Posted on 01/12/2006 7:19:11 PM PST by calcowgirl
For Immediate Release:
1/12/2006
For More Information: Contact Bernadette Del Chiaro (916) 446-8062 x 103
Its official! celebrated Bernadette Del Chiaro, clean energy advocate for Environment California, a nonprofit, nonpartisan environmental advocacy group that has been pushing for a large-scale solar incentive program for several years. It is about time California got serious about tapping into our abundant, homegrown solar power resources.
Todays decision adds $2.5 billion in rebate funds, available from 2007 through 2016, to the $300 million made available in December for 2006 and the $400 million already earmarked for solar power in the Public Goods Fund. The combined $3.2 billion program is the largest investment in solar power in the country. By increasing demand 30-fold, the CSI promises to cut the cost of solar by 50% within 10 years, creating a mainstream, self-sufficient solar market.
With the high energy bills shocking California ratepayers this month, there is no better time to jump start an affordable solar power market bringing true independence from our over-reliance on natural gas, praised Del Chiaro. Todays vote promises to ultimately eclipse dirty and expensive fossil fuels with clean and efficient solar power.
Leaders of the solar industry also had words of praise for todays vote. The CPUC should be congratulated in creating a decade-long initiative that will drive the U.S. solar industry to invest in technological innovation and scale up manufacturing, said Rhone Resch, president of the national Solar Energy Industries Association. California will be a leader in the next great high-tech growth industry solar energy.
The California Solar Initiative establishes a 2006 rebate at $2.80 per watt and requires an annual decline by approximately 10%, in line with the expected reduction in the cost of solar power. The rebate program will sunset at the end of 2016, at which point it is predicted that the cost of solar will be cost-effective without a direct rebate.
The typical California home today installs a 2.5 kilowatt system. With todays rebate level, the average $20,000 price tag for the system would be reduced by $7,000. In addition, over the next two years, homeowners can take advantage of a federal tax credit reducing the total cost by an additional $2,000. When combined with low interest loans, lowered electric bills and the ability to get a credit for excess electricity generated by the solar system, California homeowners could expect a return on their estimated $11,000 investment within the first month.
The CPUC anticipates it will fund the $3.2 billion program without raising electricity rates. Instead, the money would come from existing funds already earmarked for solar power and a small surcharge that the CPUC says can be absorbed into existing rates. According to a staff report prepared by the CPUC last summer, this $3.2 billion investment in solar could save California ratepayers an estimated $10 billion from a reduced need to build two dozen peaking power plants or to purchase expensive electricity during peak summer hours.
Other benefits of investing in solar power include cleaner air and more jobs. For every solar roof, at least one ton of global warming pollution is reduced each year. In addition, for every megawatt of solar installed, seven times more jobs are created compared with the equivalent in natural gas power plants. Environment California Research & Policy Center research estimates 15,000 new California jobs will be created from this new solar market.
The PUC program comes at the request of Governor Schwarzenegger and mirrors the bulk of the governor-backed Million Solar Roofs bill (SB 1), authored by Senator Kevin Murray (D-Los Angeles), and broadly supported by the state Legislature. The other policy elements contained in SB 1, such as net metering and making solar panels a standard option on new homes, still require legislative approval in 2006.
Major Elements of the California Solar Initiative Program:
The complete California Solar Initiative program will invest a total of $3.2 billion over 11 years for consumer rebates. This number includes the $300 million added on December 15, 2005 and the $400 million already available through the Public Goods Fund.
All small-scale solar technologies will be eligible: e.g. photovoltaics, thermal, hot water, etc.
The rebate will start at $2.80/watt and declines 10% per year. It will be phased out at the end of 2016.
Low-income ratepayers up to 260% of federal poverty levels will not pay into the fund and 10% of the fund will be set aside specifically for low-income and affordable housing projects.
The program will be administered by the CPUC with administration of a rebate program specifically earmarked for new construction run by the California Energy Commission.
The fund will be created from a small surcharge on electric and gas customers within PG&E, Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric and So. Cal. Gas Company territories. The PUC estimates the surcharge will be absorbed into existing rates without any discernible impact to energy bills.
---
Environment California is a statewide, citizen-based environmental advocacy organization. Our professional staff combines independent research, practical ideas and tough-minded advocacy to overcome the opposition of powerful special interests and win real results for California's environment. Environment California draws on 30 years of success in tackling our state's top environmental problems.
Nah... I post 'em when I see billions of taxpayer (or ratepayer) dollars being squandered in elaborate feel-good money laundering schemes. You wouldn't want to miss those, now would ya? I'm sure it is purely coincidental that the name of our Governor is often involved in those subject programs. ;-)
ROFL!
When I lobbied last year for the Energy bill, there was a lot of push so that farmers can put windmills in their feilds and sell the power to the grid. I guess I really need to look at this and compare to what we were lobbying. I'll have to check Grange policy too. Out State Grange legislative person isn't going to do it.
Thanks. More info I do not have the ability to access. I look forward to your analysis.
1. The National Grange urges the repeal of laws and regulations that have blocked or discouraged United States energy production by private enterprise. We support a national energy policy that will encourage the development of all forms of domestic energy, traditional and alternative, including solar, wind, geothermal, ethanol, surf, shale, tar sands, hydroelectric, agricultural products, wastes, peat, wood, coal, coal gasification, oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydrogen, biodiesel and methanol in an environmentally sound manner without exploiting our parks and wildernesses in order to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Link
If I'm reading this right, they support private investment not public and government to get out of the way. Tax cuts and credits for investors is encouraged.
4. The California State Grange urges the California State Power Authority to initiate a program to implement cost effective biomass energy source for electricity and generators in California. [01]9. The California State Grange supports research and implementation of wind and solar energy and the growing of energyproducing crops. [81]
Link
The numbers at the end are when these resolutions were passed.
Far reaching public policies are admirable but they are part of the fabric of prioritizing public spending. If a public progarm is essential, it is more essential than another. Funds to accomplish the essentail goal must come from a finite resource, tax dollars, and other goals must be compromised or abandoned. Simply creataing new taxes, at the whim of the politcal class, is counterproductuve to all goals.
Theoretically there is an advantage to tilting the array, but from a practical standpoint, there is little to none. There are several factors that prevent achieving much of that theoretical improvement.
First, since 98% of solar installations are on sloped roofs, you'd first need one slope of your roof facing due south, and not many homes have that. The additional losses incurred from a slope facing even a few degrees off from due south is great enough that the flat plate example given above turns out to be a good approximation of real-world conditions.
Second, for cost and structural reasons, most installations are affixed directly to the roof. At the average U.S. latitude of 37º, the ideal roof pitch would have to be 9" per foot (that's how it's measured in the construction trades). However the most common roof pitch is only 4-5" per foot.
Third, due to the ~23º inclination of the earth to its orbital plane, the "ideal" tilt angle for the solar array would have to vary 46º per year, as the seasons changed.
Fourth, only about 50% of solar radiation incident upon the earth's surface is from direct sunlight. The remainder is indirect or diffuse radiation. When you tilt the array towards the direct rays to increase performance, at the same time you are decreasing performance for solar radiation arriving from diffuse sources.
Net result? The numbers given in the table in post #7 turn out to offer a very real approximation to what one can expect from a typical installation. If you doubt it, I'd be glad to post a published study by Shell Solar describing an installation they did in sunny southern California, and the resulting energy production performance.
Glad I have SMUD. Probably get taxed anyway.
Your table also has 4.3 cents per KWH as the value of the electricity produced, I am in PG&E territory and pay 11.75 cents per KWH (residential rate). So my payback time whould be more like 12 years? With the CPUC subsidy my payback might be like 5 years!!
Actually, it was an end run around the union-powered legislature. The bill was originally introduced by John Campbell(R), now in Congress. By the time the committees were done with it, they had added all sorts of union-favored provisions, like prevailing wage, etc. As such, the bill was withdrawn and never went for a final vote. Instead of starting over, they tried the PUC approach and apparently were successful, for the first phase anyway. Apparently there is still associated legislation that they want to pass.
"Tax cuts and credits for investors is encouraged"
Every one of those should be eliminated.
As it is now I have to support all these stupid green power energy sources that couldn't pay for themselves on their own in the market place.
Use the oil that is available in California and the US wouoldn't have to import one drop of oil for hundreds of years.
2. The National Grange favors the complete utilization of petroleum and the other mineral resources, including the exploration and production of oil reserves on the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and from any outer continental shelf lease sales in accordance with the terms of an environmentally sound development plan.http://nationalgrange.org/legislation/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=50
"in accordance with the terms of an environmentally sound development plan."
Eliminate that and their promotion of their "alternate source" plus any and all subsidies/tax breaks.
Stick the environment where the sun doesn't shine, I loved So. Calif. 50+ years ago when we had massive smog and environmentalists hadn't been invented.
Sign me up.
Actually, that 4.3¢ represents the value of the energy produced by the solar panel. Since it only produced 0.5 kWh of energy, that would place the implied energy price at 8.6¢ per kWh for that table. Click on the link at the beginning of that line (the number "9") and it will bring up the eia/doe national data for the retail price of electricity. Their current data shows the average U.S. residential price at 9.4¢ per kWh (up from 8.6¢), and the average California residential price at 12.1¢ per kWh.
Keep in mind that ultimately it is YOU who are paying that subsidy to yourself via the utility fund established by your friendly legislature!!! (TANSTAAFL)
But as to your "five year" payback projection, I think you're going to have to go back and recalculate that based on the info I included at the beginning of this post. It won't be anything like five years! In addition, pay special attention to note 11 at the bottom of that table. You'd be lucky to pay for it before the solar cells die of old age!
BTW, if you are considering a roof top installation, do you mind telling me in which direction the sloped side of your roof faces? Even better would be to check it with a magnetic compass and report the result in degrees. Do any trees, buildings or hills shadow your roof at any time?
All mostly true...but I am planning a move to an area that gets frequent power outages, and I was planning on a solar installation anyway...so if I am paying a surcharge/tax anyway, and I didn't get a chance to say no to this plan, I might as well take advantage of it! ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.