Cooler Planet

The same day – Tuesday, June 10 – the US Senate stymied renewable energy tax credits, the City of San Francisco City Council passed some.  The San Francisco’s new Solar Energy Incentive Program ordinance passed by a vote of 8 to 3.  The program will offer residents $3,000-$6,000 toward the purchase of solar energy systems; businesses organizations can receive up to $10,000 for installing a solar photovoltaic system.  The City designated $3.5 million to fund the program for 10 years.  It also plans to pilot a $1.5 million, one-year program that will fund non-profit organizations and low-income housing developments that install solar photovoltaic arrays.

In announcing San Francisco’s groundbreaking legislation Mayor Gavin Newsom said that he hoped that within 10 years the program’s rebates could increase the number of solar panels in the city from roughly 750 to 15,000 and add 50-megawatts of power to the city’s electricity supply.

According to an article in San Francisco Business Times, a 3-kilowatt solar photovoltaic system costs roughly $30,000 in San Francisco (that includes the components and installation).  The City’s new solar energy incentives, plus the $2,000 federal tax credit (that hasn’t yet expired), and the State of California’s solar rebates can reduce a resident’s outright cost by as much as 40 percent.  For the remainder, residents can tap into banks that offer low-interest loans for solar installations.

San Francisco becomes the first municipality in the nation to offer such a large-scale rebate program to its residents.  Moreover, the City tied the higher residential incentives to “green collar jobs.”  Residents and businesses that hire an installer that employs graduates of San Francisco’s workforce development program are eligible for the highest rebates.

Queen Elizabeth, Great Britian’s royal icon, has directed her managers to purchase one of the world’s largest offshore wind turbines from a California energy company, Clipper Windpower.  The turbine will be placed offshore in Scottish waters on Crown property.

The 7.5-megawatt MBE turbine will start in 2010 and the electricity it generates will be sold to the nation’s grid.  The Queen’s property company estimates that the turbine will generate the comparable amount of electricity from one million barrels of oil during its 30-year life span.  

Evidently, the Crown Estate owns the waters 12 nautical miles around the United Kingdom.  It has already invested in wind power and has leased areas to companies that specialize in offshore wind turbines.

The Crown’s support is part of a larger effort by the European Union to increase its renewable energy sources by 2020.  Couched under the goal to reduce carbon emissions, the EU set a goal to cut overall emissions 20 percent by 2020, of which the UK should reduce its share by 16 percent.  For the UK, that translates into generating 33,000 megawatts of power by 2020.  Currently, the country produces roughly 500 – 600 megawatts of power.  

That’s quite a tall order.  Still, by 2020, according to Chris Goodall, author of How to Live a Low Carbon Life, the UK will need approximately 148 gigawatts of electricity.   So by then, the nation’s wind farms will likely supply roughly 22 percent of the UK’s total electricity needs.  

Twenty-two percent is not shabby.  The Crown stands to benefit from substantial revenue and the country gains a significant wind resource. 

Starting on July 1, 2008 San Francisco area businesses will pay a 4.4¢ tax for every metric ton of CO₂ they emit.  The region’s Bay Area Air Quality Management District, responsible for air quality oversight in nine counties, voted 15-1 to impose the carbon emissions fee.  Citing that impacts from climate change are raising surface temperatures, air quality, in turn, is negatively impacted.  

The District expects that over 2,500 businesses – including gas stations and grocery stores – will be subject to the fee though the majority of businesses will pay less than a dollar.  However, approximately seven power plants and oil refineries exist in the area and may pay $50,000 or more each year.    

The District hopes that the fee will send a message and inspire businesses to reduce their carbon emissions even further (after all, the less C0₂ each business emits the less it will have to pay).  The District will earmark the money to fund its efforts to collect and track data on greenhouse gases.

Of course as the news reports, not everyone appreciates the Board’s decision.  Critics note that the state’s California Air Resources Board is also assessing policies to curb carbon dioxide emissions as directed by the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.  Pundits fear that a regional mandate will confuse efforts and ultimately lead to a hodgepodge of policy.  Cynics also warn that the region’s cars and trucks fall outside the agency’s purview, yet account for over 50 percent of the area’s carbon dioxide.  Too bad the Bay Area Air Quality Management District cannot instead use the fee it collects to provide incentives for hybrid and electric vehicles!

This summer Berkeley, California will begin an innovative financing program for solar electricity.  

Essentially, the City will front the costs for a solar photovoltaic system for residents (and businesses) who would otherwise not be able to afford the upfront financing.   In return for covering the initial costs, Berkeley will levy a 20-year tax assessment on the property to pay for the loan.  The tax will apply to the building, not the property owner.  Thus, if the owner sells the home, the assessment will stay put.  The next owner will inherit the remainder of the loan – and the solar photovoltaic system.    

Berkeley City Council passed its initiative last November.  Since then, officials have worked to set up the program including initiating low-interest municipal bonds to finance the system and establishing a network of city-approved solar installation companies.

When the program launches, property owners who wish to participate will contact a city-approved solar installer.  The City will pay the installer, then apply an additional tax assessment to the property that covers the installation costs and associated administration fees, less any rebates or tax incentives that may apply.

Berkeley expects that extra property tax payment will amount to roughly $65 per month depending on the size of roof top system.  In general, most residential solar installations within the city range from $15,000 to $20,000.   Over time, however, the increased tax should be offset from decreased electricity bills.

One other New England state shares Home Power magazine’s Top Ten Solar States stage with Massachusetts:  Connecticut.   Connecticut residents who install solar electric systems no larger than 10 kilowatts, can receive $5.00 per watt for the first five kilowatts and then $4.30 per watt thereafter, with a maximum reimbursement of $46,500 per household.  The state also authorizes net metering allowing residents to be compensated for any net excess electricity they produce.  Here’s a link to the state’s consumer guide:  http://www.ctcleanenergy.com/documents/ConsumerSolarGuide.pdf

Like other notable solar states, Connecticut established a goal to have 20 percent of its electricity sourced from renewable energies by 2020.

Connecticut also gets credit for having within its borders the largest photovoltaic installation in New England.  In December 2007, United Natural Foods, one of the country’s largest distributors of organic and natural foods, switched on its distribution facility’s 550-kilowatt solar electric system.  The photovoltaic array is expected to generate 600,000 kilowatt hours of electricity each year for the facility to help offset its substantial energy needs. 

At another United Natural Foods facility in Rocklin, California, the 7,000 panel PV array on its 4-acre distribution center powers the facility’s freezers and coolers.  Because the system can fully power those cooling areas, the company expects the California PV array to pay for itself within four years.  In Connecticut, United Natural Foods executives calculate that their investment will be recouped within six to seven years.  We at Cooler Planet salute another cooler idea:).

The latest (April/May 200 Home Power magazine lists the Top Ten states offering aggressive incentives to foster solar energy.  We thought we’d devote our blog to a “state series” building from Home Power’s assessment of its top ten states focusing on solar photovoltaic and solar thermal energy.  We’ll start with the state the magazine starts with:  the golden solar State of California.

California’s nickname comes from its nineteenth century gold rush, but there is an awful lot of gold in California’s sun as well.  According to Home Power, California has, on average, 5.6 peak solar sun-hours statewide.  That’s plenty for the state to have established some of the most aggressive policies and incentives to build an infrastructure for solar energy.  In fact, California is currently the third largest market for solar power in the world (following Japan and Germany) with the potential to grow even further.  Moreover, market success in California can push these market changes into other parts of our nation.

With all that weighing in, California is stepping up to the challenge.  In 2006, California was the first state to set an aggressive initiative to place 3,000 megawatts of new, solar produced electricity systems on rooftops by 2017.  The State adopted a $3.3 billion program to grow the use of solar photovoltaic systems in both the commercial and residential sectors.  In October 2007, Governor Schwarzenegger signed another bill that sets up similar incentives for solar water heating systems.

To encourage its residents to invest in solar photovoltaic, California offers several golden incentives.  The State will pay up to $2.50 per watt for solar power systems that are smaller than 100 kW, or a payment based on expected performance.  For solar power systems greater than 100 kW in size, California offers homeowners a monthly rebate of 39-cents per kWh generated over a 5-year period. 

The State law also allows residents to tap into other ongoing incentives.  In California, solar photovoltaic systems that are up to 1-megawatt in size can take advantage of net metering, allowing a resident to carry forward credit for any excess energy their system generated for up to one year.

In addition to the State initiatives, many California utilities and local jurisdictions offer rebates or other financial incentives to residents who invest in solar power systems.  For example, Marin County offers its residents in unincorporated areas rebates not only on solar photovoltaic and solar thermal, but also on solar pool systems.  Nearby, the city of Berkeley adopted a plan in late 2007 that allows property owners who purchase solar electric or thermal systems to forgo upfront costs and instead payoff their investment through their property taxes.

New initiatives focused on solar continue to arise.  A bill currently floating in the State Legislature, AB 1920, would further streamline incentives and help speed up investment into solar energy so that California can truly meet its Million Solar Roofs goal.   
 

A public opinion survey published last week in Florida indicates that residents overwhelmingly support State-backed initiatives to invest in solar energy, even if it increases their monthly utility bills.  Over 81 percent of the survey’s 625 respondents said that they are willing to pay a dollar more on their monthly utility bills to support the investment in solar energy.  The survey, commissioned by the state, was conducted after high consumer demand depleted the state’s solar rebate program fund six months earlier than anticipated.

Floridians are not alone in their enthusiasm for solar power.  According to the 2008 March/April edition of Solar Today, a publication from the American Solar Energy Society, public opinion polls regarding alternative energy often rank solar energy at the top of the list as the most viable alternative energy source. 

As a precursor to California’s aggressive “Million Solar Roofs” initiative, the state polled voters in 2004.  Survey results indicated that respondents favored developing more renewable energy sources over building more power plants by a two to one margin.  And an article published last July in the New York Times reported that a survey conducted by a trade association from the nuclear power industry found that its respondents preferred — solar.  According to the Times article, the nationwide survey asked respondents to predict what source of energy would be used to generate the most electricity in 15 years.  The sun won, gaining 27 percent of respondents’ votes over other energy sources such as nuclear, natural gas, and coal.  

So perhaps solar energy will soon draw singular attention in Congress?  The public certainly has become more aware of energy tradeoffs:  gas prices are impacting people’s household budgets; electricity rates are increasing; and weather patterns have become more erratic.  The media and pundits continually remind us that climate change looms and is a partial cause of the recent economic and weather chaos.  Though solar energy may never fulfill all our energy demands, it most certainly can contribute to moving us toward a viable mix of alternatives.