By Guest Author Sheldon Norberg

Berkeley’s long awaited solar program hit the ground yesterday, with the 40 initial financing spots being lotteried off at 9 AM. From the turnout at their public information meetings, it could be as many as five entries for each spot. However, most folks in Berkeley are sharp enough to take a pass on B FIRST and invest in solar for themselves.  Here’s why.

Originally touted as a low cost financing option (with rumors of 2% fixed loans) B FIRST’s novel approach of placing the financial burden on parcel taxes seemed like a smart move. As well intended as it may be, the B FIRST program took over a year from inception to delivery, and in that time, the interest rate has gone up considerably.

More importantly, with congress finally passing the 30% tax credit extension, the program actually costs more than buying yourself. As we read it, the federal prohibition from receiving tax credits on purchases funded by bond measures means that Berkeley FIRST candidates pay $5,000-15,000 more for their system than they ordinarily would. Put that on a 20-year loan with no pre-payment option, fix it to your property tax bill,  and see who wants to buy your house in a few years.

The additional factor left unconsidered by the city of Berkeley is that the financing doesn’t come through for a month or more  after the job is done. I can’t think of any quality solar installer that’s going to want to loan anyone $20-50,000 for that amount of time, so you may need to get a loan for the job, and then pay it off with the B FIRST loan. Or perhaps not.

You can find out all about solar and your (bay area local) financial breakdown by attending our free online webinars.

Sheldon Norberg
Sun’s Free Solar
www.sunsfreesolar.com
510 496-6008

The Solar Vs Tree battle grows!

The Mercury news wrote this great article (I call it “great” because the first word is “smackdown”).

Here is SolarPowerRocks.com’s 15 second eat-and-run version:

Couple A puts solar panels up (lots of them)

Couple B plants redwood trees next door (tall ones).

Couple A demands Couple B cut down trees ’cause they block sun. No dice.

Couple A sues Couple B and wins under “Solar Shade Control Act” of 1978

Couple B chops down some of the trees

I thought that the fine for violation is pretty incredible, $1000/day the trees are not chopped down.  Wow!

We here at SolarPowerRocks.com are obviously a little biased towards solar and happy about this new case law, but for the people taking the trees’ side of things, there is good news.  Senator Joe Simitian is probably gonna get through a bill that would change the law to something where, “whoever gets there first, wins” be that trees or solar. Honestly, as much as I love solar, I think that sounds fair.

-Dave

SFGate.com wrote two articles concerning the future of solar in San Francisco. (#1, #2) I’m going to respond to the comments citizens made, and also some of the misguided claims of the article themselves. I’ll do Article 1 today, and the other article in a few days.

From the Article: “Among Bay Area counties, San Francisco ranks last in terms of solar energy installed per capita.”

Well, duh. How many people rent in SF vs. say, Walnut Creek, CA. Land owners with tenants have no incentive to install solar because their tenants pay the power bill. This statistic is utterly useless. The statistic that makes sense is solar power PER OWNER OCCUPIED HOUSEHOLD, which would be the most accurate measure of receptivity to solar. My guess is San Franciscans would kick butt in that solar statistic. But that number is hard to get, and the people won’t know the difference so let’s just make our point with a BS solar statistic. Twisted statistics in media that mean zip but sound like they mean something are probably my biggest pet peeve ever.

From the Article: San Francisco is setting the bar nationally and internationally for what cities can do to address global warming

Nationally, yes. I am in Shreveport, Louisiana right now, been here for a week. ZERO solar rooftop sightings. Internationally? HELL NO. Are you kidding me? If we
“Set the Bar” than we set it at one inch and Germany is Manute Bol on stilts with a jetpack. Set the bar. Please.

Rck Comment: The San Francisco solar map recommended in the article is visually striking but very misleading.

Yes, it is. It’s the Zillow.com of Solar Power… But it’s waaay better than nothing. It gets people excited about solar just the same way zillow gets people excited about their home value. Sure, the numbers are all wrong, and there’s no way you can get enough detail from google maps to calculate shading, orientation, and rooftop real estate, but it has info, links, and it gets the ball rolling. If you want correct data you have to do what Dr. Barry Levine, a San Francisco CS teacher is doing, and that involves local municipal involvement and human labor, so it’s not scalable… yet.

Rck Comment: Solar thermal electric is reportedly more efficient than photovoltaic.

Yes, it is, but it’s not cost effective for residential. Solar thermal electric is a technology that is based on aiming lots of mirrors at a steam powered generator, and requires a giant area, costs lots, and supplies more power than your house can use (for which PG&E is not going to write you a check). More efficient does not equal cheaper. Photovoltaics are the only game in town for San Francisco solar electricity, and it’s gonna be that way for years and years.

The Berkeley City Council met yesterday and decided to move forward on the solar power tax-based financing system that we covered two days ago. The details still have to be smoothed out (half a year?) and then anyone can install solar in Berkeley and get them to pay for their photovoltaics, and add the cost to your tax bill over 20 years. That means you don’t need cash on hand to do something that saves you money then and there. Piece of cake. It will be hard for people to ignore the possibilities now.

AWESOME!

The California Public Utilities Commission adopted (among other things) an initiative to make all new residential homes in California zero net energy by 2020. That means in only 13 years, every time someone wants to build a house in California, that house better have a solar power system or wind energy or…. some other space age mini power plant I haven’t even heard of yet. It also probably means that the larger the housing development it is, the more cost effective it is (because they could build a mini-power plant instead of putting solar power on each home). Although, in 13 years who knows which technology will be cheaper… Like maybe these bendable photo-voltaic units will become so cost effective by then that you could slap a few on the roof of a house for a couple hundred bucks and power the whole thing. Super cheap solar power will eventually happen, period (unless some smartypants figures out a safe way to split the atom).

Anyway, enough ranting… here is what was adopted by the PUC:

• Utilities have to make a statewide longterm energy efficiency plan
• These three initiatives:
  • New homes in California to be all zero net energy by 2020
  • Commercial by 2030
  • HVAC stuff must be reshaped for optimal equipment performance;
• Developed the “next generation” of California utility energy efficiency programs for 2009-2011;
• Committed in the near term to adopting utility energy efficiency goals through 2020 and reaffirmed the PUC’s previously adopted 2009-2011 goals; and
• Established new, collaborative processes with key business, consumer groups, California government, everwhere possible.

More and more, I’m thinking that if you’re a Republican, you’ve probably sold your soul to a conglomerate of corporations who have promised as many golf tournaments, colorful retirement parachutes, and ham hock dinners as one could engorge themselves with so that you might be able to forget the fact that you are supposed to serve the best interests of your constituents instead of large, environmentally destructive corporations. I don’t care how red your precinct might actually be if you’re a California state legislator. The fact that all of those groups listed below rose in strong support of this bill and not one republican legislator voted for it is freaking ridiculous.

A report from the Environment California Research and Policy Center estimates that the law could curb the demand for natural gas in the state by about 5%. While that may not sound like a whole lot, that cut in demand could equate to a 25-35% reduction in wholesale natural gas prices – to the benefit of every consumer.The law just makes sense: California predominately uses natural gas to meet water heating needs and solar water heating can reduce the amount of gas needed to heat water in homes and businesses by 50-75%!

Main Features of the program:

• Goal set of installing 200,000 solar water heating systems by 2017
• Establishment of eligibility for qualified solar water heating systems
• Establishment of installation guidelines
• 10 percent of funds set aside for low-income and affordable housing projects
• A declining rebate program with performance-based incentives.
• Funding through a surcharge on natural gas customers based on the amount of natural gas consumed.

More Links:

Full Text of the California Solar Water Heating and Efficiency Act of 2007 – signed into law October 12, 2007

Interview with California Assemblyman Jared Huffman, sponsor of AB 1470

Solar Water Heating: How California Can Reduce Its Dependence on Natural Gas – by Environment California Research & Policy Center