article tools
Increase Text Size Increase Text Size Decreate Text Size Decrease Text Size
Share Email This Story Share Share This Story Reader comments Reader Comments (7) View image gallery Image Gallery (1) Add to favorites Add to Bookmarks Printer friendly version Printer Friendly Version
Article Tool Sponsor:

Advertise with us

More Jobs
0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
August 5, 2005

Getting the Million Solar Roofs Bill Right

by David Hochschild

Later this month the California Legislature will decide the fate of the Million Solar Roofs Initiative (SB1). Originally proposed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger last year and supported by legislators from both parties along with a broad range of solar industry, environmental and public interest groups, SB 1 would create ten years of incentives for solar energy to help Californians install solar panels on their homes and businesses. However, the goal of transforming solar energy into a truly mainstream energy source could be hindered by some amendments currently in the Million Solar Roofs bill. Without correcting these flaws in the bill, the Legislature could undermine rather than advance the solar industry it is trying to nurture to maturity.

The top five issues to be corrected in the bill are:

1) C-10 license requirement

An amendment accepted earlier this summer would limit solar installations to C-10 electrical license holders only while the vast majority of solar energy systems in California (about 20,000) were installed by A (engineer), B (general) and C-46 (solar) contractors. To shut out the majority of the state's solar installers is unwise, unnecessary and would have the effect of reducing competition in the marketplace. This eligibility requirement should be removed from the bill.

2) Annual appropriations requirement

Current language in SB 1 requires the Legislature to annually appropriate funding for the Million Solar Roof Initiative rather than create a long-term funding stream. This could open the program up to a volatile political process and remove the most important benefit of the bill - creating the market certainty that will leverage major new investments from solar manufacturers to bring down costs. Not a single other renewable or energy efficiency program in California that is funded by the Public Goods Surcharge is subject to annual appropriation. This language should be corrected to provide for the full ten years of funding certainty, leaving the administration of the program budget and rebate level to the program administrators, in return for a cost cap.

3) Electric Rate Design freeze

The current version of SB 1 removes the ability of the state to establish any new rate designs for Million Solar Roofs program customers. This is ill-considered because it would remove one of the most powerful policy instruments available for promoting solar energy and energy efficiency. Designing electricity rates schedules in ways that encourage solar energy promises to be a critical policy area in coming years and it would be a mistake to sacrifice that option today.

4) Limit Million Solar Roofs Initiative to Fund to Distributed Generation only

While SB1 has always been intended to promote distributed solar energy generation, the bill's current language leaves open the possibility that utilities could install solar systems in excess of one megawatt. This has the potential to redirect a substantial portion of incentive funds away from customers toward the utilities, which would reduce competition in the solar marketplace, hinder innovation and limit the ability of average Californians to use this fund. Central station solar power plants should be supported but not as part of the retail solar market established by SB 1.

5) Prevailing wage

The overriding goal of the Million Solar Roofs program is to make solar energy affordable so that it becomes a core contributor to our growing electricity needs. While it is not in the current version of the bill, there is much discussion in the Legislature about imposing California's prevailing wage law on solar energy systems, which would increase costs by 15% and unfairly penalize solar energy. California currently provides incentives for the installation of energy efficient air conditioners, furnaces, washing machines, ceiling fans, insulation and high performance windows and none of these installations trigger prevailing wage. The Million Solar Roofs Initiative - without the prevailing wage requirement - will create many new jobs and at attractive wages with good benefits.

In the end, with the federal energy bill offering lopsided support for the fossil fuel energy resources of the past, it is more important than ever that states like California lead the way toward the clean energy technologies of the future. The California Legislature should resist the lobbyists and the utilities and vote up or down on the right version of the Million Solar Roofs bill.

Getting the policy right has simply never been more important. While the world's solar market is growing at a remarkable pace (62% growth last year), the US portion of this market is actually falling (from 12% in 2003 to 9% in 2004). If the United States is to turn this around and retake the global leadership role in solar energy, California must do some barrier-busting and get its policies right. If we do, the Million Solar Roofs bill could unlock the muscle of the sixth biggest economy in the world and be a beacon for clean energy policy for other states.


About the author...

David Hochschild is Director of Programs for the California-based Vote Solar Initiative. After working on the team that put together San Francisco's solar bond, David left his job in the San Francisco Mayor's Office in August 2001 to work on the campaign full time and has now co-founded the Vote Solar Initiative.

Image Gallery (1)
 

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

Reader Comments (7)
 
No image available
David raises some good points and outstanding issues related to SB 1, The Million Solar Roofs bill. From an inside Sacramento perspective, I am very hopeful that most of the issues will be resolved. We, along with the authors' are working very hard to amend the bill appropriately but the toughest issues come down to the Speaker of the Assembly, Fabian Nunez, personally involving himself on this bill. Those who want to see a good law passed, should keep a steady drum beat for passage of The Million Solar Roofs bill. There are many within Sacramento who would love any excuse to NOT support solar power so continued support of the bill, while working with the authors to fix it, is necessary.
Comment 1 of 7
No image available
August 6, 2005
David makes an excellent point:

The licensing requirement has to be amended to include all qualified installers, not just the holders of a C-10 license.

Presently one half of the cost of a solar PV installation on a single family home is the installation cost.

If the number of eleigible installers is limited, the cost of the installation will go up, not down, and the cost of the installed system will go up, not down as intended.

Holders of a C-10 license are not the only ones qualified to install a solar P.V. system.

The purpose of this bill is to decrease the cost of solar P.V. systems, not increase them.

I recommend: Amend the bill to include all qualified installers, not just the holders of C-10 licenses.

Thank you,
Charles Butterfield
Comment 2 of 7
No image available
August 8, 2005
David,
Thank you for the excellent summary of the issues remaining with this bill.

To enable a sustained photovoltaic industry in CA we certainly need the 10 year committment to funds and we need to be able to at least try to modify some of the rates that are so unfavorable to solar. We also need to be able to guarantee that all the funds cannot be used up by a couple of large utility projects.

I hate to see us dilute our message with something as minor as the C-10 requirement. It's not a "make it or break it" issue for this industry. It's not that hard to get a C-10 license, as anyone with significant experience in PV can simply study for and take the license exam. It's an inconvenience and a minor expense, but it shouldn't put anyone out of business.

I would like to see us keep our focus on the really big issues.

Marianne Walpert
Comment 3 of 7
No image available
August 8, 2005
How do we encourage this type of action in Texas where we have similar sunlight conditions and too many coal burning plants?
Comment 4 of 7
No image available
August 10, 2005
I have not yet seen the potential rebate value published. Rumor has it at around $3/watt. Selling solar to commercial entities at this value will be extremely difficult. Most CFO's want a 3 year payback, possibly 5 years at most. With rebates at $3/watt the payback period will be far in excess of these limits. This will defeat the measures objective of getting solar into the mainstream. This also holds true for the Homeowner who is not an avid environmentalist. PV costs about $8-$10/watt installed depending on many variables. If the rebate is $3 the gap is $5-$7 /watt. On a "typical" home the PV is about 3kW which means the homeowner shells out about $15,000- $21,000 cash after rebate. I suggest that he will not break even for well over 12 years depending on power costs in that area. Funding is wonderful, however is it enough to make it a viable solution?
Comment 5 of 7
No image available
August 10, 2005
Gentlefolk,
What is our best next step to assist our legislature in making the proper decisions in supporting our California solar industry. I'm trying to avoid moving to New Jersey where the legislature appears to have already done the right thing...
Comment 6 of 7
No image available
August 10, 2005
all points David makes are valid.What bothers me is the involvement of Business and Corporations to bend Rules and Legislation in their Favor,all too often with hidden Agendas.Examples:911 emerg.system,thousands of operators lost their Job,we now pay extra for what used to be the Telcos Resonsibiblity.You buy your own Phone.You buy your own Computer so Spam can be delivered,You buy 20k of Solar Generating Facility,it's yours to maintain,repair.Consumer subscibes to a Magazine,he pay shipping on the 90%
ads,and on and on it goes,I could name thousands of other Examples where the Consumer gets the short end of it.
With proper Management and Supervision,I see no reason to keep Utilities,Healthcare and other vital services in private hands.The ruins and casualties of this failed system of "free Enterprise"is becoming more and more apparent.
Comment 7 of 7
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
Featured Total Access Partners
Click company logos to learn more
Energy Storage Summit KACO new energy, Inc. Second Wind Inc. Sonobond Ultrasonics OPEL Solar, Inc. The Switch
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo