Yes, we are. The numbers can work in a couple of different ways in a couple different markets. It's neither hype, nor press, but thanks.
I'm surprised Google is able to make residential PV contracts make sense: my guess is that the consumers here are either paying more than the prevailing market rates, or they are locked into a very long contract (20+ years?), or both.
By contrast, we target the commercial market, have shorter contracts (10 years), and guarantee a discount relative to the utility co's.
Residential is the most profitable part of the solar market because residential rates are by far the highest, so your PPA or lease revenue, even at a discount to grid, is still fairly high. Sure it costs more to install residential than commercial or utility scale, but the higher revenue more than offsets this. Also all PPA or leases are long term arrangements where the provider includes an escalator of at least 2% a year. If utility rates don't rise at least that fast, the long term contract is a bad deal for the buyer.
Yeah the article said that they charge on a variable price for the electric and say that it's on average cheaper than the electric company. I imagine that they probably have either long contracts, or high interest to cover the cost. Would it be feasible that the provider of the panels is willing to take an upfront loss that they'll recoup in maintenance?
I'm surprised Google is able to make residential PV contracts make sense: my guess is that the consumers here are either paying more than the prevailing market rates, or they are locked into a very long contract (20+ years?), or both.
By contrast, we target the commercial market, have shorter contracts (10 years), and guarantee a discount relative to the utility co's.