The Solar City?
I’m vacationing in San Francisco for the week, one of the greenest cities in the country. I’ve decided to do a series while I’m traversing the city by the bay, showcasing it’s finer points. The series needs a name, so suggestions are welcome.
Fact: San Francisco boasts more solar panels installed per-capita than any other city in America. Coming from longtime green-city juggernaut in one of the greenest states in the country, this news isn’t particularly shocking. However, the fact that the number of applications for solar installations in San Francisco has skyrocketed 450% in the last year is an attention grabber – this coming from a city that has been hit remarkably hard by the downturn due to its venture capital backed economy, in a bankrupt state. So just what is going on in the city by the bay?
Workers Install Solar Panels in SF
They’ve incentivized solar power. The idea isn’t revolutionary; California has had an incentive program in place for over a decade – the California Solar Initiative, which offers state solar rebates. However, the state incentives aren’t enough to make solar power an affordable option for everyone. They’re performance based, so they don’t help with the upfront costs of installation and implementation. San Francisco aimed to tackle that hurdle and make solar power more accessible, taking solar incentives to a new level last year. With the goal of making solar power more the rule than the exception, San Francisco launched the first local solar energy incentive program in the nation. The program, GoSolarSF, targets the upfront costs associated with solar installation, cutting the cost of installation in half for the average residential home. That percentage jumps up to 70% for non-profits. In fact, the program announced last month that two public housing projects in SF, Hayes Valley North and South, and Plaza East, are going to be the first in the nation to receive solar panels. Of the 850 solar installation applications submitted over the last year, 56 of them qualified as low-income.
However, half of the average $25,000 residential installation cost is still $12,500 – a substantial enough sum to deter would-be converts (including me). The mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, hopes to implement a loan program over the next year that would make the solar option even more attractive. Additionally, there is the potential for state and federal rebates, and the energy cost savings, to cancel out interest payments on a loan.
How does a bankrupt state continue to innovate in the clean energy space? Surprisingly, the state and city level rebates aren’t using taxpayers money so they’re not subject to the state-wide budget cuts that other programs fear. Utility ratepayers, not taxpayers, underwrite the subsidies for the state incentive. Additionally, San Francisco uses funds from the Public Utility Commission for its rebates.
While it may be a while before the technology is cheap enough for the majority of bay area buildings to be solar powered, it’s encouraging to see such a large group willing to invest in the technology for their own homes. It seems within the first year of Go Solar SF, San Francisco has proven that there is demand for clean energy alternatives, as long as the price is right.
September 9, 2009 at 3:24 am
How about The Seamy Side of Green – or anything with The —– Side of Green – For example:
Green – address the costs – the subsidies are nice for some, but it is still other people’s money, which means that competition is held off, keeping prices high. If solar manufacturers had to make an affordable product (less exotic/toxic material, less energy to produce, less of everything resulting in lower costs) more people could install.
Political – Did you ever wonder about the unfairness of going solar? I could put panels on every roof surface or just south facing surfaces. All any California consumer can do is spin the meter backwards, resulting in a credit to my energy bill. I do not get to make money. Imagine the risk residential and commercial users would take if they could manufacture electricity and pay their bill AND earn money by selling their excess power to the grid. The politics of green protect the existing energy companies be ensuring they get off by giving you credit. What happens when I pay my energy bill two years in advance? If everyone was serious about green/solar, they would open up the market allowing unlimited producers to be rewarded, which would increase supplies and lower costs to the consumer (the ratepayer that is helping fund this anyway).
Jade – don’t know, but jade is a shade of green.
Hey, if you get the chance, head over to The Last Chance Saloon in Oakland. Jack London used to sit their listening to and watching the prospectors on their way to Alaska. He may have written one of his books there, I can’t recall. Just don’t use the bathroom, they have cameras, sirens, and other fun things they set off should you go in their for the first time.
Take care,
Preston
September 9, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Hi Preston! Thank you for your comments – you bring up some very interesting and solid points here.
The idea of being able to sell power generated from your solar panels back to the grid is a fascinating one – and one I hadn’t thought about before. Politics aside, I don’t think we have the technology for this yet. In my research surrounding wind power, I discovered that one of the major problems with implementing wind turbines is that we cannot store the energy. Current grids are in constant balance between energy being drawn and produced (which is why coal is so convenient – they can just fire up more when they need it and let it die down when they don’t). I see issues with pricing out and distributing solar energy because the output won’t be consistent and excess will be wasted. I see this technology as a long way off – which is sad. Politically, I think you’re correct – that technology isn’t in the energy companies best interest so it won’t go very far. Perhaps the technology would be further along were it in alignment with the energy companies agenda.
However, I wouldn’t go as far to call solar power unfair. I think reducing your carbon footprint is a worthwhile endeavor just for the sake of that – without looking to profit from it. Again, while the politics of that are unfortunate, that won’t stop me from going solar when I buy a home.
The costs associated with solar are unfortunate, but interestingly enough it’s estimated that only 1/3 of the costs are associated with hardware. The majority inflexible or rising (labor, services, etc). I found an interesting quote from Newsweek columnist Daniel Gross where he writes, “The future of the alternative-energy industry now depends far more on financial engineering than mechanical engineering.”
September 9, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Re Politics – I don’t mean the name calling, etc. that most associate with politics. What I do mean are the political efforts similar to what Pan Am did in an attempt to cut TWA out of the international air travel market or Coca Cola did to win sugar concessions and marketing rights (they could get sugar to make Coke in U.S. and went right behind U.S. troops in all theaters as they reclaimed/liberated territory to establish bottling plants – giving them first shot at the recovering markets).
The technology already allows power produced on the residential and commercial properties in California to enter the grid (that’s why the meter spins backwards) where it is immediately used to meet demand. The power companies’ political lobby has ensured state and federal regulations forbid the consumer from receiving real compensation. We just get a credit on existing and future bills. It is a paper or accounting action that happens. The power company in turn takes power generated from my house and sells it at what the market will bear. If it is during peak hours on a really hot day – they make a ton of money. The homeowner does not receive any of that profit. PG&E, SDG&E, and so on reap $$ from my investment.
Those same laws and regulations put almost all of the California green power companies out of business. They could not afford a lobby and were cut out of the regulations. End result, they had to sell to the non-green companies.
Today, GE is the alternative energy company to beat. They have lobbyists throwing money around DC and state capitols like candy on a Fourth of July parade. Former executives are key members (one is a czar) of the current administration’s green team. Who benefits when regulations more stringent that what California has in place are passed? GE and their stockholders of course. Oh, and all of the campaigns of the various legislators they bought.
As you drive through California, you are tempted to celebrate the green power revolution. The turbines and blades are on a stream of trucks. You see giant windmills, some moving, some stationary. You can almost smell the clean energy. Just remember – the landowner may get a small lease payment where the tower is put up (depends on state and local regulations). If the solar or wind farms make a lot of money because electricity goes up and demand is high, the landowner gets nothing. The rights to the energy produced on that land belongs to the power companies.
I like green energy, but not at the expense of the citizen who owns the land or the house and makes the capital investment to install solar.
Political decisions that strip individuals of rights and opportunity should be opposed. I don’t care how green they are.
Preston