Apple Creates Energy Company, Looks To Sell Excess Power Into The Grid (9to5mac.com) 107
An anonymous reader quotes a report from 9to5Mac: Apple has quietly created an energy subsidiary, 'Apple Energy' LLC, registered in Delaware but run from its Cupertino headquarters. The company has seemingly formed to allow it to sell excess electricity generated by its solar farms in Cupertino and Nevada, with plans to sell electricity across the whole of the U.S. But a set of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission filings suggests that Apple could have bigger ambitions in the power field. Currently, when private companies sell their excess power, they can only do so to energy companies -- and they often (varies by state) have to sell at wholesale rates. What Apple seemingly could to do, however, is sell directly to end-users at market rates. In other words, get paid retail prices for its excess power. Currently companies like Green Mountain Power can sell green renewable energy to homeowners all over the U.S. It wouldn't be a stretch to see Apple do this as a product in the future. Apple has told the FERC that it meets the legal criteria for selling electricity at market rates because it is not a major player in the energy business and thus has no power to influence electricity prices. It has requested permission begin within 60 days of its filing on 6th June.
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
And you'll have to buy very expensive Apple white wall outlets because Apple electricity is so insanely cool!
Re:Selling renwable power (Score:4, Interesting)
Electricity is fungible. It makes no odds which electrons you get, so long as the renewable energy company puts in the same at the other end. That is of course instantaneously impossible. But averaged over a period of time it's not. The more customers green electricity companies get, the more renewable power generators they build.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let say a country produces 10% renewable energy. We could say that all clients get 10% of renewable energy, on average. What happens if one client pay more to get only renewable? He/she gets 100% (that is in theory, because in practice the flow of electrons remains the same), while the rest decrease from 10% to 9.999%. No more green energy is produced, or consumed.
Therefore it sounds like a scam to me. In the end it doesn't matter if YOUR energy is renewable or not. What counts is the overall. And that can
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say 10% of expected demand, I said 10% of total production. But anyways, that was just an example.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Therefore it sounds like a scam to me.
Either you're an idiot or you play one on TV.
I actually buy "green electricity" from a (carefully selected) provider. I don't give a hoot where the *electrons come from* (actually they don't travel very far, they just jitter a very short distance back and forth).
What I care about is where my *money goes to*: a company whose future investments will be renewables.
Of course, government involvement can do quite a bit as can be seen in what happened in Germany. These da
Re: (Score:3)
Maths fail.
You are assuming that the total amount of renewable energy stays 10%. It doesn't. When one customer goes 100% renewable, the extra money they pay (not a lot in my case) goes to building additional renewable capacity, and favouring it when buying power. Demand for non-renewable energy falls.
So the percentage of renewable energy does increase, rather than simply transferring some from one customer to another. It also demonstrates increased demand, which attracts investors, so the effect is amplifie
Re: (Score:2)
As long as there are enough people paying more for green electricity. But renewable production didn't start at 0 and people paying for green electricity did. So it was a scam at least for a while, not convinced it is no longer the case.
Re: (Score:2)
Let say a country produces 10% renewable energy. We could say that all clients get 10% of renewable energy, on average. What happens if one client pay more to get only renewable? He/she gets 100% (that is in theory, because in practice the flow of electrons remains the same), while the rest decrease from 10% to 9.999%. No more green energy is produced, or consumed.
Therefore it sounds like a scam to me. In the end it doesn't matter if YOUR energy is renewable or not. What counts is the overall. And that can only be achieved through government regulations.
It is just a game. Utilities have used the 'green power' option to get some customers to willingly pay more, they don't have to do a thing but make sure that they don't charge for more MWhs than they produce from renewables over a period of time. Since they'll be producing that power anyhow, the customer is not influencing anything. So in reality at a given time they may not be producing enough 'green' energy to supply all the 'green' contracts demand.
BTW, look at that Green Mountain Power link in the s
Re: (Score:2)
He/she gets 100% (that is in theory, because in practice the flow of electrons remains the same), while the rest decrease from 10% to 9.999%. No more green energy is produced, or consumed.
As I explained, on average enough green electricity is generated to match the usage of those on green tariffs. Your scenario can only happen when the electric company is already exceeding their responsibility to provide green electricity. As extra consumers sign on for green power, the electric company would fall behind their responsibility and have to create more green generation capacity.
If this sounds like a scam to you, then you didn't understand it.
Don't get me wrong though, I'd prefer government regul
Re: (Score:2)
You can, however, simply buy power from the cheapest provider and then simply buy the Renewable Energy Credits yourself. No need to enrich the middle man. Result is exactly the same.
Re: (Score:2)
As I explained, on average enough green electricity is generated to match the usage of those on green tariffs.
That is only if you suppose those green tariffs are the only driving force for renewable electricity production. It isn't. Sometimes renewable is cheaper than the alternatives (hydro, mostly), governments may also enact some regulations favoring renewable.
Even if nobody paid the green tariff, there would still be some renewable production.
Don't forget that it doesn't stop at country borders. Quebec has over 98% of its production from renewable. If someone in San Francisco pays the green tariff, a US utility
Re: (Score:2)
That is only if you suppose those green tariffs are the only driving force for renewable electricity production. It isn't. Sometimes renewable is cheaper than the alternatives (hydro, mostly), governments may also enact some regulations favoring renewable.
People who pay for green tariffs want as much renewables as possible. So if there are other drivers too, that's even better. It's not a drawback.
What makes you think it isn't the case in the USA? I read the production is 13% renewable. Is there 13% of the clients (or I should say clients representing 13% of the total production) paying that green tariff?
It's per company.
Re: (Score:1)
Don't get me wrong though, I'd prefer government regulations pushing ever upwards towards 100% renewable.
God, I hope not, that would be a terrible future. "Renewable Power" isn't reliable, so 100% renewables would lead to rolling blackouts, or wouldn't be 100% renewables.
Re: (Score:2)
God, I hope not, that would be a terrible future. "Renewable Power" isn't reliable, so 100% renewables would lead to rolling blackouts, or wouldn't be 100% renewables.
"Renewable Power" is a broad category. You are thinking narrowly of things like solar and wind, and ignoring nascent trends toward energy storage using increasingly creative methods [utilitydive.com].
But please, by all means, go ahead and continue to be close minded. That's the sure-fire proven way toward progress. ~
Re: (Score:2)
That's not true. Hydro and batteries can smooth the gaps. And if you have a wide variety of sources, and a spread of locations, the gaps will be few.
But in any case, the fact is that we have to transition to renewables, because non-renewables, by definition, won't last forever.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite. Voltage isn't about the directions the electrons are going. However, the electrons do go to your device and back in a large loop (through the ground).
Re:Selling renwable power (Score:5, Interesting)
I kind of get the solar/wind power buyers who pay more. There are a smattering of people for whom paying extra for "renewable" power has some religious meaning even though the actual power they use may be from non-renewable sources. Fine. We salute your noble personal sacrifice for the cause of sustaining renewable energy.
What I completely don't get is why someone would be an *Apple" renewable power buyer. I see renewable as the basic "brand" here and don't understand why anyone would specify Apple power. Even device fandom doesn't explain it to me.
This looks mostly like a set of corporate constructs to lessen the regulatory burden and increase Apple's flexibility to both sell its excess power and maximize whatever financial advantages it has in terms of tax structure.
It seems to me like one of the weird side effects of massive profitability and lack of investment in product diversity or expansion is that some companies seem to be drifting into almost financial company status, where the business imperative shifts to structural tactics to expand profitability versus expanding the existing core business.
GE kind of did this a decade or so ago, where its finance unit became so important to the business that some people thought the company should be evaluated as a financial company not a manufacturer.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this about branding or about separating Apple Power from Apple Corp so they don't get overloaded with frivolous lawsuits baited by deep pockets?
Re:Selling renwable power (Score:5, Funny)
You just can't appreciate the quality design. Some of us are willing to pay for the superior experience that comes from using Apple energy. Honestly, once you try it, you can't go back to using anything else. Even the so-called high-end electrons from other companies feel cheep and unpolished. Yeah, the specs may seem better on paper, but the brilliantly crafted combination of current and voltage you get from Apple just can't be matched. It's all about the experience.
Re: (Score:2)
You just can't appreciate the quality design. Some of us are willing to pay for the superior experience that comes from using Apple energy. Honestly, once you try it, you can't go back to using anything else. Even the so-called high-end electrons from other companies feel cheep and unpolished. Yeah, the specs may seem better on paper, but the brilliantly crafted combination of current and voltage you get from Apple just can't be matched. It's all about the experience.
To me, the big thing about it is that Apple energy just works. I don't have to worry about appliance compatibility, stuff like that. It's really worth paying a bit more. Plus, they now have electrons in a couple of different finishes. We still just use "space grey", but I think my older son is talking about using "gold" electrons when he gets out on his own.
Re: (Score:2)
You just can't appreciate the quality design. Some of us are willing to pay for the superior experience that comes from using Apple energy.
And I only have solid silver Monster brand wiring in my house. You can literally feel the quality of the electricity.
Re: (Score:2)
Though to get the fullest potential from your Apple Energy, you really need the right cables. Apple has partnered with Monster Cables to provide you with the best in energy transport technology. Though it does come at a price, at 300$ per 6ft of cable, it is going to cost you a bit more than the basic copper those utility companies are going to give you, but do you really want to trust your important devices to that?
Re: (Score:3)
I would imagine the reason is so they can buy from themselves at locations where solar isn't viable for retail and remote offices. There might be a smattering of other reasons, but their own non-renewable energy consumption in the US is likely the primary driver. But, once you go that far, why not take advantage of the opportunity to sell to others?
Re: (Score:2)
I kind of get the solar/wind power buyers who pay more. There are a smattering of people for whom paying extra for "renewable" power has some religious meaning even though the actual power they use may be from non-renewable sources. Fine. We salute your noble personal sacrifice for the cause of sustaining renewable energy.
What I completely don't get is why someone would be an *Apple" renewable power buyer. I see renewable as the basic "brand" here and don't understand why anyone would specify Apple power. Even device fandom doesn't explain it to me.
This looks mostly like a set of corporate constructs to lessen the regulatory burden and increase Apple's flexibility to both sell its excess power and maximize whatever financial advantages it has in terms of tax structure.
It seems to me like one of the weird side effects of massive profitability and lack of investment in product diversity or expansion is that some companies seem to be drifting into almost financial company status, where the business imperative shifts to structural tactics to expand profitability versus expanding the existing core business.
GE kind of did this a decade or so ago, where its finance unit became so important to the business that some people thought the company should be evaluated as a financial company not a manufacturer.
That's exactly what it is. Deregulation of the electricity market sent us on this path in many states. Deregulation created new job titles like "Energy Trader" and "Energy Market Analyst". Such people get paid very handsomely to play the energy market exactly as if it were a stock market.
Setting up a "power company" doesn't even require physical infrastructure of any kind anymore. You can set up the appropriate legal entities, purchase electricity in bulk wholesale, market your "service" to the publ
Re: (Score:2)
It would seem like the best thing to do is to nuke the paper utilities by requiring anyone having utility status to be capable of demand generating some minimum threshold quantity of power, like 5 megawatt hours per day.
This would cut out all the non-producers simply looking to arbitrage the wholesale market, but be small enough that legitimate alternative producers could enter the market as well as self-producers (large backup generators or industrial plants with on-site power generation) still able to pa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The Republicans... (Score:1)
Actually, competition instead of government-regulated monopolies is a very Republican idea. Most conservatives support deregulation.
Re: (Score:2)
Same reason they're against any type of green energy, bytheby
Re: (Score:2)
No they are not. There are millions of people who claim they are Republican purely because of abortion or some other dumbest religious close minded conservative views they have Yet they make less thank $250,000 per year
But somehow they are able to spell "think" and use punctuation........
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
That's what they would like you to believe. In fact Republicans stand for increasing the wealth and power of a small number of ultra-wealthy people.
They stand for the taxpayers subsidizing the wealthy. They stand for destruction of the environment. They stand for denying basic healthcare to the poor. They stand for using the resources of the government to develop their interests abroad.
Re: (Score:2)
big oil, big gas, big electricity or big (insert your favorite lobbying group here).
Big Green Energy?
Same reason they're against any type of green energy, bytheby
Oops! I guess that doesn't quite work . . .
Re: (Score:2)
Big Green Energy?
I can see their spokesperson now. He used to shill canned vegetables, but has moved on.
Re: The Republicans... (Score:4, Insightful)
Is that why a Republican President (along with Republican-dominated Congress) allowed the fuck-ups like Enron [nytimes.com], MCI [ecommercetimes.com], and Lehman Brothers [wikipedia.org] to collapse, while a Democratic one bailed out GM [reuters.com], Chrysler [huffingtonpost.com] (not the first one [about.com]), and AIG [wsj.com]?
Deregulate electricity (Score:1)
This is a really interesting idea. Make everyone who is connected to the grid pay a fee for the infrastructure. Then let customers buy electricity from whomever they choose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a really interesting idea. Make everyone who is connected to the grid pay a fee for the infrastructure. Then let customers buy electricity from whomever they choose.
Great idea, let me know when you figure out who keeps the grid going and where all the energy is going to be stored.......
I market in bold the part which explains where the funding for keeping the grid going and storing the energy is taken care of.
GOOD Thinking (Score:1, Funny)
Re:GOOD Thinking (Score:4, Funny)
Did you hook up a generator to her mouth?
I still shiver (Score:2)
Wheeling the juice. (Score:3, Informative)
Re: Wheeling the juice. (Score:1)
It's even worse than that, the system can only store so much in its inherent latency. Peak production of renewables and peak use are never aligned.
Re: (Score:2)
Far from true, for both parent and grandparent posts. Buying/selling renewable energy is on a kWh basis and just offsets kWh that are generated by non-renewables at a system level. Time domain is only a factor in ensuring adequate transmission/distribution capacity.
From a national grid and population perspective, the east coast could even handle the major problem point on the renewable-intensive load profile-- the time between sunset and 8 PM or so, with generation on the west coast. The normal load profi
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that the actual power flow is minimal, at least up to the point where it is logical to do so. Within the region the picture doesn't really change that much, just planning for inflow in the evening and outflow in the morning. (Normally system interties try to balance without power flow on the lines; the tie is mainly a reserve function. Allowing for time-of-day flow requires some changes to protection and system logic but not that big of a deal.)
To be 100% renewable is a very different type
Re: (Score:2)
pivot (Score:5, Insightful)
A hundred years from now, everyone thinks of Apple as the power company, and if they know at all, they think it's quaint that Apple started as a computer company, much like we think of Nintendo starting as a trading card company, or Nokia as a wood-pulp mill.
Re: (Score:2)
It would have to be integrated with a lot more than just electricity service in order to become a high margin business that Apple could transition to without becoming greatly diminished in the process.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I didn't want to do the research to find a company that matched exactly.
We'd all forget it anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
With huge cash reserves, low margin can still be higher than the rate of return otherwise available.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you have an asset with a 30-year life paid for in today's dollars then inflation improves your margins. 2% Margin can quickly become a 30% margin at end of life. When you depreciate the full cost in the first 7 years, you get an even better picture.
Re: (Score:2)
Finally, we're speaking of cash, not some durable asset, for which inflation shortens its effective lifespan. The more inflation, the lower the future value of the cash.
Re: (Score:2)
The days of making massive profits off energy might be drawing to a close. Not soon, but in 50 or 100 years time... When solar is so cheap every roof and suitable surface has it, which everyone has home batteries, when communities run their own wind farms. Energy production is being democratized, and while we will still need central generation for the foreseeable future I don't think it will be as hugely profitable as it is now. Subsidies will fall away, demand will drop.
Re: (Score:2)
Just selling excess capacity. Not exciting. (Score:5, Insightful)
A hundred years from now, everyone thinks of Apple as the power company, and if they know at all, they think it's quaint that Apple started as a computer company, much like we think of Nintendo starting as a trading card company, or Nokia as a wood-pulp mill.
Apple isn't becoming a power company. They are selling excess generating capacity. That's it. Nothing to see here. They are making a little extra cash off of an underutilized asset. Building a solar farm generates capacity in a step function. You can't scale it exactly to your need so you have to buy a bit extra. You can then sell this extra capacity very cheaply because it costs very little to operate. The expensive bit was buying it in the first place. For solar there aren't even any input costs, just a bit of administration and maintenance. So they'll add a tiny bit to the bottom line and do it with clean energy. Nothing super exciting.
Re: pivot (Score:2)
They're working on a car. Now they want to do solar energy. Next up: Apple Rockets and Apple iTubes (transportation).
Innovation.
Apple electricity (Score:2)
*Sticks copper and zinc electrodes into an apple*
and apple invented the iElectricity 4G (Score:2)
for it to work, you got to hold your devices correctly
Apple car (Score:3)
Apple's self-driving electric vehicle will need charging stations across the 50 states.
Expect them to partner with a roadside diner chain. charge car battery, get a bite to eat while a Genius services your iPad...
My God, it'll be beautiful! (Score:2)
Apple's self-driving electric vehicle will need charging stations across the 50 states.
Expect them to partner with a roadside diner chain. charge car battery, get a bite to eat while a Genius services your iPad...
My God... it'll be beautiful! [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's the last thing we want, proprietary charging stations for every car manufacturer. Imagine how stupid it would be if Fords could only used Ford approved fuel. They would probably move to a printer ink model... uugh.
It's worse than stupid for EVs, because chargers require connection to the grid. The next generation of chargers will offer up to 300kW, so you will need a very big grid connection to have lots of them. If companies start competing there will be problems with areas that only have enough sup
Re: (Score:2)
Knowing Apple it would probably be proprietary (or, an open standard not used by anyone else). But the idea of them creating power stations as outlets for their excess power does not *require* that. Arguably, they would in fact benefit by using whatever standard Tesla does. This idea makes a lot of sense -- and if they are allowed to sell electricity "at retail" then they can make money off of it. Here's hoping Apple doesn't do stupid.
Selling to end-users can make sense (aka money) (Score:1)
Having a seperate energy company selling to end users can make sense.
Imagine you have 2MW power generation capacity, and you need 2MW for your own (in this case datacenter) usage, and you have the brand to attract end customers.
You could use your own power - but why, when instead you could sell 2MW "green" energy at the higher market rate to end users, and buy 2 MW "dirty power" at the lower wholesale rate, and keep the price difference.
Analogy (Score:2)
This story is like this story [xkcd.com].
Apple has generation capability. At times, they will have excess capacity. Selling that capacity back on the grid is a no-brainer. Setting up a specific legal entity for those purposes is also a no-brainer. And the analysis is self-contradicting; they say that Apple "could" seemingly seek to start selling power and get into the power utility business, "across the whole of the U.S." But their FERC filing has them taking the explicit...and non-trivial, by the way...stance th
Time to rewire the house (Score:2)
Conflict of Interest or Good Business Sense? (Score:2)