Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Getting the Million Solar Roofs Bill Right

By David Hochschild
August 5, 2005   |   7 Comments

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 

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.

7 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 7
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
2 of 7
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
3 of 7
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
4 of 7
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
5 of 7
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
6 of 7
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
7 of 7
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.
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

Blue Sky Energy, Inc. AEG Power Solutions WindPole Ventures, LLC Second Wind Inc. Enphase Energy Growth Energy National Hydropower Association
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