CA: Senate passes Schwarzenegger's 'million solar roofs' plan

KESQ News ^ | June 1, 2005 | Associated Press

[calcowgirl]

SACRAMENTO The Senate today passed Governor Schwarzenegger's plan for a new round of incentives to encourage use of solar-generated electricity _ despite arguments that years of government support has yet to make the industry self-sufficient.

Sunny California has a wealth of solar energy just when it needs it most--on stifling summer afternoons of the sort that led to rolling blackouts and spiking electricity costs during the state's power crisis in 2000 and 2001.

Proponents say the proposed 10 years of incentives that would be provided by electricity ratepayers would jump-start a promising technology.

Schwarzenegger's goal is to produce three-thousand megawatts worth of solar power by 2018.

That's the equivalent of six large fossil fuel-fired plants.

On the Net:

Read SB1 at www.sen.ca.gov

Vote Solar: www.votesolar.org

Environment California:www.environmentcalifornia.org

California Building Industry Association: www.cbia.org

[calcowgirl]

Proponents say the proposed 10 years of incentives that would be provided by electricity ratepayers would jump-start a promising technology.

Subsidizing their business--what's not to like?

SB1 SUPPORT  :   (Verified 5/31/05)

          Schwarzenegger Administration
          Attorney General Bill Lockyer
          Akeena Solar
          Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility
          American Colar Energy Society
          American Federation of State, County and Municipal  Employees
          American Lung Association
          Bluewater Network
          Borrego Solar 
          California Alliance For Consumer Protection
          California Building Officials
          California Interfaith Power and Light 
          California League of Conservation Voters
          California Public Interest Research Group
          California Public Utilities Commission
          Carville Sierra, Inc. 
          City of Aliso Valley 
          City of Berkeley 
          City of Irvine 
          City of Santa Cruz
          City of Sebastopol 
          Clarum Homes
          Clean Power Campaign
          Coalition for Clean Air
          Community Environmental Council
          Cooperative Community Energy 
          East Bay Municipal Utility District
          Energy Independence Now 
          Environment California
          Global Green USA
          Gray Panthers
          Green Lease, Inc.
          Greenpeace USA
          Henry T. Perea, Councilmember 7th District
          Industrial Environmental Association 
          KYOCERA International, Inc.
          Marin County Board of Supervisors 
          Merced/Mariposa County Asthma Coalition
          National Wildlife Federation
          New Vision Technologies
          NorCal Solar
          Northern California Solar Energy Association 
          Oakland City Mayor Jerry Brown 
          Our Children's Earth
          Pacific Environment 
          Pacific Gas and Electric Company (if amended)
          Physicians for Social Responsibility
          Planning and Conservation League
          Powerlight Solar Electric Systems
          Public Citizen
          PV Manufacturers Alliance 
          Rainforest Action Network
          Real Goods
          Relational Culture Institute
          Sacramento City Mayor Heather Fargo 
          San Diego City Council Member Donna Frye 
          San Francisco County Board of Supervisors 
          San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome 
          San Jose City Mayor Ron Gonzalez 
          Sempra Energy (if amended)
          Sharp Solar
          Sierra Club California 
          Solar Integrated Technologies 
          SolarWorks 
          South Coast Air Quality Management District
          Stopwaste.org 
          Sun Power & Geothermal Energy
          The Better World Group
          Union of Concerned Scientists 
          Vote Solar
          Working Assets
          World Council for Renewable Energy
          Yolo County Board of Supervisors

OPPOSITION  :    (Verified  5/31/05)

          California Manufacturers and Technology Association
          California Chamber of Commerce
          Associated Builders and Contractors (oppose unless amended)
          California Building Industry Association (oppose unless amended)
          Southern California Edison (oppose unless amended)
          The Utility Reform Network (oppose unless amended)

[dalereed]

Damn fools!

I hope the Assembly has enough sense to oppose it!

[derheimwill]

The wrong people like it. That doesn't make it a bad idea.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I hope the Assembly has enough sense to oppose it!

Unlikely!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I hope the Assembly has enough sense to oppose it!

Unlikely!

[calcowgirl]

You support state mandated business subsidies for technology that has proven to be non-cost effective?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Sorry about the double post, system didn't respond very quickly so I hit enter again.

Oppose:

Southern California Edison (oppose unless amended)

Any idea what the amendment desired is?

[Argus]

If they install one on my roof for free I'll be happy to unplug from the LA DWP.

[calcowgirl]

LOL... no problem on the double posts. It happens! :-)

Re: amendment, I don't know. The LegInfo database wasn't updated yet for today's actions, so I don't know if there were any last minute language changes.

[hinckley buzzard]

If they install one on my roof for free I'll be happy to unplug from the LA DWP.

Living in Arizona, I learned you could run a few water pipes across your roof, almost for free, and at least unplug your hot water heater.

[mmercier]

>>> Proponents say the proposed 10 years of incentives that would be provided by electricity ratepayers would jump-start a promising technology

I think all promising technologies jump start the governments, not the opposite.

Did the govenrmrnt subsidize A G Bell...?

Or Edison...?

Or Bill Gates...?

I may be wrong, but I think anything that is practical, effective, and offers an economic advantage is "subsidized" by the free will of rational people who make economic decisions of their own that they believe will give them an advantage over the competition, or just plain save their families resources to be used in a more effective manner.

On my street there are two large solar hot water heaters from the 70's on rooftops; both are non functioning eyesores that are too expensive for the owners to remove (you need a building permit, and can not throw anything away in Mass. without paying through the nose}. Therefore they remain and we all get to look at them, probably forever.

The development of an affordable photovoltaic rubber roofing material is the only hope for this old idea to work; and "affordable" might not even be the key, it may need to be better and cheaper to compete with a rather large and well established base of manufacturers lines.

The greatest cheapest more durable photovoltaic rubber roof on the planet means squat if you can not get 57,000 square feet of it on site next Wednesday.

[derheimwill]

Generally, no. However, solar needs more money than it can produce, to get to the point (tachnologically) where it can be self-sufficient. And I happen to believe it will eventually be so.

[calcowgirl]

Wow! Socialism is alive and well.

[derheimwill]

All isms are theories as to why the world aught to to be more like the adherents of said theory wish it were. I adhere to none. I am only saying that fair is fair. The investors don't deserve to be bailed out. (Capitalist principal (shortly): The stupid deserve no reward.) The Technology deserves support because of its' own merit. The State should produce the panels, so that none of the poor investors are rewarded. Ad Plus (after the research money produces results, end the program).

[Doe Eyes]

Let's see. Money spent in America on Solar Panels, or money sent to Saudi Arabia to buy oil. That's a tough one.

[calcowgirl]

Fair is fair? Huh?

Why should the state subsidize anything? Why not auto-manufacturing, or computers? An IBM PC used to be too expensive for every household--did the government subsidize it? Your statements don't make sense.

What right does the government have to take my money and give it to someone else? If the technology is promising, the venture capitalists would be putting up their money in an instant. It's not, and they're not. Of course, as long as they can take your money instead, why should they?

I suppose you like that $3 Billion dollar Stem-Cell boondoggle too, huh?

[calcowgirl]

Let's see. Money spent in America on Solar Panels, or money sent to Saudi Arabia to buy oil. That's a tough one.

There are lots of other viable alternatives.
Instead, they are throwing our money at a non-viable alternative.

[Carry_Okie]

The wrong people like it. That doesn't make it a bad idea.

True. The technical facts make it a bad idea.

[mmercier]

..Let's see. Money spent in America on Solar Panels, or money sent to Saudi Arabia to buy oil. That's a tough one.



There are two large eyesore solar water heaters on my street from the 70's, both made from aluminum... Guess where the electricity to make the aluminum back then came from.

Think nuclear power, otherwise you are just chasing the tail of clean, free energy, round and round.

In my experience, companies that fight for government subsidy do so because their products do not sell to rational people who make economic decisions on their own. Oya, these companies are also usually the failed investments of people who are connected with politicians, or are companies that these same politicians lost a bundle investing in and need to bail with whatever they can take back. Therefore they sell pie in the sky to the government and force YOU to buy their failed product, thereby recouping to their best ability their loss.

If it worked and was economically viable we would be talking about the government regulating it, and taxing it, and creating a parasitic means by which the government could profit from the consumers who were running up prices because of their demand for it.

In this case there is no demand, the government of California is simply going to demand the tax payer buy. And they will, especially in California.

This will all be over in a year, once the checks are cashed.