquisition.
NV Energy: We Support Solar, No Solar Jobs Will Be Lost | Nevada Public Radio
2 audio interviews on this page. Both fascinating. Sunrun representative eviscerates the NV energy rep. It is painfully clear buffets position is about to get blown out of the water. If not by the PUC, under federal law of the Sherman act. It will happen.
I can't believe NV energy argues whole sale utiltiy solar is the same as retail roof top solar, so they should pay he same price for net metering. Anyone with a pea brain can see right through that fallacy. There is a whole lot more in the interviews. At one point the nv energy rep says he's just a little old engineer and can't argue as well as the sunrun rep. That says it all....
2 audio interviews on this page. Both fascinating. Sunrun representative eviscerates the NV energy rep. It is painfully clear buffets position is about to get blown out of the water. If not by the PUC, under federal law of the Sherman act. It will happen.
I can't believe NV energy argues whole sale utiltiy solar is the same as retail roof top solar, so they should pay he same price for net metering. Anyone with a pea brain can see right through that fallacy. There is a whole lot more in the interviews. At one point the nv energy rep says he's just a little old engineer and can't argue as well as the sunrun rep. That says it all....
Hah I listened to one interview and missed that line about being an old engineer lol. It was crazy hearing him say they were pro solar though! He also said neither NV energy or Berkshire Hathaway was motivated by profit ....
Listen to the second audio interview down the page... It doesn't get any better then that.
my goodness ... Nevada state assemblywoman Kirkpatrick sounds like a babbling drunk arguing with Lyndon rive in this following video of nv energy bill covering net metering(scrub to 36:40 minutes from the end of the video):
05/20/15 - Assembly Commerce and Labor (1258) - Room 4100 - May 20th, 2015
Im serious... You tell me if you think she's sober... If so, she doesn't make a lick of sense and is exceedingly hostile(as is the other assemblywoman that attacks and then cuts off Lyndon Rive). She/they are an absolutely is a disgrace to the state of Nevada if this is the way she/they goes about deciding the development of energy policy, complete embarrassment. Especially when she starts talking about selling a pallet of croissants... My mind is thoroughly blown.
This entire thing needs to be settled once and for all on the federal level with serious intent and consideration. Sanity needs to come to the rescue.
Last edited:
The U.S. Military is the single biggest consumer of fossil fuels on the planet. They are quickly leading the renewable transformation of their energy production and consumption infrastructure... And it has more to do with improving the tactical/operational capabanilites then anything else.An army lives and dies on its feet. They are mobile. It's ability to set up command operations quickly and efficiency is the difference between winning and losing, especially in assymetrical warfare. (Ie Iraq and Afghanistan)Moble Micro grids are an absolute tactics/operational advantage over the enemy combatant. To set up mobile pv and storage systems with a forward operating base would reduce the need for long logistical tails for energy production as well as reduce heat, noise, and physical signature.In addition, electric vehicles also provide significant tactical/operational advantages such as reduced signatures, reduced supply tail and sustained reliability and endurance in a high op tempo environment.Both micro grid and electric vehicle capabilities save billions in costs which adds to the ability to equip and train a combat ready force in the most effective manner.To say it another way, the United States military is alligned with the mission and goals of both Tesla Motors and Solarcity. And when this is the case, the tranfromation to a sustainable consumption and production economy is undeniable and all those that refuse to adapt will be left by the way side like many antiquated business models in our nation's past.
Current stock price revolves mostly around the Nevada decision right now. That "tariff" decision is scheduled to come next week.Distributed solar is most likely going to hit the cap next week so it will be a significant advantage to Solarcity and the rest going into this "tariff" decision.The reason it's advantage is because of the lack of time to fully digest the 500 page NV Energy tariff doc submitted two weeks ago. It is not in the best interest of anyone to fire-hose through a decision when they can just continue current net metering policy under the new "tariff" label. This will give the PUC to go through the required due diligence to come up with a renewed net metering structure on January 1st. Expert has already gone on the record showing a non effect on costs over the next three months of new net metering even if it hits 50MW over that time frame, which would be a significantly aggressive accomplishment if achieve by DG installers.Based on Sunrun's Bryan Miller's comments, it appears the PUC is seriously considering continuing the current net metering regime until the December 31st decision deadline(if they don't decide sooner).This effective extension of current net metering under the interim "tariff" label will be a huge win for Solarcity and the rest. We should see a nice jump in the stock next week after the decision comes down. Then, as the process unfolds for the new rate, the stock should continue to move up if DG solar benefits are determined to be greater then the costs. The Nevada PUC commissioned a year long study on net metering and in 2013 officially determined net metered DG was a BENEFIT to all rate payers. Hard to dismiss actual data if you're NV Energy and especially the PUC that came this conclusion 2 years ago already.
jhm
Well-Known Member
Thinking just a little bit more about a possible SolarEdge and SolarCity JV, I wonder if it makes any sense to pre-install power optimizers on panels. Suppose there was a JV at the Riverbend plant so that inverters and power optimizers were built right next to the solar panels. Perhaps there is some way to pre-install the optimizers at the plant to reduce installation labor on the roof. I suspect there would still be a need to be able to replace optimizers on a different schedule than the panels, so you don't want these to be too tightly integrated. Just thinking out loud.
- - - Updated - - -
Let's keep in mind that Powerwalls are a policy hedge against things like the loss of net metering. Tesla will start deleveries in Q4. While the supply of Powerwalls are limited, I think SolarCity should make strategic use of them in areas where net metering is denied. This deprives the utility of the benefits of net metering while SolarCity is able to continue to build its customer base. Moreover, Nevada has a lot of people dwelling in pretty remote areas. Many of these would probably put a high premium on nearly off grid selfsufficiency, and just imagine how much the utilities have had to spend to get power lines to these remote spots. So Powerwall could really be a game changer.
- - - Updated - - -
And imagine the optics of NV Energy fighting Powerwall batteries built in Sparks, NV.
- - - Updated - - -
Let's keep in mind that Powerwalls are a policy hedge against things like the loss of net metering. Tesla will start deleveries in Q4. While the supply of Powerwalls are limited, I think SolarCity should make strategic use of them in areas where net metering is denied. This deprives the utility of the benefits of net metering while SolarCity is able to continue to build its customer base. Moreover, Nevada has a lot of people dwelling in pretty remote areas. Many of these would probably put a high premium on nearly off grid selfsufficiency, and just imagine how much the utilities have had to spend to get power lines to these remote spots. So Powerwall could really be a game changer.
- - - Updated - - -
And imagine the optics of NV Energy fighting Powerwall batteries built in Sparks, NV.
Elon already hinted that he's going to co-locate energy storage lines in buffalo at either the 1GW factory or at the future 5GW factory. From the comments of solarEdge CEO, he is also indicating co-locating production lines. However, there maybe a Mexcio factory where by which it is totally possible Solarcity co-locates module lines. I think the concept of "co location" has been a central theme of the Nevada gigafactory and Elon is very deep in the details of how to reproduce the "gigafactory as product" product across all his endeavors including Solarcity.
As far as the powerwall hedge... Net metering is not going away in
Nevada. In fact, the current sb 374 bill was passed to permanentlay lift the cap on net metering, to create unlimited net metering. So, no it is a matter of determining the benefit and cost of net metering on the grid. If it is a cost then net metering will return less per kWh to solar owners. If it is a benefit, the return per kWh will remain the same or even INCREASE, which would be a total back fire/blow back on NV Energy tactics. The only reference the Nevada PUC has is the study that proved net metering a benefit to all customers, so it is already an uphill battle for NV Energy. so, powerwall won't really be a hedge if PUC does its due dilligance.
However, powerwall is about the next generation grid structure. It is much bigger then net metering debate. The powerwall + pv product is far more valuable to every single rate payer, including all utilties. It is undeniable the impact of aggregation on reducing costs to retail customers as well as reducing significant costs while increasing reliability to the grid infrastructure. Bottomline, Solarcity powerwall+pv product is only the beginning to the inevitable development of a new grid that will ether include current utitlities or not. Nevada could be one of the first to adopt this structure successfully and see consumer retail rates decline in a meaningful for the first time in history.
CPUC Thought Leaders Series
This was yesterday. There is supposed to be a video webcast on the website, but the link isn't working.
August 13th, 2015, 2 p.m. – 4 p.m.: A panel discussion of the options for a 21st century electric sector. The Advanced Energy Economy Institute (AEEI) convened its industry members to produce a position paper outlining a broad vision for California’s future electric system, which will be released on August 11th. On August 13th several of the paper’s key working group members will participate in a panel discussion to examine how stakeholders in California can move forward in a more integrated fashion to achieve some of the industry’s objectives as well as the state’s important energy and environmental policy objectives.
This was yesterday. There is supposed to be a video webcast on the website, but the link isn't working.
August 13th, 2015, 2 p.m. – 4 p.m.: A panel discussion of the options for a 21st century electric sector. The Advanced Energy Economy Institute (AEEI) convened its industry members to produce a position paper outlining a broad vision for California’s future electric system, which will be released on August 11th. On August 13th several of the paper’s key working group members will participate in a panel discussion to examine how stakeholders in California can move forward in a more integrated fashion to achieve some of the industry’s objectives as well as the state’s important energy and environmental policy objectives.
- WHERE: CPUC Auditorium, 505 Van Ness Ave., San Francisco; also available in real-time and archived via video webcast.
- WHO:
- Peter Rive, Founder, Chief Technology Officer, SolarCity
- Tom Starrs, Vice President, Market Strategy and Policy, SunPower
- Ted Ko, Director of Policy, Stem
- Dave O’Brien, Director of Regulatory Strategy and Compliance, Bridge Energy
- Jeff Lo, Vice President of Business Development, Gridco Systems
- Elisabeth Brinton, Vice President, Corporate Strategy Officer, Pacific Gas and Electric Company
- Introduction by Steve Chadima, Senior Vice President, Communications & Director of California Initiatives, Advanced Energy Economy
- Moderated by Tony Brunello, President and Founder, More than Smart
Last edited:
jhm
Well-Known Member
Thanks, Foghat. If Powerwall is not needed as a hedge, that's a good thing. So if I understand you correctly, the SB 374 bill keeps net metering with the provision that it be adjusted for the net benefit on the grid as determined by some third party, right? If so, then solar owners stand actually to be even more highly compensated then under current net metering, if the third party determines there is a net benefit. That would be totally awesome and could strike fear in the hearts of other utilities trying to kill net metering.
Given the romoteness of much of the state, once you get out of Las Vegas and Reno, I would think that distributed solar creates a lot of value by reducing the T&D burden. I think we should drill into this. I've heard that it costs about 0.5 c/kWh/100 miles to transmit power. So outside of the urban areas we are talking several cents per kWh to transmit power from generation to remote community. So distributed solar in those can avoid these operating costs. The fixed costs for these power lines have got to be enormous for serving small communities with say fewer than 100 residents.
So the net benefit to the grid may also open up ways for SolarCity to develop microgrids. These remote communities may be better served at lower cost to the grid using microgrids. Maintain a small power line from grid to microgrid sufficient to supply average daily power needs. Then anchor the microgrid with a few Powerpacks to handle peak power draws. And finally generate as much local power as is cost effective. Thus, the community could manage in island mode, and it could also manage stricky supplied from the grid. But the upshot for the utility is minimizing the cost of the powerline, especially maintenance costs and redundancy for reliability.
So back to politics, if net metering gets adjusted for net benefits to the grid, what do you do with potential benefits to the grid? That is is SolarCity can show an even greater benefit to the grid by means of microgrid services, can they actually provide those services and get properly compensated for it. If not, you run into a legal problem. That is, the utility is depriving solar owners the net benefits they would otherwise get, if the utility were to make certain infrastructure changes. So is the utility is refusing to make upgrades comparable to what SolarCity can provide, then they could be sued for depriving solar owners net benefits. The natural way out of this sort of lawsuit is to contract with SolarCity to provide these services or to make those investment themselves. So this kind of legislation could open up some unexpected challenges. If the utility operates the grid in such a manner that it destroys the net benefits that would otherwise accrue to distributed solar, what recourse is there? It seems that the situation would invite lawsuits, if remedies are not clearly spelled out.
Given the romoteness of much of the state, once you get out of Las Vegas and Reno, I would think that distributed solar creates a lot of value by reducing the T&D burden. I think we should drill into this. I've heard that it costs about 0.5 c/kWh/100 miles to transmit power. So outside of the urban areas we are talking several cents per kWh to transmit power from generation to remote community. So distributed solar in those can avoid these operating costs. The fixed costs for these power lines have got to be enormous for serving small communities with say fewer than 100 residents.
So the net benefit to the grid may also open up ways for SolarCity to develop microgrids. These remote communities may be better served at lower cost to the grid using microgrids. Maintain a small power line from grid to microgrid sufficient to supply average daily power needs. Then anchor the microgrid with a few Powerpacks to handle peak power draws. And finally generate as much local power as is cost effective. Thus, the community could manage in island mode, and it could also manage stricky supplied from the grid. But the upshot for the utility is minimizing the cost of the powerline, especially maintenance costs and redundancy for reliability.
So back to politics, if net metering gets adjusted for net benefits to the grid, what do you do with potential benefits to the grid? That is is SolarCity can show an even greater benefit to the grid by means of microgrid services, can they actually provide those services and get properly compensated for it. If not, you run into a legal problem. That is, the utility is depriving solar owners the net benefits they would otherwise get, if the utility were to make certain infrastructure changes. So is the utility is refusing to make upgrades comparable to what SolarCity can provide, then they could be sued for depriving solar owners net benefits. The natural way out of this sort of lawsuit is to contract with SolarCity to provide these services or to make those investment themselves. So this kind of legislation could open up some unexpected challenges. If the utility operates the grid in such a manner that it destroys the net benefits that would otherwise accrue to distributed solar, what recourse is there? It seems that the situation would invite lawsuits, if remedies are not clearly spelled out.
Jhm,
absolutely on the micro grid and other applications Solarcity can provide. In light of the current multi day power outage in Henderson right now(100+ degree temps), solar and powerwall are becoming even more important and inevitable as a viable option for Nevada residents.
Solar Panel Antitrust Case May Test Monopolization Law - Law360
solarcity's SRP lawsuit is now being discussed as a significant challenger to utility monopoly law. This, again, will set a nationwide precident for all future utiltiy challenges against DG solar and net metering. Solarcity will whack them all in one legal punch. If it works, major boost to stock as well as other DG's stocks.
absolutely on the micro grid and other applications Solarcity can provide. In light of the current multi day power outage in Henderson right now(100+ degree temps), solar and powerwall are becoming even more important and inevitable as a viable option for Nevada residents.
Solar Panel Antitrust Case May Test Monopolization Law - Law360
solarcity's SRP lawsuit is now being discussed as a significant challenger to utility monopoly law. This, again, will set a nationwide precident for all future utiltiy challenges against DG solar and net metering. Solarcity will whack them all in one legal punch. If it works, major boost to stock as well as other DG's stocks.
jhm
Well-Known Member
I've been using the term "JV", but "co-location" is probably a better term. Where did you get this hint that Musk wants to co-locate some battery production with SolarCity? I did not catch that, but it makes sense. I do think SolarCity could look at Mexico for their next plant. They are already entering that market.
Why not Europe? In 2012 Silevo was expecting a trifecta: "Looking further ahead, Beitel said that a manufacturing base in Eastern Europe, Asia and the US were within its plans." http://www.pv-tech.org/editors_blog/is_silevo_the_next_sunpower
Also, if that article is to be believed they'd be knocking down 24% efficiency this year and looking beyond. Tied together with the existing capacity in China they could theoretically be at 200MW capacity. Ironically, not far from the existing deal struck as part of the acquisition.
Also, if that article is to be believed they'd be knocking down 24% efficiency this year and looking beyond. Tied together with the existing capacity in China they could theoretically be at 200MW capacity. Ironically, not far from the existing deal struck as part of the acquisition.
Not so-related to SCTY, but this kind of initiative could help promote solar: Google Green Blog: Project Sunroof: mapping the planets solar energy potential, one rooftop at a time
That that this might soon be an Alphabet product, not a Google one.
Update: for some reason, Solarcity isn't listed as a provider in the list of local installers (bottom of page).
That that this might soon be an Alphabet product, not a Google one.
Update: for some reason, Solarcity isn't listed as a provider in the list of local installers (bottom of page).
Last edited by a moderator:
jhm
Well-Known Member
This is a nice marketing concept, and I'm sure SolarCity will pay Google to be listed with it. But installers and researchers have been using satellite images to map rooftop and other solar opportunities. So this is not really anything innovative on that side, but it is innovative as a marketing platform.
Last edited by a moderator:
SolarCity’s Gigafactory in Buffalo Will Come Online Just as a Key Subsidy for Rooftop Solar Is Cut | MIT Technology Review
It's quite disturbing that a prestigious university such as MIT is blatantly doing the bidding of the Kochs, however they did accept a 100M donation from David Koch so makes a lot of sense. This is the second pointedly negative anti-distributed solar article to come out of MIT in the past few months.
The bottomline on the article:
They say net metering is a "subsidy" that shifts cost onto non-solar customers; and, DG/solarcity will fall if ITC taken away in 2017.
They say if we were to continue to subsidize solar, it should be UTILITY level solar, not roof top solar because it's more expensive and again causes a cost shift.
I guess it's not journalistic and/or scientific enough to actually mention that 8 COMMISSIONED INDEPENDENT STUDIES of net metering (the only actual independent studies done on net metering in the nation) conclude it is a net benefit for utilities and not a cost on non-solar customers. I guess they don't count transmission and distribution among many other costs that utility level solar has to add to it before it reaches the end user, where roof top is already at the end user level. That would mean MIT would actually be an engineering school that uses scientific method or actual journalism to evaluate what roof top solar is and how it impacts our energy infrastructure.... but again, hard to do that when your hand is out for "donations" from a guy that has significant interests in keeping distributed solar from growing as it is and actually being a market driven industry that competes for the retail electricity customer dollar.
Also, the state of new york IS NOT subsidizing the Riverbend factory. Solarcity could have gone ANYWHERE. They would have brought thousands of jobs where ever they landed with the factory. EVERY state knows this. They are competing to GROW NEW JOBS in their states and solarcity was a big, big catch. New York negotiated an INVESTMENT with solarcity, to bring those solarcity jobs to the state. Solarcity liked the terms and negotiated a deal with New York. It absolutely shows the bias and lack of real analysis when such an idea is spread in an "MIT technology review." Yet isn't using a veneer of perceived credibility(as in using MIT's highly regarded reputation) a central tenant in the workings of a confidence/con game?
Throughout America's history, we've dealt with the affects of monopolist markets and time and time again we've broken them up to ensure competition is able participate. I feel the end result in Solarcity's anti-trust case against SRP in Arizona where the Kochs are extremely active in their anti-solar/anti-competion campaign will bear this out. I feel it will be the precedent that will set the tone for the rest of the anti-rooftop solar utility actively around the country. Enough is enough with these type of spin articles and nefarious tactics at the expense of a much better energy infrastructure.
It's quite disturbing that a prestigious university such as MIT is blatantly doing the bidding of the Kochs, however they did accept a 100M donation from David Koch so makes a lot of sense. This is the second pointedly negative anti-distributed solar article to come out of MIT in the past few months.
The bottomline on the article:
They say net metering is a "subsidy" that shifts cost onto non-solar customers; and, DG/solarcity will fall if ITC taken away in 2017.
They say if we were to continue to subsidize solar, it should be UTILITY level solar, not roof top solar because it's more expensive and again causes a cost shift.
I guess it's not journalistic and/or scientific enough to actually mention that 8 COMMISSIONED INDEPENDENT STUDIES of net metering (the only actual independent studies done on net metering in the nation) conclude it is a net benefit for utilities and not a cost on non-solar customers. I guess they don't count transmission and distribution among many other costs that utility level solar has to add to it before it reaches the end user, where roof top is already at the end user level. That would mean MIT would actually be an engineering school that uses scientific method or actual journalism to evaluate what roof top solar is and how it impacts our energy infrastructure.... but again, hard to do that when your hand is out for "donations" from a guy that has significant interests in keeping distributed solar from growing as it is and actually being a market driven industry that competes for the retail electricity customer dollar.
Also, the state of new york IS NOT subsidizing the Riverbend factory. Solarcity could have gone ANYWHERE. They would have brought thousands of jobs where ever they landed with the factory. EVERY state knows this. They are competing to GROW NEW JOBS in their states and solarcity was a big, big catch. New York negotiated an INVESTMENT with solarcity, to bring those solarcity jobs to the state. Solarcity liked the terms and negotiated a deal with New York. It absolutely shows the bias and lack of real analysis when such an idea is spread in an "MIT technology review." Yet isn't using a veneer of perceived credibility(as in using MIT's highly regarded reputation) a central tenant in the workings of a confidence/con game?
Throughout America's history, we've dealt with the affects of monopolist markets and time and time again we've broken them up to ensure competition is able participate. I feel the end result in Solarcity's anti-trust case against SRP in Arizona where the Kochs are extremely active in their anti-solar/anti-competion campaign will bear this out. I feel it will be the precedent that will set the tone for the rest of the anti-rooftop solar utility actively around the country. Enough is enough with these type of spin articles and nefarious tactics at the expense of a much better energy infrastructure.
Last edited:
jhm
Well-Known Member
5 Things Southern Cos Management Wants You to Know - NASDAQ.com
Well, it's good to keep tabs on what the competition is doing. Southern Company has closed down about 60% of their coal plants. In recent, CC they report that sales and profit are up 3%. The seem pretty pleased about that. Consumption of coal is down, natural gas is up. They are attempting to acquire through ownership and PPAs 3.2 GW of solar by end of 2016, also the end of 30% ITC. Georgia Power, a subsidiary, is forming a business unit to install and lease rooftop solar. They have ambition to install "thousands of panels," which sounds like hundreds of kW to me. So their strategy seems to be to transition to renewables via natural gas. I suppose if they and other utilities can grab enough solar before ITC step down, they may be in a position to drive down the cost of natural gas. Its hard to imagine new natural gas plants being a safe bet at this point, but if natural gas can be squeezed low enough perhaps utilities can make it work. I do get the impression that Southern Company will only be adding renewables and nuclear going forward. Perhaps I'm not reading this carefully, but that would be a positive development.
I do see Georgia Power's attempt to do rooftop leasing as rather lame. I am a Georgia Power ratepayer, and I would never trust them to install solar on my home. For years, Southern Company lobbied hard to keep laws on the books that blocked companies like SolarCity from offering solar with financing in this state. They are monopolist bullies. Now that the state legislature has changes the laws so that non-utility installers can offer financing, they think they can pull off a solar leasing company of their own. Really, I suspect the effort is merely to lock customers into longterm contracts and keep them from doing business with the likes of SolarCity and Sunrun. So I don't buy their sincerity regarding rooftop solar.
If they can keep rates down with a combination of wind, solar, and natural gas, I guess that would be a good thing.
Well, it's good to keep tabs on what the competition is doing. Southern Company has closed down about 60% of their coal plants. In recent, CC they report that sales and profit are up 3%. The seem pretty pleased about that. Consumption of coal is down, natural gas is up. They are attempting to acquire through ownership and PPAs 3.2 GW of solar by end of 2016, also the end of 30% ITC. Georgia Power, a subsidiary, is forming a business unit to install and lease rooftop solar. They have ambition to install "thousands of panels," which sounds like hundreds of kW to me. So their strategy seems to be to transition to renewables via natural gas. I suppose if they and other utilities can grab enough solar before ITC step down, they may be in a position to drive down the cost of natural gas. Its hard to imagine new natural gas plants being a safe bet at this point, but if natural gas can be squeezed low enough perhaps utilities can make it work. I do get the impression that Southern Company will only be adding renewables and nuclear going forward. Perhaps I'm not reading this carefully, but that would be a positive development.
I do see Georgia Power's attempt to do rooftop leasing as rather lame. I am a Georgia Power ratepayer, and I would never trust them to install solar on my home. For years, Southern Company lobbied hard to keep laws on the books that blocked companies like SolarCity from offering solar with financing in this state. They are monopolist bullies. Now that the state legislature has changes the laws so that non-utility installers can offer financing, they think they can pull off a solar leasing company of their own. Really, I suspect the effort is merely to lock customers into longterm contracts and keep them from doing business with the likes of SolarCity and Sunrun. So I don't buy their sincerity regarding rooftop solar.
If they can keep rates down with a combination of wind, solar, and natural gas, I guess that would be a good thing.
- Status
Similar threads
