San Francisco Solar Energy Incentive Program Info

This happens tomorrow. Tomorrow is the day this subsidy program either vaults SF into a Country-wide leader in solar, or pile drives us, leaving us unconscious and dazed. Here is a letter I just wrote Supervisor Mirkarimi, who will, tomorrow, attempt to inject a cancerous piece of legistlation.

Hello Supervisor Mirkarimi,

I am a salesperson in the solar energy industry and maintain multiple industry relates websites (among them: www.sfsolarsubsidy.com and : www.solarpowerrocks.com). I have heard that you have alternative legislation to be heard tomorrow that would fundamentally change the pilot program, making private citizens ineligible for the subsidy, except for low-income residents. I have also heard that it will restrict the funds to non-profits and municipal locations. I’d like to make you aware of just a few things regarding this:

1. I currently have nine customers who have made a verbal commitment to go solar, but only 2 of them will do so if this pilot program does not pass as is. Many of them are well off financially. The wealthy base their solar decisions on ROI just as much as the middle class, if not more, and this subsidy is just the tipping point we need to reach a critical mass of acceptance. 9 customers, only 2 of which will move forward without the subsidy.

2. Solar doesn’t work on non-profits. The way the tax laws are written, third parties cannot swoop in there with a PPA and get the investment tax credit, which means that you have to essentially subsidize the entire thing (non profits don’t typically have budgets for this kind of thing, and $4K is unlikely to change anything). If you have to subsidize the whole installation, $3M is gone in a flash, and does very little as far as the environment is concerned.

3. Solar doesn’t work on low income housing, either, unless you subsidize the whole thing. It doesn’t matter whether you subsidize 40, 50, 90% of a project, if there is an initial cash outlay, it’s not happening. Also, to subsidize the entire project cripples the effectiveness of that $3 million dollars. This is the perfect example of the difference between the original pilot program (designed by industry experts) and the proposed modifications (designed by the supervisors). Caveats missed such as this are dangerous, and they are numerous.

4. What are your goals? Are they “get the most solar,” or “help low income families, non-profits, and governmental structures?” It’s been explained eloquently, and repeatedly, that a private sector subsidy is 6 times as effective, as far as kW’s installed. I have looked at the numbers and personally find that number to be conservative and think that the multiple is even higher. Why ignore this crucial piece of info unless your goals are not aligned with the environment, but with your that of your underprivileged constituents. If that is the case, please allow for a compromise, as the PUC offered many viable compromises, such as offering the highest level of subsidy to people that meet low-income qualifications. I think that is a wonderful compromise. To remove the subsidy from the private sector kills our industry here. It is a slap in the face after 5 months of torturous waiting.

The subsidy was designed by 11 experts from the industry to maximize bang for the buck, and that is what it does. I beg you from the bottom of my heart to leave it be. It is perfect and flawless in its design. Your proposed alternative legislation, from what I understand, renders it impotent.

Why is this alternative legislation not public? To spring it on the public with 24 hours notice, when very few people are qualified to evaluate its effectiveness (for example, who knows that PPA don’t work on non-profits? No one.) seems unfair.

Solar in San Francisco is frozen because of this. That’s 5 months of me hearing “well, let’s wait and see how this thing pans out.” I sold 5 systems in the brief 2-weeks that this had the PUC’s blessing, and guess how many I’ve sold in San Francisco since it’s been tied up? Zero. The only way to sell it is to lie about the availability of the subsidy or it’s status, which I won’t do.

Why are you doing this? This cannot possibly be what your constituents want. The people speaking on this issue at the meetings are about 30-1 in favor of the program as is. Why why why?

Moving forward with the alternative language squanders those wasted 5 months leaving us with the status quo. Probably a little worse than the status quo, as people routinely look for excuses not to invest in solar. “I would have done it if that subsidy had passed,” makes a great one.

Please don’t let that lost time be all for not. Release the reserve on the funds. Let the PUC run with their expertly designed system, or I’ll have to look for another job and another place to live. The subsidy works well, I’ve seen it. It really has that one single perfectly time and price chance to launch us into widespread acceptance. That subsidy, coupled with some ingenuity I’ve seen pilots of here in San Francisco, we could end up creating an example for the entire US.

The alternative legislation, on the other hand, I assure you…. would be looked back upon as a travesty.

-David Llorens

Get the Word Out