Schwarzenegger's Solar Plan Generating Opposition (utility surcharge)

[DeepModem Mom]

LAT:
Governor's Solar Plan Is Generating Opposition
A spending proposal to increase home and business usage is meeting resistance from utilities, consumer groups and others.

By Marc Lifsher, Times Staff Writer


SACRAMENTO — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to spend billions of dollars to put electricity-producing solar panels on a million California rooftops could be running into stormy weather.

For the second year running, the governor is sponsoring legislation that would put photovoltaic solar systems at the head of the line for the bulk of state alternative energy funding.

For Schwarzenegger and his backers in the environmental community and the solar industry, a massive push to use abundant "free power" from the sun is an easy call....

***

But the bill, despite such high-profile backing and a bipartisan 30-5 vote in the state Senate, is facing potential difficulties in the Assembly. Opposition from business lobbies, utilities, unions and even consumer groups is setting the stage for what could be a close vote. The first hint of how the bill will fare in the Assembly is expected to come today when it faces its first hearing in the Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee.

Most of the complaints about the governor's solar program center on its estimated 10-year, $2-billion-to-$3-billion price tag. Much of that would be paid by power users in the form of surcharges imposed by the California Public Utilities Commission....


http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-solar27jun27,0,3248023.story?coll=la-home-business

[waynew706]

1. At this point in time...

there is'nt anything that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger could do that would be viewed as positive. He is a Republican and that says it all.

[dArKeR]

2. How could a political "GOP Slush Fund" lumped into a surcharge be

positive?

[Javaman]

3. Wow, his ineptitude is beyond belief...

Instead of midus, he should be myass, everything he touches turns to shit.

[DeepModem Mom]

4. Later a.m. kick for comment or insight from the Coast --

[XemaSab]

5. This is long overdue

I dunno how the people of the state can be such damn cheapskates.

Everything is falling to shit, we have blackouts, the schools are useless, and people bitch and bitch but don't want to actually DO anything about it because that would involve money.

Here's an idea, how about instead of installing PV cells, we build another dam on the San Joaquin river?

Wow, that's a great idea! Cheap and environmentally firendly.... NOT!

[Gormy Cuss]

7. Promoting PV cells in this sunny state makes sense but

Who benefits from Schwarzenegger's proposal? While we're paying the surcharge, who's getting rich? That's the question I'd like answered first. Dollars to donuts this initiative has little to do with reducing the state's electric demand or lower consumer cost in the long run.

I'd go off grid entirely if the payback period for solar retrofit made sense, but it doesn't. Between solar and small, bird-friendly wind generation I know that it would work here but the payback period would be close to twenty years. It needs to be about five years to be workable.

[XemaSab]

8. Just because something will take a long time

before we see the benefits, doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

If you plant a redwood tree, it'll be 100 years before the tree is big, and 1,000 years before the tree is "old growth," but though we will not see the tree become even "big" in our lifetime doesn't mean we shouldn't plant trees.

Similarly, if we start converting the state's electricity to even part PV now, when, say, natural gas or coal become nonviable technologies, the extant PV cells will cushion the blow. Coal and natural gas are not expected to run out for a long time, but if we plan for that now, it'll be ok when it happens.

I agree that Arnold's an asshole and this smacks of greenwashing, but it's better than nothing, which is what we got now.

Personally, I'd like to see a requirement that all new houses built in California should be PV friendly, so you just have to plug the panels into the wiring and you're golden. But the development lobby are all republican assholes and they would never go for it.

[Gormy Cuss]

14. I agree in taking the long view on state policy

My point was that as a ratepayer, the incentives aren't there to make this work. Believe me, I run the numbers every few years. I always put environmental friendliness into the equation for household purchases. I've paid more for every appliance I've replaced in order to buy more efficiency. A five year payback period, and I'm in.

It would be great to have incentives for PV-friendly new housing but better to have strong incentives for retrofitting existing stock. Personally, I'd like to see disincentives for production of energy-hogging McMansions but as you said, the developers are Repubs so that wouldn't fly.

[XemaSab]

17. There's nothing wrong with

most McMansions that a wall of flames 200 feet high wouldn't fix.

Except for the coastal McMansions. There's nothing wrong with them that a wall of water 200 feet high wouldn't fix.

I'd like to see every new house produce more energy than it consumes. That's what I'd like to see.

[Gormy Cuss]

20. I like your thinking n/t

[jpak]

9. This proposal originated under Davis not Ahhnold

Who would get rich???

A lot of small solar businesses and thousands of workers that produce and install these systems.

It would most certainly reduce demand for expensive peak power and lower everyone's electric bill.

Under the proposed CA rebate plan, residential PV systems would pay for themselves rather quickly. The payback period will also decrease as natural gas prices (and electricity prices) increase.

Similar programs in Japan and Germany have been wildly popular.

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/2004/indicator12_print.htm

The Japanese 10,000 Roof program (which became the 70,000 Roof Program), reduced the cost of residential PV to 15 cents per kWh as compared to 21 cents per kWh for electricity from the grid. The 70,000 Roof program resulted in >140,000 residential PV installations.

Japan also became the world leader in PV module production - leaving the US PV industry in the dust.

This is a good bill and nothing but good will come of it...

[Gormy Cuss]

12. Think organic food.

As soon as it became fashionable, the little hard working producers were pushed out of the big profits by mega agribusinesses. The term 'organic' was redefined to suit those big businesses. In a state this size with the enormous market potential, the existing energy companies screwing us now will suddenly be in the solar business. The small producers will be squeezed out.

I would like to believe that this is the real deal, but Davis was in the pocket of big business too. I am ready and willing to adopt PV but as I said before, the economics don't make sense. Placing the burden on the ratepayers strikes me as a clever way of making us subsidize the big energy companies.

[jpak]

16. and the alternative is what????

not Big Business???? (coal, natural gas, nuclear)

makes Economic Sense???? (again coal, natural gas, nuclear)

is Environmentally Friendly???? (once more, coal, natural gas, nuclear)

This bill had enormous bipartisan support in the CA Senate.

If it did not pass because some folks "hate Arrnold", it would be more than tragic, it would be downright stupid.

Finally, a house equipped with a PV array and a solar hot water heater on its roof (and a lot of insulation under the roof as well) would indeed be a Castle - and no one, not Enron, not nobody, could fuck with your energy future...

[Gormy Cuss]

19. I'm in for the castle. I am wary of creating more well-intended bad policy

Prop 13. The bottle bill. Indian gaming. I could go on. All have merit in theory but are severely flawed in practice. Prop. 13 inheritance rights, for one example. The bottle bill's lack of a point-of-purchase redemption strategy for another. On the topic of energy, our special formula gasoline is always used as an excuse for our high prices. Those of us in the Bay Area live in the shadow of the refineries and pay more for gas. Nice trick.

I don't think it should be defeated on a hate Arnold basis either, but speaking of stupid, apparently a lot of people in this state thought Arnold was the best of the pack in the recall. First and foremost, the alternative is limiting consumption. That means encouraging denser development with walkable communities. It also means living in smaller spaces with fewer geegaws. Frankly, promoting solar simply as an alternative doesn't address this. Most consumers react only when it hits the pocketbook. Raise electricity prices by 200% and watch owners line up for solar (and no, I'm not advocating as public policy because it would be regressive. I'm just saying that would get more attention from consumers.)

[jpak]

23. And how is this "well intended bad policy"???

off topic - but I see nothing wrong with CA's bottle bill.

I'm originally from Maine - which passed its Bottle Bill back in 1976.

There was no provision for point-of-purchase redemption and it program has worked famously for nearly 30 years.

There are now literally thousands of small redemption centers across the state that provide income to their proprietors. No one complains about the program.

No one.

So I don't see how this is a "bad thing"...

[Gormy Cuss]

24. Mainiac here too

As I recall Maine has incentives for stores to redeem as well as stand-alone redemption. I recall redeeming at supermarkets. Is that no longer the case? As a largely rural state with a population with a tradition of small business ownership for self-sufficiency, it's not comparable. Most of the more urbanized states use point-of-purchase redemption strategies (Mass, Michigan, CT, NY, maybe others) and are wildly more successful than CA. Even with the recently increased deposit amounts and incentives to increase redemption locations, the closest redemption center is a mile out of my way and open only during the day. California enjoys one of the lowest overall redemption rates. Point-of-purchase works.

[jpak]

29. "Gormy" shoulda tipped me off

:hi:

Thanks for the clarification.

Most supermarkets and convenience stores in Maine don't take redemptions anymore - I always use redemption centers when I'm home. I've never considered it an inconvenience, and quite mystified why others would.

Different strokes....etc....

Are sure you're just a gormy "cuss"

:evilgrin:

[Gormy Cuss]

30. I did wondered if you caught that....

;)

I thank my lucky stars for being raised in a place where community responsibility is still valued so highly and where friendly disagreement never creates enemies.

[jpak]

31. As Maine goes....etc

Dirigo

:)

[rlc]

25. Big business != Bad Legislation

Any new industry can (and will) eventually be taken over by large industry when it develops.

If you are you going to be against any legislation that creates industry because the industry may become a large business or be taken over by a large business there will be no new industry.

In order to survive with ever declining oil supplies the US needs to have a vibrant alternative energy market. Fostering growth in this sector is vital to long term survival. The other answer is the one the current administration takes; fight tooth and nail over the remaining oil reserves.

Also solar panels are much better than they used to be and can easily last 20 years. A 10 year payback is a good investment in this.

[Gormy Cuss]

28. Well, yes

It was in reply to the other poster who suggested small solar producers would benefit. I was merely stating the same point you made, that big industry would benefit. That isn't my reason for being wary about this legislation.

I am in favor of alternative energy but I'm more in favor of reduced consumption as the short term fix and incentives for large users to convert rather than placing the burden on all end users. When the cost of fossil fuels exceeds the cost of alternative energies, the switch will be made. The Oil Embargo in the early 70s lead the way for wide scale adoption of more fuel efficient cars. Based on the '90s trend to prefer vehicles that are far less efficient, I'd have to say gasoline was cheap enough during that period for people to justify the luxury. The recent resurgence in interest for hybrids and smaller cars is probably linkable to income insecurities and rising gas prices. If solar was a good deal now businesses would have adopted it already on a broad scale.

If solar panels are good for only 20 years, the payback had better be 10 years or less or it won't be attractive to most consumers. Broad scale use of solar would presumably provide incentives to improve the technology even more.

Welcome to DU.

[DeepModem Mom]

33. Hi, ric -- welcome to DU!

[sendero]

13. I've poked around on the net..

... trying to understand this bill and the opposition.

My respect for Schwarzeneggar is as low as anyone's but for the life of me I don't see a downside in this legislation.

We're talking about a $3 per year surcharge on Californian's electric bills. The potential cost reductions dwarf it.

Sometimes even a bad politician has a good idea. I'm sorry to see Californians throw this away, because it sure looks like a good plan to me.

[CAcyclist]

6. I Don't Trust Him

It's not the surcharge- that I could accept- but he has lied and lied and lied to us so much that I think there is probably much more wrong with this bill if industry supports it.

So I am opposed to it.

[jpak]

18. The solar industry supports it

and this is a bad thing???

[cosmicdot]

27. who makes up the solar industry?

some of us may not know (like me)

on the surface, of course, I suspect they would

[jpak]

32. Here's some CA links

http://www.calseia.org/

and a list of CA solar companies...

http://www.calseia.org/find_contractor.htm

http://www.norcalsolar.org/biz_members_list/busmembers.php

To be sure, there are the Big Boys like Siemens, BP Solar, Kyocera et al., in there too, but they will have to compete with the locals for their share of the biz...

[gratuitous]

10. It shows that when you're a power-mad crook

Even a good idea goes down the tubes because no one trusts you.

[rocktivity]

11. I know where you can get a quck 3 billion dollars, Arnie

get the entire court settlement from Enron that you left on the table!



:headbang:
rocknation

[goclark]

15. You got that right! The scum

[Shakespeare]

21. This is a GOOD THING. I hope it passes.

The fact that he's getting so much friction from state dems is something Ahnold has brought on himself, but I hope everyone's able to swallow the understandable acrimony and get this one passed anyway.

[olddad56]

22. Didn't Arnold's pal, Warren Buffet recently make a huge investment ...

in a west coast energy company?

[cosmicdot]

26. appears to be the case (PacificCorp)

good advice in such sayings as caveat emptor/buyer beware, follow the money, and who benefits ... especially in these Corpo-ran times ...

people have a good reason to be skeptical imo when Corporate-owned Ahhhnold 'sells' something ... he's a distributor for Bush&Co. & Friends

PacifiCorp operates as Pacific Power in Oregon, Washington, Wyoming and California; and as Utah Power in Utah and Idaho. The company merged with ScottishPower in 1999 http://www.pacificorp.com/

May 24

Buffett Makes $5.1 Billion Bid for Power Company

"The utility reportedly needs about $5 billion over the next five years to meet the growth demands on infrastructure and distribution."

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050524/buffett_power_buy.html?.v=8

other Berkshire Hathaway energy investments:

"He was part of a special investment (via secured debt) in William Cos., an energy firm that was in trouble. And MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co., a Berkshire Hathaway company, agreed to buy Dynegy’s pipeline for $1.8 billion in cash and debt."
http://www.investorplace.com/free/ryir57.htm?ak=5JB101


some chat on Warren's investment

"Utilities are cash cows... comming out of deregulation they are fat with employees and equipment... ya buy a cash cow... milk it dry then ya sell the cow... He buys utilities... quits doing maint. for five to seven years... since they ain't doin maint. they can get rid of employees... since they don't have employees they can get rid of equipment... the current rates are based somewhat on how they used to do bussiness under regulation... so they keep collecting as if they were doing bussiness the old way... you know, doing maint. n stuff... When it gets to the point they gotta start hiring, buying equipment, and doing maint. or rebuilding the company\cow gets sold... the company that buys it goes bankrupt, the stockholder who financed it gets left holding air, tax payer dollars get used to fix the problem cause we cain't do without electricity... electricity gets re regulated... they guys who bought the cash cow N sold it stay fat."

http://www.powerlineman.com/lforum/showthread.php?t=511