CA: "It's Official!" CPUC Approves $3.2 Billion Solar Program

Environment California

[calcowgirl]

Is this why you posted this hose-down of hog-wash???

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. ;-)

[calcowgirl]

Ain't Arnie great, he reduced the pay back time by 10 years without raising taxes.

ROFL!

[FOG724]

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.

[RadioAstronomer]

Thanks. More info I do not have the ability to access. I look forward to your analysis.

[FOG724]

Here is National's policy:

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.

[FOG724]

California State Grange policy:

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.

[radioman]

the ability to get a credit for excess electricity generated by the solar system

LMAO
With a 2.5 kilowatt system there will be no excess electricity generated. The alternator on your car puts out more than that!
.

[Amerigomag]

From my perspective the problem in the current policy is the funding source. A tax on a select group of users, instead of a General Fund contribution.

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.

[Boot Hill]

null and void:   "What idiot puts up a horizontal array? It costs essentially nothing to angle them to the proper angle for any given latitude."

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.

[FOG724]

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.

Glad I have SMUD. Probably get taxed anyway.

[truemiester]

Good idea.
Bad implementation. "The CSI, modeled largely on the Million Solar Roofs bill that ran aground in the state Legislature last year" If the voters turned it down, how can they implement it through the utilites? Isn't this an end run around the voters?

[Drago]

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!!

[FOG724]

You know I just thought of something. SMUD has been spending huge amounts of money in their shade tree program. For those who don't know, they will come out to your house tell you if and where you need trees, then provide you with free trees to plant. The whole idea is to shade your house so you use less electricity. So am I supposed to cut down my tree for my new solar array?

[calcowgirl]

If the voters turned it down, how can they implement it through the utilites? Isn't this an end run around the voters?

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.

[dalereed]

"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.

[FOG724]

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

[dalereed]

"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.

[HolgerDansk]

Modern Kyocera cells are about 16% efficient, and we're paying $0.14/kWh in Norcal these days. Modern converters are 94% efficient. Plug and chug, and the return is 12 years, not 33. Panels run about $4.20 per watt, and the state will pay $2.80 of that, or about 2/3, further reducing your payoff time to about four years.

Sign me up.

[Boot Hill]

Drago:   "Your table also has 4.3 cents per KWH as the value of the electricity produced"

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.

Drago:   "With the CPUC subsidy my payback might be like 5 years!!"

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?

[Drago]

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! ;-)