Home » Archives for Frank Andorka » Page 81

Welcome Back, Enphase, To The Realm Of The Possibly Profitable

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

What Happened:Reviews of Enphase’s Q1 2018 continue to be unusually positive, signaling that maybe its financial struggles may be receding in the rearview mirror.

Roth Capital continued to cheerlead from the sidelines after switching the company’s stock to a “buy” in February.
And the North Bay Business Journal breathlessly reported that Enphase may finally be on the brink of profitability.

SolarWakeup’s View: For me, this is a nice-time story.

[wds id=”3″]

Enphase was one of the first companies with whom I met when I first joined the solar industry in 2011. Their microinverter was creating quite the buzz, and they looked like a company that would make it so big in solar microinverters that they would be printing money for the foreseeable future.

But in recent years, it had struggled to maintain its marketshare in the face of stiff competition from SolarEdge. most famous within the trade media for their jugglers and unicyclists at trade shows. The fact is Enphase had lost a step, and as recently as last year some worried it would fade away entirely.

Not so any more.

After narrowing its losses and naming a new CEO from the semiconductor industry, the company seems to have found its footing. It continues to cut costs out of its business model aggressively and appears to be on the verge of making a full comeback.

I’ll admit that I have a soft spot in my heart for Enphase because of their position as one of my first contacts in this industry I’ve come to love, so I’m glad to see them make a comeback, and I’ll be rooting for them in this corner.

And I’m always in favor of more competition than less – so I’m also hoping this forces SolarEdge to up their game even further as this competition returns to health.

This article was edited on 4/17/2018 to remove a reference to Enphase avoiding the tariff web, as it has not done so – and neither has anyone else because the comment period just ended. The editor regrets the error and thanks Rob Grimaldi (@cosmosrob1) on Twitter for catching that mistake.

More:

After a dozen years, Enphase Energy could be on the brink of making money (North Bay Business Journal)

Enphase Energy should be bought on any weakness, says Roth Capital

Enphase CEO Paul Nahi steps down during second-quarter earnings call

Wait, Enphase Did What Now?

Cigarette Companies To Exxon Execs: Damn, Sucks To Be You!

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

What Happened: Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court told Exxon it couldn’t hide evidence it knew about global climate change (and its role in producing it) for years before they admitted it.

The ruling crushed Exxon’s hopes of keeping the information from the state’s attorney general, Maura Healey, who is currently investigating the company’s alleged history of climate perfidy.
As Think Progress notes, “In January 2017, a Massachusetts Superior Court judge ruled Exxon must comply with Healey’s investigation and turn over 40 years of documents on climate change. Exxon appealed.

SolarWakeup’s View: When you’re getting sympathy cards from Phillip Morris International and Reynolds American, you know you’ve suffered a pretty significant court loss.

[wds id=”3″]

Until yesterday, U.S. cigarette manufacturers had been the most famous corporations to be held responsible for suppressing evidence that its products were literally killing people. And while the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision to require Exxon to turn over more than 40 years of documents related to their understanding of climate change and its products’ roles in exacerbating it doesn’t absolutely mark Exxon as guilty of gross negligence and malfeasance, it’s not a stretch to think the documents they’ve fought for more than a year to keep secret will.

I’ll let Think Progress do the heavy lifting here:

…the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on Friday affirmed a lower court’s ruling that state Attorney General Maura Healey has authority to investigate Exxon. The court ordered the oil company to hand over documents to the attorney general’s office as part of her investigation into the company’s history of climate deception.

Healey and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman are both looking into whether Exxon misled shareholders about the risks that climate change posed to the company’s business.

I recognize it’s hard to stay focused on something like this with everything else that’s going on in our world, but it’s hard to underestimate its importance not just to the solar industry – although the significance there can’t be undersold either – but to the world.

I don’t expect Exxon to pay any significant consequences, but maybe if Healey and Schneiderman can find evidence that the oil companies have known about climate change for 40 years, maybe I can stop having discussions with some of my relatives who still believe climate change is a Chinese hoax. And then maybe – just maybe – we can finally set about the business of fixing the problem instead of debating whether it’s real.

And I know the solar industry is ready to help.

More:

Massachusetts court rules in favor of attorney general in Exxon climate change case

Here’s What Happens When Utilities Rule The Roost

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

What Happened: This is going to shock a lot of you, but utilities would like the solar industry to stop harping on net metering and move to what they call “rate design.”

K Kaufmann, communications manager for the Smart Electric Power Association (the utilities’ arm of the solar discussion) (SEPA), lays out the case for why moving the conversation away from net metering will help utilities.
Oddly, however, it doesn’t explain why there would be any advantage to the solar industry to move off net metering.

Is the image of the sun setting on a utility pole too heavy handed? I worry it’s a little heavy handed.

SolarWakeup’s View: Sometimes, the jokes write themselves.

[wds id=”3″]

So over at the Smart Electric Power Association (SEPA) blog, K Kaufmann lays out the case for why the solar industry should abandon its fight over net metering because…I guess…it hurts the utilities’ feelings or something?

The basic argument in the piece, apart from the head-nod to the vague concept of “rate desgin,” is that fighting for net metering sets up a false conflict between the solar industry and utilities. After all, Kaufmann writes, utilities are adding solar at ever-rapidly increasing rates – why isn’t the solar industry telling those stories, huh?

In a vacuum, of course, Kaufmann is right. Utilities are adding solar at an ever-increasing rate. But what her analysis misses is the reason they are adding solar: They’re afraid of losing their monopoly on electricity generation and, therefore, their livelihoods. At least, that’s what most utility executives would tell you if you pumped them full of sodium pentathol and asked.

In one of the most revealing passages in her piece, Kaufmann writes:

From colonial times to present day, the U.S. energy system has been built on successive transitions. The historical record clearly documents that such transitions are, by their very nature, messy, uncomfortable and confusing for all involved.

Who can argue with that? But here’s my question in response: Why should we cling to a distribution and transmission system befitting a 19th century vision of the grid and the means to power it?

As distributed generation grows – by which, to be clear, I mean non-utility-owned solar for purposes of this conversation – utility monopolies are becoming increasingly irrelevant. And while I’d never deny that transitions can be scary, I’d agree with Kaufmann that:

On the upside, they also create a lot of room for experimentation, innovation and cross industry collaboration.

But asking solar to renounce its most potent growth mechanism and put its faith in the benevolence of utilities is an absurd premise unless you are only looking at things from the utilities’ perspective instead of looking at the question from all sides.

This is the kind of reasoning that occurs when the utilities are in control – and that is not in solar’s best long-term interests.

More:

The stories we aren’t telling: Focus on net metering misses the bigger picture (SEPA)

Are We Harping On South Carolina Net Metering? Yes, Because YOU Are

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

What Happened: John Tynan, executive director of the Conservation Voters of South Carolina, penned an excellent op-ed for The State, expressing his … disappointment with the decision by the legislature to smother the solar industry in its crib by not removing South Carolina net metering caps. Some choice quotes:

“H.4421 would have saved more than 3,000 solar jobs and ensured that the South Carolina solar industry will continue to thrive.”
“It’s clear utilities will stop at nothing to continue to keep making profits. And when customers install solar panels, utilities lose revenue.”
“… the utilities expect to get reimbursed for the electricity they’re not selling if I use solar energy.”
“I will not give up on the citizens and legislators who support H.4421. We will continue to fight.”

SolarWakeup’s View: I don’t get writer’s envy often anymore. After making a career out of this for the past 25 years, I’m pretty sure I’ve shown I know how to do this for a living and help support a wife, two kids, three cats and a dog on the proceeds.

[wds id=”3″]

But sometimes someone writes something I wish I had, and so is the case with John Tynan’s powerful piece about the South Carolina net metering debacle I have written about – but I lack the perspective of a homegrown South Carolina resident.

Tynan, executive director of the Conservation Voters of South Carolina, wrote an op-ed for The State in which he excoriated the legislature for killing a bill that would have eliminated arbitrary residential net-metering caps that passed by overwhelming majorities just last week.

In case you didn’t read our coverage, I’ll summarize what happened next this way:

UTILITIES: OVERRIDE THIS VOTE ON SOUTH CAROLINA NET METERING OR WE WILL NEVER SUPPORT YOUR CAMPAIGN(S) AGAIN!

Some South Carolina legislators cowering in the corner: “OK, sure, whatever you say, bosses.”

Which is how it came to pass that a net-metering cap bill became a “tax increase” bill, which needed a 2/3 majority to pass the House – which it failed to do by nine votes.

Tynan wrote:

H.4421 recognized the irrationality of the utility argument and supported customer choice and the free market. It would have prevented non-solar customers from having to repay utilities for lost profits because other customers installed solar. This is what is fair.

And he ended his piece on what sure seems like, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, a note of hope:

While Tuesday was a dark day for solar in South Carolina, today I’m looking for the silver lining. I’m grateful for the foresight of many of our key leaders in the Legislature who supported solar jobs and lower rates for customers. I’m grateful for their dedication to protecting our future by protecting our rights and our energy choices, and I remain optimistic that we will ultimately come to an agreement that will protect South Carolina’s ratepayers and strengthen our clean-energy future.

As stirring as Tynan’s words are, he can’t do it alone. If you live in South Carolina or know someone who does, get on the phone right now and fight … for your right … to go solar.

More:

If we use solar, why should utilities get to charge us for electricity we don’t use? (The State)

Utility Monopolies Screw SC Solar After Sneaky Shift On Bill

South Carolina Sends Solar Soaring With Cap Removal