• On Metacritic: 25 Best Movies of 2009
June 11, 2008 6:05 PM PDT

Solar grants sweeten San Francisco for start-ups

by Elsa Wenzel
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 7 comments
San Francisco will offer up to $6,000 for homeowners installing solar panels.

San Francisco will offer up to $6,000 for homeowners installing solar panels.

(Credit: Elsa Wenzel/CNET)

Aggressive plans to expand renewable energy in San Francisco moved ahead Tuesday as the city's lawmakers approved grants to help homeowners, businesses, and nonprofits add solar panels to their buildings. Solar power companies are gearing up to meet an anticipated jump in demand in the city.

Over the next decade, between $3,000 to $6,000 will be available to each homeowner to cover the installation of solar panels, as well as $10,000 for businesses and nonprofits, and $30,000 for nonprofit affordable housing.

"This rebate program further establishes San Francisco as America's solar energy leader and symbolizes the commitment of the city to make affordable solar power available to those who want it," Mayor Gavin Newsom said in a statement.

He hopes the incentives will launch in July with some $3 million in annual funding, and touts their potential for attracting more businesses and green jobs.

However, the city has a long way to go before becoming a solar capital, regionally or nationally. The San Francisco Solar Task Force ranked the city last in the Bay Area for the number of solar installations, with panels on only 744 of 195,000 rooftops.

The subsidies would support some 50 megawatts of solar power across 10,000 buildings within a decade, if the mayor has his way. Political wrangling had delayed his planned April launch for solar incentives.

Lyndon Rive, CEO of installer SolarCity, joined others in the solar industry in praising the city's program.

"It's simple, easy to understand, and easy to implement," said Rive, who anticipates the number of solar panels to triple in San Francisco, where SolarCity is the largest solar installer, with 40 employees. It's also developing a "green" job training academy in a low-income neighborhood.

Rive noted that until now, his company's solar panel-leasing program was too pricey for the majority of San Francisco residents.

With the city incentives added to federal tax credits and state rebates, costs for a homeowner who might otherwise spend $30,000 to install solar panels would drop to near $6,000.

This map marking rooftops with solar panels is likely to get more crowded in the coming years.

This map marking rooftops with solar panels is likely to get more crowded in the coming years.

(Credit: San Francisco Solar Map)

"This is just gonna spur the industry," said Kevin Gage, sales director for San Diego-based installer Borrego Solar. "The market was essentially shut down in San Francisco. Now a lot of companies like ours are gonna move into San Francisco."

Solar installers and equipment makers are increasingly pitching their services to people seeking to escape or offset rising energy costs. San Francisco utility Pacific Gas & Electric on Tuesday announced a proposed 6.5 percent electricity price hike.

The city incentives are bright news to San Franciscan Sylvia Ventura, whose condominium has 2.5 kilowatts of rooftop photovoltaics. However, she foresees a "feeding frenzy" among solar installers and start-ups that could confuse consumers.

"This business was done for a long time in the shadows and some installers took advantage of people being intimidated by the data, not understanding metering, wattage, and what to pay," she said.

Ventura wants communities to harness collective bargaining power to further lower residential solar setup costs. She and husband, Dan Barahona, launched One Block Off the Grid, a grassroots effort aiming to coordinate additional, privately funded subsidies for enough homeowners to make up the equivalent of a city block.

They plan to secure free solar installation for the first 50 San Francisco homeowners who sign up. The list is more than half full.

Ventura and Barahona hope that high-tech companies will volunteer to provide the funds, and they're talking with banks about setting up unique financing plans. However, the fledgling effort hasn't at this point secured corporate partners.

Recent posts from Green Tech
'Google Energy' subsidiary considers clean power
Qinyuan seeks to boost electric car sales in U.S.
Kendall-Jackson to drastically cut water usage
Home energy management a hot topic at show
New GM plant to assemble Chevy Volt batteries
Whirlpool, Direct Energy assemble home energy system
Think to manufacture electric cars in Indiana
U.S. seeks agreement on Cape Cod wind project
Add a Comment (Log in or register) (7 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
by dbargen June 11, 2008 9:17 PM PDT
Funny how they can't get solar to pick up on it own. If it really saved you money or if normal people really bought into the looming "crisis," the the following federal actions wouldn't be necessary:

"According to the Energy Information Administration, solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour and wind energy by $23.37.

By contrast, natural gas gets a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59. Wind and solar, despite all their subsidies, contribute less than 1% of our total electricity generation."

There's a darn good reason people aren't investing in wind and solar: in their current states, they aren't worth it. Period. Pity San Fransiscans for this useless particular tax burden.
Reply to this comment
by dbargen June 11, 2008 9:17 PM PDT
Funny how they can't get solar to pick up on it own. If it really saved you money or if normal people really bought into the looming "crisis," the the following federal actions wouldn't be necessary:

"According to the Energy Information Administration, solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour and wind energy by $23.37.

By contrast, natural gas gets a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59. Wind and solar, despite all their subsidies, contribute less than 1% of our total electricity generation."

There's a darn good reason people aren't investing in wind and solar: in their current states, they aren't worth it. Period. Pity San Fransiscans for this useless particular tax burden.
Reply to this comment
by 1BOG June 12, 2008 10:36 AM PDT
You are right about the numbers dbargen, but maybe that?s not how we should look at it. There are two very different areas; domestic and industrial. Solar, and to some extend Wind are market-ready technologies available to be purchased by individuals like you and I. That isn?t the case with Natural Gas (unless you?re willing to drill in your back yard) or hydroelectric (unless you live near water) or nuclear (and you really shouldn?t have that stuff in your house for obvious reasons) :) In each case, government subsidies fulfill different purposes; generate clean energy that we all can buy from power companies, and create a market for emerging technologies, and build awareness, and provide local jobs? Despite the 1% total energy generation for solar and wind, subsidies are accomplishing a great deal in educating, creating awareness, and helping changing our behavior. It?s not always obvious but San Francisco is doing the right thing. Best. Sylvia.
Reply to this comment
by 1BOG June 12, 2008 11:22 AM PDT
1. In the US, buildings account for approx. 72% of all energy consumption.

2. The US power grid is 98% non-renewable energy (51.7% coal, 19.8% nuclear, 15.9% natural gas, 7.2% large hydroelectric, 2.8% oil,).

3. Demand for RECs is growing fast. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has estimated that in 2004, the size of the voluntary REC market was three million megawatt hours, valued at between $15 and $45 million. They estimate that by 2010, the market will grow to 20 million MWh, and $100 to $300 million.
source: threeHugger

A lot of renewable wattage to produce, now the question is how - organized communities can surely be part of the solution.
Reply to this comment
by Dango517 August 12, 2008 4:52 AM PDT
The typical cost to install solar electricity for the average home is $10,000.00.

http://www.thesolarguide.com/solar-power-uses/cost-faq.aspx

Wonder why more aren't in use? Hmmmmmmmmm.

This is largely due to the fact that these systems include battery storage with the installation. The cost of these systems would come down markedly if they were "direct gain" only, putting there power directly into the electric grid.
Reply to this comment
by Eliwagar1 December 2, 2009 12:06 PM PST
I used to live in San Francisco and the big problem with this is that not to many people actually own properties out there. It is mostly renting that is done, so in order for this plan to do some real good the landlord would have to have the system installed.

Speaking from experience landlords will try to be as cheap as possible, and although a solar energy system will reduce the overall cost of energy over a set amount of years.

http://www.solarpowercost.org

The landlords are not going to care considering you pay the electricity for most rentals.

However it is nice to see more and more of these programs starting up.
Reply to this comment
by Eliwagar1 December 2, 2009 12:34 PM PST
Whoops my bad here's the link <a href="http://www.solarpowercost.org">http://www.solarpowercost.org</a>
(7 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

Google's mobile hopes go beyond Nexus One

The world may have thrilled to the potential for a Google Phone, but what Google actually unveiled is its plan for a new smartphone world order.
• Photos: Unboxing Nexus One

Using your smartphone safely

faq Worms, Trojans, and SMS attacks are risks for mobile phones, but the biggest practical threat to users is losing the device.

About Green Tech

Innovation in energy and environmental technologies is long overdue, in business and at home. Green-tech reporter Martin LaMonica and other CNET writers serve up fresh clean-tech news and commentary.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Green Tech topics

advertisement
advertisement
Click Here

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right