Elon Musk’s Subsidy Aggregation

Elon Musk didn’t become a billionaire without brass, and this week he floated one of his most outrageous bets: an offer by his taxpayer-subsidized Tesla Motors to buy his taxpayer-subsidized SolarCity. Tesla shareholders and Wall Street analysts are howling, but didn’t they always know they were buying a business model that depended on the kindness of politicians?

The electric-car maker offered to acquire the solar panel company at a more than 20% premium over SolarCity’s previous share price in an all-stock transaction. “Tesla customers can drive clean cars and they can use our battery packs to help consume energy more efficiently,” the company said in a blog post, “but they still need access to the most sustainable energy source that’s available: the sun.”

The ostensible plan is to set up a one-stop shop so folks buying $85,000 Teslas don’t have to walk across the street to buy solar panels, among other “synergies.” Mr. Musk predicted, with his typically modest ambition, that the merger will lead to a Tesla valuation of $1 trillion, or about 34 times what it was Wednesday.

He may need one of his SpaceX rockets to get there. Tesla shares fell 10% Wednesday, or more than the $2.8 billion value of SolarCity, as investors asked why one money-losing company would be better off buying another money-losing company. SolarCity was once a darling of the green energy set, but its shares have fallen more than 50% in the past year as its political advantage ebbs.

CNBC Tears Down Elon Musk’s Snarky Response To A Coal CEO

CNBC corrected Tesla CEO Elon Musk Monday after he falsely claimed in a tweet that the coal industry receives more government handouts than renewable energy companies.

Musk, who owns more than 20 percent of Tesla, tweeted out a response to comments made by Murray Energy CEO Robert E. Murray on “Squawk Box” suggesting that Tesla “has gotten $2 billion from the taxpayer,” and “has not made a penny yet in cash flow.”

The government could shutter every single coal plant in the country, Murray added, and not see any discernible reduction in the Earth’s temperature.

Musk apparently didn’t take kindly to the inference that one of his companies is failing despite being recipients of heavy government subsidies, so he took to Twitter, and wrote: the “real fraud going on is denial of climate science.” He attached the video of Murray to the tweet.

Tesla receives far less in subsidies than the coal industry, Musk added, “How about we both go to zero?”

The High Cost of Rooftop Solar Subsidies

Section VII: Conclusion

Current solar subsidies and net metering schemes through U.S. states continue to draw capital away from its most efficient use, often at the benefit of U.S. solar panel producers and installation companies, such as SolarCity, but at the expense of electricity consumers.

The costs associated with facilitating these distortions are numerous. Given that solar customers are often paid the retail rate for excess electricity produced, and do not share the burden of maintenance costs, electrical grids are finding they cannot keep up with the current dichotomy they are facing of rising costs and a decreasing customer base. Thus, many studies conducted by states have found evidence of cross-subsidization between non-solar customers, who are often less-affluent, and solar customers, who are often more-affluent.

Proponents of government assistance of solar energy have attempted to highlight job growth as a means to justify the immense support needed by the solar industry in order to stay afloat. These job growth estimates not only employ skewed survey data, but also fail to take into account many of the dynamic effects that result from the government’s intervention, such as the consequences of draining tax revenues and foregone investments, increased cost of energy utilizing a greater share of consumers’ budgets, jobs foregone by investing in solar energy production, and jobs created in the base case scenario if solar energy were not subsidized in its current form.

States should seek to restructure their net metering schemes and subsidies in order to promote the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars and normalize investments based on the fundamentals of different electricity generating methods. While utility-scale solar has proven more efficient than residential solar installations, both continue to lag behind traditional electricity generation methods that are able to generate greater output per dollar.

Any future technological development of solar energy alternatives relies heavily on whether the government will be able to take a step back and allow the market to distribute capital efficiently, thereby allowing the most competitive electricity options to survive and facilitate effective progress of solar power and other electricity options.

The high cost of rooftop solar subsidies

Renewable energy like wind and solar has become politically popular in recent years. So much so that Hillary Clinton is proposing to install half a billion solar panels if she is elected president. Yet her plan for “a solar panel on every roof” doesn’t reconcile with her stated concern for lower-income Americans. A new study shows that solar energy is driven by subsidies that increase electricity rates of poorer Americans and send that money to richer Americans.

One of the most significant solar subsidies is called net metering. Net metering is a program through which home and business owners with solar panels are credited for the excess energy they send to the electric grid. A new study by Arduin, Laffer & Moore Econometrics, commissioned by my organization, the Institute for Energy Research, shows that the default pricing structure and the intermittent nature of solar energy make these programs a bad deal.

The biggest flaw with net metering is the price paid to customers with solar panels. The default is to pay customers with solar panels the retail rate instead of the wholesale rate for the electricity they produce. This causes huge distortions in the way we all pay for the power grid.

The net metering subsidy creates a strong incentive for building owners to enter the solar market and indeed states have been flooded with applications to join net metering programs, which is why many states are now capping or reforming their net metering programs. In other words, many property owners are eager to be on the winning side of the cost shift.

The problems with net metering go beyond the wholesale vs. retail price. As the technology stands today, electricity at utility scale cannot be stored in batteries in a cost-effective way. That means grid operators must be on the ready 24/7 to increase or reduce the amount of energy flowing onto the system in response to electricity demand. Too much or too little at any given time can lead to power outages and the inconveniences and productivity slowdowns they entail. This recently happened in South Australia when wind power fell very quickly and the region was hit with a blackout.

It doesn’t take a degree in photovoltaics to recognize how solar energy exacerbates this issue. Solar energy is only accessible when the sun is shining, which means even on the sunniest days of the year there is a strong mid-day peak preceded and followed by hours-long valleys. Unfortunately, electricity demand is frequently highest in the early evening when the sun is setting.

This means grid operators have to accommodate for massive influxes of solar energy for a few hours each sunny day, but then need to ramp up the delivery of other energy sources when high demand hits later on. This ramping up and down taxes the system more than simply matching demand with electricity supplied from traditional power plants. The result is that net metering customers are actually making the grid more difficult and costly to operate. Much worse, these costs are transferred to the rest of the utility’s customers, who face higher utility bills as a result.

Arizona’s largest utility, Arizona Public Service, found that a net metering customer avoids around $1,000 annually in costs they impose on the electric grid, which results in the rest of their customers being on the hook for $16.80 more. This may not seem like much, but as the pool of net metering customers grows, so too does the cost for non-solar customers.

When we look closer at the breakdown of net metering customers and regular customers, the policy is downright regressive. According to the California Public Utilities Commission, the average net metering customer in California has an annual income that is over one and a half times that of California’s average annual income. The expenses involved in installing a solar energy system on a home make the prospect cost-prohibitive for all but the upper echelon of income earners which means that net metering is essentially welfare for wealthy people.

As the Arduin, Laffer & Moore Econometrics study clarifies, our public utility policies don’t reflect the costs that net metering imposes. It’s time to reform net metering policies so that the general public no longer subsidizes those wealthy enough to afford solar panels. The sun, it seems, is not free after all.

Tesla Shares Fall After Goldman Downgrade (TSLA, SCTY)

Electric carmaker Tesla Motors Corp.’s (TSLA) shares declined by 3.6% to $201 after analysts at investment bank Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) downgraded the stock from Buy to Neutral and cut their price target for the stock to $185 from $240. The downgrade comes after Tesla reported record-breaking car deliveries for the third quarter. (See also: Tesla Reports Biggest Quarterly Sales)

The “incremental risk” associated with capital deployment in the merger between Tesla and SolarCity Corp. (SCTY) is one of the reasons for Goldman Sachs’ downgrade. The firm projects increased free cash flow and leverage for the combined entity. For example, they estimate a free cash flow of between $2.4 billion to $2.5 billion for next year and leverage figures that are 6.6 times greater than that for this year. The other reason for the downgrade is related to possible delays that the company might incur while launching the Model 3, its electric car for the masses. (See also: Behind Tesla’s 1,173% Rise In 10 Years)

Despite the downgrade, the investment firm has a relatively positive take on Tesla’s near-term prospects. It is forecasting a loss of 59 cents per share for the car maker, when the consensus is for the company to report 93 cents in losses this year.

Goldman’s estimates for the long-term, however, are an opposite of the consensus estimate.

Given its bearish stance on Model 3 deliveries, Goldman Sachs has a 48 percent lower than consensus on average for the 2017 to 2019 period. This is because the investment firm expects Tesla to increase expenses related to sales and marketing and research. Other analysts expect the car company to turn profitable next year.

To be sure, the firm’s downgrades for Tesla should be taken with a grain of salt. The investment bank upgraded Tesla a day before underwriting its secondary offering this May. An analyst from Devonshire Research said the downgrade had become “an after-hours laughing matter.”

Musk’s SolarCity Sued for Intellectual Property Theft

Elon Musk’s SolarCity has been accused of intellectual property theft by Cogenra Solar and Khosla Ventures.

In a lawsuit filed in San Francisco on Monday, the parties accused SolarCity of gaining undue advantage of Cogenra’s Shingling technology that helps in manufacturing high-efficiency commercially viable solar panels.

SolarCity and its subsidiary Silevo misappropriated Cogenra’s trade secrets, manufacturing processes, and other intellectual property to give themselves a competitive advantage and head start in developing shingled-cell solar modules, Cogenra said in the lawsuit.

SolarCity accused of misappropriating solar company Cogenra’s trade secrets

Solar company Cogenra is suing Elon Musk’s SolarCity over the use of shingling technology the company alleges SolarCity took from Cogenra and used to create a world-record breaking solar panel.

Cogenra says it shared its “most precious and confidential trade secrets, manufacturing processes, and other intellectual property with Silevo and SolarCity” between 2010 and 2014.

Silevo is a subsidiary of SolarCity and the complaint alleges these trade secrets gave SolarCity a leg up in manufacturing its own solar cells.

“It was only by misappropriating Cogenra’s proprietary technology, including its trade secrets and other intellectual property, that SolarCity and Silevo were later able to announce a claim that they set a new world record for solar panel energy efficiency,” Cogenra said in the suit.

The complaint also says Cogenra began shopping itself around to bigger solar companies in 2014 and, according to sources who spoke to Bloomberg, one of those companies considered a potential buyer was SolarCity. The possible acquisition allegedly gave SolarCity access to classified information.

However, SolarCity calls the lawsuit “meritless” and says the whole thing began after it alerted SunPower to an ex-SolarCity employee who had unlawfully downloaded confidential information from the company and recently joined SunPower, Cogenra’s parent company, as a senior sales manager.

“Instead of taking responsibility and ensuring the return of our misappropriated trade secrets, SunPower subsidiary Cogenra raced to court to divert attention from its conduct by filing a meritless lawsuit,” SolarCity told TechCrunch. “Cogenra’s complaint fails to identify any actual trade secret that Cogenra owns, much less that SolarCity supposedly misappropriated. We are confident the court ultimately will reject Cogenra’s claims, which are factually and legally baseless.”

Stop Elon From Failing Again

THE ONE STOP DATABASE ON STOPPING ELON MUSK

SolarCity