UPDATE - 2/5/16 - We just heard back from Amazon Web Services - here is their response:
We’ve received your report about alleged posting, hosting, or distribution of unlicensed copyright protected material on Amazon Web Services. We’ve completed an initial investigation of the issue and learned that the activity you reported originated from a user of our network.
We take reports of copyright infringement very seriously. We’ve taken appropriate action in response to your complaint to remove or disable access to the material and to notify the user who posted the material of your complaint. If the user sends us a counter-notice, we will forward such counter-notice to you with additional instructions.
Thank you for alerting us to this issue.
In other words - VICTORY!!! To everyone else whose content is being pirated, you need to contact AWS and tell them that your content is being stolen by these thieves. If enough people do that, we can shut these cretins down!
As anyone who has ever attempted to write a blog for their company knows, it is a daunting process. Not only must you strive to come up with captivating concepts, but you must research them, write the piece, edit the piece, find art to highlight the piece, and then promote the piece. All in the hope that people will find your content interesting and useful, which will in turn, drive more people to your website, which (hopefully) results in more business for your company. It is a costly, time-consuming process. Those who persevere may find that they have developed a modest following as the reward for all of those efforts.
But not everyone is willing to do that hard work. Instead, they find it acceptable to pilfer the work of others, repost it in its entirety on their own website, thereby drawing away viewers from the original author’s website, and using those diverted clicks to drive ad revenue. All profit, no work.
There are words to describe such people:
Criminal Copyright Infringer.
By no means are we the only ones being ripped off. Nearly everyone who posts enviro-related content online is being robbed by these thieves. Here’s what we know so far…
The Google alert that tipped us off…
Like you, I had never heard of these thieves until Saturday when I saw a Google alert for a blog post that my colleague Laurel had written. Great, I thought, Laurel’s post is getting some traction as Google has picked it up. But then I noticed that Google wasn’t linking to our blog, they were linking to the pirates at EG.
(As an aside, if you create content on the web, or even if you just have your business website out there, you need to have Google alerts set to let you know how your name is being used…)
What the heck is that, I wondered? We certainly hadn’t given anyone at EG permission to reproduce our content, so what could this be about?
Following the link provided by Google confirmed my worst fears - there was the blog post that Laurel had labored over (and which my company had paid for) reproduced in full on EG’s pirate website. Here’s a partial page capture:
So there is Laurel’s article, art and all, complete and unabridged. (Click to see a larger image.)
Of particular interest here are the two, solar-related ads (one of which turns out to be for Sunrun while the other is for Solar California - nice company you are keeping, guys). Should anyone search for the content discussed in the article - selling solar without using pushy salespeople - they may well end up on this pirate site. If they click one of the ad links, EG gets profit from diverting potential clients away from the Run on Sun site and, worse yet, redirects them to our competition!
It gets worse.
The closest these thieves come to even providing a clean backlink is a plain text message at the end of the post that says, “Original post blogged on Run on Sun." But below that are a series of buttons that correspond to associated categories, one of which is “Run on Sun". Clicking on that, however, doesn’t take you to our blog; instead, it reveals the true extent of EG’s pirating activities:
They have (as of now, before I post this blog) 34 of our blog posts recreated in full!
(Particularly telling is the third article down, which I posted after discovering that this was going on, basically asserting that there were thieves in our midst - they even reposted that! So how sweet is this? They don’t even have a human being overseeing this, they just have a bot that scrapes content and posts it - and they just wait for the checks to roll in. Sure beats working.)
EG has been snagging our content for months without our permission (and despite clear copyright information on our site explicitly forbidding such activities) and attempting to profit from it by associating it with a plethora of ads.
Hell, these peopl are so shameless, they even reproduced our Happy Holidays card.
There was one more link to explore on our article page, the one that said, “Read More." Here’s where that takes you…
In case you have never seen this before, that is the Run on Sun website, inside a frame on the EG website (something that hasn’t been cool to do for the past fifteen years). Once again we have a plethora of click-bait ads at the bottom of the page, and at the very, very bottom we see, without any sense of irony, a copyright notice that asserts that “All rights reserved." Indeed.
There is also an “About EnvironmentGuru” statement which makes for pretty amusing reading, wherein they describe themselves as “the largest online Social Network that offers a place for environmental professionals around the world to collaborate, find, and distribute environmental information." How nice. Just one problem - no one is collaborating here. The thieves that run this pirate website are taking content without permission and using it for commercial purposes.
We don’t collaborate with thieves.
We have them prosecuted.
Having seen how badly they were ripping off little-old Run on Sun, we wondered if other, better known sources of content were being similarly victimized. Oh boy are they. Here is a brief, by no means exhaustive list of well-known content publishers in the solar industry, the number of their articles currently being pirated by EG, and a link whereby they can verify this rampant copyright infringement for themselves (data as of 2/2/16):
|Media Source||#Pirated Articles||EG Page|
|Feed the Grid||2,746||Click to see|
|NRDC||1,659||Click to see|
|Green Tech Media||1,158||Click to see|
|ClimateProgress||1,119||Click to see|
|Solar Power World||470||Click to see|
|Energy Collective||222||Click to see|
|Run on Sun||34||Click to see|
That’s a lot of content being stolen! From just seven sources, the pirates at EG have profited from more than 7,000 individual works of authorship, constituting willful copyright infringement on a massive scale.
These people have to be stopped.
We have done a fair amount of research into the website associated with EG. Doing a straightforward whois search on their website reveals that they are hiding their identities behind a website proxy registration service. So that is a dead end.
You can contact them via email at: email@example.com.
As we mentioned above, they are making money from their site because it serves up ads. Well guess what, those ads come from Google. We went digging a bit in the EG website code and found this:
<ins class="adsbygoogle" style="display: block;"
Now we don’t run ads on our site, so I cannot be certain of this, but my guess is that the line for data-ad-client, probably relates the thieves at EG back to Google. If your content is being stolen, please fill out this form at Google AdSense. (Check the box that refers to a Google Ad.)
We are going to publicize this to the greatest extent that we can, and it sure would help if some of the bigger fish in this ocean did so as well.
As always, we look forward to your thoughts.
On January 28 the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) voted 3-2 to adopt new rules governing what is known as Net Energy Metering, thereby creating the framework for Net Energy Metering 2.0 (NEM 2.0). Here is our take on what the CPUC did, and didn’t do.
The first and most important thing to know is that for many people, the new rules adopted by the CPUC will not affect you at all! These new rules only directly apply to customers of the three investor owned utilities (IOUs): SCE, PG&E, and SDG&E. If your electrical service is provided by one of the municipal utilities - like PWP or LADWP - nothing that the CPUC did last month will directly affect you since the CPUC does not have jurisdiction over the munis. (That said, the munis often follow the lead of the CPUC, so it is entirely possible that they will individually adopt their own version of NEM 2.0, but that will be a discussion for another day.)
Even for solar clients in the service territory of one of the IOUs, if you have already signed a net metering agreement, you will be grandfathered in and allowed to continue to operate under the old rules for 20 years. Once the 20 years have elapsed, you will be transitioned to the net metering rules (NEM 5.0?) then in effect.
Beyond all of that, even for new solar clients in IOU territory, these new rules do not go into effect right away. Rather, the old rules will still apply until your utility reaches their 5% of customer aggregate demand cap, or July 1, 2017 - whichever comes first. In SCE territory it is an open bet as to which will occur first (see more below).
Bottom line: this is not happening right away, so you still have time to benefit from the existing rules.
Net metering is changing!
Lots of people weighed in on NEM 2.0 including all three IOUs, CALSEIA, NRDC, and various advocates for rate reform and consumer protection. While some of the proposals, and their proponents, were entirely predictable, others were not, and at least one such position was seriously disappointing.
For example, the three IOUs all advanced proposals that would have significantly reduced the value of going solar. SCE wanted to reduce the rate for energy exported from full retail to just 7¢/kWh (with a 1¢ adder if you give SCE your renewable energy credits), plus a $3/kW/month “grid access charge", and a one-time $75 interconnection charge. (SDG&E’s proposal was even worse, seeking a $9/kW/month charge!) On top of that SCE wanted to eliminate virtual net metering altogether.
At the other extreme, the “solar parties” (such as CALSEIA and The Solar Alliance) advocated for keeping net metering at full retail value. However, in a nod to changing realities, they did support paying on nonbypassable charges (more on that mouthful in a minute) but not until after 2019.
Still, there was one proposal that strikes us as entirely reasonable which CALSEIA opposed - mandatory warranty periods. Back when the California Solar Initiative was in place (i.e., when SCE was paying rebates), solar contractors were required to provide a ten-year warranty on their work in order to participate in the program. With the demise of the CSI program, technically that warranty requirement also went away. As part of the NEM 2.0 rulemaking, ratepayer advocates advanced the notion of restoring the warranty requirement - a common sense request that no one should oppose.
But the “solar parties” did oppose it, asserting that such a requirement could “discourage innovation in product offerings." Seriously? What “product” might we reasonably want to offer that having to stand behind it would be discouraging? When pressed about this position during CALSEIA’s NEM 2.0 webinar, Brad Heavner, CALSEIA’s policy director, said that the view was that the market could decide this: presumably if a company didn’t offer a warranty and that was important to the customer, they would go with a different company. This was not, however, a position that CALSEIA pushed hard to win, and in the end, they lost on this point.
In our view, opposing a mandatory warranty paints solar in a bad light. It puts the industry on the side of those who do the least reliable work, and penalizes those companies who go the extra mile to install systems that will stand the test of time. From what we have seen it is tough enough to get a company to honor its warranty commitments, let alone relying on the “invisible hand” of the market to protect consumers. CALSEIA did a lot of great work on NEM 2.0, but this position was a mistake.
The ultimate decision is a major defeat for the IOUs, and a partial victory for the solar industry. For the IOUs, they clearly overplayed their hand, advancing proposals that were so clearly anti-solar that the Commissioners couldn’t really take them seriously. According to a CALSEIA webinar, toward the end of the proceedings the IOUs suggested an energy export feed-in-tariff which, if they had proposed it at the start, might have gained traction. Something to think about as we look toward subsequent iterations on NEM rules.
The solar industry retained full retail value for energy exports, but they also saw three changes that undercut somewhat the value of that victory: nonbypassable charges (NBC) for all energy taken from the grid, one-time interconnection fees, and mandatory time-of-use (TOU) rates. Let’s look at each in turn.
As part of their rate schedules, the IOUs have certain rate components that are known as nonbypassable charges or NBCs. For example, if you were to look at SCE’s Domestic Rate schedule tariff page (check out page 3), you would see a whole host of factors that go into making up the rate that the customer ultimately pays. The decision affects three of those NBCs: the Nuclear Decommissioning Charge, the Public Purpose Programs Charge, and the Department of Water Resources Bond Charge. The sum of those three charges for an SCE residential rate payer comes to 2.224¢/kWh. (The lion’s share of which is the charge for public purpose programs, such as bill assistance to people on limited incomes.)
Under the old rules, solar customers would only pay for these charges on the net energy that they consumed in a month. So, if your consumption was 1000 kWh per month, and your solar system produced 800 kWh, you would only pay these charges on 200 kWh, about $4.45. Under the new rules, however, every kWh that you pull from the grid, whether it is ultimately netted out by energy you exported, is subject to NBCs. Sticking with the same example, of the 800 kWh that you produce, imagine that 500 kWh of that are consumed at your home and the remaining 300 kWh are exported. Meaning that you imported a total of 500 kWh from the grid. As a result, under NEM 2.0 you will pay NBC on 500 kWh — raising the charge from $4.45 to $11.12, and increase of $6.67/month on the solar customer’s bill.
The relatively small impact of the NBCs is due in part to solar industry lobbying that held the line at around 2¢/kWh versus a proposal, apparently favored by the two dissenting Commissioners, to include more charges that would have brought the total above 4¢/kWh. (Indeed, we are told that keeping the NBCs at 2¢/kWh is what caused those two Commissioners to vote against the final package.)
Frankly, we think the NBC costs are fair. The programs supported by the NBCs are a public benefit and all other customers pay for those based on every kWh they pull from the grid. Under the new rules, so will solar customers. Of course, if you are in a lease and only saving $20/month from your old bill, this is a much bigger hit. Yet another reason to avoid leasing!
Also reasonable was the imposition of one-time interconnection fees to be set based on the IOUs actual cost of handling the interconnection. The CPUC estimates that the fee will be somewhere between $75-150. (Recall that SCE advanced a $75 fee as part of its proposal, so it will be fascinating to see if they try to come back for a higher fee now!)
The biggest hit to solar mandated by the NEM 2.0 rules was the requirement that solar customers get switched over to TOU rates. (SCE is moving all customers to TOU rates eventually, but that target date is 2019.) Under TOU rates, you pay more for your energy depending upon the time of day when you use it, as opposed to being on a tiered rate schedule where you pay more when you use more during a billing cycle. For residential customers, SCE sets its peak charge time as the hours between 2 and 8 p.m., and Noon to 6 p.m. for commercial customers. This means that, for residential customers, solar exported to the grid before 2 p.m. will be valued less than energy that needs to be pulled from the grid after the sun goes down, but before 8 p.m.
It is this change to the rate structure, and to a lesser extent the imposition of the full NBCs, that makes intelligent energy storage that much more valuable. With smart storage, you won’t export energy during the day, you will store it for later use. That reduces the total amount of energy pulled from the grid (lowering the NBCs) and allows you to shift the availability of the energy to the evening so as to avoid peak TOU rates altogether. There can be no doubt that this is the future for how solar installations under NEM 2.0 (and likely beyond) will be the most cost-effective. We are optimistic that by the time NEM 2.0 goes into effect for SCE clients in our service area, we will have an intelligent storage solution to offer.
So when does all of this go into effect? As we noted above, at the very latest, the new rules go into effect on July 1, 2017. Most likely, however, they will go into effect sooner than that since the actual start date is tied to when the IOU reaches its 5% cap. In SCE territory, the following NEM report is informative:
SCE’s total customer aggregate demand, the basis for the 5% cap, is 44,807 kW. 5% of that is 2,240 MW of solar installed. As of the end of December, 2015, SCE had 1,388 MW of solar either installed or with net metering agreements in place, leaving 852 MW remaining under the cap.
The report also shows that applications for 48.1 MW of new solar were received during the month of December. If we take that number as a fair monthly average, we can expect SCE to reach its cap in 17 to 18 months. So to lock-in your system under the existing rules, you will need to have your net metering application complete and on file with SCE before then (May-June 2017). We will continue to update on the status of SCE’s progress toward its cap.
On the whole, the solar industry dodged a bullet, especially when you look at the latest battles over NEM in other states, like Nevada. This success is a tribute to the thousands of people who took the time to advocate for solar, whether they be our trade association, CALSEIA; individual solar companies, like Run on Sun; or solar customers who reached out to inform the Commission of the true value of solar. Not lost in the debate was the importance of solar as a job creation engine in California.
Moreover, the political climate in California, from the Governor on down, has been strongly supportive of solar and they deserve our thanks as well.
We would love to hear your thoughts and if you have questions that haven’t been answered here, please leave them in the comments and we will do our best to address them.
The new year is nearly a month old so we thought it was time to highlight a few of the changes that we have made around here (with apologies to the late, great, and deeply missed, David Bowie)…
Run on Sun website as seen on an iPhone 4
Ok, this was way more of a struggle than we thought it would be! Two years ago, when we rolled out the vastly revised website, no one was really talking about the need to design website with smartphones in mind. In 2013, 15% of our traffic came from mobile (i.e., smartphones) but by 2015 that percentage had nearly doubled to 28%, and the trend line was moving toward more and more potential engagement via mobile devices.
On top of that, Google announced last year that it would take into consideration whether your web page was “mobile friendly” in how it ranked your page in users’ search results! Ouch!!
So that meant that our terribly expensive web designer and code guru, aka me, would need to embark on an effort to make our website work on little tiny screens without having to pinch the screen to see what was going on. Now that sounds easy enough, but suffice it to say that in reality, not so much. The good news is that now our site should work well on all of your devices - from the largest desktop to an iPhone 4. (Here’s an amazing fact - according to Google Analytics, 127 different types of mobile devices have accessed our website already this year! So perhaps the result was worth the pain.)
We hope the changes will make the site (including this blog) more useful to all of our visitors. Please let us know what you think!
You may have also noticed that our website is now sporting an additional telephone number! We have been looking to expand our presence on the Westside of LA County (even extending into Ventura County for appropriately sized projects) and this year we are rolling out a 310 area code phone number to help make that a bit more concrete. In the coming months we will have more to say about our Westside presence, but for now, give us a call at 310-584-7755 and say hi!
Last, and yeah, pretty much least, we have finally broken down and created a Solar FAQ page on the website. I know, FAQ pages are sort of web design 1.0, and I don’t really know why I was so resistive to doing this for so long, but someone, who shall remain nameless (but her initials are Laurel Hamilton) insisted that we needed to do this and so, it is now a reality. (Well, at this present moment it is still very much a work in progress, but when it is completely finished it will be amazing!)
Actually, I’m hoping that this page especially is never complete, since there are always new things to learn in solar. Check out the new Solar FAQ page here, and feel free to let us know what questions you would like us to answer!
We have just learned that one or more sites are taking our blog posts and reposting them, in their entirety, on their own, ad-supported websites. Needless to say, they are doing this without our permission and their conduct will not go without a response.
However, one way in which they may be doing this is by taking our RSS feed (which was meant to be a service to individual subscribers who wanted to see our posts whenever they were released) and turning it into pages on their site. In an effort to thwart such behaviour, we are considering shutting down our RSS feed altogether. However, I would hate to do that if there are those of you who rely on the feed to see our stuff.
So… before we take any specific steps, we would appreciate hearing from you if you read this blog via an RSS/Atom feed reader. Please let us know in the comments.
Sorry for the rant - people who steal other people’s IP really get on my nerves!
I like to think there are many ways in which Run on Sun stands out in the ever growing sea of solar contractors. But there is one particular feature which every client seems to comment on - our non-sales approach. I can’t count the number of times I have sat down at a kitchen table to discuss how solar works and whether it makes sense for that home, to hear remarks on how different the experience is compared to other solar pitches they’ve heard. The thing is, when someone from Run on Sun comes to your home to do a solar assessment, that person is not a sales person. We don’t have outside sales agents and we definitely don’t employ any “hard sell” tactics. As a small company, every employee is a solar professional who has taken the time to educate themselves on the intricacies of the industry. And perhaps more importantly, every Run on Sun employee truly takes pride in helping people go solar, for the right reasons.
Explaining more than selling
Some people might argue over what exactly are “the right reasons". The bottom line is this: we believe solar is an amazing solution to many problems the world faces today. From reducing the carbon emissions and water use over traditional power sources, and increasing the number of jobs with a living wage that cannot be outsourced, to providing property owners with huge savings over time — going solar is a great thing to do. But we can only accomplish growing this great solution if we do it ethically. The solar industry will only suffer by putting solar on spaces that aren’t good candidates and cause financial strain or debt for clients that would have been better off without solar.
In fact, our goal when we walk into a solar assessment is not to get a contract signed. Rather, the goal is to assess the solar potential accurately and make sure the client feels they have any and all questions answered about the process of going solar. And for clients who turn out to be great solar candidates, obviously we aim to help them save money, achieve some energy independence, increase the value of their property, and enjoy the peace of mind that using green energy provides!
During an assessment we work with clients to determine what the best solar system would be to meet their real energy needs as well as what would be their best possible investment. Then we take the time to explain exactly how we made the determinations that we did. Sometimes, as some of our Yelp! Reviewers have shared, that assessment leads to the unfortunate conclusion that solar is a poor investment for the client and we make sure to explain why. Perhaps external factors make the upfront cost too high such as re-roofing or electrical panel upgrades, or maybe the shade of that lovely oak tree would make any solar output too limited. Maybe your usage needs are just too low to justify all of the fixed costs to install. In these cases, the sad reality is that there are solar companies who would gladly install a system anyways and lock you into a contract which could cost you incredible amounts of money with little to no return.
As consumers ourselves, we’d rather make our own educated decisions especially regarding large purchases and investments. Being pressured into something is seriously a turn off. If you are influenced more by hard sales tactics, we likely won’t be the ones putting solar on your roof as there are plenty of other companies who have motivated salesmen knocking on your door. But at least we can go home feeling good about the work we do every day.
So if you’re interested in going solar but the thought of dealing with salesmen is revolting, never fear! Run on Sun would be happy to walk you through the process today.