San Francisco Solar Energy Incentive Program Info

In my opinion, there shouldn’t be a “Local Installer” subsidy at all. I can see where the SFPUC’s heart is at, and that they want to promote green jobs in SF. I can respect that. I still think it’s a bad idea, and it’s an opinion that is not selfishly motivated, either. Under only but the strictest language, the company I work for would easily qualify as a local solar installer. We have an office here, we pay payroll taxes, I live here, my sales partners live here, we walk to work, we’ve done dozens and dozens of solar installations in San Francisco, we installed 28 solar power systems in Bayview as part of a public purpose program, and, on top of that, I just flat out love San Francisco with all of my heart and soul (which, I admit, isn’t very legally binding). The point is, myself and my company would benefit monetarily from any “Local Installer” specific subsidy, and yet I still think it’s a bad idea…

… the bottom line is, when you goof with free market pressures through subsidizations, you are playing with fire, and people can get hurt. You have to be careful.

Imagine that, for example, that unsparing language was used to define what a local installer was. In fact, this almost happened, as it was entertained and passed as an amendment to the 10-year solar subsidy (which did not pass, so, phew!). They were going to change “local installer” to be defined as a company that has it’s “primary office” here.

Also imagine that you are a customer, and that you are intrigued by solar, but you, like most, still know very little. Perhaps you’ve read an online article about how it works, but that’s more or less it. You have heard that there is a subsidy in San Francisco, and that you can get $4000 if you pick someone local and $3000 if you pick someone non-local. Would you even lend an ear to hear what a “non-local” installer has to say? Of course not. So here is the ugly picture I want to paint for you if this 10-year version of the program had passed with such strict language:

Instead of 15 companies vying for San Francisco Solar Business, now you effectively have 2. The other 13 are left to fight over the Environmental Justice Districts. Those two remaining companies, almost immediately, develop huge pipelines of business and 9 month backlogs of install dates. As a result, they are forced to prioritize, and that means taking the bigger deals, and deals where they can get away with higher prices. Customers don’t know that there are other, now cheaper, solar installers out there with only 8 week backlogs because they are only getting quote from now duopoly of solar installers, both of which now have giant backlogs and raised prices. The customers can’t get past (and understandably so) the $1000 difference. As a result, you get less solar, on less roofs, for more money. San Francisco becomes the biggest loser, and the subsidy, while good spirited, has a resoundingly negative effect (at least in the short term) on installs in SF.

Competition is healthy. You know that radio commercial for that bank… (”When banks compete for your business, you win?”) well, when installers compete for your solar installation, you win. With an SF duopoly on solar, everyone loses. Even though I would personally benefit from a “local installer” verbage, I would prefer the subisidy to be uniform across the board.

The more businesses we have here competing for business, the quicker we can turn San Francisco into one giant distributed power plant to show the rest of the US what a progressive city can really do when it comes to renewable energy… That it is possible! That you can make a difference! I think if the US could see an example of legistlation like this WORK, you would see more of it in more cities.

-David Llorens

Get the Word Out