Ancillary Tariffs Could Screw Up Huawei Product Launch

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

The law of unintended consequences keeps traipsing through the solar industry.

As broader tariffs begin to kick in on products ranging from solar modules to electronics equipment, the real-world consequences are beginning to interfere with product launches like Huawei’s launch of a low-cost residential solar inverter.

Huawei had been predicting its inverter would knock $100 to $200 off the typical price of a residential inverter, allowing it to compete with more well-known inverter companies. Instead, a 25% tariff on Chinese electronic equipment is going to completely wipe out that advantage and is already interfering in conversations with potential distributors.

[wds id=”3″]

Reuters explains Huawei’s dilemma:

Huawei will either have to reduce its margins or raise prices, they said, potentially benefiting rival producers including SolarEdge and Enphase Energy, which are ramping up manufacturing outside China.

The problem for Huawei is not unique to them, nor is it unexpected. When you start trade wars with countries without a coherent strategy (other than to punish countries you perceive to have “cheated” you), there are going to be unanticipated consequences. In this case, you’re hurting the residential solar industry by taking away a potential cost-saving piece of equipment that could have helped push residential solar sales higher.

Another analyst told Reuters:

A 25 percent tariff could eat up the margins of cost-competitive Chinese manufacturers and potentially change the player landscape of the U.S. solar inverter market.

Herein lies the central problem, however: Damaging Huawei’s product launch and keeping their technology out of the hands of U.S. consumers doesn’t accomplish the alleged goals of the tariffs, which is bringing well-paying jobs to U.S. citizens. The competitors of Huawei aren’t opening factories in the United States; their manufacturing facilities are outside the United States, too – they just don’t happen to be in the sanctioned country. So in essence, you’re doing exactly what you say government shouldn’t do – you’re interfering with the free market and picking winners and losers. And the U.S. consumer, unfortunately, is one of the biggest losers in this case.

More:

U.S. tariffs cast a cloud over Huawei’s solar electronics launch

Could EVs Eliminate The Need For Stand-Alone Batteries? Berkeley Says Yes

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

Recently, President Donald J. Trump yet again riffed on how much wind power kills birds and opined that if the wind doesn’t blow (for wind power) or the sun doesn’t shine (for solar power), “we have a problem.”

Well, according to the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, EVs could be the way to solve renewable energy’s intermittency problems at a fraction of the cost of what widespread stationary battery use would cost.

That’s what a report by two writers at the National Resources Defense Council discuss in a fascinating article at the Microgrid Knowledge website. As usual, California is the overriding example of a state that could do it absolutely right.

[wds id=”3″]

As the authors write:

A study recently published by researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) shows that the electric vehicles (EVs) expected in California in 2025 could be used to meet the majority of the Golden State’s energy storage mandate that calls for 1.3 gigawatts (GW) of battery capacity by 2024.

The keys from the Berkeley paper are as follows:

Let’s sum up the findings from the paper on how the expected number of California EVs can help to ensure grid stability and fulfill the intent of the storage mandate:

Without hindering drivers’ transportation needs, smart charging or V1G can easily provide 1 GW of storage, or about three-quarters of the 2024 storage mandate.
V1G and V2G combined can offer an astounding 5 GW of storage, dwarfing the storage mandate, and enabling the integration of much higher quantities of renewable energy.
Crucially, while V1G may require a system-wide investment of around $150 million, that’s substantially less than the $1.45-$1.75 billion that equivalent stationary (non-EV) storage would cost. (The paper used stationary storage costs from 2015, the latest available at the time of its writing, but even with the substantially lower storage costs of today, V1G implementation remains far cheaper.)
Using a similar approach, the value of grid services associated with V2G in addressing the “duck curve” is equivalent to $12.8 to $15.4 billion in equivalent stationary storage.

In other words, Tony Seba could well be right when he said at Intersolar North America that if we just electrify everything, we can stabilize the grid and meet 100% of our electrical needs from renewable energy in the next thirty years.

Sorry, President Trump – those are just the facts

More:

Study: Using EVs Instead of Stationary Batteries Could Save Billions

New Mexico Commission Could Eliminate Stand-by Fees On Solar Customers

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

An ongoing controversy in New Mexico over stand-by fees on solar customers may finally becoming to an end, according to an article in the Santa Fe New Mexican.

A hearing officer recently recommended that regulators make Southwestern Public Service Co. stop collecting a “standby fee” from customers with solar systems, saying a study the utility used to justify the fees is “riddled with errors and unreliable.”

Color me shocked (not shocked): A utility is using flawed materials to justify treating solar customers like separate-class citizens. Sounds an awful lot like the “cost shift zombie myth” we spend a lot of time debunking around these parts.

Wait, the zombie lie is part of this bad information? Of course it is.

[wds id=”3″]

As hearing officer Carolyn Glick wrote in her finding suggesting the fees be done away with:

the company failed to demonstrate the surcharge “appropriately recovers the costs of ancillary and standby services” used by solar customers or that the fees are “based in any actual difference in costs the company incurs to serve [solar] customers.”

Glick wrote that Southwestern Public Service can’t show it “provides distinct ‘standby service’ for [solar] customers that it does not already provide to all full-requirements customers.” She also said the utility can’t show that solar customers “are not already paying their proportionate share of system costs.”

Solar advocates like Vote Solar and the Coalition for Clean Energy blame the fees for stunting solar growth in the state, which goes against other efforts by the state to encourage solar growth, including requiring utilities to include storage in their long-term resource plans and the creation of a disclosure form that makes installing solar much safer for consumers.

At the end of the day, these “stand-by” charges are just fixed charges by another name. Here’s hoping the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission recognizes them for the price-gouging they are and eliminates them from solar customers’ bills.

More:

PRC asked to end fee charged to Eastern New Mexico solar users

California’s SB 700 Moves Forward To Full Assembly Vote; Next Three Weeks Are Critical

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

Last week, more than 200 solar + storage advocated descended on Sacramento to push for passage of of a significant energy storage bill.

Their efforts seem to have had the desired effect, as SB 700 – an energy storage bill that fell completely off the legislative radar last year – is now front and center as it moved out of the Assembly’s Appropriations Committee and on to the full assembly floor. The bill would extend the incentives for the popular Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP).

Between it and SB 100, which would move California to a 100% renewable portfolio standard (RPS), the next three weeks could be absolutely critical to pushing the full clean energy agenda forward in The Golden State.

As Bernadette Del Chiaro, executive director of California Solar & Storage Association, told the attendees of its Lobby Day, now is not the time to get complacent.

[wds id=”3″]

Del Chiaro wrote in a note:

We now have three weeks to put the bill on the governor’s desk. Next week, if all goes well, SB 700 will be put to a floor vote giving all 80 assembly members a chance to vote for it. We need at least 41 votes to ensure its passage out of the assembly. Stay tuned for action alerts on how you can add your voice to this effort.

If we clear the assembly, we’ll head back to the senate for a concurrence vote. The bill passed the senate last year with 23 votes (need a minimum of 21) and faces less opposition this year due to amendments taken in the assembly. But you never know. It is the end of session so things get a little crazy.

We need to be loud and stay vigilant.

The momentum started at Lobby Day next week is the perfect example of what a motivated, strong show of support for solar at the state level can do. We applaud Del Chiaro and urge solar industries in other states to study and learn from California’s example. Together, we are an unstoppable force. Let’s translate California’s success into success across the country.

Oh, and stay vigilant, California – your battle isn’t over quite yet.