18 ms·

SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti-Rooftop Solar Decision

202 points by Shivetya 11y ago

DiabloD3 11y ago
So, seeing as how the Governor of Nevada just cost thousands of citizens of his state their job, in an industry that is progressive and required for the survival of that state (and the nation as a whole), why has the state legislature not immediately begun impeachment? Politicians need to be taught that they serve at the pleasure of the people, and when they stop doing what they are told, they will no longer be employed. Nevada has been one of the most pro-solar states in the US, and what he is doing is political suicide.
- tinco 11y ago
  The article said 550, where did you get the thousands figure? Is it from other solar companies? How many employees does NV Energy have and how many millions did they offer the state in discounts or whatever. It's unfortunate that they are working against solar, but I would be very surprised if this affair has a negative financial effect for Nevada in the short term. edit: woops that's what I get for skimming too fast, thanks :)
  - diminishedprime 11y ago
    > Other Nevada solar companies with higher cost structures than SolarCity are expected to collectively lay off thousands of additional Nevadans in the coming months.
  - geomark 11y ago
    From the article, "Other Nevada solar companies with higher cost structures than SolarCity are expected to collectively lay off thousands of additional Nevadans in the coming months." That's probably where he is getting the thousands figure.
  - wwalser 11y ago
    According to Wikipedia, NV Energy employs ~2500 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NV_Energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NV_Energy
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- jacobolus 11y ago
  Nevada has had a Republican governor since 1999. Sandoval, the current governor, is in his second term, was reelected about year ago with 90% of the vote in the Republican primary and 70% of the vote in the general election, and currently has something like a 2/3 approval rating in state polls. His Wikipedia page currently has one section which is a long hit piece written by pro-solar flacks, but that seems likely to be cleaned up as soon as other Wikipedia editors take notice. Other than that, I don’t see much evidence that he’s in any particular trouble. “Political suicide” seems like a fairly dramatic exaggeration, unless you’re sitting on some information the rest of us don’t know about. (Note: I think the Nevada Republican party is crazy, and am strongly pro-solar myself... but let’s not kid ourselves here.) Edit: Sandoval’s statement about the SolarCity announcement, http://www.news3lv.com/media/lib/166/0/e/8/0e8f2127-0e76-464b-8a57-d132ff6b27c8/FinalSC1615.pdf http://www.news3lv.com/media/lib/166/0/e/8/0e8f2127-0e76-464...
  - exelius 11y ago
    It's only political suicide if you have no political capital (aka favors that other people owe you). This is how politicians can get away with things and not get impeached or voted out of office.
- mbrutsch 11y ago
  > Politicians need to be taught that they serve at the pleasure of the people, and when they stop doing what they are told, they will no longer be employed. I have seen very little evidence that this is true, at least in the last 50 years or so. Sure, there are isolated recalls here and there, but the vast majority suffer no repercussions regardless of how they act. A single vote every few years is a piss-poor way of making your voice heard, but it's what we have. The current state of affairs makes it seem clear that our system does not work well, regardless of what we were taught in Civics class.
  - theklub 11y ago
    Most people don't have time or know how to protest even when they are pissed about law changes. There should probably be a class on this in grade school.
  - hwstar 11y ago
    That coupled with deep pocket companies supplying nearly 90% of campaign financing to elected officials narrows the choices to the point the voters can never get a candidate which truly represents their interests.
- hoorayimhelping 11y ago
  >why has the state legislature not immediately begun impeachment? I was under the impression that impeachment is not a "I didn't get my way, I'm going to remove you from office" card. It's not for validating the whims of the electorate because some of them think they're not being served. It's for bringing official charges to an elected official and putting them on trial. What charges can you file against the governor based on this short article and actually bring to trial?
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    I know it isn't but technically it really should be. What use is it to have someone represent you that no longer serves your interests.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      I think the "we don't like what you've done" mechanism is a recall election rather than an impeachment. Of course, lots of places don't even have those.
    - brockers 11y ago
      Under this same logic the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) would have lead to the impeachment of the President and most of the Democrats in Congress. It was HUGELY unpopular and has only recently become so-so... 5 YEARS after it was passed.
  - theandrewbailey 11y ago
    I think the best legal action is SolarCity (and others) to sue the State of Nevada over loss of business. Is that possible?
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
      - DannyBee 11y ago
- rhino369 11y ago
  If the people of Nevada would vote on higher electricity rates in exchange for some people getting a subsidy on soar panels, I doubt the subsidy would win.
ndonnellan 11y ago
This article seems to have a more thorough explanation: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/is-this-sunny-state-trying-to-kill-solar-power-2016-01-07 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/is-this-sunny-state-trying-... snip ----------------------- A little-understood billing mechanism called net metering is at the heart of the Nevada controversy. Net metering means that residential and commercial solar customers are billed for their “net” energy consumption. They are allowed to send back to the grid the electricity their solar arrays generate when the supply outstrips demand -- such as during daytime hours, in the case of a home -- and take power from the grid when demand may exceed the system’s output -- such as at nighttime when all the lights are on, or during a cloudy spell. It’s a system usually based on power-bill credits. How that quid-pro-quo works, varies from state to state and from utility to utility. In Nevada, the utility regulators have decided to pay lower, wholesale prices for that surplus power, not the higher, retail prices they had been paying. California utility regulators evaluated a similar proposal, but decided against major changes. In Hawaii, regulators approved lower net metering rates, but not higher fees for the most part. Arizona and Wisconsin have imposed higher monthly surcharges for solar customers. More worrying in Nevada’s case, however, is that regulators made no provision to grandfather in existing customers, said Shayle Kann, a senior vice president at GTM Research, a green-energy consulting firm. -------------- end snip
- marvin 11y ago
  The ironic part here is that the Nevada utilities are accelerating their own demise by opposing rooftop solar. In a few short years, batteries will be cheap and plentiful enough that it will be unnecessary to cut deals like these with the utilities in order to have a profitable solar rooftop installation. By removing the incentive for customers to cooperate with the utilities, the utility companies are further incentivizing the installation of residential battery storage, which will further reduce the utilities' influence down the road.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    It's not that simple. A system that is not grid connected will need a lot more than just a battery to make it as reliable as a grid connection. Those 'few short years' are more likely a couple of decades, in other words well over the horizon for the people that are currently trying to squeeze the most profit from those utilities. Residential battery storage is just one component is a complex chain that needs to be deployed for every house that could be off the grid, it actually side-steps the need for net metering (because you can simply store your own excess). For those use cases the grid functions exactly like a battery, only one with near infinite capacity. It also serves as a back-up, in case of system failure, extended lack of power from whatever sources you've got and so on. And that function is far harder to engineer around than the mere energy storage and recovery one.
mrfusion 11y ago
What was the anti solar decision? The article doesn't seem to say.
- eli 11y ago
  It has to do with net metering rates, that is how much indidivuals and small business get paid for putting electricity back into the grid for others to use. See http://www.utilitydive.com/news/nevada-regulators-approve-new-net-metering-policy-creating-separate-rate-c/411284/ http://www.utilitydive.com/news/nevada-regulators-approve-ne... (disclaimer: I'm co-founder of the linked news site)
  - OliverJones 11y ago
    Interesting. This Utility Dive article points out that the rate change is to be phased in over four years. It's not a cliff. That should mitigate large-scale sudden incentive changes. Where I live the electric energy company has separate rates for energy and for distribution. I think it's like that everywhere. In the most naive pricing model net metering ignores that distinction and simply run the meter backwards when local production exceeds local consumption. In the second most naive pricing model, the local customer would credit for energy cost, but not distribution, when local production exceeds consumption. Neither of those are completely fair: the first doesn't gain the utility a return on their distribution infrastructure investment, and the second pays the utility too much. Why too much? Around here we pay a level distribution fee that covers both the long-haul lines from Georgian Bay and the shorter haul from the local coal plant. Locally generated electricity doesn't use the long-haul distribution system. What's needed is a pricing model that ... a) maintains incentives to build out new generation (rooftop, etc.) b) makes incentives to create a new "smart grid" distribution system. I fear that loud political posturing (Jobs!!! Monopolists!!!) isn't helping get this right. But naive models, in a world that can have companies like Enron disrupting those models, are also not good enough. For example, naive net metering -- backward running meters -- is not as favorable to Tesla's battery business as a dual-rate system. The return on a battery investment needs to come from that margin.
    - 11y ago
Animats 11y ago
If solar can't make it in Nevada without subsidies, the industry has a big problem. Nevada's population is mostly around Las Vegas, which is at 36° latitude and has 294 sunny days a year. It doesn't get much better than that. Utilities are still buying back power, just at wholesale rates. You can still use the power yourself and buy less at retail rates. Or you can get some of Tesla's batteries and store it for nighttime use. If your solar panel output matches your air conditioning load, this shouldn't affect you.
- ebbv 11y ago
  This is a really disingenuous response. The NV Energy (all power utilities in the US) receive massive subsidies. So the playing field isn't level.
  - tomp 11y ago
    What kind of subsidies?
    - roymurdock 11y ago
      This is a great report from 2012 (using 2010 numbers) that outlines gov subsidies, loans, and contracts by industry: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2012/ninesubsidyscopechartspdf.pdf http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_as... Energy is the 5th most subsidized sector, counting both grants and tax expenditures (exemptions), with $34.5b in total federal subsidies. Compared to the $743.5b we subsidized healthcare, this is pretty small stuff. Energy makes up the 2nd largest share of direct federal loans at $48.4b, behind education at $87.8b: The energy sector contained the second largest number of loans, with $48.4 billion in loans, about half of the amount of education loans. These loans were administered by the U.S. Department of Energy to promote advanced technology vehicles and energy efficiency through innovative technologies and by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, for the purpose of improving electricity transmission in rural areas. The energy sector’s loans made up 31 percent of all loans in the nine sectors in FY2010. Good breakdown of competed vs non-competed contracts by sector as well, with transportation and national defense coming out on top in terms of nominal size of contracts as well as ratio non-compete to compete, unsurprisingly.
kriro 11y ago
So basically excess power generated is bought back at a standard price (bulk) instead of the current retail price? As long as you're consuming all the energy you harvested nothing changes. They basically just removed a subsidy of sorts which seems to be in line with the general party policy decisions.
- transfire 11y ago
  They also are hiking the fee for being attached to the grid.
- ZeroGravitas 11y ago
  With something as innately interconnected as a power grid, its not that simple. In the states where they investigated how much value was provided by the rooftop solar, the value was higher again than net metering (e.g. it might save money on uprating grid connection). This means Nevada was effectively taxing rooftop solar and wasn't getting the optimum amount installed. With this change they've raised that tax and destroyed even more value. Another specific angle is the retro-activity, this means no consumer in the US can commit to rooftop solar without worrying that all their calculations will be rendered moot, after the install. This puts a big cloud over things.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
cephaslr 11y ago
I was looking for the opposition view point, to see if there is something I missed. Here is one of the better articles: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/545146/battles-over-net-metering-cloud-the-future-of-rooftop-solar/ http://www.technologyreview.com/news/545146/battles-over-net... I still have the impression that the incumbent monopolists (power companies) are protecting their interests at the expense of the public, not unlike taxi drivers blocking uber operations within a city. I hope we get to a non monopolist system asap. http://www.technologyreview.com/news/544471/renewable-energy-trading-launched-in-germany/ http://www.technologyreview.com/news/544471/renewable-energy...
transfire 11y ago
Here is the official report http://pucweb1.state.nv.us/PDF/AXImages/PRESS_RELEASES/300.pdf http://pucweb1.state.nv.us/PDF/AXImages/PRESS_RELEASES/300.p... It really leaves people hanging b/c they won't know the actual dollar amounts until 7 days before it becomes law.
transfire 11y ago
Never trust subsidies. Look at history and you will see again and again that government has often used them as a form of industrial sabotage.
tcbawo 11y ago
If you were an electricity provider (which homeowners are on a small scale), you would be receiving wholesale rates. I wonder how much of the energy pushed into the system is actually utilized. Overcapacity during peak hours is probably a big problem for the utilities.
ISL 11y ago
A less-sensational article: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/545146/battles-over-net-metering-cloud-the-future-of-rooftop-solar/ http://www.technologyreview.com/news/545146/battles-over-net... The change isn't a ban on rooftop solar. It's a change in the metering for selling power back to the grid.
- mcv 11y ago
  I guess the solution is to store it locally and buy less from the grid, then.
notlisted 11y ago
Somewhat off-topic. I'm all for solar, but there are some nasty practices out there with the "free" installs (lease). To maximize energy-harvesting potential, many "free" solar installers don't seem to care at all about ruining the look of nice houses, for example stuff like this [1], reducing the value of the home and increasing the time to sell. There are many horror stories about unexpected liens on homes [2] preventing a sale and/or refinancing. I'll jump on solar as soon as they make affordable panels that resemble shingles (they exist, I know [3], but expensive) [1] http://www.greensunnj.com/resource/1430381659000/Bad_Princeton_1 http://www.greensunnj.com/resource/1430381659000/Bad_Princet... [2] http://watchdog.org/212170/surprise-solar-liens/ http://watchdog.org/212170/surprise-solar-liens/ [3] http://cleantechnica.com/2015/02/08/solar-shingles-renewable-energy-solution-curb-appeal/ http://cleantechnica.com/2015/02/08/solar-shingles-renewable...
- SmallBets 11y ago
  Exactly. This stumbling block is as much about the solar lease/ppa model as net metering, because math about cost of botg grid and solar are assumed 100% unchanged for 20 years. Rooftop owners that buy their systems outright are still im good shape, with a different payback period. Leases have been pushed bc theyre more lucrative for installers and homeowners have avoided the upfront cost of buying. Leases were a gateway financial model to expand rooftop solar but I think we'll see a shift to system ownership, which will reduce the impact of net metering. And it will be further reduced as storage tech ramps up.
  - notlisted 11y ago
    Once home batteries like Tesla's Powerwall become mainstream we may see another up-tick in self-financed systems, especially since those may have an effect on the price of electricity for people without them [1]. This is a lovely article on the latest developments and side-effects [2] [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-24/batteries-pose-sales-challenge-for-power-companies-moody-s-says http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-24/batteries-... [2] http://rameznaam.com/2015/04/14/energy-storage-about-to-get-big-and-cheap/ http://rameznaam.com/2015/04/14/energy-storage-about-to-get-...
inthewoods 11y ago
Seems like they need a middle ground - not selling at wholesale prices or full retail. Putting the price at wholesale doesn't take into account the costs for the homeowner (or a 3rd party company like SolarCity) to invest in solar panels. Selling at retail doesn't take into account cost of grid maintenance for the power companies. It also doesn't make a lot of sense to me that they charge higher fees to connect to the grid. Definitely seems like a big win, short term, for the power companies. It seems like a big lose for renewables. Everyone seems to focused on whether it's perfectly fair or not - whereas I would say the goal of getting to environmentally friendly energy must weigh into the discuss - but hey, that's me. Side note: I would be curious how much grid maintenance costs the power companies relative to their other costs.
- ethbro 11y ago
  I don't see where the argument against retail (possibly minus a small amount) comes from. Effectively, they're deleting load from close to the end user from the utility's books. If that load hadn't been deleted, the utility would have charged retail pricing in order to generate it. The small negative adjustment from retail would come from the fact that the utility is still servicing the solar user as a retail user. So still needs to charge a set amount for admin costs & transmission (NOT generation) infrastructure. Paying them wholesale is pretty ridiculous, and is a blatant abuse of the fact that they're a monopoly enshrined in law. If the state decides that you can't sell your electricity to anyone else because they anoint a utility, then that utility should absolutely be banned from exploiting that position to compensate solar generation less than it could. If utilities can't balance their long-term amortizations of recent/new plants, then the state government can step in an reimburse them over the top for the disruption.
  - Armisael16 11y ago
    The utility also has to be prepared to provide you with the power that you aren't using (if there's a solar eclipse or something). The marginal cost of power generation is very low, so you save them almost nothing by not using the power.
downandout 11y ago
NVEnergy, Nevada's primary power producer, is behind this and a couple of other recent controversial decisions. The company is ultimately controlled by Warren Buffett and has proven to have far too much political influence. Own some casinos and want to leave NVEnergy because of absurdly high power rates? Sure, just pay an "exit fee" of $126.6 million for the privilege of having the right to buy power from other companies [1]. Own a data center? Good, you'll only pay $27 million to leave [2]. Now we have this decision, which destroyed the economics of solar for both future and existing solar users in the state - unsurprisingly, for the benefit of NVEnergy. It's pretty rare that political corruption is this transparent. Normally at least some attempt is made to cloak it. In Nevada, this is apparently not necessary. [1] http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/casinos-gaming/3-strip-gaming-companies-get-ok-leave-nevada-power http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/casinos-gaming/3-strip... [2] http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/energy/casino-companies-would-pay-131m-leave-nevada-power http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/energy/casino-companie...
logfromblammo 11y ago
The thought I had after reading the headline was "550: Permission Denied". I can't be the only one.
20years 11y ago
This is not specific to only Nevada. Utility companies have started pulling back power-bill credits in other states too, just not as aggressive as Nevada. Arizona was effected last year which caused job loss and solar downsizing and this is happening in CA too. Lots of state rebates are starting to go away and utility companies are pulling back on credits. We worked with over 50 solar companies in 2013 to 2014. It was a gold rush during that time. 2015 was a completely different story and I think 2016 will continue in that downward spiral. Solar companies really need to figure out a way to survive without state & federal rebates and utility company credits.
- ghaff 11y ago
  Where I live (Massachusetts), the solar companies have started getting really aggressive with sales. Going door-to-door and camping out at the local home improvement store. Smells a lot like trying to get installs while the getting is still good.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    There is a production tax credit that provides 30% off the system cost that eventually expires. EDIT: It behooves you to install a solar system on your dwelling sooner than later.
  - 20years 11y ago
    Yeah they are trying to get as many people in before the tax credit expires. It's going to be a much tougher sell after that happens.
- horsecaptin 11y ago
  How does this trend play into California's new law that aims at 50% energy from renewable energy by 2030? Seems anti-competitive.
  - 20years 11y ago
    So far net metering is still at retail rates in CA but PG&E, SCE and SDG&E are fighting hard to change that. Ref: http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/breaking-california-net-metering-2.0-keeps-retail-rates-for-rooftop-solar http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/breaking-califor...
protomyth 11y ago
The ruling is not a "de facto ban on rooftop solar", it says that the power company should pay the SAME amount no matter who provides the energy to the grid (wholesale rather than retail). If that change kills a company of industry then there are some major problems with the business model. Hopefully this will encourage energy storage systems. Using the grid that already has enough energy as virtual storage is a pretty shady way to enhance your business. If you cannot store energy yourself than accept that you are going to pay for someone else to do it for you.
- krschultz 11y ago
  There are no problems with the business model, it just doesn't pencil out in that state anymore. Keep in mind the business model for solar is basically trading higher up front capital costs for lower long term recurring costs, and the capital costs are largely invested into products that have a rapidly declining cost. That sounds like a great plan to me, and while it requires subsidizes today, in a few years it won't. Arguably the entire drop in oil prices over the last few years was due to the realization by major players that we will see the end of fossil fuel demand before we see the end of fossil fuels. One of the key contributors to that is unsubsidized price of solar panels was getting very close to the price of oil (~24 months ago). I would also argue, if you do not take care of the externalities of your energy production yourself, than accept that you are going to have to subsidize people that are reducing the demand for it. Why is it on the solar owners to pay for all of their energy storage but not on the coal power plants to capture and store their CO2 emissions?
  - protomyth 11y ago
    "Why is it on the solar owners to pay for all of their energy storage but not on the coal power plants to capture and store their CO2 emissions?" Because those are two separate issues. One has nothing to do with the other. The story here is that a solar customer wants the government to force the power company to store his/her energy for them and the grid is not designed for that. The power company pays a wholesale rate to all its suppliers. I see this as a push to get better storage technology developed which will benefit far more people. The solar company is being disingenuous and I bet there books are not quite as positive before this event as they let on. I like home solar and will probably install it when I decide to buy a home, but I will install a storage system and a cut off so I can use my panels without the backfeed to the grid incase of power outage.
JoblessWonder 11y ago
> "Governor Brian Sandoval’s Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to terminate Nevada’s rooftop solar industry just days before Christmas, SolarCity® announced that it has been forced to eliminate more than 550 jobs in the state." I get that it is a trade magazine, but wow... that is some sensationalism. It makes it sound like he is literally shutting down the industry, not just the rates that drove the market's rapid growth.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
beatpanda 11y ago
Want to help solve this problem? My company, Genability, builds software to help solar companies and other new energy companies figure out how to make the economics of clean power "pencil out". And we're hiring! http://genability.com/careers/work_with_us.html http://genability.com/careers/work_with_us.html
feld 11y ago
Electricity is much more fragile than people realize. When you flip on a light switch the power to light up your room is being generated instantly. That's the problem. Utilities do not have large batteries. Electricity is generated on demand and the utilities have to estimate exactly how much power they need to generate ALL THE TIME. When a utility adds wind and solar to their portfolio they also have to hire experts to analyze the weather. These experts need to estimate how much power the wind and solar are going to provide every day. There are times when entire wind farms are shut off because they will be generating too much power! There are other times when they are shut off because of concern that the weather could damage them. This is not easy. Imagine adding tens of thousands of tiny solar arrays to your grid and then having no knowledge of how well they are going to operate. You can't possibly begin to estimate what the cloud cover is going to be like for all of these installations over your territory. You don't know how well they are maintained. You don't have any clue if they're kept clean. You might not have the infrastructure to accept electricity back into the grid (substation upgrades are not cheap). The grid would gladly accept your power if they knew it was safe to do so. The fact is that it isn't. If too little power is generated, brownouts or blackouts occur. If too much is generated equipment is damaged and shit starts on fire. What we need is a SMART grid. It does not exist yet. It will take many years. Large battery installations may be a good stop-gap. But to vilify the utilities is ignorance when you don't really understand how the grid works. edit: I actually know of a giant private wind farm that was built on the idea that they could sell access to it back to a utility. Unfortunately it has been sitting dormant for a couple years because the cost to get the backhaul to the windfarm was too much, and the private investor had no idea the windfarm couldn't just be hooked up.
jack9 11y ago
> This is not how government is supposed to work. I think it is. That's not how businesses are supposed to operate (at the whim of the state's budget dole-outs)

202 points by Shivetya 11y ago

So, seeing as how the Governor of Nevada just cost thousands of citizens of his state their job, in an industry that is progressive and required for the survival of that state (and the nation as a whole), why has the state legislature not immediately begun impeachment? Politicians need to be taught that they serve at the pleasure of the people, and when they stop doing what they are told, they will no longer be employed. Nevada has been one of the most pro-solar states in the US, and what he is doing is political suicide.

tinco 11y ago
The article said 550, where did you get the thousands figure? Is it from other solar companies? How many employees does NV Energy have and how many millions did they offer the state in discounts or whatever. It's unfortunate that they are working against solar, but I would be very surprised if this affair has a negative financial effect for Nevada in the short term. edit: woops that's what I get for skimming too fast, thanks :)
- diminishedprime 11y ago
  > Other Nevada solar companies with higher cost structures than SolarCity are expected to collectively lay off thousands of additional Nevadans in the coming months.
- geomark 11y ago
  From the article, "Other Nevada solar companies with higher cost structures than SolarCity are expected to collectively lay off thousands of additional Nevadans in the coming months." That's probably where he is getting the thousands figure.
- wwalser 11y ago
  According to Wikipedia, NV Energy employs ~2500 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NV_Energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NV_Energy
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jacobolus 11y ago
Nevada has had a Republican governor since 1999. Sandoval, the current governor, is in his second term, was reelected about year ago with 90% of the vote in the Republican primary and 70% of the vote in the general election, and currently has something like a 2/3 approval rating in state polls. His Wikipedia page currently has one section which is a long hit piece written by pro-solar flacks, but that seems likely to be cleaned up as soon as other Wikipedia editors take notice. Other than that, I don’t see much evidence that he’s in any particular trouble. “Political suicide” seems like a fairly dramatic exaggeration, unless you’re sitting on some information the rest of us don’t know about. (Note: I think the Nevada Republican party is crazy, and am strongly pro-solar myself... but let’s not kid ourselves here.) Edit: Sandoval’s statement about the SolarCity announcement, http://www.news3lv.com/media/lib/166/0/e/8/0e8f2127-0e76-464b-8a57-d132ff6b27c8/FinalSC1615.pdf http://www.news3lv.com/media/lib/166/0/e/8/0e8f2127-0e76-464...
- exelius 11y ago
  It's only political suicide if you have no political capital (aka favors that other people owe you). This is how politicians can get away with things and not get impeached or voted out of office.
mbrutsch 11y ago
> Politicians need to be taught that they serve at the pleasure of the people, and when they stop doing what they are told, they will no longer be employed. I have seen very little evidence that this is true, at least in the last 50 years or so. Sure, there are isolated recalls here and there, but the vast majority suffer no repercussions regardless of how they act. A single vote every few years is a piss-poor way of making your voice heard, but it's what we have. The current state of affairs makes it seem clear that our system does not work well, regardless of what we were taught in Civics class.
- theklub 11y ago
  Most people don't have time or know how to protest even when they are pissed about law changes. There should probably be a class on this in grade school.
- hwstar 11y ago
  That coupled with deep pocket companies supplying nearly 90% of campaign financing to elected officials narrows the choices to the point the voters can never get a candidate which truly represents their interests.
hoorayimhelping 11y ago
>why has the state legislature not immediately begun impeachment? I was under the impression that impeachment is not a "I didn't get my way, I'm going to remove you from office" card. It's not for validating the whims of the electorate because some of them think they're not being served. It's for bringing official charges to an elected official and putting them on trial. What charges can you file against the governor based on this short article and actually bring to trial?
- jacquesm 11y ago
  I know it isn't but technically it really should be. What use is it to have someone represent you that no longer serves your interests.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    I think the "we don't like what you've done" mechanism is a recall election rather than an impeachment. Of course, lots of places don't even have those.
  - brockers 11y ago
    Under this same logic the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) would have lead to the impeachment of the President and most of the Democrats in Congress. It was HUGELY unpopular and has only recently become so-so... 5 YEARS after it was passed.
- theandrewbailey 11y ago
  I think the best legal action is SolarCity (and others) to sue the State of Nevada over loss of business. Is that possible?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
    - DannyBee 11y ago
rhino369 11y ago
If the people of Nevada would vote on higher electricity rates in exchange for some people getting a subsidy on soar panels, I doubt the subsidy would win.

ndonnellan 11y ago

This article seems to have a more thorough explanation: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/is-this-sunny-state-trying-to-kill-solar-power-2016-01-07 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/is-this-sunny-state-trying-... snip ----------------------- A little-understood billing mechanism called net metering is at the heart of the Nevada controversy. Net metering means that residential and commercial solar customers are billed for their “net” energy consumption. They are allowed to send back to the grid the electricity their solar arrays generate when the supply outstrips demand -- such as during daytime hours, in the case of a home -- and take power from the grid when demand may exceed the system’s output -- such as at nighttime when all the lights are on, or during a cloudy spell. It’s a system usually based on power-bill credits. How that quid-pro-quo works, varies from state to state and from utility to utility. In Nevada, the utility regulators have decided to pay lower, wholesale prices for that surplus power, not the higher, retail prices they had been paying. California utility regulators evaluated a similar proposal, but decided against major changes. In Hawaii, regulators approved lower net metering rates, but not higher fees for the most part. Arizona and Wisconsin have imposed higher monthly surcharges for solar customers. More worrying in Nevada’s case, however, is that regulators made no provision to grandfather in existing customers, said Shayle Kann, a senior vice president at GTM Research, a green-energy consulting firm. -------------- end snip

marvin 11y ago
The ironic part here is that the Nevada utilities are accelerating their own demise by opposing rooftop solar. In a few short years, batteries will be cheap and plentiful enough that it will be unnecessary to cut deals like these with the utilities in order to have a profitable solar rooftop installation. By removing the incentive for customers to cooperate with the utilities, the utility companies are further incentivizing the installation of residential battery storage, which will further reduce the utilities' influence down the road.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  It's not that simple. A system that is not grid connected will need a lot more than just a battery to make it as reliable as a grid connection. Those 'few short years' are more likely a couple of decades, in other words well over the horizon for the people that are currently trying to squeeze the most profit from those utilities. Residential battery storage is just one component is a complex chain that needs to be deployed for every house that could be off the grid, it actually side-steps the need for net metering (because you can simply store your own excess). For those use cases the grid functions exactly like a battery, only one with near infinite capacity. It also serves as a back-up, in case of system failure, extended lack of power from whatever sources you've got and so on. And that function is far harder to engineer around than the mere energy storage and recovery one.

mrfusion 11y ago

What was the anti solar decision? The article doesn't seem to say.

eli 11y ago
It has to do with net metering rates, that is how much indidivuals and small business get paid for putting electricity back into the grid for others to use. See http://www.utilitydive.com/news/nevada-regulators-approve-new-net-metering-policy-creating-separate-rate-c/411284/ http://www.utilitydive.com/news/nevada-regulators-approve-ne... (disclaimer: I'm co-founder of the linked news site)
- OliverJones 11y ago
  Interesting. This Utility Dive article points out that the rate change is to be phased in over four years. It's not a cliff. That should mitigate large-scale sudden incentive changes. Where I live the electric energy company has separate rates for energy and for distribution. I think it's like that everywhere. In the most naive pricing model net metering ignores that distinction and simply run the meter backwards when local production exceeds local consumption. In the second most naive pricing model, the local customer would credit for energy cost, but not distribution, when local production exceeds consumption. Neither of those are completely fair: the first doesn't gain the utility a return on their distribution infrastructure investment, and the second pays the utility too much. Why too much? Around here we pay a level distribution fee that covers both the long-haul lines from Georgian Bay and the shorter haul from the local coal plant. Locally generated electricity doesn't use the long-haul distribution system. What's needed is a pricing model that ... a) maintains incentives to build out new generation (rooftop, etc.) b) makes incentives to create a new "smart grid" distribution system. I fear that loud political posturing (Jobs!!! Monopolists!!!) isn't helping get this right. But naive models, in a world that can have companies like Enron disrupting those models, are also not good enough. For example, naive net metering -- backward running meters -- is not as favorable to Tesla's battery business as a dual-rate system. The return on a battery investment needs to come from that margin.
  - 11y ago

Animats 11y ago

If solar can't make it in Nevada without subsidies, the industry has a big problem. Nevada's population is mostly around Las Vegas, which is at 36° latitude and has 294 sunny days a year. It doesn't get much better than that. Utilities are still buying back power, just at wholesale rates. You can still use the power yourself and buy less at retail rates. Or you can get some of Tesla's batteries and store it for nighttime use. If your solar panel output matches your air conditioning load, this shouldn't affect you.

ebbv 11y ago
This is a really disingenuous response. The NV Energy (all power utilities in the US) receive massive subsidies. So the playing field isn't level.
- tomp 11y ago
  What kind of subsidies?
  - roymurdock 11y ago
    This is a great report from 2012 (using 2010 numbers) that outlines gov subsidies, loans, and contracts by industry: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2012/ninesubsidyscopechartspdf.pdf http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_as... Energy is the 5th most subsidized sector, counting both grants and tax expenditures (exemptions), with $34.5b in total federal subsidies. Compared to the $743.5b we subsidized healthcare, this is pretty small stuff. Energy makes up the 2nd largest share of direct federal loans at $48.4b, behind education at $87.8b: The energy sector contained the second largest number of loans, with $48.4 billion in loans, about half of the amount of education loans. These loans were administered by the U.S. Department of Energy to promote advanced technology vehicles and energy efficiency through innovative technologies and by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, for the purpose of improving electricity transmission in rural areas. The energy sector’s loans made up 31 percent of all loans in the nine sectors in FY2010. Good breakdown of competed vs non-competed contracts by sector as well, with transportation and national defense coming out on top in terms of nominal size of contracts as well as ratio non-compete to compete, unsurprisingly.

kriro 11y ago

So basically excess power generated is bought back at a standard price (bulk) instead of the current retail price? As long as you're consuming all the energy you harvested nothing changes. They basically just removed a subsidy of sorts which seems to be in line with the general party policy decisions.

transfire 11y ago
They also are hiking the fee for being attached to the grid.
ZeroGravitas 11y ago
With something as innately interconnected as a power grid, its not that simple. In the states where they investigated how much value was provided by the rooftop solar, the value was higher again than net metering (e.g. it might save money on uprating grid connection). This means Nevada was effectively taxing rooftop solar and wasn't getting the optimum amount installed. With this change they've raised that tax and destroyed even more value. Another specific angle is the retro-activity, this means no consumer in the US can commit to rooftop solar without worrying that all their calculations will be rendered moot, after the install. This puts a big cloud over things.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

cephaslr 11y ago

I was looking for the opposition view point, to see if there is something I missed. Here is one of the better articles: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/545146/battles-over-net-metering-cloud-the-future-of-rooftop-solar/ http://www.technologyreview.com/news/545146/battles-over-net... I still have the impression that the incumbent monopolists (power companies) are protecting their interests at the expense of the public, not unlike taxi drivers blocking uber operations within a city. I hope we get to a non monopolist system asap. http://www.technologyreview.com/news/544471/renewable-energy-trading-launched-in-germany/ http://www.technologyreview.com/news/544471/renewable-energy...

transfire 11y ago

Here is the official report http://pucweb1.state.nv.us/PDF/AXImages/PRESS_RELEASES/300.pdf http://pucweb1.state.nv.us/PDF/AXImages/PRESS_RELEASES/300.p... It really leaves people hanging b/c they won't know the actual dollar amounts until 7 days before it becomes law.

transfire 11y ago

Never trust subsidies. Look at history and you will see again and again that government has often used them as a form of industrial sabotage.

tcbawo 11y ago

If you were an electricity provider (which homeowners are on a small scale), you would be receiving wholesale rates. I wonder how much of the energy pushed into the system is actually utilized. Overcapacity during peak hours is probably a big problem for the utilities.

ISL 11y ago

A less-sensational article: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/545146/battles-over-net-metering-cloud-the-future-of-rooftop-solar/ http://www.technologyreview.com/news/545146/battles-over-net... The change isn't a ban on rooftop solar. It's a change in the metering for selling power back to the grid.

mcv 11y ago
I guess the solution is to store it locally and buy less from the grid, then.

notlisted 11y ago

Somewhat off-topic. I'm all for solar, but there are some nasty practices out there with the "free" installs (lease). To maximize energy-harvesting potential, many "free" solar installers don't seem to care at all about ruining the look of nice houses, for example stuff like this [1], reducing the value of the home and increasing the time to sell. There are many horror stories about unexpected liens on homes [2] preventing a sale and/or refinancing. I'll jump on solar as soon as they make affordable panels that resemble shingles (they exist, I know [3], but expensive) [1] http://www.greensunnj.com/resource/1430381659000/Bad_Princeton_1 http://www.greensunnj.com/resource/1430381659000/Bad_Princet... [2] http://watchdog.org/212170/surprise-solar-liens/ http://watchdog.org/212170/surprise-solar-liens/ [3] http://cleantechnica.com/2015/02/08/solar-shingles-renewable-energy-solution-curb-appeal/ http://cleantechnica.com/2015/02/08/solar-shingles-renewable...

SmallBets 11y ago
Exactly. This stumbling block is as much about the solar lease/ppa model as net metering, because math about cost of botg grid and solar are assumed 100% unchanged for 20 years. Rooftop owners that buy their systems outright are still im good shape, with a different payback period. Leases have been pushed bc theyre more lucrative for installers and homeowners have avoided the upfront cost of buying. Leases were a gateway financial model to expand rooftop solar but I think we'll see a shift to system ownership, which will reduce the impact of net metering. And it will be further reduced as storage tech ramps up.
- notlisted 11y ago
  Once home batteries like Tesla's Powerwall become mainstream we may see another up-tick in self-financed systems, especially since those may have an effect on the price of electricity for people without them [1]. This is a lovely article on the latest developments and side-effects [2] [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-24/batteries-pose-sales-challenge-for-power-companies-moody-s-says http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-24/batteries-... [2] http://rameznaam.com/2015/04/14/energy-storage-about-to-get-big-and-cheap/ http://rameznaam.com/2015/04/14/energy-storage-about-to-get-...

inthewoods 11y ago

Seems like they need a middle ground - not selling at wholesale prices or full retail. Putting the price at wholesale doesn't take into account the costs for the homeowner (or a 3rd party company like SolarCity) to invest in solar panels. Selling at retail doesn't take into account cost of grid maintenance for the power companies. It also doesn't make a lot of sense to me that they charge higher fees to connect to the grid. Definitely seems like a big win, short term, for the power companies. It seems like a big lose for renewables. Everyone seems to focused on whether it's perfectly fair or not - whereas I would say the goal of getting to environmentally friendly energy must weigh into the discuss - but hey, that's me. Side note: I would be curious how much grid maintenance costs the power companies relative to their other costs.

ethbro 11y ago
I don't see where the argument against retail (possibly minus a small amount) comes from. Effectively, they're deleting load from close to the end user from the utility's books. If that load hadn't been deleted, the utility would have charged retail pricing in order to generate it. The small negative adjustment from retail would come from the fact that the utility is still servicing the solar user as a retail user. So still needs to charge a set amount for admin costs & transmission (NOT generation) infrastructure. Paying them wholesale is pretty ridiculous, and is a blatant abuse of the fact that they're a monopoly enshrined in law. If the state decides that you can't sell your electricity to anyone else because they anoint a utility, then that utility should absolutely be banned from exploiting that position to compensate solar generation less than it could. If utilities can't balance their long-term amortizations of recent/new plants, then the state government can step in an reimburse them over the top for the disruption.
- Armisael16 11y ago
  The utility also has to be prepared to provide you with the power that you aren't using (if there's a solar eclipse or something). The marginal cost of power generation is very low, so you save them almost nothing by not using the power.

downandout 11y ago

NVEnergy, Nevada's primary power producer, is behind this and a couple of other recent controversial decisions. The company is ultimately controlled by Warren Buffett and has proven to have far too much political influence. Own some casinos and want to leave NVEnergy because of absurdly high power rates? Sure, just pay an "exit fee" of $126.6 million for the privilege of having the right to buy power from other companies [1]. Own a data center? Good, you'll only pay $27 million to leave [2]. Now we have this decision, which destroyed the economics of solar for both future and existing solar users in the state - unsurprisingly, for the benefit of NVEnergy. It's pretty rare that political corruption is this transparent. Normally at least some attempt is made to cloak it. In Nevada, this is apparently not necessary. [1] http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/casinos-gaming/3-strip-gaming-companies-get-ok-leave-nevada-power http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/casinos-gaming/3-strip... [2] http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/energy/casino-companies-would-pay-131m-leave-nevada-power http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/energy/casino-companie...

logfromblammo 11y ago

The thought I had after reading the headline was "550: Permission Denied". I can't be the only one.

20years 11y ago

This is not specific to only Nevada. Utility companies have started pulling back power-bill credits in other states too, just not as aggressive as Nevada. Arizona was effected last year which caused job loss and solar downsizing and this is happening in CA too. Lots of state rebates are starting to go away and utility companies are pulling back on credits. We worked with over 50 solar companies in 2013 to 2014. It was a gold rush during that time. 2015 was a completely different story and I think 2016 will continue in that downward spiral. Solar companies really need to figure out a way to survive without state & federal rebates and utility company credits.

ghaff 11y ago
Where I live (Massachusetts), the solar companies have started getting really aggressive with sales. Going door-to-door and camping out at the local home improvement store. Smells a lot like trying to get installs while the getting is still good.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  There is a production tax credit that provides 30% off the system cost that eventually expires. EDIT: It behooves you to install a solar system on your dwelling sooner than later.
- 20years 11y ago
  Yeah they are trying to get as many people in before the tax credit expires. It's going to be a much tougher sell after that happens.
horsecaptin 11y ago
How does this trend play into California's new law that aims at 50% energy from renewable energy by 2030? Seems anti-competitive.
- 20years 11y ago
  So far net metering is still at retail rates in CA but PG&E, SCE and SDG&E are fighting hard to change that. Ref: http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/breaking-california-net-metering-2.0-keeps-retail-rates-for-rooftop-solar http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/breaking-califor...

protomyth 11y ago

The ruling is not a "de facto ban on rooftop solar", it says that the power company should pay the SAME amount no matter who provides the energy to the grid (wholesale rather than retail). If that change kills a company of industry then there are some major problems with the business model. Hopefully this will encourage energy storage systems. Using the grid that already has enough energy as virtual storage is a pretty shady way to enhance your business. If you cannot store energy yourself than accept that you are going to pay for someone else to do it for you.

krschultz 11y ago
There are no problems with the business model, it just doesn't pencil out in that state anymore. Keep in mind the business model for solar is basically trading higher up front capital costs for lower long term recurring costs, and the capital costs are largely invested into products that have a rapidly declining cost. That sounds like a great plan to me, and while it requires subsidizes today, in a few years it won't. Arguably the entire drop in oil prices over the last few years was due to the realization by major players that we will see the end of fossil fuel demand before we see the end of fossil fuels. One of the key contributors to that is unsubsidized price of solar panels was getting very close to the price of oil (~24 months ago). I would also argue, if you do not take care of the externalities of your energy production yourself, than accept that you are going to have to subsidize people that are reducing the demand for it. Why is it on the solar owners to pay for all of their energy storage but not on the coal power plants to capture and store their CO2 emissions?
- protomyth 11y ago
  "Why is it on the solar owners to pay for all of their energy storage but not on the coal power plants to capture and store their CO2 emissions?" Because those are two separate issues. One has nothing to do with the other. The story here is that a solar customer wants the government to force the power company to store his/her energy for them and the grid is not designed for that. The power company pays a wholesale rate to all its suppliers. I see this as a push to get better storage technology developed which will benefit far more people. The solar company is being disingenuous and I bet there books are not quite as positive before this event as they let on. I like home solar and will probably install it when I decide to buy a home, but I will install a storage system and a cut off so I can use my panels without the backfeed to the grid incase of power outage.

JoblessWonder 11y ago

> "Governor Brian Sandoval’s Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to terminate Nevada’s rooftop solar industry just days before Christmas, SolarCity® announced that it has been forced to eliminate more than 550 jobs in the state." I get that it is a trade magazine, but wow... that is some sensationalism. It makes it sound like he is literally shutting down the industry, not just the rates that drove the market's rapid growth.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

beatpanda 11y ago

Want to help solve this problem? My company, Genability, builds software to help solar companies and other new energy companies figure out how to make the economics of clean power "pencil out". And we're hiring! http://genability.com/careers/work_with_us.html http://genability.com/careers/work_with_us.html

feld 11y ago

Electricity is much more fragile than people realize. When you flip on a light switch the power to light up your room is being generated instantly. That's the problem. Utilities do not have large batteries. Electricity is generated on demand and the utilities have to estimate exactly how much power they need to generate ALL THE TIME. When a utility adds wind and solar to their portfolio they also have to hire experts to analyze the weather. These experts need to estimate how much power the wind and solar are going to provide every day. There are times when entire wind farms are shut off because they will be generating too much power! There are other times when they are shut off because of concern that the weather could damage them. This is not easy. Imagine adding tens of thousands of tiny solar arrays to your grid and then having no knowledge of how well they are going to operate. You can't possibly begin to estimate what the cloud cover is going to be like for all of these installations over your territory. You don't know how well they are maintained. You don't have any clue if they're kept clean. You might not have the infrastructure to accept electricity back into the grid (substation upgrades are not cheap). The grid would gladly accept your power if they knew it was safe to do so. The fact is that it isn't. If too little power is generated, brownouts or blackouts occur. If too much is generated equipment is damaged and shit starts on fire. What we need is a SMART grid. It does not exist yet. It will take many years. Large battery installations may be a good stop-gap. But to vilify the utilities is ignorance when you don't really understand how the grid works. edit: I actually know of a giant private wind farm that was built on the idea that they could sell access to it back to a utility. Unfortunately it has been sitting dormant for a couple years because the cost to get the backhaul to the windfarm was too much, and the private investor had no idea the windfarm couldn't just be hooked up.

jack9 11y ago

> This is not how government is supposed to work. I think it is. That's not how businesses are supposed to operate (at the whim of the state's budget dole-outs)