Posted on 08/07/2004 12:22:24 PM PDT by snopercod
California is proposing to add solar power to a million homes in the next 10 years, paid for by a surcharge on electricity bills equivalent to about US$0.27 a month.
The plan, proposed by the California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is intended to honor an election pledge of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to ensure that half of all new homes in the state are built with solar power facilities.
The surcharge would raise US$1 billion in 10 years for the installation program, with the state using the money to give rebates to home builders who install solar panels on new homes, and incentives for installing panels on existing homes.
Homeowners would be able to reduce their power bills and even make money by selling "unused" solar energy back to the electricity companies via two-way meters.
Electricity supply has been a sensitive issue since the energy crisis in 2001 when a free-for-all market pushed prices so low that many stations shut down leaving the state short of power. Solar power became more popular.
According to the California Energy Commission, while 900 photovoltaic systems were installed from 1998 to 2000, more than 11,000 systems were installed from 2001 to the middle of last year.
Most of the changes were to older properties, but with 150,000 new homes being built a year the greater potential led to a campaign for the state to use its "greatest asset" -- sunshine.
Tim Coyle, the senior vice president of the California Building Industry Association, said home systems could cost from US$17,000 to US$20,000 and would not pay for themselves as customers would typically pay US$120 a month to repay the purchase price and then receive about US$70 in "returns" in electricity generated.
The state grants are designed to make the system pay.
According to the draft plan, "each month the homeowner will save more money in reduced electricity charges than [will be paid] on the solar mortgage."
Together the solar installations would equal 36 new, 75-megawatt natural gas plants, and would avoid adding millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the air a year.
I'm still trying to get the hang of this new posting system.
There is a fallacy in here somewhere. Can't quite put my finger on it.
It's called "NIMBY"....needs a ton of "environmental", "architectural" and "aesthetic" assessments and permts.
Like the guy in Palo Alto CA (peoples republic off) who after installing a state of the art solar panel system was told by the council it "didn't fit in" and either had to take it down or cover it up..
Enjoy the sunshine.
The amount of energy required to manufacture and install a solar panel is roughly equivalent to what the panel will itself produce over its entire projected lifetime, so I'm not sure I see the point.
Hey! I'm doing my part. I have a solar powered calculator around here somewhere. Where's my rebate???
Well, the cost of energy in the state of california must run something like $5,000 per year per household. We are going to fix the problem by a $4.00 per year subsidy per household. If solar were really that cheap no one would use other sources of electricity except at say Pt. Barrow.
There is a slight complication in public policy regarding energy costs - which is where the debate on public policy comes from.
According to classical economic theory, the market cost for electric power will be equal to the marginal cost of producing the next kilowatt hr. This is a windfall to those who have cheaply produced energy such as hydro-electric (which is limited) or natural gas or oil fired systems (which passes the windfall on to those with cheaply produced sources of oil or natural gas). So, one tries to create a system of taxes and subsidies to flatten out the return across all sources. However, by trying to encourage things that will never be economic (such as large-scale us of windfarms) and trying to discourage the much-hated nuclear industry, "reasonable" economic adjustments fall into political squabbling and one ends up with an irrational political mess rather than a rational system. Instead of trying to correct market failures (as they are called) one screws up the whole notion of a market all together. One then makes accommodation with market manipulators such as Enron whose opportunity was created by this mess in the first place, and you produce California.
yes, the nuclear power industry and hydro power industry were just good business decisions made by entrepreneurs, no federal government participation in those fields.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.