Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

solarthermalmagazine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 213 posts

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

#41

Post by tobz »

jacquesm wrote: post #33
iamphilrae wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Customers could keep their grid connection for backup purposes, but it should be rarely needed. Therefore if a customer is acting 99% self-sufficient, the grid operator is going to lose out. And this could happen within years when battery tech becomes cost effective. This change in legislation has just served to shorten that timeline.

Just keeping the grid connection is a major cost.

What cost? It sounds like the parent is possibly suggesting the opposite of a backup power solution: transfer switch where you're in solar mode 99% of the time, and if things break or you need to do work, you switch over to grid power.

I've never lived anywhere where I used zero kWh for the month, so I'm not sure... but I have to imagine the cost would be pretty slow... save for getting such a system setup (transfer switches are common enough with backup generator situations so I can't imagine that portion would be very expensive)

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

#43

Post by eli »

mrfusion wrote: post #11

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

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-ne...

(disclaimer: I'm co-founder of the linked news site)

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

#44

Post by sandworm101 »

ndonnellan wrote: post #9

This article seems to have a more thorough explanation: 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 electricit…

>> ... no provision to grandfather in existing customers.

I might not like the decision, but I am glad to see they aren't grandfathering in anyone. Grandfathering is a definitive unleveling of the field. People/businesses shouldn't be given special treatment just because they have been around longer than others. I feel for those who made investments and haven't seen them come to fruition, but that's politics. Deal with it at the ballot box.

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

#45

Post by eli »

jerf wrote: post #34
theandrewbailey wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the best legal action is SolarCity (and others) to sue the State of Nevada over loss of business. Is that possible?

You want to create a right to not lose business because of government action ? Are you sure about that? You just entirely destroyed the EPA.

A better argument would be, as the NV consumer advocate asserted, that the way they reduced a previously agreed-upon rate is illegal: http://www.utilitydive.com/news/nevada-regulators-will-consi...

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

#46

Post by transfire »

kriro wrote: post #29

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.

They also are hiking the fee for being attached to the grid.

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

#47

Post by jerf »

J_Darnley wrote: post #37
jerf wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want to create a right to not lose business because of government action ? Are you sure about that? You just entirely destroyed the EPA.

It already exists: investor state dispute settlement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlem...

While in some sense that corresponds to the words I used (by which I mean, I see why you mention it as relevant), it definitely doesn't come close to applying here, as that is international law.

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

#48

Post by jerf »

eli wrote: post #45
jerf wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want to create a right to not lose business because of government action ? Are you sure about that? You just entirely destroyed the EPA.

A better argument would be, as the NV consumer advocate asserted, that the way they reduced a previously agreed-upon rate is illegal: http://www.utilitydive.com/news/nevada-regulators-will-consi...

To be clear, my point is and was that that is a terrible line of argumentation, not that there are no possible good ones.

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

#49

Post by ZeroGravitas »

kriro wrote: post #29

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.

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.

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

#50

Post by roymurdock »

tomp wrote: post #39
ebbv wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What kind of subsidies?

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_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.

Post reply on HN