SolarCity (SCTY)

[jhm]

I think it will be pretty easy for SolarCity to add a 7 kWh Powerwall to a 5 kW PV PPA for about 3c/kWh. That is you'd have a choice of

12c/kWh PPA for 5kW solar only
15c/kWh PPA for 5kW solar plus 7 kWh Powerwall

Only about a quarter of the power produced will be stored, so the incremental cost of storage is diluted by the total amount produced. The incremental cost per kWh stored is around 12 cents. This is the incremental cost that makes people dismiss batteries. It may be the right marginal value viewpoint for microeconomics, but consumers do not value all option that way. When the price is spread out over all the kWh the system produces, it is really a modest cost for a system with superior performance.

So I think uptake of the Powerwall option will be pretty strong. Many consumers will feel better about going solar if the system includes storage, and there are many reasons for this.

Poll. Suppose your utility rate is 16.5 c/kWh, and SolarCity offers you the PPA options below. Which do you chose?
A. Solar only for 12c/kWh
B. Solar plus Powerwall for 15c/kWh
C. Grid only for 16.5c/kWh

Personally, I know my wife and I would feel best about option B. We almost always choose B.

 

[Johan]

I think it will be pretty easy for SolarCity to add a 7 kWh Powerwall to a 5 kW PV PPA for about 3c/kWh. That is you'd have a choice of

12c/kWh PPA for 5kW solar only
15c/kWh PPA for 5kW solar plus 7 kWh Powerwall

Only about a quarter of the power produced will be stored, so the incremental cost of storage is diluted by the total amount produced. The incremental cost per kWh stored is around 12 cents. This is the incremental cost that makes people dismiss batteries. It may be the right marginal value viewpoint for microeconomics, but consumers do not value all option that way. When the price is spread out over all the kWh the system produces, it is really a modest cost for a system with superior performance.

So I think uptake of the Powerwall option will be pretty strong. Many consumers will feel better about going solar if the system includes storage, and there are many reasons for this.

Poll. Suppose your utility rate is 16.5 c/kWh, and SolarCity offers you the PPA options below. Which do you chose?
A. Solar only for 12c/kWh
B. Solar plus Powerwall for 15c/kWh
C. Grid only for 16.5c/kWh

Personally, I know my wife and I would feel best about option B. We almost always choose B.

B, yes. And I do think SCTY will soon offer this, a true no-money-down solar+battery product financed fully by a PPA. Fwiw I'm not a fan of the MyPower loan product with its escalator that basically makes it a pretty expensive regular loan which is marketed as more of a PPA (which it's not).

 

[SBenson]

I think it will be pretty easy for SolarCity to add a 7 kWh Powerwall to a 5 kW PV PPA for about 3c/kWh. That is you'd have a choice of

12c/kWh PPA for 5kW solar only
15c/kWh PPA for 5kW solar plus 7 kWh Powerwall

Only about a quarter of the power produced will be stored, so the incremental cost of storage is diluted by the total amount produced. The incremental cost per kWh stored is around 12 cents. This is the incremental cost that makes people dismiss batteries. It may be the right marginal value viewpoint for microeconomics, but consumers do not value all option that way. When the price is spread out over all the kWh the system produces, it is really a modest cost for a system with superior performance.

So I think uptake of the Powerwall option will be pretty strong. Many consumers will feel better about going solar if the system includes storage, and there are many reasons for this.

Poll. Suppose your utility rate is 16.5 c/kWh, and SolarCity offers you the PPA options below. Which do you chose?
A. Solar only for 12c/kWh
B. Solar plus Powerwall for 15c/kWh
C. Grid only for 16.5c/kWh

Personally, I know my wife and I would feel best about option B. We almost always choose B.

You cleverly skipped an option

Add: this pricing is unrealistically optimistic. Management consistently said they price 15% below utility (without storage of course).

So the correct options are:

A. Solar only 14c/kWh
B. Solar plus powerwall 17c/kWh (only 3c/kWh I have to see it to believe it)
C. Utility 16.5 kWh
D. Get your own solar for far cheaper, no 20 yr contracts, no bs

 

[electracity]

What the value proposition for choosing B? What do I get for 3 cents?

I think it will be pretty easy for SolarCity to add a 7 kWh Powerwall to a 5 kW PV PPA for about 3c/kWh. That is you'd have a choice of

12c/kWh PPA for 5kW solar only
15c/kWh PPA for 5kW solar plus 7 kWh Powerwall

Only about a quarter of the power produced will be stored, so the incremental cost of storage is diluted by the total amount produced. The incremental cost per kWh stored is around 12 cents. This is the incremental cost that makes people dismiss batteries. It may be the right marginal value viewpoint for microeconomics, but consumers do not value all option that way. When the price is spread out over all the kWh the system produces, it is really a modest cost for a system with superior performance.

So I think uptake of the Powerwall option will be pretty strong. Many consumers will feel better about going solar if the system includes storage, and there are many reasons for this.

Poll. Suppose your utility rate is 16.5 c/kWh, and SolarCity offers you the PPA options below. Which do you chose?
A. Solar only for 12c/kWh
B. Solar plus Powerwall for 15c/kWh
C. Grid only for 16.5c/kWh

Personally, I know my wife and I would feel best about option B. We almost always choose B.

 

[Foghat]

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2016/02/when-is-energy-storage-eligible-for-the-30-percent-itc.html

maybe this had something to do with stock movement today...

 

[jigar]

It is was about storage.
Why did SEDG move only 1c ?
It is a key player for integrating batteries with grid / solar panels.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

TSLA and SCTY up big on zero news. I guess something will come out tomorrow, I'm not buying that people care about what happens in Hawaii.

 

[electracity]

It is was about storage.
Why did SEDG move only 1c ?
It is a key player for integrating batteries with grid / solar panels.

SEDG already was up a lot this week.
I don't think we know why SCTY moved.

 

[Foghat]

It is was about storage.
Why did SEDG move only 1c ?
It is a key player for integrating batteries with grid / solar panels.

First, Solarcity is trading at no growth levels right now, so it is extremely compressed value as compared to SEDG.

Second, 30% ITC covers both solar+storage together, so solarcity's solar+smart inverter+storage as a product gets the 30% ITC. Batteries would really see a spike in sales(from basically zero sales) from Solarcity over the coming year and beyond because of it. Remember tesla sells it at full price, Solarcity buys it at full price, then receives a 30% tax credit on entire system costs(panels, inverter, storage and install costs combined). Now that tax credit will be monitized through tax equity partnerships.

Not sure inverter companies would see a big change in orders, at least not as big of change as battery companies in terms of sales growth. Batteries sales are very small compared to inverter sales right now, however, with strong ITC with solar now, then they could experience much steeper growth curve now with ITC.

overall, a clarification of the irs rules just gives Solarcity more certainty with what benefits they get from ITC and how to fully utiltize those benefits to deploy assets.

 

[renim]

Actually, TOU pretty much solves the duck problem by pricing power more appropriately......

Spring 2016 is coming up, 'overgeneration' may have some precise meaning, but in about 3 months, there will be occurrences where midday electricity is the new off peak.

but this is a spring effect, not a summer effect. So the lowest price offpeak for spring TOU is very different to lowest price offpeak for summer TOU.


whats a TOU likely to transition to something similar to SCE TOU EV-A as a proxy
https://www.sce.com/NR/sc3/tm2/pdf/ce114-12.pdf

midday offpeak may be worth 8cents per kwh as a full NEM or perhaps 6cents/kwh including some local distribution costs.
sunset peak may cost 17 cents per kwh. 17c - 6c = 11 cents, so by absolute $$ its a more intensive change than Nevada's decision, even though it will still be a 'full' Net Metering regime.

is this obvious?

what if endusers/voters don't like TOU changes based on seasons or whether the day is sunny or not?

 

[Krugerrand]

TSLA and SCTY up big on zero news. I guess something will come out tomorrow, I'm not buying that people care about what happens in Hawaii.

SCTY up because Elon bought another whack of shares.

Musk buys more SolarCity shares, sending the stock soaring - MarketWatch

 

[Foghat]

SCTY up because Elon bought another whack of shares.

Musk buys more SolarCity shares, sending the stock soaring - MarketWatch

In addition to the irs news, Pennsylvania put forward legislation today to open up PACE to 3rd parties(like Solarcity), 17 governors(including Nevada governor) signed a renewable energy accord, Solarcity has already accrued 55000 signatures required to bypass Nevada PUC/state legislature and undo net metering changes through referendum, and news about tesla energy storage selected for Kuaui utilty project(which could be further hightened by the irs news).

Im sure the fact Elon bought a load of shares a couple days helps too, but that was yesterday's news. Maybe we'll learn he bought some more today. Volume was pretty huge today, so maybe some big buying was happening on his behalf(or someone else?).

sunrun was up big today as well so it might be more of a TASC news day event of some sort. I think maybe the news of the referendum having significant momentum... Forgot to mention nv energy created a PAC yesterday which now has a challenge to the referendum in the courts. Funny how they hide behind a pac with "citizens" in the title. What a joke. Not going to fool anyone. However, Florida utilties have tricked a lot of people in thinking their pac is the same one as the solar industry PAC so anything is possible...

its hard not to notice the big volume in scty today, literally 3X daily average. Tsla didn't have that volume nor did sunrun or anyone else among the publicly traded companies in solar. Pretty significant note on scty today.

 

[electracity]

SolarCity Statement on California Public Utilities Commission Proposed Decision on Solar Net Metering

SAN MATEO, Calif., Dec. 15, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- SolarCity CEO Lyndon Rive released the following statement on the Proposed Decision on solar net metering policy released today by the California Public Utilities Commission:
"We support the PUC's proposed decision to continue the state's successful net metering policy. This is consistent withCalifornia and Governor Brown's leadership on clean energy and recognizes the important role of rooftop solar in accelerating our transition to a clean energy economy and providing customer choice.
The proposal to require new solar customers be on time-of-use rates is concerning. As we saw in 2007 when time of use rates were briefly mandated for solar customers, they don't work for everyone who wants to go solar, and would reduce the motivation for installing solar. While these rates can send helpful signals about when to use electricity, we urge the PUC to closely examine the impacts of mandating time-of-use rates."
Parties to the CPUC's net metering proceeding now have 20 days to give feedback on the proposed decision to the Commission, after which the Commission will vote on a final decision.

TOU stays in, and Lyndon forgets his concern:

SolarCity Statement on California Net Metering Decision

SAN MATEO, Calif., Jan. 28, 2016 /PRNewswire/ -- SolarCity CEO Lyndon Rive released the following statement today about the California Public Utilities decision on net metering:
"Today's decision by the Public Utilities Commission will empower Californians to contribute to a cleaner, more affordable, more resilient, and more distributed grid. It will give us the time to prove distributed energy's full benefits to the grid and all ratepayers, while continuing to deploy clean energy and creating jobs today.
"Since December we have seen a paradigm shift on the world's approach to electricity, with the Paris climate agreement, extension of the federal Investment Tax Credit, and now a decision from California that will continue the successful net metering policy while ensuring rooftop solar users begin to provide valuable services to the grid. This new paradigm is one in which our most important goal is to deploy renewable energy as fast as possible. SolarCity looks forward to working with everyone to exceed the world's expectations on how fast we can do it."

 

[jhm]

You cleverly skipped an option

Add: this pricing is unrealistically optimistic. Management consistently said they price 15% below utility (without storage of course).

So the correct options are:

A. Solar only 14c/kWh
B. Solar plus powerwall 17c/kWh (only 3c/kWh I have to see it to believe it)
C. Utility 16.5 kWh
D. Get your own solar for far cheaper, no 20 yr contracts, no bs

Of course you can shop elsewhere, but you'll remain in option C until you decide.

Once they add the storage option, they will want to revisit how they price relative to the utility. Do you really think in makes sense to price the battery option above the utility price? I don't. I think it needs to be about 10% below.

BTW, $4000 × 0.7 ÷ 5 kWh/cycle ÷ 5000 cycles = $0.112/kWh storage cost. Suppose 5kW generates about 20 kWh/day and 5 kWh gets stored. So $.112 × 5 ÷ 20 = $0.028 is the incremental cost of storage on a PPA basis.

Of course, SolarCity does not have to use that price differential in their pricing, any more than they must price 15% below utility which has absolutely no bearing on their cost or need for profit. So maybe they price the solar only option just 2 cents below solar with Powerwall. So is someone goes barebones, it's at a higher profit margin. Thus,

A 13 c/kWh solar only
B 15 c/kWh solar plus Powerwall
C 16.5 c/kWh utility

With this price line up, solar with Powerwall is 9% under utility and solar only is 21% below utility. Given the narrow price difference between with and without Powerwall, I think uptake of the option would be very high. But it helps people sort out what they are really looking for in solar. If all you want is to save money, then you go with A or shop other solar providers. So for this price sensitive segment 13c/kWh may not be enough savings to convert the sale. Essentially you loose too many sales to other solar providers is option A is priced too high. People who want more control over how they use the power and value the reliability and flexibility that a Powerwall adds will not need a huge savings over the utility rate. So a 10% discount to utility may suffice.

So one thing that becomes clear about adding the battery option is that the value proposition can be varied to meet the needs of multiple segments. Powerwall represents a premium system while solar only is an economy system. So far the only set of options SolarCity has offered were just financing options. It is probably a better sales process to focus more on system options than financing options. When a premium options are offered it helps consumers figure out what they really value in an energy system. The net result is better sales efficiency. You get more revenue per sale from consumers who value premium options and you can convert more sales from those needing a lower cost system.

One of the big mistakes that people make in marketing is assuming that all customers are looking for the same things, and typically it is the marketer's own consumer values that are projected onto the typical consumer. It takes much more talent in marketing to appeal to consumers who are different from yourself. This is why we get into endless debates around here about whether a PPA is better than an outright purchase of a solar system. What this bold down to is individuals projecting their personal values as consumers and arguing why everybody else is just wrong. But in marketing, what matters is what sells. And what sells is different for every consumer. SolarCity is not going to offer a stripped down system with the cheapest components at every turn and with financing left to the customer to figure out on their own. Is this a bad marketing approach? Not at all, there are definitely consumers that want a stripped down system. And such systems are in fact the cheapest per watt. I believe that SolarCity is not interested in this segment because the margins are too thin, and using the cheapest components even for those who request them can reflect badly on the installer. So if you want to serve a middle to premium market, you need to maintain certain quality standards in all systems. So this were I would position SolarCity. They are quality solar service provider focused on middle to premium segments. Offering Powerwalls will help differentiate SolarCity as a premium solar provider. So within that range of segments it's good to offer both standard and premium packages.

- - - Updated - - -

What the value proposition for choosing B? What do I get for 3 cents?

What do you think you would be getting? What would you be willing to pay for it?

 

[renim]

What do you think you would be getting? What would you be willing to pay for it?

first choice is option D,

second choice is probably option E, cut ties to the grid and have a home backup generator in addition to a solar + battery. Hawaii has crazy expensive electricity because it is diesel powered + grid costs + retailer on costs. Generally I think a small amount of grid defection is good for the grid, but in Hawaii's case, its ready for mass defection.

 

[jhm]

View attachment 111651
Spring 2016 is coming up, 'overgeneration' may have some precise meaning, but in about 3 months, there will be occurrences where midday electricity is the new off peak.



View attachment 111653
but this is a spring effect, not a summer effect. So the lowest price offpeak for spring TOU is very different to lowest price offpeak for summer TOU.


whats a TOU likely to transition to something similar to SCE TOU EV-A as a proxy
https://www.sce.com/NR/sc3/tm2/pdf/ce114-12.pdf

midday offpeak may be worth 8cents per kwh as a full NEM or perhaps 6cents/kwh including some local distribution costs.
sunset peak may cost 17 cents per kwh. 17c - 6c = 11 cents, so by absolute $$ its a more intensive change than Nevada's decision, even though it will still be a 'full' Net Metering regime.

is this obvious?

what if endusers/voters don't like TOU changes based on seasons or whether the day is sunny or not?

This is interesting information, but there is a big difference between TOU and the low feed in tariff in Nevada. The important distinction is whether the same price is used for both buying and selling (at the same time) or whether there is spread between buying and selling. Why does this matter? First it assures a basic level of fairness. Where there is a spred the utility is trying to make a profit off of the transaction, which is the intent in Nevada where the utility believes it is entitled to recover certain cost from solar owners. The second reason is more important. Buying and selling at the same price sends the same price signals to all customers in the same rate plan so that demand can properly respond.

So the duck curves basically about because of a bad pricing mechanism that does not signal to consumers the current cost of production. So when retail customers can all buy and sell at the same rate and that rate truly reflects the current costs of pruduction, then demand will adjust. Using Nest meters, smart EV charging, smarter refrigeraters, clothes driers, etc. will all seize upon opportunities to buy more power when it is cheap and buy less power when it is pricey. Solar owners with batteries and smart inverters will be right theRe too, making the most of price fluctuations. Until there is not enough price variation to motivate demand responses, that is this sort of pricing plan will level out the curve till no one cares. For example, if you had reliable daily max prices at 17c and reliable min prices at 6c, someone with a battery will charge at 6c and discharge at 17c, thus they would collect 11c per cycle which may oe may not fully pay for the use of their battery. Well is this attracted lost of batteries, the max would fall a few cents and the min rise a few cents. So maybe the spread from 9c to 14c no longer motivates people to use their batteries this way, or even to buy a new battery. Batteries, of course, are just one device that can take advantage of these variations. If I'm going to dry my clothes, I'd be smart to do that at the minimum daily price, right? Or at least I'd avoid the daily max. What does it cost me to do this? Not much, but all these little actions flatten out the price, the spread from daily max to min will get trivially small.

So this is a public good for all, not just a means to recover costs from solar customers in Nevada. What Nevada is doing does nothing to change the consumption behaviors of non-solar customers. It's trying to keep all the old pricing inefficiencies in place so that electricity is expensive for all, but profitable to the utilities.

- - - Updated - - -

first choice is option D,

second choice is probably option E, cut ties to the grid and have a home backup generator in addition to a solar + battery. Hawaii has crazy expensive electricity because it is diesel powered + grid costs + retailer on costs. Generally I think a small amount of grid defection is good for the grid, but in Hawaii's case, its ready for mass defection.

That's a good point about the option of going off grid. I think SolarCity does well to position both option A and option B as a potential pathway off grid, not that all folks should go there, but that there is value in taking steps that open off grid as a real option. The step from B to off grid may be as simple as adding a generator. It's would be good to know that SolarCity would support you in that.

 

[renim]

..., but there is a big difference between TOU and the low feed in tariff in Nevada. The important distinction is whether the same price is used for both buying and selling (at the same time) or whether there is spread between buying and selling. Why does this matter? First it assures a basic level of fairness. Where there is a spred the utility is trying to make a profit off of the transaction.....

sigh, rational people can have differing ideas, particular of fairness.
My state labor government (ie left of centre) has reduced the solar feed in tariff even lower than before, and added a solar meter reading cost. Why, because of fairness. If feed in tariffs are based upon costs avoided, then the incremental cost avoided to the energy retailer is very close to the wholesale price. And solar customers do result in more phone help desk time (useless energy retailers are woeful)

Whether its California with TOU pricing or Nevada with wholesale pricing, both are reflecting the same issue, a 24 hour rate applied to a retail feed in tariff is not a true representative of its value to the wider grid once a meaningful supply on the grid comes from solar.
They are really really very closely related, the difference is primarily one of optics, but the core basis is the same.

We don't have utilities like in America, so I don't have a utility bogeyman to see as evil.

• we have energy suppliers (formerly government power plants sold to private investors, some new plants are still built/owned by government)
• transmission/distribution by a monolithic government corporation
• private retailers who do nothing except run a help desk and (charge around 25% of the bill) , (yet even their costs are high enough that not all regions have private retailers because there was insufficient revenue from poorer regions)

both the energy suppliers (power plants) and the retailers are in a competitive environment, no room for excessive profits.
the monolithic government corporation owing/operating the transmission/distribution is not about profits either, but maintaining service so that the current government (whoever it is) does not lose votes due to unnecessary blackouts.

repeat, once the electricity grid is vertically partitioned, it just falls out that feed in solar reduces the demand for power plant's fuel, but does very little to reduce cost for either the transmission/distribution body or the retailer. The retailer has negligible margin anyway, they only save on not needing to pay the powerplant for the energy, so its a wholesale price, not a retail price. The government transmission/distribution entity has negligible benefit from additional roof top solar, so they aren't giving money back either.

Un-subsidized roof top solar is now $1/watt installed in my country with electrician labour rates being the same as USA. That is today's reality of cheap Chinese production and an experienced labour pool of electricians. The USA may not have this yet, but it will come, particularly to the sun belt. Complete solar installs cheaper than the combined price of SCTY's marketing and financing cost.

 

[Foghat]

Solarcity is creating the "God platform" of distributed energy...
A new kind of utility: Why SolarCity wants to be 'more than a solar company' | Utility Dive

"The interesting part is as the complexity of the network grows and you have more of these edges connected to the nodes, then you are really only limited by your imagination as to how you can provide value-added services on those edges, on those vectors of the network, instead of the nodes themselves."


SolarCity Has a New Plan to Make Distributed Energy an Integral Part of the Grid | Greentech Media


Californias Distributed Energy Challenge: Sharing the Data | Greentech Media

"But SolarCity also wants to use this data to help utilities, he said. “If they have some capacity challenges, we can identify those zones -- perhaps quicker than utilities -- and focus our assets there, and provide tailored grid services that can help them do their jobs better."

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/solarcitys-plan-for-tesla-batteries-share-grid-revenues-with-homeowners

But he did provide one metric for the value it could capture for SolarCity and its customers -- the rough estimate of $10 per kilowatt-month that California utilities pay for resources and investments to maintain grid capacity.
“In their case, they procure capital equipment and then depreciate it,” he said. “With solar and a battery, you can provide what is a firm capacity resource.”
That’s why the value is presented as a “per-month” figure, by the way. That’s not an amount of energy to be sold to the system hour by hour and day by day. Instead, it’s a payment in exchange for a firm commitment to turn its fleet of battery-backed solar systems into a reliable source of power at moments of peak energy demand, when utilities and grid operators need it the most.

 

[jhm]

sigh, rational people can have differing ideas, particular of fairness.
My state labor government (ie left of centre) has reduced the solar feed in tariff even lower than before, and added a solar meter reading cost. Why, because of fairness. If feed in tariffs are based upon costs avoided, then the incremental cost avoided to the energy retailer is very close to the wholesale price. And solar customers do result in more phone help desk time (useless energy retailers are woeful)

Whether its California with TOU pricing or Nevada with wholesale pricing, both are reflecting the same issue, a 24 hour rate applied to a retail feed in tariff is not a true representative of its value to the wider grid once a meaningful supply on the grid comes from solar.
They are really really very closely related, the difference is primarily one of optics, but the core basis is the same.

We don't have utilities like in America, so I don't have a utility bogeyman to see as evil.

• we have energy suppliers (formerly government power plants sold to private investors, some new plants are still built/owned by government)
• transmission/distribution by a monolithic government corporation
• private retailers who do nothing except run a help desk and (charge around 25% of the bill) , (yet even their costs are high enough that not all regions have private retailers because there was insufficient revenue from poorer regions)

both the energy suppliers (power plants) and the retailers are in a competitive environment, no room for excessive profits.
the monolithic government corporation owing/operating the transmission/distribution is not about profits either, but maintaining service so that the current government (whoever it is) does not lose votes due to unnecessary blackouts.

repeat, once the electricity grid is vertically partitioned, it just falls out that feed in solar reduces the demand for power plant's fuel, but does very little to reduce cost for either the transmission/distribution body or the retailer. The retailer has negligible margin anyway, they only save on not needing to pay the powerplant for the energy, so its a wholesale price, not a retail price. The government transmission/distribution entity has negligible benefit from additional roof top solar, so they aren't giving money back either.

Un-subsidized roof top solar is now $1/watt installed in my country with electrician labour rates being the same as USA. That is today's reality of cheap Chinese production and an experienced labour pool of electricians. The USA may not have this yet, but it will come, particularly to the sun belt. Complete solar installs cheaper than the combined price of SCTY's marketing and financing cost.

So are you saying that Australia used to have large well capitalized installer/financiers like SolarCity and then it just devolved into a bunch of electricians willing to work for next to nothing? You see the US solar installers used to be a lot of small outfits that could not offer financing. In deed that is how SolarCity began, but residential solar did not take off under that business model. It started to grow explosively with the introduction of PPAs. SolarCity started doubling annually until it has reached 34% marketshare. And the industry ad a whole has been growing at 40%. So apparently things just evolved differently in the US. I fail to see how the Australian experience has any predictive value for what comes next in US solar. Small local installers can be a great value, but they are not driving this market to grow at 40%. So I just don't see how a bunch of electricians willing to work for next to nothing are going to catch up with the market leaders. That's like saying that bunch local coffee shops with books to sell are gong to catch up with Amazon. Or wildcats are going put Exxon out of business. Maybe if you invent some sort of postapocalyptic scenarios, that's how things shake out, some kind of Mad Max world, but with solar panels from China. But otherwise SolarCity continues to lead.

 

[Foghat]

Intel campus in Folsom unveils sprawling solar power carport | The Sacramento Bee

Yesterday, solarcity completed the biggest carport in the United States. Funny none of us caught it.