Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

LABC Proposes Los Angeles Solar Feed-in Tariffs

By Paul Gipe, Contributor
July 15, 2010   |   8 Comments
Modest program limited to 60 MW per year -- only 3% of supply -- envisions first multi-tiered differentiated solar PV tariffs in US.

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.

8 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 8
July 15, 2010
While I agree with the author that this proposal is overly timid, it's a great step in the right direction. And who knows, as this proposal makes its way through official channels, and hopefully becomes policy, it may in fact become more aggressive - if Angelenos push for it.
Comment
2 of 8
July 16, 2010
A FIT is demonstrably, (France, Germany, Spain etc), the best way to promote small renewable distributed energy use. It benefits the Utility by delaying large investment decisions, the nation by reducing fossil fuel consumption, and the consumer by lowering his/her electricity bill, and possibly improving the local supply voltage. So as I see it, it is to everybody's benefit, although I think it ought to apply to all renewable forms. PV alone presents a problem because even in LA the sun dont shine at night.
Comment
3 of 8
July 16, 2010
http://labusinesscouncil.org/online_documents/2010/Consolidated-Document-070810.pdf gives the report.

Although LA is one of the best areas of the country for PV power, the $0.30 FIT is a cost increase for the rate payers.

The price of PV is dropping quickly enough to justify waiting a few years to install PV.
Comment
4 of 8
July 16, 2010
This is great news. Would someone please explain where the added fees for the tariff come from? Will the utility add the cost to the rest of its user base? Is it paid by the Local or federal government? How dos that part work? Thanks.
Comment
5 of 8
July 16, 2010
No feed-in tariff -- stand on your own two feet and compete in the market. If your price is too high, then you need to reduce the cost of your product or get out of the power industry.

The Ontario program is utterly senseless. Take a look at a map of incoming solar radiation (www.nrel.gov) and that becomes painfully obvious. I am not so sure LA is one of the "best areas for PV"; takes a while for the morning fog to burn off and there is the matter of smog. Need to be closer to the desert.
Comment
6 of 8
July 16, 2010
Good news for Southern California. Did I miss the part about the resale value of solar for these homes and businesses? Once installed, isn't there a value to the actual power plant (i.e., PV system) upon resale of the property, all categories included?
Comment
7 of 8
July 16, 2010
There's so much potential for rooftop -- and parking lot solar -- in the U.S., especially in places like S. Califoria. With 5,500 megawatts of rooftop solar potential in a great-for-solar location (the NREL map shows this!) and probably more than that for parking lot solar, there's absolutely no reason to go to the desert and bring the electricity in from hundreds of miles away. And if FIT will grow this rooftop potential, I'm all for them.

@Keller -- BTW, as more and more electric cars plug into an L.A. electric grid powered increasingly by air pollution free solar, the amount of smog will drop. In fact, smog could drop to something approaching zero -- IF LA took advantage of all its rooftop solar potential and parking lot solar potential. Doing so would radically improve the health of the lungs of Angelinos (more S. Californians die from lung related maladies than in car accidents every year!) AND increase the solar power production potential in LA, by reducing, or even eliminating smog.
Comment
8 of 8
July 23, 2010
zpaiss: An excerpt from the July 8th LABC letter to fellow Angelenos: "Our coalition has called on policymakers to provide adequate funding for an ambition FiT program in the 2010-2011 LADWP budget, which is being developed this summer and will agreed upon in the October by the LADWP commission. At an annual net cost of $25 to $35 million, a FiT could be paid for within the $4 billion LADWP budget, which has allocated $800 million for renewable programs."
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

paul gipe

View paul gipe's Profile
About: Paul Gipe has written extensively about renewable energy for both the popular and trade press. He has also lectured widely on wind energy and how to minimize it... more »

Advertise With Us

AllEarth Renewables Rolls Battery Engineering Magnum Energy Inc. AREDAY Mannvit AWS Truepower, LLC Grundfos Direct Sensors
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
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 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