Apple Energy gets federal approval to sell power into wholesale markets
On Thursday, the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission granted Apple Energy LLC -- a recently-created Apple subsidiary -- the right to sell energy generated from its solar facilities into wholesale markets.
The Commission decided that Apple Energy doesn't pose a risk of hiked energy prices, Bloomberg reported. Sales can officially begin on Saturday.
Filings for Apple Energy list several assets, including a 130-megawatt solar farm near San Francisco, a 50-megawatt facility in Arizona, and another 19.9 megawatts in Nevada.
Rather than selling to the public, Apple is believed to be using Apple Energy simply to sell excess power to public utilities, helping to offset the cost of running its infrastructure. When and where possible, Apple uses solar as a primary source of "green" power for offices and datacenters.
The subsidiary was quietly established in May, fueling speculation in some quarters that Apple intended to become a true energy provider selling to consumers. That, however, would've required a major investment to connect to homes and businesses.
The Commission decided that Apple Energy doesn't pose a risk of hiked energy prices, Bloomberg reported. Sales can officially begin on Saturday.
Filings for Apple Energy list several assets, including a 130-megawatt solar farm near San Francisco, a 50-megawatt facility in Arizona, and another 19.9 megawatts in Nevada.
Rather than selling to the public, Apple is believed to be using Apple Energy simply to sell excess power to public utilities, helping to offset the cost of running its infrastructure. When and where possible, Apple uses solar as a primary source of "green" power for offices and datacenters.
The subsidiary was quietly established in May, fueling speculation in some quarters that Apple intended to become a true energy provider selling to consumers. That, however, would've required a major investment to connect to homes and businesses.
Comments
Trust me.
The Commission decided that Apple Energy doesn't pose a risk of hiked energy prices
Why on earth would another supplier coming into the market cause a rise in prices?
Would not it actually depress prices?
Or is this some entrenched coal burner complaining?
Although the US Federal Regulatory Commission has approved Apple's filing, each state also has a Public Energy Commission that they will need approval from. Many electric utilities are fighting against having to purchase excess solar energy and often ask the Commission to lower the amount that they are required to pay private solar producers. Apple was generally doing this even when the solar farms were located next to the data center. They sell the solar to the utility and then get their electricity from the grid, even in a completely different location so long as it is from the same utility.
By becoming a wholesaler they can sell their solar power through the power brokers and probably get a better price for it, especially during times of high demand such as really hot weather when AC demand is high and solar is generating at maximum capacity. Generally data centers do not use a lot of AC but instead use air/water cooling systems, so hot weather doesn't significantly affect the amount of electricity that the data center needs. Some data centers do use AC but most of the really large ones do not. They have cooling towers and circulate cold water directly to the server cabinets.
Historically, electric utilities have been monopolists (or oligopolists) operating at very large scales. The government regulated these monopolists to prevent them from jacking up prices for consumers who would have no alternative but to pay the price or go without power. So the regulations are all focused on that worry. That worry is becoming outdated, but it's still a worry.
The fact that the commission quickly reached this decision shows that government regulators are quite capable of applying common sense.
Maybe... but it depends on what you mean.
I would think their comparative advantage would be in the UI for controlling/managing electrical production, storage, and use in a household. Perhaps they also have a comparative advantage in that they have massive financial capital that could be used to get good prices on solar cells and other components from producers. So, perhaps it's not too far fetched to imagine that they would offer consumers a "turn-key" solar power solution (not unlike what Elon Musk described in master plan 2).
But if they go that route, then they might as well just buy Tesla, since Tesla is also much further along in the EV market, too.
Given the dramatic growth in solar, many utilities have maxed out on what they can (or need to) purchase. Combine that with the cost of additional capital expenditure they'll have to incur to take the power from Apple-type facilities and homes, it can get quite expensive. The utilities, however, cannot and do not bear the full cost (after all, they can't run at a loss), so they pass it on to consumers. The typical non-renewable electricity consumer (which is most of us) ends of up footing the bill. (Btw, that includes a lot of low-income people who can't afford to put up solar installations).
The bottom line is, Commissions in a lot of states are now extremely sensitive to passing on higher renewable energy costs to utilities and their non-renewable consumers. Think of it as the dark side of successful renewable energy capacity creation!
I really wish Apple could somehow calculate its Energy Usage from Manufacturing partners, Retails, shipping etc.... and produce enough Clean Energy to offset these usage. So Apple will be net NET Carbon Zero emission.
For some reason I had the impression that they're on their way towards doing that. If nothing else, doing so would give them great PR in China -- a country where just having breathable air is a huge issue (even without global warming).