CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Berkeley leads the way to clean energy viability
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Berkeley leads the way to clean energy viability

post #1 of 11
Thread Starter 
Every city should do this.

Quote:
Something New Under the Sun

Berkeley's innovative new plan for putting solar power in all of the city's homes and businesses offers a vivid illustration of progressive government in action.


Paul Waldman | November 7, 2007 | web only


We sometimes think of local governments in strongly progressive communities as ineffective nearly to the point of being comical. While potholes go unfilled, the collection of aging hippies on the town council debates passionately how they're going to respond to the crises in Darfur or Burma, and whether the town should retain a chakra consultant. This is a caricature, sure, but it contains more than a little truth.

But the city council of Berkeley, California -- where run-of-the-mill leftists are considered positively conservative -- just did something extraordinary. Under a plan they unanimously approved yesterday, Berkeley will become the first city in the country to pay to install a solar power system for any homeowner or business who wants it. In the process, the city is demonstrating how creative thinking and public-private partnerships can offer benefits to citizens, business, and the environment that the free market simply can't accomplish on its own.

Given ever-increasing concern about global warming, and the fact that most of our nation's electricity comes from burning coal, one might have thought that Americans would be installing solar arrays on their houses from coast to coast, particularly in places like Berkeley where environmental consciousness is high. The problem, of course, is the up-front investment. Putting a solar system on your house can cost $20,000 or more, and it will take a decade or two to get your money back with the savings on your electrical bills. Faced with that hurdle, millions upon millions of people who would love to have their homes powered by the sun will never do so.

Some states have tried to offer inducements to get homeowners to convert their houses to solar power. According to the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, there are 16 (mostly blue) states that provide rebates for homeowners who install solar systems. For example, California has one of the more generous state rebate programs, giving homeowners $2.50 per watt the system produces or, according to the state, about 30 percent of a typical residential installation. So on a $20,000 system, you'd still have to come up with $14,000 to go solar.

Which means that the only way for most people to install a solar system would be to take out a home equity loan. But that means a large debt on top of your mortgage, and if you sell the house, you'll have to pay it all back.

These are the problems that the Berkeley program solves, by relieving homeowners and businesses of the risk and financial burden of the up-front cost. Here's the San Francisco Chronicle's description of how the program would work:

A property owner would hire a city-approved solar installer, who would determine the best solar system for the property, depending on energy use. Most residential solar panel systems in the city cost from $15,000 to $20,000.

The city would pay the contractor for the system and its installation, minus any applicable state and federal rebates, and would add an assessment to the property owner's tax bill to pay for the system.

The extra tax would include administrative fees and interest, which would be lower than what the property owner could obtain on his own, because the city would secure low-interest bonds and loans, officials say. The tax would stay with the property even if the owner sold, although the owner would have to leave the solar panels.

The property owner would save money on monthly Pacific Gas & Electric bill because electricity generated by the solar panels would partly replace electricity delivered by the utility. After the assessment expired, the solar panels - of a simple technology that requires little or no maintenance - would continue to partly replace PG&E electricity.

In two important ways, this is a better deal than paying for a system with a home equity loan. First, as the Chronicle says, the costs to the homeowner on their tax bill will be lower with the city's program than loan payments would. Second, if you have a home equity loan and sell the home, you're still responsible for paying back the loan. With the Berkeley program, the panels stay with the house, as does the tax assessment, and you don't have to pay anything. This solves another disincentive to buying a solar array: if you aren't sure you'll own your current home long enough to recoup the cost via savings on electricity, it doesn't make much sense to make the investment. But with the Berkeley program, the only extra cost a homeowner has incurred is the monthly tax assessment, minus the electrical savings. You could put up a solar array, sell your house a year later, and probably come out ahead on the deal given the increase in the value of a greener house.

And how much would the cost be? Todd Woody, an editor at Fortune magazine who maintains the environmental blog Green Wombat, was told by the Berkeley mayor's staff that the tax assessment for a $15,000 solar array would be around $1300 a year, or just over $100 a month. When you consider that as a part of local taxes, the assessment would be deductible from federal income taxes, and that the solar array would significantly reduce homeowners' electricity bills -- in some cases down to near zero -- it will wind up costing each homeowner only a tiny amount.

It's a terrific deal all around. Homeowners benefit with increased property values, the solar manufacturing and installation industries benefit with new customers, and the environment benefits with less burning of fossil fuel.
More here.
post #2 of 11
Wow. I hate my city officials and the idiots who vote for them even more now.
post #3 of 11
How long does it take for that tax assessment to expire though? If it's a significant amount of time, I don't see how solar panels are going to increase the value of a home, since it's actually costing the homeowner more in taxes then they'd be saving in energy bills, and that financial burden will be transferred to any potential buyers. Until the tax wears off, there's no financial benefit to having the panels, and add the fact that they're probably an eyesore, if anything I'd expect them to decrease the value of your home in the short term.

I'm all for solar power, but let's please wait and see if this program actually works before fellating the entire Berkeley city council.
post #4 of 11
This isnt meant as an attack on Kevin K.

His response just reminded me of a serious problem with all these private environment-protection measurements: They cost money.
Somehow, people really seem to think about it, and seem to only accept such stuff if the financial or social (reputation, fame etc.) advantages outweigh those of their current lifestyle.
Wake up, guys. You cannot try to save energy by saving money as well! This entire "but it reduces the worth in the eyes of a potential buyer" is something I can understand, as in the end its the usual stance today that everyone has to look after their own money.
But that way, not much is going to change. Massive enviroment-friendly changes to homes, factories, anything in the USA (or anywhere else) is costly, and money doesnt come out of thin air (well, at least under normal administrations it doesnt) so someone has to pay. Either its higher taxes, or drawing money from other projects, or its the private person who is having to pay..... these things wont come for free.

If one approaches them with the usual conservative-egoistic approach thats commonly used where you put your personal financial interests at Spot Nr.1 of your agenda, they arent going to work. And yes, I am guilty of doing that too at times. Unfortunately, lots of us, probably all of us will have to make some sacrifices in the coming decades unless there's some magic bullet solution creeping up one day.

I am not entirely convinced to what extent we are all living off borrowed time before climate changes, oil shortages and whatnot occur, but currently the western world is living on the fast and cheap lane with oil and energy being produced by fossil energies. That cheap lane isnt going to get cheaper, its going to get much more expensive soon.

Summary: You cant expect to have financial advantages and a rise of value immediately from these things. They arent made to save you money.
post #5 of 11
Something tells me the residents of Berkeley aren't going to be moving anytime soon. Plus, the cells are an optional thing, no one is being forced to get them. I'd wager money that those who do opt for it will be well aware of the short term financial hit, both to resale and a spike in charges, but will be perfectly fine with it.

If it hits, it can happen elsewhere, especially those sunny places I keep hearing exist...
post #6 of 11
I think that this is a fantastic idea--I wish that there was something like this available where I live. I can't see anything negative about the monthly assessment--I'd gladly pay $100 every month for the hardware and to also cut my electricity bill down to just about nothing. In those terms, I don't think that a potential buyer would be discouraged by the added assessment either, once he understood that he'd be saving on his utility bill (plus he could sell back unused power, get a state or fed tax break, etc.).

More importantly, it shows that the community is behind the the idea (at least enough to avoid recalling everybody on the City Council)--and I think that this is the real issue. Perceptions are important. I'm afraid that many homeowners would suffer from the perception that the solar power system is just plain unsightly. By law, my city prohibits any neighborhood from discouraging a homeowner from installing a system (although they can tell you that you can't plant certain flowers or use certain kinds of outdoor pots--in fact, they regulate just about everything else). The area is pretty affluent too. But there just aren't any solar houses at all. My realtor friend tells me that everybody thinks that they're ugly, and they don't want to discourage potential buyers when everybody else is working to make their house attractive (rather than functional). So, rather than making a sensible investment, they continue to feed money into the utility companies.

If your town has a program like Berkeley's, you can be sure that there is a big enough population of people who feel comfortable with a green house. When it comes time to sell, there will be potential buyers who appreciate what you're trying to do--not only will they take on the tax (which I don't think is a big deal at all), but they'll take on the look. I would love to be able to take advantage of a program that would subsidize me--and my neighbors--going solar. And, as green as I'd like to think that i am, I'd like to feel confident that I won't be making it harder to sell my house if I wind up moving. After all, in today's world, this is where most of my savings are tied up.
post #7 of 11
Thread Starter 
Excellent point. During Roosevelt's time and certainly in the early days of the republic, we were a "we society." Somehow since Reagan we have become the "me society" and it's really at our peril.
post #8 of 11
We've decided not to move and to try and do what we can to "green" up our house, although I'm sure we have potential HOA battles looming. Some changes we're going to attempt:

* Solar panels -- We have to get a building permit for this, we already know.

* Rainwater runoff tank(s) + Full house water filter -- this will include a manual switch that will enable us to switch to the rainwater tank vs. using city water. And living in Ga., that's awfully important right now.

* Tankless water heater

* Energy review by a "green" agency. One thing they said we could do is completely spray the inside of the attic, and he said it would bring our attic temperature down to room temperature year-round. There are drawbacks, though.

I think that's bulk of it, for now.
post #9 of 11
Makes me wish I had access to a blue sky to install solar panels. We live in a wildly woody area. Cuts down on cooling costs in the summer, though!
post #10 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martianman
* Energy review by a "green" agency. One thing they said we could do is completely spray the inside of the attic, and he said it would bring our attic temperature down to room temperature year-round. There are drawbacks, though.
Spray it with what, exactly?
post #11 of 11
As I live in a country with a huge amount of sunlight all year round, the lack of incentives for installing solar panels infuriates me. I would install them without a second thought if they weren't so prohibitively expensive.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Berkeley leads the way to clean energy viability