Archives for category: Uncategorized

There is a business case for traditional off-grid applications, particularly small micro-grids, which even a utility could love. In Vermont, Mary Powell, CEO of utility Green Mountain Energy, instituted a pilot program to lease solar + storage systems to remote residential and small commercial users. The program was ahead of its time and augured the likely future electricity T&D structure. But unfortunately, self-consumption is still not a business model most utilities are leaping to adopt.

As several recent disasters have driven home, the current utility infrastructure is old, archaic, needing maintenance or replacement, and lacking resiliency. Earlier in 2021, a frigid storm in Texas (ERCOT territory) lost heat and electricity as demand surged. The price of natural gas spiked from $3.00/BTU to $600/BTU causing the ERCOT computers to shed load and cut customers because of the price hike. In ERCOT territory (90% of Texas), people slept in their cars for heat and went without potable water.

In California, the summer of 2020 brought weeks of heat over 100 degrees and rotating blackouts. All over the world, electricity infrastructures are showing their age and failing.

The current utility business model is ill-equipped for a world where extreme weather is commonplace. The new utility business models need to be renewable-ready and adapt resilience as part of the infrastructure. In addition, consumers will need to learn conservation, pay higher prices, and embrace energy independence.

California is leading the way in the US by requiring solar on new residential homes and solar + storage on new commercial and multi-dwelling residential buildings.

Micro-grids provide resilience but require a change in utility business models. The change is coming, and yep, higher electricity rates are coming with it – but so are profits for new energy providers and energy security for users. Mobile microgrids offer high potential for disaster recovery following extreme weather events or wildfires. For example, utilities in California could use mobile microgrids during power shutoffs to ensure stable electricity availability for refrigeration and cooling.

Facing increasing costs for raw materials, consumables, and shipping along with slowing demand, tariffs, and bans in the US on materials from Xinjiang, cell-and-module manufacturers are adjusting capacity plans and indicating that higher prices are here to say.

Meanwhile, the rapid spread of the Delta variant in the Southeast Asia countries of Thailand, Malaysia, and Vietnam is leading to new hiccups along the photovoltaic supply chain, with manufacturers such as Singapore-based Maxeon forced to shut down operations.

Impact on Developers and Installers

As 92% of cell manufacturing capacity is in China (74%) and Southeast Asia (18%), buyers in countries outside of these regions are shouldering the burden of higher prices. Many are pulling back or delaying deployment, hoping the price increases are short-term. In most countries, winning tenders are too low to support a profitable installation under current pricing conditions.

The US faces a different challenge. The WRO is stranding cells and modules at US ports. Moreover, considering China’s June 10 law that made participation with the US on forced labor a crime, US developers and installers will face short-term supply constraints and higher prices over the long term.

Concerning Xinjiang should the EU, Japan, India, and other countries take a stepped-back approach to forced labor in Xinjiang and leave action to industry participants, participants in related countries will likely see price relief – though not much.

Prices will stay high until manufacturers see costs decrease and potentially even longer. Manufacturers are seeing higher margins currently even with cost increases and may not be willing to go back to the days of low to negative margins.

The solar industry is bounding out of 2019 and into a new decade with strong demand in Europe, the US, and signs of strength in emerging markets such as the Middle East. The last ten years brought the peak of the FiT era in Europe and its collapse, and Chinese domination of PV capacity and shipments.

The departing decade saw aggressive pricing or, as it really should be termed, dumping, from which the industry has never recovered to a margin-adequate price point.

The US imposed tariffs on imports of cells and modules from China in 2012, added Taiwan in 2014, and in 2018 US President Trump used the Trade Act of 1974 to impose 201 tariffs on many, many countries.

The decade saw a significant expansion of capacity to produce cells, as well as more than one period of consolidation. In 2019 alone, Panasonic took a step out of solar and semi-conductor manufacturing, China-based Hareon failed, and SunPower spun off its manufacturing into a new and separate public entity.

In 2019 monocrystalline blazed ahead of multicrystalline for a leading share of shipments. China became the leading market for solar deployment with over 50-GWp in 2017, only to soften in 2018, taking the industry to its first-ever year of shrinkage (shipments decreased by 5% in 2018 over 2017).

And now, 20 things to watch out for, expect, or dread in 2020:

  1. Expect more residential solar in California beginning January 1, 2020 as new building codes go into effect requiring solar on all new homes built in the state. The new rules also affect multi-family residences up to three stories (condominiums and apartments). Two downsides to the new rule – the construction industry is cyclical, and housing prices in California are through the, pardon, roof. As with everything, there are workarounds, houses with trees providing too much shading, and inappropriate roof structures are exempt.
  2. Expect continued downward pressure on prices from raw materials through to tender bidding and PPAs. High levels of cell and module inventory from 2019 will force manufacturers to keep prices low through 2020.
  3. In the US, watch out for more renegotiations of utility PPAs following the precedent set by PG&E. When it happens, remember how investor confidence was shaken following retroactive changes to FiT laws.
  4. Dread continued debt problems in China and watch out for attempts by the Central Government to control the crisis. High levels of debt from different sources may cause problems for China-based manufacturers, many of whom will fail if the debt propping them up comes due – and yes, this means even top tier manufacturers.
  5. Watch out for slowing, though still positive, shipment growth in 2020 as developers work off inventory acquired in 2019.
  6. In the US, watch for Congress to try and pass an extension to the investment tax credit but if it passes, don’t expect Trump to sign it into law.
  7. Expect remaining FiTs and subsidies for solar to migrate to tenders as governments look for ways to control costs.
  8. Watch out for more consolidation (a kind word for failing) under continuing price pressure. Manufacturers in Taiwan are at risk.
  9. Expect climate change to accelerate, but do not expect attempts to ameliorate it to accelerate.
  10. Expect demand to pick up in select Middle East markets driven by mandates and fulfilled by very low tender bidding.
  11. Watch for and dread more trade shenanigans sparked by the US and affecting all markets for solar globally.
  12. Expect stronger deployment of bifacial modules despite insufficient capacity along its value chain and no consensus on the value or, amount of the increase in electricity production. Watch for tracker manufacturers to battle over whose tracker is best. Expect to be confused.
  13. Expect a decline in the quality of bifacial modules and BoS components for same, as manufacturers rush product to market.
  14. Watch for P-type mono PERC to have the leading shipment share in 2020, with multi PERC lower, standard multi and mono plugging along, and n-type mono to be primarily a niche premium product. Expect the price premium for PERC to decline as capacity increases.
  15. Expect quarterly announcements of increased production and ongoing delays for Tesla’s solar tiles, the Godot of solar module products.
  16. Expect increasing quality problems in the field as cell and module manufacturers save margin on quality control and demand participants believing that low prices are too good to pass up buy, buy, buy.
  17. Watch for storage to become the driver for residential solar and dread the margin squeezing price drops this means for the storage industry.
  18. Expect installation quality problems in India to slow demand for new installations and for rebuilds and re-engineering to become a stronger business in that country. Also, expect the rebuilds to be counted as new installations so that no one knows how many megawatts or gigawatts were installed.
  19. In South Africa, expect Eskom to stop honoring PPAs and connecting IPPs again and potentially enter insolvency, leaving solar deployment in southern Africa in question for the utility’s home country as well as the seven other countries it serves including Namibia, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
  20. Watch for a new industry to spring up developing technologies and businesses to ameliorate the effects of climate change. Invest in these companies when you see them, they are the future.


1.     Cities and states step up on Climate Change as central governments step down

In its last act as part of the UN Paris Climate Change Agreement, the US led other polluters in blocking more ambitious voluntary climate change goals. The US is slated to exit the Paris agreement in November 2020 and will assuredly do so if President Trump is reelected. China, Brazil, Australia, and India were among the participants in Madrid with objections to more aggressive goals.

Meanwhile, cities (such as Sydney), US states (such as California), and other localities worldwide stepped up their commitments to combat the effects of climate change.

Why this is important: These agreements though lofty and making for good press, are voluntary. The Paris Agreement is not the first such agreement to fall short in terms of needed aggressiveness as well as wholehearted participation. The Kyoto protocol (1997, effective 2005, ended 2012) had good intentions too, and we all know what road is paved with good intentions.   The worst effects of climate change are closer than ever, and the effects being felt now are expensive and harsh.

Climate change is the story of the decade and is frankly, a necessary topic for any top ten list of major stories of the year, or, again, the decade. All the other stories, trade wars, patent lawsuits, consolidation, low prices for components are meaningless in the face of the disaster that is climate change. The other stories are industry soap operas. Climate change is an accelerating disaster.

So, as you peruse the annual top ten lists, if the topic of climate change does not appear, the list is incomplete.

In October, the US International Trade Commission, ITC, reversed course on its June exemption for bifacial modules indicating that the exemption would undermine the objective of the 201 tariffs. The ITC noted that the changed decision came about after new information became available. The short-lived bifacial exemption is set to expire on October 28.

Comment: Where to start, where to start — First, what exactly is the objective of the 201 tariffs? Because, if the aim is to protect domestically manufactured cells (the electricity-producing component of the module otherwise known as the most important component of the module), it ain’t working. Second, new information? Likely one of the commissioners read the widely available forecasts of a boom in bifacial imports to the US. Maybe the commissions realized that many cell types are appropriate for bifacial production, including PERC, so an exemption on bifacial modules is a potential exemption for about 70% of cell capacity.

Crystalline cell technology capable of bifaciality are not new; it was introduced decades ago by Sanyo, which looked to capitalize on the bifacial capabilities of its HIT modules, focusing on car port applications. Concerns about bifacial cells and modules include:

  • The necessity for system design specific to bifacial modules that are, a swap with a non-bifacial module would require a new system design
  • Little standardization in testing
  • Components, such as trackers, must be specifically designed for systems using bifacial modules
  • Difficulty modeling and quantifying assets of bifaciality for financiers and investors
  • Junction box design and placement concerns
  • Supply chain concerns (glass or transparent backsheet)
  • Limited applications (ground and large flat roof)

Lesson: The International Trade Commission giveth, and the International Trade Commission taketh away. In the case of the short-lived exemption for bifacial modules, likely the industry has, in part, its overly enthusiastic (and honestly, unrealistic) announcements in the press about a boom in bifacial imports to thank for the reversal. Sometimes you don’t get what you brag about.

In late January 2019, California’s largest investor-owned utility (IOU) Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) declared bankruptcy for the second time causing anxiety for investors, ratepayers, employees, PPA holders, elected government officials and, lest we forget, fire and gas explosion victims. Judge Alsup, who is overseeing PG&E’s probation from its felony conviction, lambasted the company for violating its probation. “To my mind, there’s a very clear-cut pattern here: that PG&E is starting these fires,” Alsup said. “What do we do? Does the judge just turn a blind eye and say, ‘PG&E continue your business as usual. Kill more people by starting more fires.”

In the US, corporations enjoy personhood, that is, as an entity a corporation has the same rights of free speech and due process as individuals under the constitution. Corporate personhood rights date to the 1890s and the railroads, in particular, the 1897 Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway CO V Ellis case in which the Supreme Court held that: “A state has no more power to deny to corporations the equal protection of the law than it has to individual citizens.”

The rights of personhood conferred to corporations in 1897 also allow the corporation to be tried and convicted. In 2016 PG&E was found guilty in Federal Court of violating pipeline safety rules and misleading investigators over the 2010 pipeline explosion in San Bruno that killed eight people and destroyed 38 homes.

PG&E’s recent bankruptcy filing was a strategic defensive move designed to protect the utility from liability. The utility’s filing potentially enables it to renegotiate power purchase agreements, in particular for solar contracts, at rates the utility argues, reflect new, lower costs. In its filing, the utility asked the court to allow it to cancel $42-billion (387) in energy contracts that it entered into over the past 15-years. 298 of the contracts were for solar, wind, or other RE. Just the potential of contract cancellation and renegotiation has affected the credit ratings of utility-scale projects in the state and could affect the ratings of projects out-side of California if these projects are on the Western Grid and sell electricity to PG&E. The US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has stated it has veto power over the bankruptcy court in this regard.

Meanwhile, PG&E obtain senior secured liability financing of $5.5-billion from JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Barclays, and Citigroup, putting the banks at the head of the line when it comes to recouping money.

PG&E’s latest bankruptcy is being overseen by the same Federal judge who oversaw its 2001 bankruptcy filing, Judge Dennis Montali. In PG&E’s first filing, Judge Montali upheld the PPAs. Despite the precedent set in the first bankruptcy, a different decision is possible given the different circumstances existing today for the US solar industry than did in 2001.

In the US, solar deployment has grown significantly from 2001 through 2018, while module prices have decreased drastically over the same period. PG&E could argue that the significant price decrease for components argues for a reassessment of current PPA rates and might lead to a decrease that would benefit ratepayers as well as PG&E as it restructures.

Allowing the utility to renegotiate its contracts inserts uncertainty and therefore risk into the development process, potentially shaking investor confidence. One example of a market shaken by government and utility actions is Spain, which saw its market for solar deployment crash after retroactive changes to its FiT.

Another example is the Republic of South Africa’s government-owned utility Eskom. Mid-2016 Eskom began refusing to sign PPAs won under the country’s REIPPP (Renewable Energy Power Producer Program) with Independent Power Producers (IPPS) claiming inadequate transmission an action that effectively stalled solar project development. In August 2017 Eskom continued refusing to sign PPAs with RE IPPs, preferring nuclear power. In 2018 South Africa courts ruled that Eskom must resume signing the abandoned PPAs. In late 2018 Eskom resumed honoring PPAs.

In 2019 the government looks to be moving to renegotiate PPAs signed under its 2011 and 2012 REIPPP in an attempt to aid its technically-bankrupt utility.

PG&E Bankruptcy #1 – Blame it on deregulation and Enron

PG&E’s first bankruptcy had its roots in California’s poorly designed, ill-thought-out energy deregulation of the late 1990s.

In 1996, then-Governor Pete Wilson signed the bill that deregulated California’s utilities, keeping intact regulation of distribution lines, but freeing the states three IOUs to sell generating assets and buy natural gas on the open market, theoretically at competitive rates. In their eagerness to sell burdensome generating assets such as nuclear facilities, and under the naïve assumption that the free market would drive rates down, the utilities sold too many generating assets and, during an unusually cold winter and extremely hot summer, found themselves the victims of poor regulatory design and vulnerable to market manipulation.

Under California’s deregulation, ratepayers choosing to stay with the IOUs continued with a regulated default rate for electricity that was capped for four years. Utilities, assuming competition would lure ratepayers to different sources were surprised to find that only 3% of ratepayers switched, leaving utilities with 97% of their customer base to continue serving.

Moreover, utilities were not allowed to buy forward contracts and instead bought natural gas on the new wholesale spot market – not a problem if a utopia of competitive pricing pushes prices down, but definitely a problem if wholesalers work to promote scarcity and force prices up.

California’s newly deregulated market also encouraged energy traders to enter the market where previously they could not operate. The newly minted middlemen saw opportunities and took advantage, basically enacting a wild-wild-west version of business-as-usual.

In May 2000, demand for electricity surged due to high industrial activity and unexpectedly hot weather. On May 22, 2000, California’s electricity crisis officially began.

Suppliers responded by overbooking capacity and creating scarcity. California’s utilities were stuck with capped retail rates and premium-priced natural gas, and by the end of the year were paying ~six times what they could charge ratepayers for electricity. Energy traders, such as Enron, used a variety of methods to drive up the prices or profit in other ways. Strategies used to drive up prices included again, overbooking and forcing Cal-ISO (the California Independent System Operator) to pay a premium for power, or, overscheduling and forcing the Cal-ISO to pay a congestion fee to the energy trader, or, buying power at California’s capped rate of $250/MWh and reselling at a higher price elsewhere.

In January 2001, PG&E became insolvent, and then Governor Gray Davis stepped in to buy power on the spot from the unregulated suppliers on behalf of the beleaguered (and bankrupt) utility). Eight billion dollars later, Governor Davis negotiated 20-year power contracts worth $50-billion, passing the additional cost on to ratepayers who were not amused and launched a successful recall effort.

What PG&E’s latest bankruptcy may mean for the US Solar Industry

Pay attention to this case because should the judge allow PG&E to renegotiate its contracts, a precedent will be set. Blame it on the solar industry’s low margin environment. This precedent could encourage other utilities across the US and in other countries, to take the same action, thus insinuating uncertainty, and risk, into the market. Granted higher risk generally means higher reward, but, as the solar industry has no control over the price of its components, or the value of its product (electricity), higher risk may mean, lower reward.


In its late February filing, PG&E stated that it was ‘probable’ that its equipment was at fault in the November 2018 Camp Fire, which claimed 85 lives. The utility also stated that: “Management has concluded that these circumstances raise substantial doubt about PG&E corporation’s and the utility’s ability to continue as going concerns.” California Governor has formed a team to study and suggest potential solutions. One thing is certain, a complete failure of Pacific Gas and Electric without a plan in place to serve ratepayers could be catastrophic. At the very least, rates for electricity and gas would rise, at the very worst, reliability of service could be disrupted. As transmission and gas line maintenance has been lacking for many years, any entity taking over the utility’s responsibilities will find itself mired in maintenance needs.

And in fact, in August 2019, PG&E advised the bankruptcy court that it had reached an agreement to cut PPA prices by at least 10% on five power contracts.

Could net metering be next?

Market after market the outcome has been the same, when governments offer incentives markets balloon, and when governments remove, pause, or reverse incentives, market balloons deflate.

  1. Executive Summary

In 2018, the photovoltaic industry experienced its first retraction in demand in fifty years following abrupt cessation of deployment activity mid-year in China. As a direct result of the changes in China’s support policies for solar, total industry demand fell by 5% in 2018 to 89.1-GWp from 93.9-GWp the previous year, with prices taking an even more precipitous drop.

China’s demand for solar deployment fell significantly in 2018, decreasing by 27% from 51.5-GWp in 2017 to 37.4-GWp.

As the solar industry remains, incentive, subsidy, and mandate driven, and operates in an environment with many substitutes, abrupt changes in demand should be expected. As such, an abrupt change in China’s solar policy should not have been a surprise, as the government had signaled a desire to slow its market for years.

Expectations at the beginning of 2018 were for a 60-GWp year in China, as well as strong growth in other markets. Many observers expected market demand of >100-GWp in 2018. As most manufacturers were in a sold-out condition at the beginning of the year, on the supply side, manufacturers had prepared for strong demand and mid-2018 were left with inventory and, as many had begun implementing capacity expansion plans, overcapacity.

Strong demand in Europe, the US, Australia, the Middle East, and Latin America mitigated some of the fallout, but could not completely make up the difference.

Well into 2019, the global solar industry finds itself with unstable markets, poor infrastructure, weakening economies, unstable incentives, and vulnerable markets. To continue with strong growth, the infrastructure problems, over which the industry has no control, will need to be solved. Meanwhile, though the industry has fully embraced tenders and bidding, its lacks the infrastructure to support its growth goals and plans. 2019 has seen several countries cancel or delay auctions for various reasons, inappropriate infrastructure chief among them.

2.1      Report Highlights

  • The global market for solar modules grew by a compound annual rate of 38% from 1998 (134.8-MWp) to 2018 (89.1-GWp)
  • In 2018 the photovoltaic industry experienced the first slowdown in 50 years with demand falling from 93.9-GWp in 2017 to 89.1-GWp in 2018.
  • The cumulative total of PV cells/modules shipped from 1998 through 2018 is 466.9-GWp
  • In 2018 global system and application revenues decreased by 11% from $140.9-billion in 2017 to $124.8-billion in 2018
  • In 2018 the grid-commercial application, all system sizes, consumed 99.2% of PV modules
  • 97.5% of modules sold in 2018 were >300/Wp
  • Ongoing trade issues between the US and China indicate module and BoS component prices will be volatile through 2020
  • Taken globally, Tender bidding for solar projects continues to trend downward with many bids <$0.03/kWh, indicating a global average in the mid-three cent range trending down to <$0.02/kWh
  • From 2013 through 2018 the grid-connected application (residential, commercial and utility-owned) grew at a CAGR of 21% while the grid-connected commercial application grew at a CAGR of 26%
  • Australia’s market for solar deployment is estimated to experience growth of 27% to 38% through 2021

In a world with orderly market behavior with price easily explained by supply and demand dynamics, there would be little need for a discussion about price behavior because visibility would be clear. Unfortunately, markets are not orderly, and buying behavior is driven by multiple industry or product specific factors. In the solar industry, price visibility is far from clear.

Manufacturers of solar cells and modules must cope with buyer expectations that prices will decrease, which is not always true, that solar cells and modules have little differentiation and are thus commodities, also not true, and that gross margins of ~10% are sufficient, which is not valid.

Module prices differ by country or regional market, by tariff activity, by how much pain the manufacturer will absorb, and by outlier events such as 2018’s sudden slowdown of activity in China.

The industry is young, volatile, and filled with unstable markets all relying on a mechanism of some sort to stimulate demand.

In Europe, the MIP (minimum price) is no longer in effect, and while the EU hopes for a competitive domestic manufacturing base, individually, manufacturers know this is not possible.

True, Europe is experiencing strong growth, and though economic indicators for the continent are not stellar, there is no reason to assume a drastic slowdown for at least a couple of years. With demand for solar increasing in Europe and other countries, manufacturers in China have a ready market for excess capacity and can avoid the problematic US market with its tariffs and its bellicose trade war. Without the MIP in place, importers are free to price aggressively – good for developers, bad for domestic EU manufacturers.

Trade Games

Tariffs, minimum prices, quotas, et al., are tools in the tradecraft handbook that governments wield under the guise of protection. Meanwhile, back at the real motivation corral, the underlying motives are to punish another government, a misunderstanding of the advantages and disadvantages of protectionism, as a lever to gain something from another government, lack of knowledge about the protected industry, and sometimes, from a lack of understanding of how global trade works.

No matter the motive, the results are usually the same in that the protected industry becomes reliant on the protection while importers counterattack. Without a workaround, buyers pay higher prices.

Luckily for many buyers and sellers of solar components, workarounds abound. To get around tariffs and other punitive trade mechanisms such as minimum prices and quotas importers can:

  • Transshipment: ship the product through a different country on the way to its ultimate destination. In this case, the product is sometimes minimally altered during a brief stop and shipped. In the case of modules, manufacturers from China have expanded to many other countries, and this option is used quite option. Taxes, VAT for example, are sometimes absorbed by the shipper.
  • Absorb the tariff, a common practice available for all but the smallest buyers and the reason tariffs on modules have little impact.
  • Refund a portion of the payment in cash or other goods such as trackers, inverters and other mounting, an option used often in the EU during the MIP (minimum price) era.
  • File for an exemption claiming that the uniqueness of your product or your commitment to the market makes you to special to be the subject of a tariff or quota.

The moral of the trade war story is that no matter the restriction a workaround or exemption will be found in most cases. In a perfect world, which of course does not exist, trade actions would correct the inequity.

Bad behavior happens to both unregulated and regulated markets. In most cases, bad market behavior comes from side industries that spring up to take advantage of suddenly hot markets. There are many examples from history of side markets and side players following booming, young markets. During the US gold rush, snake oil salesmen sought to cure anything with what was, in most cases, poison. Closer to solar-home, during Spain’s briefly booming market of 2007 and 2008, the cost of doing business skyrocketed as speculative side businesses bought up permits and created administrative roadblocks and problems, all solvable, for a fee.

Average Module Prices 2019

Globally, expect the 2019 ASP in the range of $0.40/Wp. Individual markets will behave in distinct to that particular market with module prices in the US likely to average $0.48/Wp for the year, prices in Europe at $0.42/Wp, and prices in India at $0.40/Wp depending on the application, of course.

Prices in the US were down at half year, but are ticking up as tariffs (on multiple countries) take a toll.

India has a problematic manufacturing base. Its cell manufacturing is out-of-date. Its module assemblers need to upgrade their quality. Downward pressure on tender bidding, unrealistic expectations concerning outcomes, unreliable auction mechanisms, and a costly administrative infrastructure has resulted in low participation in some tenders. Now that the US has removed its special importer status, its manufacturers will need to focus on their domestic market pushing prices down.



Bad Decisions: A Scott Roth Mystery, Volume II

Prologue: Long Unforgotten Line

Here’s to all the flawed ones

The lives adrift,

The hopes denied.

Here’s to all the lost ones,

All in a long unforgotten line.


Here’s to all the betrayed ones

The little lies,

The truths behind.

Here’s to all the returned ones,

All in a long unforgotten line.


Here’s to all the loved ones

The buried smiles,

The wounded prides.

Here’s to all the abandoned hearts,

All in a long unforgotten line.

It’s a law of the new west, never f… with a man’s ride, thought Roth as he stood looking down at the remains of his burned Harley. He pursed his lips, gingerly touched his swollen nose, and thought, yep, you can sucker punch a man and damn near break his nose, but if you f… with a man’s ride, you f… with the man.

To find out what happens next go to: