Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Rebirth of the California Million Solar Roof Plan

By Jesse Broehl, Editor, RenewableEnergyAccess.com News
February 28, 2005   |   39 Comments
Schwarzenegger Redoubles Effort to Pass Comprehensive Solar Energy Bill

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
"This is the best piece of solar legislation ever introduced in the U.S."

- David Hochschild, Director of Programs for the California-based Vote Solar Initiative
39 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 39
February 28, 2005
Many don't realize that the solar thermal business in Europe and Asia, including Germany and Japan, far outpaces the PV business. These countries promote both solar technologies, yet this is not the case in the US except for in Hawaii. You can't use thermal to make small scale electricity, and you shouldn't even think about heating water with PV. There's plenty of room for both technologies in this important legislation; it shouldn't disenfranchise a significant percentage of California's solar industry.
Comment
2 of 39
February 28, 2005
ChefT:

Please read CAREFULLY the following article BEFORE commenting further on my very salient points earlier:

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=23004

Gee...why are all these people gathering together for lunch in Sacramento? The great foccacia bread used for the sandwiches they'll be served? I think not. Given that Sharp just pulled their 185 Watt panel off the market in the US, and given yet another 5% price increase for panels in the US just this month (Feb '05), perhaps you need to ponder the phrase "what if they gave a rebate program and nobody applied?" and give it just a bit more cred...stabilITY without realITY is insanITY.
Comment
3 of 39
February 28, 2005
Folks! This solar legislation promising some level of stability is a great thing! I stand with Mr. Schoen, think positive, positive, positive and let's pass this legislation to firm-up this industry. Right now this legislation is a patch until we can get smart and sell solar energy on a per kWh basis. But it's not going to happen overnight. Yes, there are some silicon problems, but is that a total juggernaut? The market will speak for itself...
Comment
4 of 39
February 28, 2005
What if they (the CEC) offered a comprehensive, well-funded (but not very well thought out vs real world events) rebate program and NOBODY applied?The dependence of this very economically fragile US grid-tie industry on a very scarce material, solar grade crystalline silicon (SGCS) is a very real issue. Germany's program is like a big black hole given the enormous economic delta of their 99 pfennings per kWh
"subsidy" program compared to the CEC. Global production of SGCS is tapped at the 1GW annual threshold that Siemens warned about. "Thin-film" R&D breakthroughs are at least 3-5 years away from having an impact on meaningful volume replacement. Prices for panels in the US (due to the SGCS shortage and Yen and Euro issues) are going up at over 15% per year. Rebates here in CA decline at "no less than" 7% per year, expanding the net cost to the consumer, killing off the grid-tie market leaving only the off-grid and the "eco-Nazi" customers able or willing to buy.
Comment
5 of 39
February 28, 2005
.. and it's the kind of preceeding cynical "holier than thou" attidude of the preceding reader that will turn off the swing votes we will need to pass this critical piece of legistation.
Comment
6 of 39
February 28, 2005
Let me be the first to say that after seeing a half dozen versions of this bill over the last year, no one should expect the final passed legislation to resemble this current version in any way. Every single major point has been watered down repeatedly over time. This is the first time I've heard of the net-metering cap being raised to only 2% instead of 5%. I fear that by the time the special interests are done with the bribes - I mean contributions - and hand shakes, that the only thing SB1 will accomplish is the placing of one single 5W solar panel on a port-a-potty behind the CA state capitol. I sure hope the state solar tax credit stays intact after 2005...
Comment
7 of 39
March 1, 2005
In closing (whew), what we have right now is a CA solar market heavily dependent on the grid-connected system subsidies and the state tax credit, both of which are due to be unavailable by year's end. Also, we are about to reach the voluntary limit of grid-connected customers (aka the net-metering cap) and that must be addressed. This proposal tackles those three crucial points and therefore has my support. My CA based RE comapny is enjoying wonderful success and will continue to do so as long as utility power costs rise and solar power stays cost competitive. And I'll keep my humor away from all the grumpus folks bent on attacking messengers.
Comment
8 of 39
March 1, 2005
"Will we end up like Germany where the subsidies are so high that there are "solar panel brokers" selling to the highest bidders?"

I don't think "end up" is the right expression for Germany. It's just the beginning over there. So far I heard all major producers are doubling their capacity. Sure thing, if California market crashes, prices will plummet. But production will close too. I'd rather prefer production to grow at this point.
Comment
9 of 39
March 1, 2005
Part 6 "I sure hope the state solar tax credit stays intact after 2005..." - hope is known as a positive feeling of course. Sure the proposal is great but there is simply no evidence to support the idea that the measures contained within the bill (as it is currently worded) will remain. As a matter fact the text may have to be amended to get this passed at all.
Comment
10 of 39
March 1, 2005
Part 5 "I fear that by the time the special interests are done with the bribes - I mean contributions - and hand shakes, that the only thing SB1 will accomplish is the placing of one single 5W solar panel on a port-a-potty behind the CA state capitol." - okay, okay this is the only clear negative/judgemental part: it's called humor using farcical exaggeration, maybe some of you are familiar with the anxiety-calming aspects of humor? Did readers really think I was serious? Did ANYONE out there laugh? Sorry for the bad joke I guess.
Comment
11 of 39
March 1, 2005
Part 4 "This is the first time I've heard of the net-metering cap being raised to only 2% instead of 5%" - hmmm...again straight facts, no judgement or negative comment. Just a new twist on the bill that further weakens one of its crucial little-known provisions. We are already approaching the net-metering limit and will need room to grow.
Comment
12 of 39
March 1, 2005
Part 3 "Every single major point has been watered down repeatedly over time"- again not judgemental, more facts if you've been paying attention to this endeavor and how the politcal process works. Just be forewarned if this legislation is new to some of you.
Comment
13 of 39
March 1, 2005
Part 2 "no one should expect the final passed legislation to resemble this current version in any way" - not judgemental, not pessimistic, just factual if you know the political process as this is the latest in a string of versions. Politicians often start legislation initiatives by asking for more than they know they'll end up with.
Comment
14 of 39
March 1, 2005
Part 1 - Why is it that folks must attack others in such caustic terms? I come back to read the online community's comments and find my words to be labeled "holier than thou" and "whining"? I had to reread my comments to believe it! Hmmm let's revisit....
Comment
15 of 39
March 1, 2005
Guys,

Here is the bottom line, any net reduction of fossil fuel in any shape or form is better.

So when California Power Supply Companies can buy electricty for less than they sell to make profit from solor energy producers (house solor energy) or any non fossil fuel energy generators. they will LOVE this idea. There will always be a Net Buyers of electricty on the market from manufactors and many service industries.

GO SOLAR GO!!
Comment
16 of 39
March 1, 2005
I lament the fact that there does not seem to be movement towards an energy based tarrif or "rebate" instead of the initial cost buy-down rebate that we have used in the past. The feed-in tarrif in Germany is high, yes, but it leads to a focus by all concerned, owners, installers, manufacturers, on quality and long-term performance and not just on getting solar modules on roofs. We have far too many sub-quality pv systems installed now, and as they start to fail or do not produce reduced electric bills to the extent anticipated by their owners, the backlash against any further pv support will be harsh and embarrasing.
Comment
17 of 39
March 1, 2005
It all starts at the top. What you need is someone in the oval to say, "by the year 2020 the US will get "X%" of its power from renewables. The X% number has to be big enough that 99% of the experts say its an impossible goal. Think of the manufacturing jobs, WOW!!

Gee, I wonder if Bush is capaible of this....LOL
Comment
18 of 39
March 1, 2005
All you whiners above complaining about California programs this'n'that, go find another line of work. This is awesome and economies of scale will have no choice but lower module cost in the next 12-24 months. Massive additional capacity(approx 300 MW aggregate each) from Kyocera, BP, Sharp and others will hit the market like a double espresso. Hang on baby!
Comment
19 of 39
March 1, 2005
I also stand with Mr. Schoen, be positive! PV parking shade structures are great idea but no need to put down BIPV to make the point. Why would anyone who supports the use of solar energy call early adopters "eco-Nazies" and why be surprised if the laws of supply and demand work the same way for solar as they do for everything else? The silicon shortage will not last forever, and thin-film uses up to 100 times less silicon for the same kWh performance. United Solar Ovonic is already producing triple junction thin-film in a 30MW factory in Michigan. Yes, most of their product is going to Europe but a reliable performance-based incentive in California will encourage them to open up all new factories. All that's needed is people to put their money where their mouth is. steve@renewables.com
Comment
20 of 39
March 1, 2005
Until the module companies lower the price, incentives are needed to keep this solar roll going. This latest version by the Gov. can and should be looked at as a possitive. More people are talking about solar power, then in the past. We need to stop whining and find out what each of us can do to make it work. If you think that the people who will be running these programs will not do it correctly, then vote the Girly Men out. lol
Comment
21 of 39
March 1, 2005
This is fantastic news for Solar in California. Compared to other states, solar PV is accepted and widespread in California. Most everyone that can afford solar has received 5 pieces of marketing information, heard radio ads, read about solar in the newspaper. Many people have friends or relatives with solar PV. This is what is needed for solar to succeed. The state is not ready in 2005 for this program, but we have the CEC and CPUC programs until 2008. Between now and then we will be ready for this type of ground breaking program.

Installers and Contractors that fought the last version need to come to terms with this bill and see how they can adjust their business to take advantage of it.
Comment
22 of 39
March 1, 2005
(5) And last but not least there are a number of added benefits at no

additional cost, like parking cars in the shade, driving on dry roads, when it

rains, being "cool" when stuck in another traffic jam at rush hour. Maybe it

even saves a few lives, because there are fewer accidents....

Hey guys, give it a thought!

And CHIN UP for SOLAR !
Comment
23 of 39
March 1, 2005
(4) This could be organized in the form of public companies that get their

funds from selling shares over the stock exchange, rent the areas, install the

solar converters and sell the electricity generated to the grid owners. Every

solar freak, no matter whether he/she ownes a house, lives under a bridge or in

a chique condominium with very limited roof area per tenant (and a lot of

opposition from other tenants to "distort" the appearance of the building)

would get a chance to buy him/herself into the program (and sell the shares

again, if it turns out to be the wrong investment - no need to overhaul the

whole house to put it back into its original shape!). And it would certainly be

easier and cheaper for a large and specialized enterprise to install and

maintain the panels, convert the power generated, feed it into the grid and

negotiate a good price.
Comment
24 of 39
March 1, 2005
(3) Other thing: I regret that the program is apparently limited to home

owners, who are prepared to install PV panels on their roofs. I have maintained

for a long time that it would be much more economical to build special

structures over the parking lots in front of shopping malls, Park&Ride

stations, sports arenas, etc. And ultimately to cover each and every mile of

the highways and railroad tracks.
Comment
25 of 39
March 1, 2005
(2) Best, if PV could become competitive economically, even without the

considerations of long term blablabla. In this respect, it will certainly help

if government supports a large volume program: this will at least eliminate the

mourning of the industry not being able to apply "economy of scale" methods for

cost reduction. What is now needed is a bunch of real entrepreneurs, who go

about to give it a serious try.

Don't forget: the socialist approach didn't work in Russia, and several

European countries are about to learn that lesson now - the hard way.

So: ZINK POSITIVELY!!!
Comment
26 of 39
March 1, 2005
(1) Isn't all this warning and whinig about the ifs and whens exactly the opposite of what we have been told in school and church to be the "Good Old American Spirit of Positive Thinking"???

I believe that solar thermal has had its support in the past and has become an economically viable alternative that no longer needs government support. The fact that only few people buy it simply means that the sales guys are doing a lousy job!

On the other hand, PV is not economical yet, when merely considering the immediate cost of energy production. Taking long-term environmental effects into account, the balance might look different, but nobody does that in reality. So what.
Comment
27 of 39
March 1, 2005
Not again - Another BIG $'s Calif. program with big Numbers and Big chance for the Utilities to take another 30 percent, or more, of the mone away from the people who lay out the money.
Help - lets have the state administer the program and limit single use programs to 4 million or less.
Comment
28 of 39
March 1, 2005
As a solar dealer outside of California, we have doubts about this plan. Will it basically suck all the solar panels available from the rest of the US? The "green crowd" for decades has been telling us that increased demand will drop the price of solar - but with the recent 10 to 15% increases in prices things seem to have gone a bit awry. Will this just make it worse? Will we end up like Germany where the subsidies are so high that there are "solar panel brokers" selling to the highest bidders?
Comment
29 of 39
March 3, 2005
I think the project is a good idea it could be the start of a new generation for the world.
Comment
30 of 39
March 4, 2005
What about those who are off grid and see the benifit off solar? We get nothing! We need to spend 60k just to get PG&E and for what? Wouls it not be benifical for their to be something for those who are not hooked up to the grid, to never hook up? Save trees and energy at the same time. Because we don't have the up front money to buy PV we are depleting propane to run our generator... is this whole rebate thing backwards... you need PG&E to get the rebate? Isn't the whole idea to encourage solar? CA and the US is so backwards at times!!!
Comment
31 of 39
March 6, 2005
Umemployed PV Installer from CT wondering whether or not I should pack my bags for another California Gold Rush?
Comment
32 of 39
March 7, 2005
Solar thermal in CA is not more cost-effective than PV. Sure, cost of a kWh_thermal from a solar thermal DWH system is 3-4 times less than a kWh from PV. However, the fuel displaced by a kWh_thermal from a solar thermal system in CA is not electricity, but natural gas. Since NG is 3-4 time less expensive per unit than electricity, the apparent economic advantage of solar thermal vs PV vanishes. To make these systems cost-effective through subsidies and spur markets, the same percentage-of-cost subsidy is needed for both technologies. This subsidy would be greatly reduced if subsidies were removed from the fossil fuel industry.
Comment
33 of 39
March 13, 2005
If the subsidy (tax advantages) every energy producing/distributing company gets were eliminated or refocused to the end electric user, no mater what, more households could afford and demand replacement of existing production/distribution systems forcing improvment from the providers.
Comment
34 of 39
March 14, 2005
If you read any other news you might correctly deduce that there really is an impending energy crisis of staggering proportions that will drastically alter every economy in the world, especially ours. It's coming and this train is going to crash into the station and we're only fooling ourselves by pretending we can continue sucking this planet dry of fossil fuel forever. It's impossible. Whatever steps that start now may be baby steps but they are in the right direction and that is the direction we need to start running towards to avoid disaster. I'm sure this bill will get watered down plenty but as they say, any publicity is good publicity. Think long term. Shortage of silicon is a minor issue that will be resolved. Think $50 a barrell is an anomaly? How about $100 or $200? Don't think it's coming in the next 20 years? Global warming is all hype?
Comment
35 of 39
March 17, 2005
The ultimate goal of this program is to promote increased production of PV so that costs can come down, right? As many of you have noted, PV costs are moving up right now. So rather than creating a program that reduces costs on an annual basis, why not do it on a per unit basis? The first 300 MW (or more likely the first 100,000 3kw units assuming we're doing houses only) would receive a particular level of support, the next 300 MW somewhat less. This would tie the program to the market more. At the $2.80 per watt subsidy, PV would have to price at under $7 per watt installed to pencil out. (Someone closer to the numbers could hone the numbers, but that would roughly get you to a viable number, right?) If PV were too expensive given the broader world market, then the program would have slower uptake until the costs of PV came down to meet the market.
Comment
36 of 39
March 17, 2005
Solar = PV + CSP + thermal

What is the real issue? Are all enthusiastic people supporting the plan because they like to become self suffient in their comfortable suburb dwellings?
Or do they mainly care on the climate issue and the shortage of oil/gas issue?

In the latter case, why is nobody mentionning that wonderfull technology in your state called CSP (Concentrating Solar Power), the technology of the STEG plants at Kramer Junction.

The Schwarzenegger plan is pushing just one of the solar technologies, to the benefit of only one commercial branch of activities, leading to increasing prices of PV systems.

A proper government should promote PUBLIC interest, and not SPECIAL interests. The plan should be ammended such, that new solar thermal power plants will be stimulated too. Solar is PV + CSP + low-temperature thermal.
Comment
37 of 39
April 20, 2005
Bob as a contractor in this buisness, I can say systems are being installed for under $7 per "dc watts". But to be any less the modules have to come down in price.
But to limit system size to any particular install I think is counter productive, I say this because where I am at a 6kw system is on the low end of size.
Anywho thats my 2 cents
Comment
38 of 39
April 21, 2005
"Installers and Contractors that fought the last version need to come to terms with this bill and see how they can adjust their business to take advantage of it."

Not much adjusting these folks can do as long the expectation is that installer and contractors can install for $5.00/ AC watt . Have you seen the panel prices lately?
Comment
39 of 39
September 15, 2009
Very good
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Advertise With Us

Conergy Inc. National Solar Trainers Solar Electric Power Association Das Haus: Innovation in Renewables and Energy Efficiency Blue Sky Energy, Inc. Prudent Living, Inc. SolarTech Solar Leadership Summit 2012
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters