The California Solar Initiative -- Triumph or Train Wreck?

Florida's new Energy Act of 2006 is now coming up fast with initial rebates of $100,000 for any business installing a solar system.  A 30% tax writeoff was also just signed into motion this month.

Bring on the Feed-In Tariff. The Current NHSP and CSI systems are  bound to stall by the weight of their own bureaucratic structure. One third of solar funds are currently going to administrative costs- save solar, dump the  unecessary paperwork. Force the untilities to buy back solar power at wholesale rates and watch people scramble to put up panels on every  feasible piece of roofspace!

Triumph will only come when the price of solar power equals the cost of power from the grid.  Then, all hell will break loose as producers go crazy trying to keep up with demand. Then, the "million solar rooftops" will only be the tip of the iceberg. With localized power production, there will be no need to expand the grid, and few new commercial production facilities would be required.  What is needed right now is expanded R&D support of thin-film and dye-enhanced PV, in order that these technologies reach the market soon. Then we'll have our revolution!!

Finally! Thank you for doing this much-needed report on the true state of the CA solar business, esp. retrofit residential. This is part of the reason why I decided to get OUT of the solar business even as the public's solar awareness seemed to be reaching critical mass. The CA legislature, combined with the utilities' implementation of the new rules, has created a chaotic and bureacratic mess that is hardly worth the effort for customers or for contractors. These programs were not built for maximal effectiveness; they were built for maximal protection of bureaucrats' turf and utilities' profits. IMHO this whole mess should be scrapped and replaced with a SIMPLE performance based incentive that pays for watt-hours put back onto the grid, and leave it at that...with automatic electronic meter reporting over the wireline back to the utilities. There is NO need for all the other paperwork and complexity in these programs. Will the CA legislature please clean up this mess!

Any new roll-out will have some flaws. There is nothing here that can't be fixed by  the legislature. The key was getting the  governor and  legislature  working together. With the successes to date, the will  to make it work is clearly there.

Excellent analysis. This needs to be brought to the governor's attention ASAP. We have a perfect storm with this report combined with current economic and credit availability issues.

There will be many challenges. Perseverance is the mantra. Ever forward towards the sun. Peace & Solar Power to the people!

<p>The article reminds me of how screwed up our system is.</p><p>Success of solar is measured by it's ability to achieve unlimited continuous&nbsp; growth.&nbsp; But this is the same thinking that&nbsp; guides the overall economic structure and has us over-consuming the planet.</p><p>Multiple 100kW installations on Safeways are consider success.&nbsp; But agian, solar is going towards enhancing the growth of corporate structures that deliver highly processed, packaged, increasingly GMO based food products which are transported over massive distances and are not healthy to eat.</p><p>Too bad.....for our children.</p><p>In any case, very interesting recommendations.&nbsp; There is not a snowballs chance in hell that any will be implemented.&nbsp; Folks crying out to the Legislature to save us forget that the Legislature couldn't move SB1 for two years and wes getting ready to drop it all together. Don't look for help there my friends.</p><p>Good Luck Everyone.&nbsp;</p>

I couldn't agree more with Chris and Jessy. The problem with CSI is not just the TOU metering which was eventually fixed by Mr. Schwarzenegger. CSI is fundamentally flawed.&nbsp; It just makes fun of California having all the sun in the world but not getting 1 and 1 together. Take a vote on the incentive program at www.thinksunsmart.com and get a free check of PV system performance.

It's good to know that CPUC is concerned about solar companies ripping off the consumer by selling them larger systems than needed. They underesimate the intelligence of the consumer and the integrity of solar companies. Judging from comments I've heard from many customers, it's not the solar companies that are the culprit. Remove the roadblocks for the good of the public you're so concerned about.

It is pretty clear that the State and&nbsp; utilities would like to get rid&nbsp; of residential retrofits all together.&nbsp; Jarad, as an insider, would you agree with this?

As an insider with the state of California the record here needs to be clarified.&nbsp; First under SB1 the California Energy Commission has been directed by the legislator to work with stake holders in unifying the various solar&nbsp;rebate programs currently offered under the CPUC,(CSI), CEC, (NSHP) and the various municipal utilities.&nbsp; The dedicated staff of the CEC has worked tirelessly to take the elements of the CSI and NSHP as well as suggestions generated after public hearings, to create a program that will help CA meet the million roof goals while meeting the mandates of the legislator and at the same time&nbsp;maximize the use of public funds.&nbsp; Meeting all these goals is difficult.&nbsp; The last public meeting was well attended with representatives of the solar industry, Sunpower, Sharp, CPUC, SCE, city of SF,&nbsp;home builders, installers, and others.&nbsp; All comments generated from the hearing were evaluated by staff. One of the main issues going forward is how to ensure any rebate accurately reflects the energy being generated for a system.&nbsp; All commenters supported a performance based program.&nbsp; The second issue is the level of energy efficiency which should be required before a rebate can be issued.&nbsp; Reduction in demand is always the first priority.&nbsp; It makes little sense to&nbsp;give out the public's money in the form of a rebate for a system that could have been smaller if some basic energy efficiency was incorporated.&nbsp; In supporting solar development the legislator requires that we not forget about the value of reducing energy usage.&nbsp; I encourage all to participate in the development of the SB1 solar program and review draft documents which are posted on the CEC's website.&nbsp; The CEC's staff is well aware of burdensome regulations but on the other hand spending money carefree and in a wasteful manner&nbsp;will generate negative press.&nbsp; The goal is a program that can play a roll in moving&nbsp;CA&nbsp;out of the carbon age and into the era of renewable energy.&nbsp; For more info go to the CEC's webiste at <a href="http://www.energy.ca.gov/" target="_blank">www.energy.ca.gov</a>&nbsp;

I agree with the well researched article. I actually believe that the 45 page paperwork mess that is required was designed to impede the growth of solar.

We need a Solar Feed IN Tariff. Australia who is at the same latitude we are south just instituted s Special Residential Solar Feed in IN Tariff. That law provides that every home will have two meters. On meter will record the solar generated from the rooftop and the other meter records the amount of electricity consumed by the residence. There is no time of use stuff. Australias tariff is similiar to the German Solar FIT but only 20¢ per kWh lower because Australia receives more sun than does Germany. This time of use that was put in by the California Utilities was specially designed to block residential use and it has.

If California really wants to comply with AB32 and reduce GHG then we need a Residential Solar Feed in Tariff to make solar economically feasible for residential users.

<p>Just&nbsp; checked in on the Trigger Tracker. After&nbsp; a couple months of now new data, we now have a new data file.</p><p>&nbsp;But wait, it's an all new format, and what a mess.</p><p>BTW , I can't find the data on my company so you can't trust any of it.</p><p>&nbsp;Thanks again CSI for taking something that was working pretty good and &quot;wrecking&quot; it. </p>

<p>Jon, thank you. They weren't all that interested in energy efficiency before solar. Now it's an issue.</p><p>Don, yep... fox in the henhouse.</p>

<p>Putting the utilities in charge of promoting disitributed solar generation is like asking your dog to guard a bowl of dog biscuits. One of the biggest problems in southern California is the utilities rate structures, which are designed to discourage customers from going solar. The key is to fix the IOU rate structures, and for the CPUC to&nbsp;provide program administrator rewards for success, and&nbsp;penalties if CSI administrators fail to make their goals. Everything else will flow from those two actions. </p>

<p>&quot;It makes little sense to&nbsp;give out the public's money in the form of a rebate for a system that could have been smaller if some basic energy efficiency was incorporated.&quot;</p><p>&nbsp;<font face="Times New Roman" size="3">What makes little sense is to make it more and more complicated for people to go Solar. Also wasting funds on bureaucracy and more paper work. How about taking that 33% of waste and give each homeowner some CLF light bulbs or have a professional energy auditor come to there home for free and give them an evaluation, instead of making this process harder and less cost effective for the people doing the most to help with this problem. </font></p><p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>For all those interested The California Energy Commission (Energy Commission) Renewables Committee will conduct a workshop to receive comments on the Energy Commission draft staff report: Guidelines for California's Solar Electric Incentive Programs Pursuant to Senate Bill 1. Commissioner John L. Geesman is the Presiding Member of the Renewables Committee and Chairman Jackalyne Pfannenstiel is the Associate Member. </p><p align="center"><strong>THURSDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2007<br />10:30 a.m. </strong><br />CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION<br />1516 Ninth Street<br />First Floor, Hearing Room A<br />Sacramento, California<br />(Wheelchair Accessible)<br /><br />Note: Audio from this meeting will be broadcast over the Internet.<br />For details on listening in, please go to<br /><a href="http://www.energy.ca.gov/webcast/" target="_blank">www.energy.ca.gov/webcast/</a></p><p align="center">To participate in the meeting by phone,<br />please call 888-889-4951 by 10:30 a.m.<br />Passcode: RENEWABLES Call Leader: Claudia Orlando <br /></p>

<p>As a resident that has looked into buying solar for my home.</p><p>It just floors me that the state thinks that getting solar panels and generating electricity, about a 20K investment for me, will return no $ back to me. But the electric companies, out of the goodness of thier hearts will be glad to bill me on a monthly basis(for the paperwork) to tell me annually that I am generation more eletricity than I need. But the will not pay me anything for the excess!</p><p>So for a 20k investment after incentives, I get a reduced bill to about 20 dollars a month and the power company gets a net profit for my investment.</p><p>&nbsp;And I am not installing on now because.....?</p>

I applaud this excellent report and share the frustration of dealing with incomplete and ever-changing installation data. I have spent hundreds of hours cleaning and fixing the raw data to profile ten Bay Area counties as of 12/31/06 (see the Bay Area Solar Installs Report, www.norcalsolar.org). This report was based on SGIP & ERP data from May 2007, but it already needs updating because the July SGIP data includes several systems that did not exist in the May data.

The program administrators must clean and complete the 31,000+ ERP records and 1,300+ SGIP records in their <b>source</> databases, before the data is transferred into the statewide CSI database. Otherwise future analysis of the CSI will continue to rely on the flawed SGIP and ERP data.

A complete and accurate set of installation data is needed for healthy external analysis of the incentive programs. This project should be prioritized and funded immediately.