California lawmakers stall on electricity bill surcharge
The San Diego Union-Tribune --Aug. 13
Aug. 13--If all went right, in the view of solar power advocates, Henk Tysma of Alpine would have become an adult "poster child" for their clean energy technology. For one thing, Tysma's installation of a photovoltaic system on the rooftop of his auto rental dealership marks a local milestone. San Diego Gas & Electric officials mark it as the 1,500th such system in the region, which includes 1.3 million electric customers.
But Tysma's public demonstration of his system today comes a day after
legislators stalled a bill that advocates say could lead to the construction of
a million solar homes in the state over the next decade. Senate Bill 1652,
sponsored by Sen. Kevin Murray, D-Culver City, with input from the state
Environmental Protection Agency, was put on hold yesterday by the Assembly's
Appropriations Committee.
And despite Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's repeated expressions of support for
solar power, he did not offer public support for the legislation backed by his
own agency.
While not a final defeat, the setback in the Assembly makes passage of the
measure a long shot in the two weeks remaining until the Legislature adjourns.
"We still have a pulse here," said V. John White, director of the
Center of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies in Sacramento. What gives
White hope is Schwarzenegger's earlier public commitments to solar power.
White also says the governor's staff now understands that widespread adoption
of solar power can spare the state the cost -- and resultant pollution from the
construction of peaker power plants, units used only at times of highest power
consumption.
SB 1652 would raise $100 million annually over the next decade by tacking a
25- to 30-cent monthly surcharge onto residential power bills. The money would
be disbursed to home builders to subsidize the installation of photovoltaic
power systems on new homes.
The legislation would also mandate that at least 5 percent of new homes come
solar-equipped, and increase that by 5 percent each year until half of all new
homes had photovoltaic systems. By comparison, fewer than 1 percent of new homes
now are built with such systems.
"We want to jump-start this market," said Bernadette Del Chiaro,
clean-energy advocate for Environment California, which claims 50,000 members
and was a prime supporter of the bill.
Del Chiaro said the bill focuses on new home construction because building
with solar is 30 percent cheaper than adding it later, and increases the payback
on the investment.
The subsidies would decline each year, reflecting what advocates say would be
the falling cost of photovoltaic systems as mass-production efficiencies kicked
in.
"For every dollar a ratepayer invests in a solar power system, the
return ranges from $2 to $5 over the life of the system, 25 to 30 years,"
said Del Chiaro.
But the legislation was opposed by the home-building industry and SDG&E,
which says it fears adding costs to residential power bills. Nonetheless, a
spokesman for the utility said the solar technology was particularly useful for
power management.
"One of the real advantages is that solar is most active (on hot days)
when we have our highest demand, so it is in effect a peaking resource,"
said Ed Van Herik.
Tim Coyle, senior vice president of the California Building Industry
Association, representing 6,000 home-building companies, said his group did not
like mandates requiring solar home construction, and it fears adding costs to
housing that already is the highest-priced in the nation. "It remains
questionable as to whether $20,000 photovoltaic systems can be absorbed into a
marketplace in which housing affordability is declining every month," Coyle
said.
By the builders' calculations, he added, photovoltaic systems will be costly
to homeowners -- not save them money -- and the industry prefers a nonmandated
program that would reduce those costs.
"But we are not opposed to the idea of harnessing this technology and
making it useful and effective for our home consumers," he said. Solar
advocates say the building industry exaggerates photovoltaic system costs, plus
the likelihood those costs would fall as adoption of the technology grows.
What's more, they say, the solar program would eliminate the need for more
than 30 peaking power plants, with a combined cost of $1 billion, while reducing
pollution and dependence on fossil fuels.
Cecilia Aquillon, director of business development for Kyocera Solar, said
that the company will begin large-scale manufacturing of solar panels in Tijuana
this fall, with an engineering and sales support center in San Diego. The new
manufacturing plant, she said, was planned partly in response to the company's
anticipation of a rapidly growing market in the state. "California is the
third-largest solar market in the world," she said. "Japan is No. 1,
and Germany is No. 2."
What was important to Tysma, the Alpine businessman, was slashing soaring
bills down to something manageable and tapping a source of clean energy to boot.
Mission accomplished, he reports.
"My monthly power bill is $8.75," said Tysma, who lightheartedly
added that it is more than the $5 monthly bill for his 5,000-square-foot home,
which is also solar-powered.
Tysma's only complaint is that current rules fail to give him credit for all
the excess electricity his system generates and is used by others on the SDG&E
grid.
"Maybe I should run extension cords to my neighbors and give them the
power, or light up a whole hill around Christmas," he said.
-----
To see more of The San Diego Union-Tribune, or to subscribe to the newspaper,
go to http://www.uniontrib.com .
(c) 2004, The San Diego Union-Tribune. Distributed by
Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News. For information on republishing this
content, contact us at (800) 661-2511 (U.S.), (213) 237-4914 (worldwide), fax
(213) 237-6515, or e-mail reprints@krtinfo.com. SRE,