4 ms·

If there was one division at Tesla that deserved lay-offs, surely it was SolarCity? I remember how everyone was talking about what a bad move Tesla made in acq

by mtgx 9y ago

If there was one division at Tesla that deserved lay-offs, surely it was SolarCity? I remember how everyone was talking about what a bad move Tesla made in acquiring SolarCity, because the company was a mess and unprofitable. I've also heard stories about how aggressive and pushy SolarCity's sales people were with customers, which ended-up giving the company an increasingly worse reputation.

ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
Solar City was doing fantastic here in Las Vegas. There sales people were BY FAR the best when they came door to door. But Warren Buffet's power company changed the laws last year and basically screwed everyone who had solar. We have completely disincentivized putting solar panels up. Now the company doesn't do well, and no sales people come door to door from any company. If you are putting up solar in Las Vegas this year, its because you are an extreme environmentalist and willing to pay the penalty that comes with it.
- Siecje 9y ago
  How did the laws change?
  - ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
    https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/energy/solarcity-stopping-nevada-sales-installations-after-puc-ruling/ https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/energy/solarcity-stop... >>The PUC “has effectively shut down the rooftop-solar industry and taken the extraordinary step to punish over 12,000 existing solar customers, including schools, with exorbitant fees in what appears to be an attempt to protect the profits of the state’s largest utility. All three members of the PUC, who voted unanimously to change the rules, were appointed by Governor Sandoval.” >>Rive said: “Most disturbing is the PUC’s decision to retroactively sabotage existing solar customers’ investments by changing the rules on them. The Nevada government encouraged these people to go solar with financial incentives and pro-solar policies, and now the same government is punishing them for their decision with new costs they couldn’t have foreseen. These actions are certainly unethical, unprecedented, and possibly unlawful. While the rest of the country embraces a clean energy future, Nevada is moving backwards.”
    - thomaskcr 9y ago
      Net metering isn't even a US law thing, it's a physics law thing. Just basic physics should tell you that selling power for the same price you buy it doesn't make sense due to heat loss in the lines. If you want a battery buy one, don't try to use the grid as a giant battery.
      - fiter 9y ago
        Potentially the net metered electricity doesn't have to travel as far. Maybe it goes to the house next door. That said, it makes sense to steeply adjust the rate if the net metering starts causing long distance flows.
  - kxyvr 9y ago
    I did a quick search and it looks like Wikipedia has a reasonable summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_metering_in_Nevada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_metering_in_Nevada At issue was whether or not homes with solar could sell their electricity at the retail rate or the wholesale rate. There was conflict between Buffet and Musk because Buffet owns the power company NV Energy whereas Musk works in the business of solar. All that said, it looks like AB 405 moves pretty closely back to the old system where solar customers can sell power back at 95% of the retail rate. Anyway, power is and probably should be tightly regulated. It's worth having an open conversation as to how much money a solar customer should be paid for selling power onto the grid just like we have regulations for all of the other power producers. That doesn't mean they have to be the same regulations, but setting and moving the rate number isn't inherently good or bad.
- skybrian 9y ago
  That got rolled back recently: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/07/531952407/solar-firms-plan-to-return-to-nevada-after-new-law-restores-incentives http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/07/531952407/...
- solaarphunk 9y ago
  Would you mind sharing a little bit more about Buffet's power company? Which one is it. Would love to read more about this.
- phil21 9y ago
  Penalty? It's much more like no more free money from folks who can't afford solar subsidizing rich folks who can. Net-metering is a regressive tax. Rich folks with rooftop solar already get a huge massive benefit in the free battery the grid supplies them overnight - reducing their install costs by 5 figures - and they continue to demand horrible policy like net metering. It's been decades now, it's time to end the practice. Folks with solar were not "screwed" - they simply stopped having non-solar customers subsidize their power usage as much as they were before. Personally I plan on putting up my own solar/battery install so I can live off grid as needed during power outages. I would find it immoral to then demand the power company pay me retail rates for any excess power I generate. I find it problematic for me to even be connected to the grid for my "emergency use" as it's clearly a highly subsidized backup power source for me at that point. Edit: I'm okay with an ends-justify-the-means approach to net metering. However, it absolutely cannot be a long term policy as it's exceedingly regressive in nature. Using it as a short-term subsidy to bootstrap an industry is fine. That goal has been accomplished, and it's time to end these transfer payments.
Bartweiss 9y ago
This seems at minimum possible. The general consensus at the time of the SolarCity acquisition was something like "that's a failing venture, but the products and manufacturing capacity are relevant to Tesla". And now we've seen Powerwall synced up with SolarCity tech, but no major leaps forward for SolarCity itself. Would it be all that surprising if this was a move to quietly wind down SolarCity as a separate concern in favor of using it as a smaller feed-in to Tesla? (If anyone actually knows more internals there, I'd be fascinated to hear.)
- greglindahl 9y ago
  The new solar roof thing from Solar City may or may not end up being a major leap forward, but it is a product of the Tesla merger.
- tavert 9y ago
  Not very quietly, SolarCity as a separate brand has been wound down already, it's marketed as Tesla Energy now.

by mtgx 9y ago

ghostbrainalpha 9y ago

Solar City was doing fantastic here in Las Vegas. There sales people were BY FAR the best when they came door to door. But Warren Buffet's power company changed the laws last year and basically screwed everyone who had solar. We have completely disincentivized putting solar panels up. Now the company doesn't do well, and no sales people come door to door from any company. If you are putting up solar in Las Vegas this year, its because you are an extreme environmentalist and willing to pay the penalty that comes with it.

Siecje 9y ago
How did the laws change?
- ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
  https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/energy/solarcity-stopping-nevada-sales-installations-after-puc-ruling/ https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/energy/solarcity-stop... >>The PUC “has effectively shut down the rooftop-solar industry and taken the extraordinary step to punish over 12,000 existing solar customers, including schools, with exorbitant fees in what appears to be an attempt to protect the profits of the state’s largest utility. All three members of the PUC, who voted unanimously to change the rules, were appointed by Governor Sandoval.” >>Rive said: “Most disturbing is the PUC’s decision to retroactively sabotage existing solar customers’ investments by changing the rules on them. The Nevada government encouraged these people to go solar with financial incentives and pro-solar policies, and now the same government is punishing them for their decision with new costs they couldn’t have foreseen. These actions are certainly unethical, unprecedented, and possibly unlawful. While the rest of the country embraces a clean energy future, Nevada is moving backwards.”
  - thomaskcr 9y ago
    Net metering isn't even a US law thing, it's a physics law thing. Just basic physics should tell you that selling power for the same price you buy it doesn't make sense due to heat loss in the lines. If you want a battery buy one, don't try to use the grid as a giant battery.
    - fiter 9y ago
      Potentially the net metered electricity doesn't have to travel as far. Maybe it goes to the house next door. That said, it makes sense to steeply adjust the rate if the net metering starts causing long distance flows.
- kxyvr 9y ago
  I did a quick search and it looks like Wikipedia has a reasonable summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_metering_in_Nevada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_metering_in_Nevada At issue was whether or not homes with solar could sell their electricity at the retail rate or the wholesale rate. There was conflict between Buffet and Musk because Buffet owns the power company NV Energy whereas Musk works in the business of solar. All that said, it looks like AB 405 moves pretty closely back to the old system where solar customers can sell power back at 95% of the retail rate. Anyway, power is and probably should be tightly regulated. It's worth having an open conversation as to how much money a solar customer should be paid for selling power onto the grid just like we have regulations for all of the other power producers. That doesn't mean they have to be the same regulations, but setting and moving the rate number isn't inherently good or bad.
skybrian 9y ago
That got rolled back recently: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/07/531952407/solar-firms-plan-to-return-to-nevada-after-new-law-restores-incentives http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/07/531952407/...
solaarphunk 9y ago
Would you mind sharing a little bit more about Buffet's power company? Which one is it. Would love to read more about this.
phil21 9y ago
Penalty? It's much more like no more free money from folks who can't afford solar subsidizing rich folks who can. Net-metering is a regressive tax. Rich folks with rooftop solar already get a huge massive benefit in the free battery the grid supplies them overnight - reducing their install costs by 5 figures - and they continue to demand horrible policy like net metering. It's been decades now, it's time to end the practice. Folks with solar were not "screwed" - they simply stopped having non-solar customers subsidize their power usage as much as they were before. Personally I plan on putting up my own solar/battery install so I can live off grid as needed during power outages. I would find it immoral to then demand the power company pay me retail rates for any excess power I generate. I find it problematic for me to even be connected to the grid for my "emergency use" as it's clearly a highly subsidized backup power source for me at that point. Edit: I'm okay with an ends-justify-the-means approach to net metering. However, it absolutely cannot be a long term policy as it's exceedingly regressive in nature. Using it as a short-term subsidy to bootstrap an industry is fine. That goal has been accomplished, and it's time to end these transfer payments.

Bartweiss 9y ago

This seems at minimum possible. The general consensus at the time of the SolarCity acquisition was something like "that's a failing venture, but the products and manufacturing capacity are relevant to Tesla". And now we've seen Powerwall synced up with SolarCity tech, but no major leaps forward for SolarCity itself. Would it be all that surprising if this was a move to quietly wind down SolarCity as a separate concern in favor of using it as a smaller feed-in to Tesla? (If anyone actually knows more internals there, I'd be fascinated to hear.)

greglindahl 9y ago
The new solar roof thing from Solar City may or may not end up being a major leap forward, but it is a product of the Tesla merger.
tavert 9y ago
Not very quietly, SolarCity as a separate brand has been wound down already, it's marketed as Tesla Energy now.