These are all good points, however many facilities do not yet have the time-of-use data needed to provide a proper analysis. For such businesses, solar savings when it comes to demand charges will be speculative at best. Solar installers should provide extremely conservative estimates - with full disclaimers - in such circumstances to avoid "over selling."
We have covered 8 of your 10, Tor. Think we will try to tackle a webinar next....
One additional fly in the ointment here are local AHJs that insist upon having their own testing regime for solar-related products - such as the LA Building & Safety department. They interpose needless delay in using UL approved equipment because *they* haven't tested it yet, and that is against existing, well understood standards. If they persist in these requirements when new, and presumably more complicated standards are rolled out, the delays in using new equipment will just become worse.
I think CA needs a law that says if a product is tested to a national standard and listed as meeting that standard, the local AHJ is required to accept that listing and may not impose its own testing beyond the national standard.
Pleased to say I've hit some of these along the way, but clearly one take away here is - Be More Visual! Workin' on it!
Words to live by - thanks, Tor - I'm Solar Spartacus!
Run on Sun is onboard - here's our blog post highlighting SCE's response to the video:
And we will be writing (lots) more about net metering in the coming months.
The article asserts: "The U.S. accounted for nearly 75 percent of the shipments IHS recorded prior to 2013, but in many states the residential market for microinverters is approaching saturation." I have no idea where IHS gets that notion, and sadly the reporter didn't ask.
California is the largest solar market in the US and based on our analysis of CSI data, there is no aspect of this market that is "approaching saturation", let alone the market for microinverters, specifically Enphase Energy's products. Would love to know the basis for that claim.
Here's a link to our analysis:
My only concern as the owner of a small solar power company is that utilities tend to have monopoly status in their service areas. If they are going to get into the solar business at the customer level, that status gives them an unfair advantage.
The comparison to the old Bell System is apt - the only way things changed was for the system to be broken up and the monolithic structure abandoned. It was a scary prospect at the time - I was a MTS at Bell Labs up until the year before divestiture - but it was the right thing to do.
If we are really going to change utility business models and allow competition to drive progress, their structure must change as well.
And don't for a second think PG&E doesn't know this - which is why they have effectively declared war on net metering:
Interesting to note that Duke sees this as a short term opportunity but a long term threat. In contrast, PG&E just sees threat: http://runonsun.com/~runons5/blogs/blog1.php/solnews/its-on-pge-declares-war-solar
What is lacking is for either of these companies (or any IOU for that matter) to see the long-term opportunity. But adapt they must, or cease to exist.
Good points, all, but I would like to focus on the last. We really cannot give our enemies more ammunition by our own poor behavior. They will be all over the next "scandal" just as they were with poor Solyndra. It will be worse if it is a true scandal, brought about by greed or other bad conduct in the industry.
The SEIA-authored Solar Bill of Rights calls on us to provide the "highest ethical treatment" to our clients and fellow taxpayers. We should re-commit to those words in 2013.