
Musk vs. Buffett: The Billionaire Battle to Own the Sun - adventured
http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-solar-power-buffett-vs-musk/
======
bko
> Like more than 40 other U.S. states, Nevada forces utilities to buy the
> excess energy at rates set by regulators—usually the same rate utilities
> charge (hence, the net in net metering).

It seems to me that the obvious solution would be to allow energy companies to
purchase the excess energy created by these solar panels without a mandated
price. I understand that the company is producing energy at X and selling it
at Y where Y > X. If it is forced to buy and sell at Y, it's losing money when
compared to producing the energy themselves. The energy companies are
basically being forced to subsidize the solar companies by eating away their
profit margin so I understand where they're coming from.

> First, NV Energy deployed its lobbyists to limit the total amount of energy
> homeowners and small businesses were allowed to generate to 3 percent of
> peak capacity for all utilities. Then it expertly argued its case before
> regulators, who rewrote the rules for net-metering customers. In December it
> scored a major win: Nevada’s Public Utilities Commission (PUC) imposed rules
> that not only make it more expensive to go solar, but also make it
> uneconomical for those who’ve already signed up.

Instead, the solution appears to be lobbying from the energy producer to put
arbitrary restrictions on the energy capacity that can be produced by solar.
This seems crazy, or am I missing something?

~~~
ZeroGravitas
The original 1:1 ratio was set for mechanical reasons I believe. One unit of
energy coming in from the grid spins the meter a certain amount, one unit
going back to the grid winds the meter back to where it started from. I think
I read that the first solar panel user just plugged in without telling anyone
and it just kind of worked so everyone adopted it and not enough people had
solar for it to matter very much.

For similar reasons, most people pay a single energy rate despite peak
generation costing much more to generate. With more modern meters you can have
off-peak tariffs or even more complicated schemes.

Now of course, solar starts to matter as uptake rises, but there's no reason
to assume that the energy is necessarily worth less than the retail rate (in
which case the homeowner would be subsidising the utility rather than vice
versa). Solar correlates well with peak loads on both a daily and yearly cycle
so the cost of generation avoided at those specific times may well be much
higher than even the retail rate. As far as I can tell the wholesale rate they
mention is the average for the whole year, not just the peaks when solar is
contributing.

------
hooloovoo_zoo
It doesn't sound like either Buffett or Musk is really involved....

~~~
roflchoppa
Yeah I was waiting for that part too. seems that it would involve Buffet more,
being that he's financing the strong arm.

