San Francisco Solar Energy Incentive Program Info

Solar-power advocates are frustrated that San Francisco politics have so far stalled a modest investment of public money in a solar panel program as the city continues to fall behind others in California in its use of sun energy.On Tuesday, a Board of Supervisors committee delayed for at least three weeks a vote to use $3 million from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to provide grants to businesses and residents who install solar panels.The committee also did not vote on a broader measure that would extend the one-year pilot program for 10 years. That decadelong proposal did not specify how much public money would be spent over the life of the program.Some supervisors are suspicious of a plan to give taxpayer dollars to private citizens and companies that might otherwise be able to afford solar panels. They also have questioned why they were not consulted on the details of the proposal sooner.

“This is unfortunate that this tiny little program is being held up because there is an urgency with climate change and the city is losing its chance to lead in solar energy,” said Claudia Eyzaguirre, a representative of Vote Solar, which pushes for increased solar energy use. “Everyone on the Board of Supervisors supports solar power. It’s too bad politics is slowing it down.”

Other local environmental and policy groups have expressed support for the city grant program, including the Sierra Club, the Neighborhood Parks Council and the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights.

Tuesday’s delay followed a hearing two weeks ago at the board’s budget and finance committee that also ended without a vote on the proposed program. Supervisors, who control the utility commission’s budget, expressed several concerns then about the solar subsidy program, including questions about giving public money to homeowners and business owners. They also questioned why the program would offer residents in some areas of the city larger grants.

Members of the committee added more issues Tuesday, including concerns that low-income housing was not a focus of the program. Supervisor Jake McGoldrick also questioned why the board had not been consulted on the plan until it came to them for a vote.

“This whole thing has been very fast-tracked and we are the traffic cops over the spending of money by city agencies. … I believe this needs more discussion,” said McGoldrick, the budget committee chairman.

More than a year ago, city Assessor-Recorder Phil Ting assembled a task force of solar power proponents. They proposed giving grants from $3,000 t0 $10,000 to property owners and business owners interested in installing solar panels.

City Hall insiders say some supervisors who have supported environmental initiatives resent that Ting, who is an ally of Mayor Gavin Newsom and whose office has no responsibility for environmental policies, has pushed for the new programs. Ting’s name is often included on lists of who might run for mayor when Newsom’s second term ends in 2012.

Ting said he is disappointed that the supervisors have not approved the proposal, but said he believes it is good to get their input.

The average cost of installing solar panels on a single-family home is about $20,000 and proponents believe city grants could supplement existing state and federal incentives.

A study by the Northern California Solar Energy Association shows that San Francisco ranks last out of ten Northern California counties for per-capita solar installations.

The utilities commission had hoped to launch the program on April 1 but was delayed by the board hearings.

E-mail Robert Selna at rselna@sfchronicle.com.

I don’t have any major objections to this article. “A study by the Northern California Solar Energy Association shows that San Francisco ranks last out of ten Northern California counties for per-capita solar installations.” this is true, but it’s missing something…

The PUC provided some pretty bomb answers to this, which will probably never be explained in the media. We will perpetually be perceived as sucking on renewable energy for some nebulous reason, but here are the real ones:

Why are there so few solar installations in San Francisco relative to other Bay Area counties?

Fog is not the culprit. San Francisco’s solar régime is almost as good as Sacramento’s on an average basis. San Francisco presents a few impediments to installing solar, one being the relatively high cost of doing business within the city and another being somewhat more challenging physical access to rooftops in many instances.

One of the greatest barriers to the development of rooftop solar within San Francisco is its high rental percentage. A residential tenant, although often the customer of record associated with a meter, does not have a strong incentive to install solar power—no matter how much they may support it in principle—because they do not own the building. Landlords have few incentives to install solar power because it is tenants who pay the bulk of the electricity costs, and the common areas of rented buildings typically have little electrical load. However, the SEIP might provide tenants with leverage because an incentive is available for each and every meter within a building.
For example, a 3-kW system, which probably would be adequate for a four-unit apartment building, would cost around $30,000 before rebates, perhaps a little more if a supplemental whole-building meter were required to meet the requirements of the CSI, or if power from the system were routed to more than one inverter. Conservatively, assume the gross cost to be the total cost for a 3 kW photovoltaic system is $34,000. CSI rebates would be $6600 and the federal tax credit would be $2000, assuming a single inverter for the system. Without the San Francisco incentive, the net cost, then, would be $25,400, which the landlord would have to pay. Their only way to recoup this cost from sitting tenants would be to increase their rent, which would be possible only with a tenant’s agreement. Tenants might agree to this knowing their PG&E bill would diminish by a corresponding amount, or if they planned to remain in the same place for a long period; however, the more apartments in a building, the less the likelihood of unanimity among the tenants.
The San Francisco incentive would pay a minimum of $3000 per meter, which equates to $15,000 for the five meters in a four-unit apartment building. Now the net cost of the system is $10,400. At this price, some of the more forward-thinking landlords might be motivated to do solar purely on the basis of its adding to the value of a property. The most likely scenarios in which landlords may take advantage of the SEIP are while renovating a property for rent or for properties that have high turnover.

Get the Word Out