Apple Creates Energy Company, Looks To Sell Excess Power Into The Grid (9to5mac.com)

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.

Comments

Selling renwable power

[110010001000]

Selling renewable power reminds me of the movie line where the characters says to the Tanning Salon owner: "How do you make sure the sun only shines on those people that pay?" How do you make sure you are only buying "green" energy? Are the electrons different? No, the only way you can tell is that your bill is higher.

Re:Selling renwable power

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple's electrons only have one button.

Re:Selling renwable power

[BasilBrush]

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:Selling renwable power

[swb]

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:Selling renwable power

[danbob999]

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.

Re: Selling renwable power

[Anonymous Coward]

Well this is pr but the best kind of pr. My next computer will be a macbook... i just hope ubuntu will install on it lol...

Re:Selling renwable power

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the concept doesn't work with a relatively small number of such purchasers, but requires a critical mass to be functional and shift change.

How much that is, I leave to the accountants.

Re:Selling renwable power

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

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

[narcc]

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:Selling renwable power

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that just means you failed math. 10% of expected demand for an area is a capacity measure - it does not imply that 10% of every resident in a larger area has 10% of their electricity from those power plants.

Re:Selling renwable power

[Vinegar Joe]

And you'll have to buy very expensive Apple white wall outlets because Apple electricity is so insanely cool!

Re:Selling renwable power

[Anonymous Coward]

> 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 days, alas, they have been subverted by energy lobby groups.

So yes, call the governments out, do your thing as a citizen, but never forget: many "up there" are just mercenaries. Going to elections ain't enough, you have to vote with your wallet too. You gotta "vote" by any means available to you to make a difference.

Re:Selling renwable power

[AmiMoJo]

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 amplified.

Re:Selling renwable power

[Mr D from 63]

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 summary, you'll see the clearly fake customer quotes. No way would I ever contract with them.

Re:Selling renwable power

[BasilBrush]

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 regulations pushing ever upwards towards 100% renewable.

Re:Selling renwable power

[tonywestonuk]

Actually, as electricity is supplied as AC, you just get the same electrons over and over again, first pushed into your device, and then pulled out, etc etc. Damn you electricity companies, making us pay for our own electrons, time and time again.

Re:Selling renwable power

[MightyYar]

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:Selling renwable power

[Trailer Trash]

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:Selling renwable power

[wardrich86]

And Apple Energy will only power Apple devices. It won't work with other electronics.

Re:Selling renwable power

[danbob999]

I didn't say 10% of expected demand, I said 10% of total production. But anyways, that was just an example.

Re:Selling renwable power

[danbob999]

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:Selling renwable power

[aaarrrgggh]

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: Selling renwable power

[Anonymous Coward]

It could conceivably power other brands of electric devices, however the proprietary connectors installed by the Apple Certified utility make this unlikely.

Re:Selling renwable power

[judoguy]

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:Selling renwable power

[dj245]

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 public, and sell to individual consumers all from the comfort of your home office. The Texas electricity supplier market is full of such "paper" utilities. Every state is a little different, but that appears to be the mechanism by which Apple is doing this.

As far as I know, it is very unusual for a company to sell their excess power like this. A more common arrangement is to have a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA), which is basically a contract to buy X MW-h at Y price for a term of Z years (10-20 years generally). Then, if the company has excess electricity, it sells to the grid at the wholesale price. There is often ample opportunity for making huge profits using this method since the PPA price can, and often is, much lower than market rate. This allows entities such as large hospitals to run on PPA power most of the time, use their emergency generators for emergencies, but also fire up their generators on days when the market electricity price is very high for extra cash. This type of structure is good for the market since it gives critical electricity users reliable and redundant power options, and also gives the grid excess emergency capacity.

As someone in the industry, this development of a company selling electricity directly to consumers is somewhat troubling. These "paper" utilities cause enough problems- many of them use confusing and predatory marketing and pricing plans. I truly believe we need to sort out those deregulation issues before we allow even more non-utility companies to enter the fray. Electricity used to be a trusted market, where people may have paid too much, but the pricing was honest and everyone generally got the same deal. All the nontraditional players entering the market are turning it into something more like the life insurance market where the sleaziest sales teams are the biggest winners.

Re:Selling renwable power

[danbob999]

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 might end-up importing from Quebec. Quebec won't consume any less electricity so it will in turn import from coal or gas producers in the USA.
There is no green tariff in Quebec (why would they, with 98% renewable there is no point) so nobody will notice.

Your scenario can only happen when the electric company is already exceeding their responsibility to provide green electricity.

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?

Re:Selling renwable power

[DarthVain]

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:Selling renwable power

[swb]

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 participate.

Re:Selling renwable power

[Coren22]

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:Selling renwable power

[Coren22]

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

[zieroh]

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.

But please, by all means, go ahead and continue to be close minded. That's the sure-fire proven way toward progress. ~

Re:Selling renwable power

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not quite sure how you get financial from electrical power sales. This does appear to be a lack of focus on Apple's part. Unless of course Apple has some tech development that may be applicable to electrical power supply. Perhaps Apple intends to use its relationship with customers to create a front end for other power generators to use. Apple handles marketing and payment while collecting small electrical suppliers under its banner.

Re:Selling renwable power

[Anonymous Coward]

We will just need more energy storage that can be charged when excess energy is available to handle the times when there is an energy shortfall. Hydro is very good for this, you might be interested in reading about electric mountain, it can store huge amounts of energy by pumping water uphill and was built simply because conventional power stations can't spin up quick enough to match demand.

We will likely need more energy storage with 100% renewable, but it is a problem we know how to solve.

Re:Selling renwable power

[BasilBrush]

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:Selling renwable power

[BasilBrush]

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:Selling renwable power

[Anonymous Coward]

Their power may be coming from coal, but their money is going to green. They're still providing market pressure.

The Republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

will never let them get away with this.

Re: The Republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, competition instead of government-regulated monopolies is a very Republican idea. Most conservatives support deregulation.

Re: The Republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

They will destroy Apple for trying this.

Re: The Republicans...

[Edis Krad]

That's what they like you to believe. In fact, Republicans stand for the status-quo. i.e., standing for big oil, big gas, big electricity or big (insert your favorite lobbying group here). A new player is bad news for Republican's interests.
Same reason they're against any type of green energy, bytheby

Re: The Republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well jeez I guess not all republicans are the same.

Re: The Republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

Energy company sponsored super PACs don't have nearly as much clout as they used to and I, for one, am okay with that.

Re: The Republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re: The Republicans...

[whoever57]

In fact, Republicans stand for the status-quo.

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: The Republicans...

[Vinegar Joe]

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: The Republicans...

[PolygamousRanchKid]

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: The Republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I've seen, that doesn't make them any different than most Democrats.

 

Re: The Republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

Golly, you understand Republicans better than they even know themselves!

Re: The Republicans...

[mi]

In fact, Republicans stand for the status-quo. i.e., standing for big oil, big gas, big electricity or big (insert your favorite lobbying group here).

Is that why a Republican President (along with Republican-dominated Congress) allowed the fuck-ups like Enron, MCI, and Lehman Brothers to collapse, while a Democratic one bailed out GM, Chrysler (not the first one), and AIG?

Re: The Republicans...

[cellocgw]

Big Green Energy?

I can see their spokesperson now. He used to shill canned vegetables, but has moved on.

Deregulate electricity

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Deregulate electricity

[110010001000]

You should make a company that does that. You can call it "Enron".

Re: Deregulate electricity

[Anonymous Coward]

Great idea, let me know when you figure out who keeps the grid going and where all the energy is going to be stored.......

Re: Deregulate electricity

[Anonymous Coward]

Great idea, let me know when you figure out who keeps the grid going and where all the energy is going to be stored.......

Just ask the Germans.

Re: Deregulate electricity

[ranton]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife makes our own renewable energy at home but I'm sure lazy people would prefer to buy it at the Apple store.

Re:GOOD Thinking

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying she farts a lot?

Re:GOOD Thinking

[PopeRatzo]

My wife makes our own renewable energy at home

Did you hook up a generator to her mouth?

I still shiver

[invictusvoyd]

When I hear the word ENRON

Wheeling the juice.

[BertChadick]

Generating the power is one thing. Getting that power to the consumer is a different kettle of eels (electric of course). Those big asses power lines didn't put themselves up or maintain themselves. The grid's owners are going to want enough of a cut of the sales to probably make the project unprofitable, for the near future. I'm not telling Apple anything they don't already know but remember Enron. This was their business plan.

Re: Wheeling the juice.

[Anonymous Coward]

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: Wheeling the juice.

[Anonymous Coward]

Power lines are maintained by the utility companies. In deregulated states, utilities always get a cut of the profits.

Re: Wheeling the juice.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Yeah, because people never use AC units when the sun shines.

Re: Wheeling the juice.

[Holi]

I pay separate line items on my bill for delivery and for consumption. Seems like the guys controlling the lines are getting paid no matter how little I use.

Re: Wheeling the juice.

[aaarrrgggh]

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 profile peaks around 2PM, in-line with solar production.

Re: Wheeling the juice.

[Anonymous Coward]

The customers pay their utility for all their electricity costs: transmission/distribution costs are listed separately from the energy portion of their bill. The energy portion is an agreed upon cents per kWh of load. Apple would just be providing the retail energy portion, with the utilities passing the payments from the end-users through to them. It would be a viable business model just like any other Load Serving Entity. Whether they know what they are doing sufficiently to make money is debatable, but they certainly have a cash to hire enough experts.

Re: Wheeling the juice.

[Anonymous Coward]

You want to offset capacity from one side of a continent to another? Do you understand the loss in a transmission line and how the current grid is setup?

Re: Wheeling the juice.

[aaarrrgggh]

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 of system, and yes... that doesn't make economic sense.

pivot

[phantomfive]

As time goes on, and "unibody aluminum" becomes commoditized, and eventually people are not interested in OSX or iPhones anymore; Apple, with plenty of cash reserves, starts investing more and more in power production, while over time, letting programmers go.

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:pivot

[khallow]

The obvious rebuttal is that power generation is a low margin business. Nintendo and Nokia both transitioned from low margin businesses to high margin businesses. That's why you remember them and their "quaint" origins.

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:pivot

[phantomfive]

Yeah I didn't want to do the research to find a company that matched exactly. Lazy me.

Re:pivot

[AmiMoJo]

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:pivot

[Anonymous Coward]

As time goes on, and "unibody aluminum" becomes commoditized, and eventually people are not interested in OSX or iPhones anymore; Apple, with plenty of cash reserves, starts investing more and more in power production, while over time, letting programmers go.

Yeah, if only Apple weren't one of the largest producers of phones and computers (not to mention one of very few with profits) , you would surely have a point.

Re:pivot

[khallow]

Yeah I didn't want to do the research to find a company that matched exactly.

We'd all forget it anyway.

Re:pivot

[Anonymous Coward]

Or Mitel as Mike and Terrys Lawnmowers.

Re:pivot

[aaarrrgggh]

With huge cash reserves, low margin can still be higher than the rate of return otherwise available.

Re: pivot

[Anonymous Coward]

Well Apple started as a company that made low end mice, with just the one button. So they're not that different.

Re: pivot

[bill_mcgonigle]

They're working on a car. Now they want to do solar energy. Next up: Apple Rockets and Apple iTubes (transportation).

Innovation.

Re:pivot

[Anonymous Coward]

The days of making massive profits off energy might be drawing to a close. Not soon, but in 50 or 100 years time...

Apple is doomed!!! In about 50 to 100 years. If they don't find anything else but energy to sell.

Re:pivot

[phantomfive]

I really hope you are right.

Re:pivot

[khallow]

Where are those cash reserves going to come from, if you're in a low margin business? Even if Apple choose to keep its current, alleged cash reserves, inflation will evaporate most of that in a hundred years.

Re:pivot

[aaarrrgggh]

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:pivot

[khallow]

No, inflation doesn't work that way. Margin doesn't actually change since costs inflate like income. Depreciation has nothing to do with margin either.

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.

Famous Words

[Anonymous Coward]

"Market-Based Rate Tariff" and then "Apple Energy LLC (Seller) makes wholesale electric energy and capacity available under this Tariff".

When the Obama Regime and the Executive Order Tariffs end, Apple Energy LLC's business model evaporates in 3 seconds.

Ha ha

Apple electricity

[penguinoid]

*Sticks copper and zinc electrodes into an apple*

Re:I still shiver . . . then imagine L RON

[Anonymous Coward]

And all your problems will disappear. Be one of us. Be one of the beautiful people. Come to us now. Welcome. (ha-hah-ha) Welcome.

and apple invented the iElectricity 4G

[youn]

for it to work, you got to hold your devices correctly

Apple car

[ChunderDownunder]

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...

Re:Apple car

[AmiMoJo]

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 supply for one or two manufacturers and other cars can't even go there.

Knowing Apple they won't be able to resist using a stupid proprietary port, but at the very least there should be a dongle to connect to standard CHAdeMO or CCS (both recently approved for 300kW).

Re:Apple car

[thoromyr]

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.

Apple Arm Twisting In Cal and Nev

[Anonymous Coward]

A few months back Bloomberg did a story on how Warren Buffet was fighting, the old fashion way (cash bribes), Elon Musk in Nevada regarding sell of residential surplus electricity from Elon's cousin's Solar Polar cells back to the grid and the grid coughed a hair ball.

Then LA Time did a story about the residential solar panel owners getting screwed by a re-working of the rates that residential, grandfathered owners, and the cutt off of new residential solar power reseal to the grid.

So was Apple involved in bribing Cal and Nev State and county boards to screw residential solar power owners? I'd say, Yep!

Ha ha

Better than renewable power

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is harnessing its extensive power of hype with it's reality distortion field and offering it to the masses as pure synergy. Bravo! Encore!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

My God, it'll be beautiful!

[Okian Warrior]

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!

Apple is selling POWER again?

[Anonymous Coward]

But only to electricity distribution companies.

Registered in Delaware

[Anonymous Coward]

Registered in Delaware because Apple are tax avoiding cunts, much like iTunes is in California but somehow i'am doing business with a Luxembourg company, shame on them that such a company doesn't want to contribute a penny to the country that gave them everything.

shame on you Mr Cooke, shame.

Warranty void...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are not using Apple Energy in your iPod/iPhone/iPad/MacBook, etc, your warranty will be void.

Selling to end-users can make sense (aka money)

[Haegar]

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.

Apple Filing Is About Wholesale Rates, Not Retail

[Anonymous Coward]

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulates wholesale sales. Approval of this filing by FERC would allow Apple to sell at wholesale into regional wholesale auction markets or through bilateral contracts to wholesale purchasers. While Apple could perhaps one day become a retail supplier like Green Mountain Power, Apple would first need to file in each state it wishes to sell at retail. FERC does not regulate retail sales. State public utility commissions do that. Nothing in these filings suggest that Apple will make this move to retail. That's just speculation. By the way, I'm an attorney who specializes in regulation of electric companies.

Just selling excess capacity. Not exciting.

[sjbe]

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.

Analogy

[Shoten]

This story is like this story.

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 that they most certainly are NOT a utility and have no plans to be. They're simply using clever legal rationale to make a case for charging a retail rate for their power, rather than the wholesale rate.

More Apple news here

[Anonymous Coward]

https://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9211273&cid=52277021

Time to rewire the house

[LynnwoodRooster]

I wonder what the proprietary Apple connector will look like...

Conflict of Interest or Good Business Sense?

[mitcheli]

So Apple produces a crap ton of devices that ... use electricity. And with the possible move to sell electric cars... Does this not represent a competing interest and possible conflict of interest? If you're buying your electricity from the person making the electric devices, do they still have the same incentive to make energy efficient devices?

Apple has more energy than it can use...

[Anonymous Coward]

And in the meantime my iPhone PaperThin Jony Ive Special Edition can't make it until dinner without needing a charge. The irony hurts.