Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Power Earth Government Technology

California Is Giving Away Free Solar Panels To Its Poorest Residents 272

MikeChino writes: Oakland-based non-profit GRID Alternatives is giving away 1,600 free solar panels to California's poorest residents by the year 2016. The initiative was introduced by Senator Kevin de León and launched with funds gathered under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GCRF), the state's cap-and-trade program. SFGate reports: "Kianté London used the program to put panels on his three-bedroom North Richmond home, which he shares with two sons and a daughter. 'It helps me and my family a great deal to have low-cost energy, because these energy prices are really expensive,' said London, 46, whose solar array was installed this week. 'And I wanted to do my part. It’s clean, green energy.' London had wanted a solar array for years, but couldn’t afford it on his income as a merchant seaman — roughly $70,000 per year. Even leasing programs offered by such companies as SolarCity and Sunrun were too expensive, he said. The new program, in contrast, paid the entire up-front cost of his array."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

California Is Giving Away Free Solar Panels To Its Poorest Residents

Comments Filter:
  • What is median?
  • by xxxJonBoyxxx ( 565205 ) on Wednesday May 27, 2015 @04:39PM (#49786295)

    >> initiative...launched with funds gathered under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GCRF), the state's cap-and-trade program ...and you wonder why California has no money for the basics.

    >> London had wanted a solar array for years, but couldn’t afford it...

    And I'd like a pony. Please Santa?
    (Come to think of it, a good 10% the readership of this site probably REALLY does want a pony.)

  • by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Wednesday May 27, 2015 @04:41PM (#49786315)

    1600 solar panels have shown up at local pawn shops.

  • by Hussman32 ( 751772 ) on Wednesday May 27, 2015 @04:41PM (#49786325)

    ...right now California has subsidies to people who have solar panels; any power they don't use during the day is sold 'back to the grid' at retail prices; hence, many of the wealthy have virtually no electric bill for their 10,000 square foot homes while those who can't afford the few thousand dollar lease initiation costs pay full prices.

    So, if this what I consider to be unfair state subsidizing of solar panels is going to happen, and it is for now, I'm okay with some people having their burden relieved because right now the subsidies only help those who don't need it.

    • by Ichijo ( 607641 )

      It's unfortunate that, due to tiered rates, a wealthy person gets back 33 cents [pdf] [pge.com] for each kilowatt-hour saved, while a poor person gets only 16 cents.

      They could encourage energy consumption even among the poor without burdening them by setting rates at a flat 27 cents per kWh and refunding 100% of the revenue equally to everyone through a tax refund.

      • by tsotha ( 720379 )
        It's worse than that, though. Grid maintenance costs are rolled into the per-kWh charges in most places (definitely in CA). The power company is buying power from its suppliers for five or six cents, and then selling it to consumers at a much higher rate (22 cents the last time I looked). That difference mostly goes to pay for the power company's overhead. So when you sell power back to the power company at retail rates your neighbors are subsidizing your use of the grid.
    • I'm not a California resident so can't speak directly about the situation out there, but I can speak for solar here in Maryland. The power we generate with solar panels is purchased by the utility company, but technically NOT at "retail prices". (That's generally a fallacy perpetuated by the folks against solar.) They DO probably pay more than they'd prefer to pay (a rate that's a bit higher than their true cost to generate the same amount of electricity themselves), but we have to pay the transmission cost

      • by dbIII ( 701233 )

        When govt. started with the subsidies on it, it was because the tech. made NO economic sense at all

        It fills in for the daytime peak so means you don't need a few more GW of conventional power that only comes on line for a few hours each weekday. That can save large lump sum capital costs, and is easier to swallow even if it costs more in total because the money for GW of power from panels is spread out over years.
        So it makes sense at some level of subsidy. Whether a subsidy is stupidly high or not in some

        • If net metering were a good deal for the electric utilities, they wouldn't be fighting it tooth and nail.

          • by dbIII ( 701233 )
            What they are fighting tooth and nail is kW/h that they cannot bill you for. If that means building huge new installations that only run for a couple of hours a day then they will happily do it so long as the consumer pays for it.

            Network operators and governments may have different ideas and not be so horrified by people generating their own electricity and depriving power utilities of their God given grant to gouge.
  • by geekd ( 14774 ) on Wednesday May 27, 2015 @04:42PM (#49786329) Homepage

    You need a roof on a home to mount solar panels. Not an apartment, a home.

    Have you seen housing prices in California? My house cost $389,000 in 2002 and it's only 750 square feet.

    So, how do the "poorest residents" own a home?

    • by Jeremi ( 14640 )

      So, how do the "poorest residents" own a home?

      Most likely they bought back when housing prices were cheaper and/or they had more income.

      Prop 13 at work, eh?

    • No you don't. There is no law preventing homeless people from holding solar panels up above their heads, or mounting it on their cardboard box.
    • So, how do the "poorest residents" own a home?

      By spending half or more of their income on their mortgage, and by having a co-signer and a down payment. It's not rocket surgery, it's just dealing with the evil, evil banks. The banks are sitting on something like three houses for every homeless man, woman, and child in America, refusing to drop their prices to market level.

      • by Gryle ( 933382 )

        The banks are sitting on something like three houses for every homeless man, woman, and child in America, refusing to drop their prices to market level.

        Can I see a citation for that statistic please? Or at least your calculations to come up with that figure?

    • and trailer parks. Anywhere you go you find them. I'm in Phoenix and we have million dollar homes across the street from them. Rich people don't like to pay top dollar for folks who can afford to live near them. I used to wonder how they kept all the poverty and human misery from spilling over until I realized that's what our drug policy is for. Any time the lower class gets out of line you can send the cops in to bust some heads and use the few ounces of pot that at least 1 person in your house probably ha
  • This is a great idea (Score:3, Interesting)

    by WillAffleckUW ( 858324 ) on Wednesday May 27, 2015 @04:47PM (#49786379) Homepage Journal

    I've been buying solar panel units here in Seattle that are placed on public buildings through our Seattle City Light program, since my townhouse faces north, and it works even if I sell the house and buy another one somewhere in Seattle (costs about $150 per unit, due to large scale installations that drop the costs).

    As to poor people using solar panels, some cities way up here give homeless veterans Tiny Houses (250 sq ft) with solar panels on their roofs so they don't have to camp outside.

    Adapt. Cause emissions don't care about your excuses, and change is now.

  • by Guspaz ( 556486 ) on Wednesday May 27, 2015 @04:47PM (#49786383)

    Isn't the whole point of stuff like SolarCity that you have no up-front cost (because you lease the system) and a negative monthly cost (because the monthly lease is cheaper than the cost of the electricity you saved)?

    Why does the government need to give people free solar panels when it costs them zero dollars to get a full solar setup from SolarCity?

  • by acoustix ( 123925 ) on Wednesday May 27, 2015 @04:50PM (#49786411)

    First off, $70k isn't poor. Not even in California. Can people afford to put a solar array on their house with $70k income? No. But that doesn't mean they are poor.

    Second: Truly poor people don't own homes. Middle class and upper class own homes. Poor people rent. Renters have no choice where their power comes from.

    Third: The solar panels are usually the cheapest part of adding a power source to your home. The transfer switch, batteries and inverter are the bulk of the cost.

    • by Lumpy ( 12016 )

      "Can people afford to put a solar array on their house with $70k income? No"

      No? only a doofus thinks that. I put one on my home when I made only $40K It's not expensive if you don't use the overpriced made in america solar panels.

      I bought China 200 watt panels for less than $1.50 a watt. then installed a syncing inverter and use the grid as my battery. I actually run the meter backwards.

      If you make $70K and cant afford solar, then you are either a fool, or someone that can't budget money very well.

    • First off, $70k isn't poor. Not even in California.

      That depends on where it is and if it's a family or just a person. Just a person in the boonies making $70k is doing great. A family literally anywhere (even someplace totally shit) in the Bay Area living on $70k? They're scraping by, because over half of that is likely to go to rent or mortgage, when conventional wisdom says not to spend more than a quarter.

      • by dj245 ( 732906 )

        First off, $70k isn't poor. Not even in California.

        That depends on where it is and if it's a family or just a person. Just a person in the boonies making $70k is doing great. A family literally anywhere (even someplace totally shit) in the Bay Area living on $70k? They're scraping by, because over half of that is likely to go to rent or mortgage, when conventional wisdom says not to spend more than a quarter.

        The thing that baffles me is his salary. 70k is absolutely entry level for a merchant mariner. I had friends make more than that right out of school. And being a merchant mariner, he can live anywhere. It is almost standard practice to fly at the company's expense to wherever the boat is. Even the lowest paid philipinos get a free plane ticket on both ends of their tour.

  • by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday May 27, 2015 @04:55PM (#49786449)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Why don't you buy him a Prius as well? It saves gas and money, right?
  • Remember that DeLeon is the same idiot who spoke unintelligible gibberish in his "ghost gun" speech. He's not trustworthy enough for me to believe this isn't loaded with graft and assorted other corruption.

    • It doesn't have to be loaded with graft & corruption to be a waste of time.

      TFA talks about a 2.5KW system. Which is about 10 panels. So this whole program is going to provide free solar to 150-200 homes in a State with 38.8 million people.

      Wow, a program to provide free solar to 0.0025% of CA's population!! Really generous program you've got there, guys....

  • by bistromath007 ( 1253428 ) on Wednesday May 27, 2015 @05:22PM (#49786615)
    "Poorest residents"

    "three-bedroom home"

    :|
  • Not poor (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tsotha ( 720379 ) on Wednesday May 27, 2015 @05:28PM (#49786653)
    $70k in no way puts you in the "poorest residents" category in California. That income places him at the very top of the third quintile, above the median state income, which is around $60k.
  • I'll give you $50 cash for each of them.

    Most will be sold by the end of the summer.

  • by jamescford ( 205756 ) on Wednesday May 27, 2015 @08:07PM (#49787455)

    The submitter used the word "poorest", which seems chosen rather... poorly. The SFGate article uses the somewhat less extreme term "low income", but toward the end it is also more specific about the criteria: "To qualify, applicants must live in a neighborhood designated as disadvantaged by the state. They must own their homes and make no more than 80 percent of their community’s median household income." The provider, GRID Alternatives, promises "to make renewable energy technology and job training accessible to underserved communities", which seems more in line with what is actually going on.

    So, one view of this is that this is a program to direct cap-and-trade money (generally collected to be used specifically for environmentally beneficial projects) into areas of the state that wouldn't get it otherwise. It uses donated equipment and labor as well as the C&T funding, so it's not at all tax funded. Besides helping recipients in the targeted areas get cheaper power, it is possibly reducing overall electricity demand in a green way (though this is debatable, given the limits of solar power as a baseload source).

  • by kenh ( 9056 ) on Wednesday May 27, 2015 @09:27PM (#49787765) Homepage Journal

    When did homeowners become 'poorest residents' in California?

    Seems to me a person too poor to buy a house is, by definition, 'poorer' than a homeowner.

  • So now we'll be seeing solar panels on shopping carts?

If entropy is increasing, where is it coming from?

Working...