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

51–60 of 213 posts

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

#51

Post by [deleted] »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #49
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 de…

[deleted]

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

#52

Post by rconti »

Naritai wrote: post #25
ansgri wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks, this analysis puts it all in context for a foreigner who has read the original article as 'governor has long supported solar, and then stupidly changed his mind'.

Yeah, this is a bitter, angry press release that doesn't provide much background or context. No appropriate as a news link, in my opinion - it'd be much better to link to something from an actual news source that gives some history.

It's a very bad link (basically a press release from SolarCity dressed up as news), but I couldn't help but laugh at the jab at Nevada being business-unfriendly.

For those who are not local, California is, of course, the high-population, high-employment, high-tax neighbor that sparsely populated mostly-desert Nevada likes to try to poach jobs from by claiming California is "anti-business".

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

#53

Post by rconti »

Animats wrote: post #13

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 night…

It's worth noting that Nevada is not exactly a high income state, so solar panels can be relatively difficult to afford. I believe their grid electricity is also quite cheap.

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

#54

Post by shpx »

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.

Isn't this what the TPP does?

> would allow foreign corporations to sue the United States government for actions that undermine their investment “expectations” and hurt their business

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/business/trans-pacific-par...

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

#55

Post by acheron »

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.

You just entirely destroyed the EPA.

Yeah, but there's probably bad consequences to it also.

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

#56

Post by J_Darnley »

jerf wrote: post #47
J_Darnley wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You just need to find the right angle to sue someone. That's probably hard for a company without a billion dollars to spend on lawyers.

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

#57

Post by tcbawo »

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.

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

#58

Post by legulere »

Animats wrote: post #13

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 night…

I guess heat is a problem in Nevada. Solar panels work much better in colder temperatures. Even in Germany you get less power in the middle of the summer than at the beginning or the end of it.

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

#59

Post by jacquesm »

davedx wrote: post #38
jacquesm wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just keeping the grid connection is a major cost.

Taxes are the highest cost for electricity (here in NL). Grid costs ~EUR190/year, taxes and govn't surcharges are ~EUR618/year. I don't know if you still need to pay the taxes if you're not grid connected though?

No, if you're off grid those taxes are not there.

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

#60

Post by jacquesm »

tobz wrote: post #41
jacquesm wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They'll charge a fixed fee just for the hookup, and it can be quite a large percentage if your consumption is minimal.
Post reply on HN