Million Solar Roofs Bill Resurrected (California)

[jpak]

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/home

The California Solar Initiative (CSI), adopted this past January by the California Public Utilities Commission, was widely considered a major victory for supporters of solar energy in California and beyond. It secured a long-term solar rebate plan for California funded at $3.2 billion dollars. But the solar roller coaster ride isn't entirely over as the Million Solar Roofs bill, SB1, was recently resurrected by state lawmakers to address some items left unattended by the CSI.

By a vote of 6 to 1, the SB1 was approved by the State Assembly Utilities Committee. It includes provisions solar supporters say are critical to allow solar to move forward in the state. The CSI, passed earlier this year, delivered the major items solar proponents struggled for years to secure; it provided an 11-year rebate structure and the funds to back it up. But it didn't address some other important items, particularly an expansion of the state's net-metering cap. These items build upon the CSI but can only be adopted by the state legislature.

The newly resurrected SB1 would raise the net-metering cap from one-half of 1 percent to 2.5 percent. The bill will also mandate that some or all new homes come equipped with solar panels as a standard option. Lastly, it would require the state's municipally run utilities to adopt their own solar rebate programs.

All three components could encounter some friction from the host of special interests with a stake in electricity generation and transmission, solar energy and labor. Bernadette Del Chiaro, clean energy advocate for Environment California and sponsor of SB1, expects a similar labor interest component to play a part in this bill's progress -- or its challenges. Since the long-term rebate structure and its funding were approved by the PUC with the CSI, Del Chiaro doesn't expect the same level of acrimony that dogged the bill in legislative sessions past. But she does expect some resistance to the mandate of solar on new homes with the fact that SB1 doesn't contain provisions for solar installations to be done under so-called prevailing wages.


<more>

[slackmaster]

1. Tagged for interest

n/t

[klook]

2. Net-metering cap - info

I read the phrase "net-metering cap" in this article and didn't know what it meant, so I looked it up. According to this reference, net metering is what allows you to "sell" excess power back to the power company. Actually, it's more like getting a credit.

For example, if your solar cells generate more power during the day than you use, your electric meter runs backwards, giving you a credit. Then at night, when you're using electricity but not generating your own power, the meter runs in the normal direction.

So you feed the grid when you have excess capacity and take from it when you're not producing. In other words, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." What a concept.

So I guess a "net-metering cap" would place a limit on the amount of power you can feed back into the grid, or at least that you can get credit for. Is that correct? If so, I imaging the power cos. would be in favor of as low a cap as possible.

I am definitely interested in this subject, so I hope others will contribute to this discussion.

[kestrel91316]

3. I think Maria and the kids probably hound Ahnold relentlessly

about the environment and this sort of thing. He doesn't personally give a rip, IMHO, but he has to deal with family pressure (thank god!).

[klook]

4. Also, Calif. has a lot of environmentally aware voters

and the Gropenator is up for re-election in 2006.

[Dogmudgeon]

5. Well, you never know

Arnold isn't a 100% neo-Con -- he's a tool.

Not that you Californians should tolerate him in Sac'to a minute more than you have to, but he's a remarkably inconsistent politician. Of course, when you're in it for ego, things like careful intellectual development of a philosophy of government come second.

--p!

[NNadir]

6. Renewable energy is a force in California.

Renewables provides 31% of the state's electrical energy.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/state_profile/rsp_ca_table1.html

The breakdown of how it does this is as follows:



As is always the case, renewables are dominated in California by hydroelectric, but geothermal is very respectable, as is wind.

There are still plenty of unexploited geothermal resources. Geothermal of course is wonderful, inasmuch as it is one of the few renewable sources that can be continuous.

Solar energy is a minor player in California, as it is on the rest of the planet, and it will be interesting to see if this bill, if passed, actually produces many solar roofs. My guess is that it won't do so, but if it does, mazeltov. There is plenty of natural gas capacity in California that should be driven out of business.

[jpak]

7. It's a 3.2 BILLION dollar program and it's already been approved

The program is currently WAY over subscribed for this year, so yeah, it should "actually produces many solar roofs"...

[Dead_Parrot]

8. $3.2 Billion?

You could get a decent-sized french nuke plant for that. It'd work at night, too...

:evilgrin: Couldn't resist. :)

[jpak]

10. Yes, CA could IMPORT a french nuke - and the U to fuel it as well

(the US imports >66% of the U used by nuclear power plants each year)...

Then spend billions more to decommission it and dispose of the spent fuel (in someone else's back yard).

The owners of the plant could then charge ratepayers whatever price the CAPUC will let them charge for the electricity produced (note: there is no homeowner payback period for a nuclear power plant - every day is PAYDAY).

Instead, hundreds of thousands of California homeowners will get at rebate (funded by a ~$12 per residential customer per year surcharge on electricity) on PV systems THEY purchased and receive a federal tax credit on taxes THEY paid.

Their electric bills will be significantly reduced (up to 100% or more on an annual basis).

Demand for fossil fuel-derived electricity will be significantly reduced as well - as will CO2 emissions.

Tens of thousands of new jobs will be created by CSI - many times more than would be created by a new nuclear power plant (in Germany, there are 300,000 jobs in the renewable energy sector - only 30,000 in the nuclear power industry).

A new french nuke just doesn't seem like a good idea when everything is factored into the equation...

(couldn't resist).

[NNadir]

11. The best investment, bang for buck, in California is probably not nuclear

nor solar (which is a lousy bang for the buck in most places).

California has huge under exploited geothermal resources.

This form of energy already provides near 6% of California's electricity.

A caveat is that water is required, but I'm sure it can be recycled.

Just because nuclear in general is the best form of energy in most places, doesn't mean it is the best in all places.

The use of California's geothermal resources will make it easier to install nuclear power plants where they are more desperately needed, like the Northeast US, for instance, where I live.

If I was going to spend 3.2 billion dollars (and let's be clear - probably no one will) on energy in California, I'd build geothermal capacity.

[Dead_Parrot]

12. I know, I just couldn't help myself...

Given that CA is quite rugged in places, I'd be more inclined to bite the bullet and go for hydro - you could get a lot of watts for $3.6B, if you pick the right spot/s.

I don't think it would cover your Salton idea, though. :(

AFAIK, geothermal is fairly closed-system with respect to water (or can be - I guess it depends on the design) so I'd agree there's a lot of scope for development there also.

[NNadir]

13. I guesstimated my Salton Sea idea at 10-20 billion.

I don't think that would be too much, since the system would keep giving renewable energy almost indefinitely.

In any case, it's not going to happen.

The Salton Sea is going to have an outlet to the sea, and very shortly, because when the sea level rises a couple of meters further, the Gulf of Baja is going to get a bit longer and end up lapping near Lancaster.

[Dead_Parrot]

14. ~10 meters should do it...

...just before that beach condo in Arizona pays off. :)

[NNadir]

15. Hmmm. Here's an opportunity for PhantomPower.

[NNadir]

9. 3.2 billion dollars doesn't buy much energy in the solar business.

No one would object if this grand scheme comes off, but all we've heard is lots and lots and lots and lots of talk.

Solar energy is still about 1% of the renewable business in California, the Sunshine State. If it manages to equal wind, no one will object.

On the other hand, I really don't get very enthusiastic about promises.

I lived in California for 15 years, on and off, and moved out in 1993. I was hearing the same shit there when I lived there. In fact I was hearing the same shit when I moved there the first time. That would be 1974, almost 30 years ago. I was hearing it when I left, 13 years ago.

I don't live there any more, but still somehow I'm hearing it.

Decades later, California however, doesn't actually produce much solar energy, and it still burns a shit load of fossil fuel to create electricity.

I note that at the solar buzz prices given today, www.solarbuzz.com, ($0.2156/kw-hr), 3.2 billion dollars would only buy 0.052 exajoules of electricity. It would replace 3 average sized natural gas plants, but the replacement of any natural gas plant is a good thing, so again, if it actually produces anything, mazeltov.