Solar Company Loses Multimillion-Dollar Tax Breaks

A Massachusetts economic development board voted yesterday to cut off two multimillion-dollar tax breaks for Evergreen Solar Inc., two months after the company shuttered the manufacturing plant it built in Central Massachusetts with state aid and eliminated 800 jobs.

The decision is part of an effort by state economic officials to settle accounts with the troubled company, which once seemed so promising that Massachusetts gave it a total of $58 million in incentives to build the factory in Devens, at the site of a former military base.

State officials said they plan to send Evergreen a retroactive property tax bill for $1.5 million. But it remains unclear whether they will be able to recoup any of the $21 million in cash grants that were part of the package.

SOURCE: http://articles.boston.com/2011-05-20/business/29565438_1_evergreen-solar-property-tax-tax-credits

Hawaii Rallies to Keep Renewable Energy Tax Credits

Hawaii's solar energy industry rallied last month to preserve renewable energy tax credits that were targeted for elimination by lawmakers looking for ways shore up the state's shaky fiscal position.

A bill (SB 756) that would have ended renewable energy tax credits by 2015 and impose a one-year delay on tax credits claimed in 2012 died when legislators failed to bring it before a conference committee in the last days of the legislative session.

Current law allows homeowners and businesses to claim state tax credits of up to 35 percent for solar and 20 percent for wind energy systems.

The Hawaii Solar Energy Association launched an unprecedented effort in late April to fight the bill, asking employees and customers of its 50 member companies to call a group of key lawmakers and register their opposition to the bill.

"Since I've been involved we have never taken this direct approach on a broad scale but it can be very effective," HSEA President Mark Duda said in an email to its members.

While the defeat of the legislation was a victory for renewable energy firms and their customers, the effort to maintain government subsidies is sure to become increasingly difficult in the years ahead. As renewable technologies mature, supporters will have a harder time making a case that the industry needs to be propped up at taxpayers' expense.

Authors of SB 756 wrote in the bill that the tax incentives have been successful in "encouraging the development of renewable technologies and helping to establish an important new industry in the state's economy."

"Nonetheless, as with all measures intended to help support a nascent industry to achieve scale and become self-sustaining, the legislature is concerned that the incentive … will remain in place after the industries it supports no longer require it for financial vitality," the measure read.

It's just a matter of time until the tax credits fade away, said Marco Mangelsdorf, president of ProVision Solar Inc., a Big Island company that designs and installs commercial and residential photovoltaic systems.

"Sooner or later the training wheels will have to come off, and we in the renewable energy industry will have to be able to stand on our own two feet."

The federal government is already heading in that direction, having set a date of Jan. 1, 2016, for eliminating the 30 percent federal tax credit for solar and other forms of renewable energy.

The combined 65 percent state and federal tax credit has fueled an explosion in installations in Hawaii over the past five years. On Oahu alone the amount of photovoltaic (PV) generating capacity installed under Hawaiian Electric Co.'s net energy metering program grew to 4,650 kilowatts in 2010 from 74 kilowatts in 2006.

For local homeowners and businesses, the subsidies have effectively allowed them to produce their own electricity for less than what they would be paying their utility when the cost of the PV system is amortized over an extended period.

For PV companies that own the rooftop systems and sell the electricity back to the homeowner or business, they are able to price the electricity rates below what the utility charges.

While there's no question that phasing out tax credits will reduce the financial attraction of buying a PV system, some experts say the precise impact won't be known until the credits are gone and the market for renewables adjusts.

The "true" price of renewable energy systems is not known because tax credits and other incentives have distorted the market, said Kenneth Green, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington, D.C., think tank.

"If the calculation is that you put solar panels on your roof and they'll generate enough savings to recoup your cost in, let's say, five years, then certainly they should be selling themselves," he said. "The subsidies were put in place to address what's called the infant industry argument. The problem is that PV is 40 years old if not older than that."

The post-tax credit adjustment will be more difficult in many states where utility-generated electricity is relatively inexpensive. In places like Idaho and North Dakota, where utility-generated electricity costs 7 cents a kilowatt-hour, it will be harder for higher-priced PV-produced electricity to compete without a subsidy.

That should be less of a problem in Hawaii, where the high cost of electricity from the state's two main utilities makes power from renewable energy sources more competitive. Residential electricity costs ranged in April from 29 cents a kilowatt-hour on Oahu to 43 cents a kilowatt-hour on Kauai.

The effective cost of electricity from a residential rooftop PV system in Hawaii varies depending on several factors, including the amount of sunshine where the system is located and the number of years over which the cost of the system is amortized.

The comparison is easier to make at the wholesale level, where prices are more transparent. For example, Hawaiian Electric recently signed a deal to buy electricity at an average price of 22.8 cents a kilowatt-hour over a 20-year period from IC Sunshine, which is building the first utility-scale PV project on Oahu.

That compares with HECO's average cost of 22 cents a kilowatt-hour to produce electricity in its generators last month.

Hawaii is not alone in considering the elimination of renewable energy tax credits, said Larry Sherwood, a consultant who tracks solar programs for the Interstate Renewable Energy Council.

"In general the level of incentive payments has been going down," he said. "The costs (for solar systems) have been going down, so the need for incentives is less."

The average installed cost of a residental photovoltaic system fell to $6.83 per watt last year from $7.84 per watt in 2009, he said.

SOURCE: http://www.staradvertiser.com/business/businessnews/20110506__Solar_power_firms_fight_for_subsidies.html

Solar Scam Burns Through Budget

Properly managed, the sun’s awesome power can be converted into useful energy. Potentially, solar power will one day deliver a significant contribution to Australia’s baseload power requirements.

Poorly managed, solar power burns. And not just delicate human skin, carelessly exposed to an excessive amount of the sun’s rays.

As NSW taxpayers have discovered in recent years, thanks to the previous Labor government’s ill-handling of the solar power rebate scheme, solar power can also burn through massive amounts of taxpayers’ money.

We’ve already paid a huge toll for that scheme in inflated power bills that needed to be blown out to cover the scheme’s ongoing cost.

Lamentably, although the Labor government is gone, the penalties for its solar bungling keep rolling in.

Now The Daily Telegraph can reveal that the state’s finances are actually in worse shape than anybody anticipated - and it’s all down to that accursed Solar Bonus Scheme.

What a cruelly named scheme it turned out to be.

Bonuses there were, of course, but only to those who found themselves sufficiently cashed up to buy into the scheme in the first place.

The rest of us subsidised it. More accurately, it was a Solar Scam Scheme.

The end result for NSW is that the $4.5 billion budget black hole revealed one week into Barry O’Farrell’s premiership is in fact a $5.2 billion budget black hole. The solar scheme adds another $750 million in debt.

O’Farrell’s Government has pledged to keep searching through the state’s finances to uncover similar examples of hidden deficits and graver economic problems.

At this point we’d almost prefer that the Government didn’t. If Labor can turn a simple solar power plan into a budget-busting debt-maker, imagine what terrors lurk in other, more serious aspects of our state finances.

Claims don’t add up

A SUBSTANTIAL number of Australians remain unconvinced by federal Labor’s latest moves to crack down on asylum seekers who exploit or otherwise undermine this country’s generosity.

Immigration Minister Chris Bowen announced this week that asylum seekers who are charged and convicted following any damage to state property would fail character tests and endanger their refugee claims. The Daily Telegraph supports this new stance.

Yet public doubt is understandable, particularly following news that while 10,243 asylum seekers have arrived in Australia since 2008 - itself a condemnation of Labor’s asylum seeker policies - only 15 have been deported against their will.

This means that fewer than 0.15 per cent of asylum seekers are presently failing residence tests. It doesn’t add up.

SOURCE: http://southern-courier.whereilive.com.au/news/story/solar-scam-burns-through-budget/

Central Florida Missed Out on $112 Million in Solar Research Funds

Palm Bay will be the site of research to study the yield of photovoltaic panels, but Central Florida missed out on most of $112 million in federal research funds to make solar power a viable alternative to fossil fuel within five years.

New York state, which put up $100 million in matching money, won the bulk of a $62.5 million U.S. Department of Energy grant, outbidding a group in Central Florida that offered about half as much matching money.

Two California-based groups each won $25 million, as well, in the federal SunShot Initiative's Advanced Manufacturing Partnerships, according to a Department of Energy news release.

The New York decision likely means that most of the 4,200 regional jobs supporters had envisioned for an area of the Sunshine State soon to be battered by thousands of aerospace layoffs will not materialize.

"Florida's current bid wasn't exactly what (the Energy Department) wanted at this time," Susie Quinn, a legislative aide to Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Orlando, said Wednesday. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu informed Nelson during a call Wednesday from Saudi Arabia that the Central Florida's research consortium's bid had been rejected.

There will be a Florida role, though.

The University of Central Florida will work on the project in Palm Bay, according to the Energy Department and U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, who on Wednesday announced the winning partnership between the technology consortium Sematech and the College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering at the University of Albany.

The work likely would take place at the former Intersil Corp. building in Palm Bay, which has been donated to UCF.

Researchers in New York will "work with the University of Central Florida to develop cost-effective in-line measurement and inspection tools to enable increased (photovoltaic) manufacturing yield," according to the Energy Department release.

UCF officials were at first floored by the apparent rejection and then uncertain about what lesser role they might play.

"What we have initially heard is disappointing. But until we hear more definitively, we are holding out hope," UCF spokesman Grant Heston said.

Nelson's office said the announcement was not all bad news.

"There should be other opportunities in the future, and Florida will be well-positioned. Meantime, folks at the Energy Department will sit down with UCF to discuss the stronger and weaker aspects of Florida's grant proposal and answer any questions," said Nelson's spokesman, Dan McLaughlin.

Disappointed Brevard officials were hopeful the competition's apparent result could be altered.

"Even though the information we learned today was not encouraging, we are still awaiting a final decision from the Department of Energy," said Lynda Weatherman, president and CEO of the Economic Development Commission of Florida's Space Coast. "This pursuit has been and continues to be a highly competitive process, and one I hope we continue."

Losing the solar energy research center is a particularly hard blow to Brevard, where unemployment is 11.4 percent, said Mike Slotkin, an economist at Florida Tech in Melbourne.

"That was a possible industry of the future," he said. "It was a possible anchor industry not for the last 30 years, but for the next 30 years."

Florida organizers had hoped working with Sematech, a consortium of technology companies, would help in the quest for tens of millions of dollars in grant funding. It certainly has a strong track record of revitalizing moribund industries.

Sematech was created in Austin, Texas, about two decades ago to develop semiconductors. Its name is a combination of SEmiconductor MAnufacturing TECHnology.

The company recently moved to Albany, N.Y., lured in part by massive funding, to study nanotechnology, which is the science of building new technology at the molecular level.

Sematech partnered with UCF, Enterprise Florida and others to compete for the entire grant.

UCF officials felt that their main competition came from Minnesota and California. It is unclear whether they knew that Sematech was negotiating with the Energy Department in partnership with the University of Albany, as well.

SOURCE: http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20110406/BUSINESS/104060340/Central-Florida-misses-out-bulk-federal-solar-energy-money

Iowa Senate Approves Renewable Tax Credits

The Iowa Senate has approved a measure providing up to $10 million a year in tax credits for the installation of wind and solar power generators at homes, businesses and farms.

The Senate voted 49-1 Monday to approve the bill, which provides up to $15,000 for businesses and farms and $3,000 for homeowners that install wind or solar generators.

The bill now goes to the House, where its future is unclear.

Rep. Thomas Sands, a Wapello Republican and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, says majority Republicans are more interested in broad-based tax reform than targeted tax credits.

SOURCE: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9MD39G00.htm

Colorado Solar Rebates to Be Reinstated March 23

Excel’s Solar*Rewards program will be reinstated March 23, with a reduced up-front rebate and an extended performance-based renewable energy credit. The Colorado Public Utilities Commission approved the new version of the program March 18. It’s based on a compromise agreement among the stakeholders, giving the solar industry some predictability and addressing some of the program’s cash-flow and debt issues.

The Public Utilities Commission heard a full day of testimony, mostly supporting the agreement. After deliberating, the three PUC members agreed to the settlement “with reservations.”

This has been a long, dry period for solar sales in Colorado. On February 16, Xcel Energy abruptly halted the successful Solar*Rewards program. At that time, Xcel proposed dropping the rebate from $2.00 per watt of installed solar power to $0.25 per watt. Xcel shut down the rebate program to await a decision by the PUC.

In response to Xcel’s move, The Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association filed a request that Xcel reinstate the Solar*Rewards Program immediately.

“COSEIA believes such conduct evinces bad faith and a breach of the public trust in the administration of the Solar*Rewards program and may be in violation of the statutory prohibition against discrimination,” COSEIA’s attorney claimed. “By taking the extraordinary step of closing its Solar*Rewards program to new applications, the company has brought the market for small (less than 100 kW) residential and commercial solar installations to a dead standstill.”

Xcel claimed that the Solar*Rewards program was too successful. The solar industry had far exceeded the expectations of the Xcel Solar*Rewards program management. Because the program is funded by a 2 percent charge to Xcel customers, the rate of rebate applications exceeded the available funding, so Xcel needed to borrow to pay the rebates.

The solar industry challenged what the perceived as a punitive move.

”Rather than rewarding the solar industry for its ability to install more solar projects at decreasing incentive rates, however, PSCo’s (XCEL) approach is to punish the industry for its success.”

In a March 4 PUC hearing, the commissioners instructed stakeholders to try and work out a compromise.

The compromise reinstates the Solar*Rewards program with an up-front rebate of $1.75 paid per watt, and $0.04 per kWh paid over 10 years.

This will ratchet down quite rapidly to performance-based incentives, meaning the price per kWh will increase as the upfront rebate drops from $1.75 to $1.00 to $0.50 to $0.00.

During public comments Dr. Schechter, of the Colorado Office of Consumer Affairs, said the proposed agreement was, ”in the public’s best interest.”

Johnathon Koehn, regional sustainability coordinator for Boulder, said he was concerned about the process, specifically Xcel’s abrupt curtailment of the rebate program.

“The customer and the citizen perceive that there has been a loss of credibility in the rewards program,” Koehn said. “The movement to performance-based REC payments will make solar installation only for the rich, and make solar installers become financiers.”

SOURCE:  http://summitcountyvoice.com/2011/03/19/colorado-xcels-solar-rebate-program-is-back/

Tough Few Weeks for Solar Rebates

Over the last few weeks, solar news came from Hollywood—not in the form of a movie—and stretched across the country to New Jersey. Most of the news was positive but some, like news coming from Colorado, was a bit cloudier.

In Colorado, Xcel Energy, the largest utility in the state, froze its Solar Rewards rebate program until it is a able to reduce its solar rebate rate to $1.25 per watt. Solar installers say the lowered rebate rate is forcing them to layoff workers. The proposed decrease follows on the heels of a reduction the utility announced just two weeks prior, from $2.35 per watt to $2.01 per watt—the lowest amount currently allowed in Colorado. The proposal is now being discussed by Colorado’s Public Utilities Commission, but installers are already planning layoffs. It’s a move that Xcel could take in other states it provides services in.

However, utilities in other states, like California, are participating in new rebate and incentive programs. California’s new Energy Upgrade California rebate program leverages funds from utilities and the state to offer residents rebates for making their homes more energy efficient and for photovoltaics. Rebates can reach as high as $4,000 to help pay for solar and other home upgrades.

Delaware announced a total of 41 block grants supporting energy efficiency and solar projects in its smaller towns and cities. The grants leverage federal funding to help the local towns use less energy and save money, while providing new jobs as the state recovers from the recession.

Cities are also remaining active in promoting solar through rebate programs. For instance, Beaverton, Ore., launched its Solar Beaverton campaign last week. The campaign aims to put solar on the homes of 220 more homes in the 87,000-person city by offering solar at fixed cost.

The solar news coming from Washington, D.C., last week was mixed. On one hand, 51 residents that installed solar are stuck waiting for rebates from the city they were approved for, but the money for the rebates was apparently used to help close the city’s budget gap. On the other hand, the city has a strong group of solar co-ops that are helping residents learn about the benefits of solar and are helping to reduce the costs of a system by working with contractors.

In a unique application of solar power, a new solar thermal system is being used to extract oil in what’s known as an enhanced oil recovery application. GlassPoint recently completed its first solar thermal trough system, which superheats water into steam. The steam is then pumped into an oil deposit to heat the oil, freeing it from rock and making it harvestable.

That might seem like a dirty use for clean energy but you could say GlassPoint’s new device was offset by the Environmental Protection Agency’s use of solar at Frontier Fertilizer Superfund site in California. That, combined with a special heating system, will help clean up the site in a fifth of the time originally estimated.

The Randolph Sports Pavilion in Randolph, N.J., went nearly 100 percent solar, thanks to a 1,556-module solar array on its roof. Owner Jeff Walder said the system will lead to six-figure utility savings this year.

In Hollywood, solar was in the spotlight as Twentieth Century Fox Film turned on its new solar array on its historic Building 99. The move could soon be emulated by other movie and television studios looking for long-term pricing stability.

SOURCE: http://www.cleanenergyauthority.com/solar-energy-news/solar-news-weekly-review-030711/

Bill Would Benefit Solar Installers That Buy Panels in New Jersey

The solar industry is thriving in New Jersey, with hundreds of firms, many of them installing solar systems in homes and businesses. In fact, there's so much activity that the state is second behind only California in the number of solar installations.

But the state also is hoping to attract manufacturing jobs to local factories as a way to create the blue-collar, middle-class jobs that will help drive a new green economy. In an attempt to make that happen, the Assembly Telecommunications and Utilities Committee yesterday approved a bill that would make it more attractive for solar businesses to buy equipment made in New Jersey.

The bill (A-2042) would give firms that buy solar panels manufactured in the state a slightly easier way to accrue solar renewable energy certificates (SRECs). Lawmakers believe this would make manufacturers who sell panels more attractive to the companies that install them

"It’s just another attempt to help create jobs and to increase the use of renewable energy in the state," said Assemblyman Wayne DeAngelo (D-Mercer), the sponsor of the bill. He said his bill would help bring new manufacturing facilities back to New Jersey, including the contaminated brownfield factories, that now lie idle.

Under the bill, manufacturers that sell solar panels in the state would generate solar renewable energy certificates after their systems generate 850 kilowatts of electricity, instead of the 1,000 kilowatts normally required.

This is yet another subsidy bestowed upon the solar sector, which has created more than 3,000 jobs in New Jersey, but one that is raising concerns among industry leaders and those who advocate a strong push toward renewable sources of energy in the state.

Jeff Tittle, executive director of the New Jersey chapter of the Sierra Club and one of the strongest advocates of promoting solar in the state, opposed the bill in the committee, saying it could undermine the state’s efforts to develop solar power by interfering with the free-market system set up by the state to encourage solar installations.

"Once the legislature starts to interfere with the free market system, it just won’t stop," Tittel said. "If we start adding things to it, it will create a real mess that will undermine renewable energy sources."

Terry Sobolweski, business development manager of SunPower, a solar firm that has installed 90 megawatts of solar systems in New Jersey, also expressed concerns about the bill, arguing the current program has proven very effective in promoting solar in the state.

If the bill was approved, Sobolweski said, it would deny customers in New Jersey the best and lowest-priced solar products available in the free market. He also said it would complicate the trading of solar renewable energy certificates and possibly be a violation of interstate commerce laws.

But DeAngelo defended the bill, saying the state has a lot of contaminated brownfields that could be put to better use. “There are companies that are looking to come to Mercer County because New Jersey is so solar friendly," he said.

SOURCE: http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/11/0307/2326/

Solar Hot Water Rebates Now Being Paid

Thousands of homeowners who installed solar hot water can expect to finally receive their rebates by the middle of March.

About 8000 Australians have been waiting beyond the accepted eight-week timeframe for their rebates, worth between $1000 and $1600 each.

The federal government blamed a computer software problem for the backlog, but has reportedly rushed in a team of extra workers to help clear the list.


The energy efficiency department's Alex Rankin told a Senate estimates hearing on Monday that people could expect to get their money by the middle of next month.

Ms Rankin could not say how long homeowners had been waiting, amid reports some rebates have been stalled by up to 19 weeks.

"It's hard to tell at the moment because (it's) part of the transition from the old IT system," she said.

The troublesome software transfer also meant the department was slowly uncovering new claims, previously unseen.

"So we're currently going through a forensic exercise to try and identify each one of those and their current status," Ms Rankin said.

Deputy secretary Martin Bowles earlier faced scrutiny over the government's botched home insulation program, under which 1.2 million homes were insulated.

There is about $700 million left in funding, even though the program itself was scrapped last year.

Mr Bowles denied some of the leftover money will go towards compensation.

"Yes, there are a number of claims on the department," he told the hearing.

"But that does not mean that we accept any of those, and we have not paid any of those.

"We don't necessarily agree that there is a legal claim against the commonwealth."

The axed stimulus scheme was linked to four deaths and house fires.

SOURCE: http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/solar-rebates-to-be-paid-by-march-govt-20110221-1b2dp.html

Ohio Runs Out of Money for Solar Grants

Ohio's state Department of Development recently ceased accepting applications for grants from its Advanced Energy Fund, according to a report from the Columbus Dispatch. In particular, the program was set to reduce costs for residential systems significantly.
Due to the massive popularity of a state-run program designed to entice homeowners and businesses alike to invest in solar power, Ohio recently announced that it has run out of money for the associated grant program.

In all, 204 businesses and consumers applied for grants before November 5 but were told they would not receive them, the report said. The program gave out $15.6 million in grants between July and November.

"The (grants) were structured on a first-come, first served basis," Chad Smith, interim energy resources director for the Department of Development, told the newspaper. "From July to November, we did more projects than we ever did in any fiscal year."

Many consumers left in the cold by the program's shortfalls will still likely be able to qualify for similar grants from programs run by the federal government.

SOURCE: http://solar.coolerplanet.com/News/800418624-ohio-runs-out-of-money-for-solar-grants.aspx

Solar Company Cuts Incentives Asks State to Cut Subsidy Too

Xcel Energy said Wednesday that it is cutting the financial incentives it offers to customers for solar-energy installations.

In addition, the utility is asking state regulators to approve further cutbacks in the subsidy program.

Xcel said the reductions are justified because the cost of solar panels has been declining and customers no longer need higher incentives to offset installation costs.

But solar-industry officials said the cutbacks will have a severe effect on investments and jobs in the sector.

"This is absolutely devastating to the solar industry," said Neal Lurie, executive director of the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association. "No industry can survive this kind of shock."

Lurie said the subsidy cutback endangers the sector's growth, which has seen Colorado solar-energy jobs increase from 500 to 5,300 since the incentive program started in 2006.

State law provides for incentives and rebates on the installation of solar-energy equipment to meet renewable-energy mandates. The law allows Xcel to establish the level of incentives; the amount of rebates is set separately by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission.

The combined incentive and rebate drops from $2.35 per watt to $2.01, effective immediately, based on Xcel's change for residential- scale systems that range from 0.5 to 10 kilowatts. Larger systems will incur similar reductions.

Xcel also is asking the PUC to lower rebate amounts so that combined subsidies would drop further to $1.25 per watt — a 47 percent reduction from previous levels.

Solar-industry officials estimated that typical residential systems now costing $5,000 to $12,000 could rise to $8,000 to $16,000 after the reduced incentives and rebates.

Customers whose incentive applications already have been approved will still qualify for the higher subsidies.

Xcel cited a Deutsche Bank study saying the cost of solar panels dropped 50 percent from 2008 to 2009.

"We look forward to the industry's continued progress so that it can ultimately become self-supporting," Xcel Colorado president David Eves said in a statement. "Just as wind energy is now more competitive, solar energy is moving in that direction too."

SOURCE: http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_17407964

Iowa Dems Back $10 Million Solar, Wind Power Plan

Owners who install certain alternative energy systems in their businesses and homes would qualify for tax rebates under a $10 million package of incentives proposed Wednesday by Democrats in the Iowa Legislature.

The plan, which focuses on small solar or wind energy systems, would give homeowners rebates of as much as $3,000, and businesses could receive up to $15,000.

Democrats say the measure would provide $4 million to homeowners, which is enough for 1,300 projects. The $6 million for businesses would pay for 400 projects.

"Our goal is to help a new industry get going," said Sen. Pam Jochum, D-Dubuque.

Jochum argued that a focus on the wind energy industry in past years has led Iowa to become the second biggest wind-producing state in the nation, but much of that generating capacity is in large wind farms. The new focus will be on smaller projects that produce energy for individual homes and small businesses.

"This plan means work for the Iowa construction firms, plumbers, heating and air conditioning contractors who will install and maintain small solar installations and small wind turbines," said Sen. Joe Bolkcom, D-Iowa City. "Each project will leverage additional federal tax credits."

The incentives would be added to the 30 percent federal tax credit given for such projects.

The proposal was announced at a Statehouse news conference, and the legislation is likely to move quickly. Its future is bright in the Senate but far murkier in the House, where Republicans have a 60-40 advantage and budget-cutting has dominated the opening weeks of the session.

"Where are you going to get the $10 million?" said Rep Jeff Kaufmann, R-Wilton, who sits on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. "We're cutting throughout state government, across the board."

At the news conference, Democrats pitched their idea as a job-creation plan and brought along business owners to make that case.Dave Krejchi, who heads Dalton Plumbing, Heating and Cooling in Cedar Falls, and he said he's already installing solar water heating units. Among them is a project at the city's recreation center that kept two workers busy for months.

"We could have installed a lot more if there were more incentives," Krejchi said. "We believe solar is a growth industry."

James McCain Jr., who runs a small business in Des Moines that installs small solar and wind projects, said his company had revenues of $500,000 last year.

"We're on track to double that this year," said McCain. "This industry is new to Iowa."

SOURCE:  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-09/iowa-dems-back-10-million-solar-wind-power-plan.html 

After Evergreen Solar Massachuetts Rethinking Aid

Hundreds of employees of a solar panel factory in Massachusetts are looking for new jobs after the company announced that it's moving the plant to China.

Three years ago, Massachusetts wooed Evergreen Solar to locate in a former Army base in Devens that had been converted into an office park, hoping it would help boost the state's reputation as a hub for green industry. Now, many are second-guessing if and how government should be in the business of helping private business.


A Match Made In Heaven Breaks Up

On paper, it was a match made in heaven. Evergreen moved in and began to reap millions of dollars in fringe benefits, from tax breaks to free rent and cash grants. Evergreen grew from 100 to 800 employees. This month, the state woke up to what was basically a note on the kitchen table saying Evergreen was leaving.

"I was in shock for about a week," says Eric Grieman who works as a wafer fabricator at the company. "I have no clue what I'm going to do next."

"There was shock at every level," echoes Jack Burroughs, an environmental health and safety engineer, who got the news just one week after starting work at Evergreen. "I left a very good job in order to come here. I thought this was a more long-term career opportunity."

A Lack Of Federal Support

While many have directed their anger at Massachusetts for giving too generously to Evergreen, Burroughs says the problem may be that the manufacturer didn't get enough assistance at the federal level.

"I like the idea of the state supporting an industry such as this," he says. "But maybe there needs to be more federal support to help a company be successful."

Gov. Deval Patrick and Greg Bialecki, the state's secretary of housing and economic development, agree.

"We feel like we gave it our best shot," Bialecki says. "And I think, realistically, we have to talk about what role the federal government is going to play to keep manufacturing here and not to let it go overseas."

Evergreen's CEO Michael El-Hillow agrees, saying U.S. manufacturers cannot compete with companies in China that get far more government support.

He says Washington needs to do more to nurture fledgling industries, including changing government procurement policies to require buying American, and easing bank regulations and import duties that put American manufacturers at a disadvantage.

"It's also the role of government to make jobs for our citizens — our children," El-Hillow says. "That's their role. Or let's acknowledge that we're going to lose in the job creation stream."

But others scoff at the notion of a company that was given so much looking for even more. "It sort of has remarkable chutzpah," says Harvard University economics professor Edward Glaeser.

He says government should not be in the business of playing venture capitalist in the first place. And, Glaeser says, Massachusetts officials should have known better than to believe that a manufacturing plant could make it in such a high-cost labor market.

A New Review Process

Bradley H. Jones Jr., a Republican state representative, is one of many voices calling for a new review process for future government subsidies and incentives to private businesses.

He says the state was seduced by the lure of a sexy new industry.

"There was a leading with your heart and not your head," Jones says. Officials were all caught up in the idea that "this is going to put us on the map, and we're going to be green, green, green, and this is going to be great," Jones says. "And I think that served to cloud judgment."

'Get A Better Prenup'

Even Democratic supporters, like state Sen. James Eldridge, whose district includes Fort Devens, where the plant is located, are now expressing morning-after regret.

"I admit I was mistaken," Eldridge says. "I learned my lesson."

Perhaps the most important lesson, he says, is to "get a better prenup."

The state's contract with Evergreen does contain so-called clawbacks — some stronger than others. State officials concede their deal could have been tougher, but ultimately, they say they will recover most of their investment if one includes taxes that have come in, future benefits that will never be paid out, and the fact that the state still gets to keep roads and utilities that were built for Evergreen.

Officials say their costs should also be offset by the fact that hundreds of state residents had jobs through three really tough economic years.

But Harvard's Glaeser says it would be a big mistake to measure the state's energy policy by how it works as a jobs program.

"We need good energy policy," he says. "But the point of that policy should not be to maximize the number of employees. If we try to do energy and jobs together, I think we get neither a good energy program nor a good jobs program. "

In other words, Glaeser says, Massachusetts may have lost 800 jobs, but if the state's investment helps reduce long-term costs of green energy, then it's better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.

SOURCE: http://www.npr.org/2011/01/28/133249970/loss-of-solar-jobs-has-mass-rethinking-state-aid

Oregon Solar Tax Credits to Expire

Oregon residents and businesses can get tax credits for installing solar panels, conducting research or planting new trees in commercial forestland.

Those credits and more than a dozen others will expire in 2012 unless lawmakers decide to continue them, the first of about 50 tax credits that the Legislature will evaluate over the next six years.

In 2009, Democrats in control of the House and Senate set nearly all of Oregon's tax credits to expire. Lawmakers meet for up to five months beginning on Tuesday.

The 19 up for review this year are credits for business, environment and economic development initiatives.

"It may well be that we conclude that it's working well and we should continue doing it," said Rep. Tobias Read, D-Beaverton. "But we feel very strongly that that's a responsible thing to do, to find out whether a tax credit is having its intended effect."

The debate is sure to spark intense interest from taxpayers who save money from tax credits and the lobbyists who work for them.

For decades, Oregon lawmakers have created credits as an incentive for taxpayers to make certain investments, like installing solar panels on a home or filming a movie here. Some are designed to prop up budding industries, while others are meant to help people with low incomes pay for health and child care.

Supporters say that well-designed credits have successfully boosted job creation, or that they keep money with taxpayers instead of the government.

"The truth of the matter is, there is very little that government can do directly to stimulate economic activity from the private sector," said Rep. Vicki Berger, a Salem Republican who is co-chairing the tax credit review committee. But tax credits serve as "a carrot to encourage certain private sector activity."

The challenge, lawmakers say, is measuring their success. Have they spawned the desired behavior? Would people have made the same decisions even without the tax credit? Is the outcome significant enough to justify the lost revenue?

Critics on the left say tax credits deprive the government of money. On the right, free-market advocates say tax credits give a lifeline to initiatives that wouldn't survive without government intervention. A homeowner can get a tax credit for installing solar panels, for example, but not for making another home improvement that he might deem more important, said Steve Buckstein, founder and senior policy analyst at the libertarian Cascade Policy Institute in Portland.

"It's the government substituting their judgment for yours and in effect bribing you," Buckstein said.

Democrats complain that eliminating tax credits requires a 60 percent supermajority because it raises revenue, but creating incentives requires only a simple majority. The mandatory review was created when Democrats controlled supermajorities in both chambers of the Legislature.

The least expensive tax credits to be reviewed this year are projected to cost next to nothing in relation to the total budget -- less than $100,000 over the next six years. Those programs include credits for buying devices that prevent fish from entering irrigation canals or for hiring new workers to build ships.

Others are more expensive, like the film production credit at $37 million or one encouraging the production and collection of biomass at $66 million over the same period.

But by far the most expensive credit is the Business Energy Tax Credit at $310 million in lost revenue through 2017. The cost of the program is heavily weighted to later years. It jumps from $11 million in the next two-year budget to $229 million in the 2015 budget. The projected cost in lost revenue from BETC alone is nearly half of all projected tax credit concessions that year.

This year, lawmakers will review the credit's renewable energy generation and conservation programs this year, leaving the manufacturing provisions for review in 2013.

For most credits, the bar will be high to keep them in place, requiring five successful votes and the governor's signature. Most successful tax credits will have to pass policy committees in the House and Senate, along with a joint tax-credit review committee and the full chambers before going to Democratic Gov. John Kitzhaber.

That means there are plenty of places for them to be tripped up -- even more than a typical bill. And a tie in the House between Republicans and Democrats means only tax credits with bipartisan support will be continued.

Extending a tax credit will be calculated as an increase in the deficit at a time when Oregon is more than $2 billion short of continuing state services at their current levels.

SOURCE: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9L0OVPO0.htm

Good News for Solar Hot Water System Rebates

Good news for New Hampshire residents mulling over the idea of buying solar powered hot water systems: a new mix of federal and state rebates and tax credits.

The state's Public Utilities Commission has expanded its maximum rebate to $2,900.

Broken down, that's a maximum $2,000 from federal stimulus money (which was raised from $750) plus a maximum $900 available from New Hampshire's renewable energy program. And another piece of good news: folks getting the maximum $2,900 rebate can also get a 30 percent federal tax credit.

Not everybody gets the maximum, though.

The amount of your rebate depends on the power potential of your solar system.

Kate Epsen of the PUC explained that if you purchase a $10,000 system that produces 6 to 19.9 MBTU (million British Thermal Units), the mixed state and federal incentive, plus the IRS federal tax credit, can be as much as $5,000.

For systems that are 20 to 29.9 MMBTU, the number goes to $5,150 available and for systems of 30 MMBTU or higher, the incentive climbs to $5,300, assuming the same purchase price. Larger systems however cost more money upfront, she said, which increases the federal tax credit in turn.

Companies like Revision Energy have set out to explain to potential customers what the rebates can mean for them. In one scenario, the company says a typical residential project involving 2 flat plate collectors that produce around 18.25MMBTU and cost $10,500 can mean an incentive package that adds up to $5,750.

There is, however, a flip side to New Hampshire's move to increase the amount of the individual rebate: it lowered the number of slots to about 248, meaning that folks wanting to take advantage should hurry in order to get the $2,000 federal chunk. The state portion of the rebate will likely continue even when the federal money runs out.

Epsen says that the PUC's new rebate structure has increased interest. The commission has processed 133 applications out of which 112 qualified for the $2,000 federal rebate.

In order to receive the requisite $2000 federal rebate, Epsen said, applications must be processed and invoices issued before February of 2012.

More on federal credit

The 30 percent federal tax credit — established by Congress in 2005 and labeled the Residential Renewable Energy Tax Credit — was capped at $2,000 for sun-powered energy systems. But that cap has been removed. So, when calculating the costs at tax time, you can include the not only your new system's equipment costs but also labor. And you can carry the credit forward into other tax years too.

Jim Gamble, owner of GreenSource Energy Solutions Solar Store in Concord, argues that customers should hurry because the funding history of the Renewable Energy Fund is inconsistent largely because it depends on utility payments under New Hampshire's Renewable Portfolio standard.

"We saw how quickly the funds dried up for the residential solar electric rebate last year," said Gamble.

Sarah Brown, president of Green Alliance, an organization that promotes environmentally responsible businesses, agrees.

"Everyone is very concerned about what the new Republican state leadership will do in terms of axing state incentives," she said. "They have made it clear that they are looking to do that."

Brown said several New Hampshire and Maine solar companies are beginning to offer unique financing options to spread initial costs of getting a solar system up and running.

Her group works with Dover-based Seacoast Energy Alternatives (SEA) Revolution Energy, as well as Concord-based Green Source Energy Solutions, companies she said are working to take the "initial financial pain out of what is a long-term cost saver."

She said that some area companies, for example, are teaming with mortgage and loan companies to make it so that a new solar system is seen as a home equity investment by a lender.

"The major hurdle for most businesses or residences considering solar is the initial up-front cost," said Brown. "So of course rebates help reduce this risk and the financing is like the icing on the cake.

"Combining rebates, tax credits and financing is the magic triangle that is really going to put solar on the map for the entire Northeast."

SOURCE: http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110131/BIZ/101310306/-1/NEWSMAP

Obama: Continued Funding for Renewable Power

At a solar power company in downtown San Francisco, Edward Fenster plans on doubling his workforce to 8,000 people in the next year.

Fenster is chief executive of SunRun, a company that puts solar panels on residential rooftops.

Over the last four years, his business has grown from one employee (himself) to 4,000, most of them contractors SunRun hires to do the installations.

Sun Run's growth spurt is in large part due to the subsidies it enjoys from the federal government. Fenster expects his customers to more than double next year.

Generally, tax breaks mean the federal government absorbs about 30% of the costs for a solar project. That's fairly standard across the wind and solar industry. Fenster knows just where his business, and others like it, would be if those subsidies disappeared.

"No solar business would survive," he said. "I can't imagine you'd find much new wind construction either."

In his State of the Union speech Tuesday night, President Obama called for continued funding for renewable power, part of a broader plan to improve the nation's infrastructure. In his prepared remarks, Obama said that investments in clean energy "will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people."


But with the deficit high on everyone's mind, finding that money will prove challenging.

Obama said Tuesday night that to help pay for alternative energy investments, he is urging Congress "to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies."

"I don't know if you've noticed, but they're doing just fine on their own. So instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow's," he added.

Still, various subsidies, including tax credits and direct grants, are already in place for companies that produce electricity from wind and solar. They cost the government about $5 billion in 2010. Ethanol subsidies cost another $6 billion.

This doesn't take into account various Department of Energy programs, including research and development grants. The Energy Department did not respond to a request for comment.

The stimulus effort set aside over $100 billion for various clean technology programs to be spent over several years. The funding includes money for solar and wind production, but also cash for R&D, conservation programs and clean water initiatives, according to Sheeraz Haji, head of the research firm the Clean Tech Group.

Only about $25 billion of that has been spent, said Haji, making the remaining $75 billion a tempting target for deficit hawks.

Even the tax credits for wind and solar production are not safe. It's not thought that mainstream politicians from either side of the isle are looking to ax them -- they've been the government's primary means of supporting renewable energy for decades. But there are growing calls for their demise.

"If 30 years isn't enough for the industry to stand on its own feet, you have to ask how long it will be," said William O'Keefe, chief executive of the Marshall Institute, a think tank. "There's just been too much given to alternatives that cannot sustain themselves."

O'Keefe doesn't buy the job creation argument, saying it doesn't make sense to pay people to produce things that don't make money.

From agriculture to automakers, O'Keefe is against subsidies for any industry.

He's all for funding R&D into new, cheaper renewable technology. He just doesn't want to fund the production of electricity at rates that he says are too high. This is especially true, he says, at a time when renewables account for a small part of our overall energy demand.

According to the Energy Information Administration, renewable energy excluding big hydropower accounted for about 6% of the country's total energy production in September of 2010. The vast majority of that was ethanol and other biofuels; wind and solar accounted for just 1%.

Although the numbers are small, they are over twice what they were in 2006.

Plus, prices are falling fast.

SunRun's Fenster said the price of a watt of electricity from solar power has dropped from $90 in the 1970s to $1.65 today. He said the industry won't need subsidies forever. In five years it can get by on a 10% subsidy, he said, and none shortly thereafter.

And that's the main argument supporters of the subsidies make. Renewable power is growing at a huge clip, and is necessary to protect the environment and to replace dwindling supplies of fossil fuel, especially oil.

The government has every right to be in the renewable business, they say, as the fuel promotes a public good - namely, clean air and energy independence.

Plus, when put in perspective, they say the subsidies aren't that large. The Environmental Law Institute estimates renewable energy received $29 billion in subsidies from 2002 through 2008. Over the same time, the say the fossil fuel industry got $73 billion in subsidies, although a big chunk of that was in the form of a tax credit oil companies can take for paying royalties overseas.

And while the U.S. stimulus may have allocated $100 billion for environmental programs, China's stimulus plan is thought to have set aside $250 to $350 billion, according to Clean Tech's Haji.

"They are totally kicking our butts," said SunRun's Fenster. "As a country, we need to look toward the future."

SOURCE: http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/25/news/economy/renewable_energy_obama/

Solar More Popular Than Expected - Subsidies Running Out

Despite four years of economic malaise, Californians have been installing solar panels at the speed of light, pushing down subsidies and creating turmoil in the solar installation industry, according to some industry observers.

California politicians, notably former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, have long tried to stimulate the economy by pushing legislation designed to help "green" industries, such as those that develop or distribute solar and wind energy, or promote energy efficiency. They hoped such businesses would create jobs for sidelined construction workers and foster innovation.

A subsidy established to grow the solar industry may have worked too well: Californians bought up so many solar panels that the training wheels were pulled away too quickly, shaking up the industry as some companies folded while others expanded to take their place.

A bright beginning

California started redirecting utility ratepayer funds into the California Solar Initiative in 2007, and provided $2.167 billion to fund it. Legislators set up the program so that generous subsidies would lure in buyers early by reducing high costs, but dwindle as solar energy became more popular and solar power businesses could stand on their own. The subsidies fell in discrete steps as Californians achieved certain milestones in solar electricity generating capacity. Ideally, the subsidy would drop one step a year, administrators said.

But Californians burned through the money faster than expected. As of the last quarter of 2010, commercial, nonprofit and government customers of Southern California Edison had reached the eighth level of 10, and the utility's residential customers reached the sixth, both several years ahead of schedule.

San Diego Gas and Electric Co.'s residential customers are at step 8, and nonresidential customers have no steps left ---- they must sign up for a waiting list and hope someone else drops out.

An official for the California Center for Sustainable Energy, which administers the subsidy for SDG and said the speed with which the public used up the subsidies surprised local solar installers and suppliers.

"There was no preparation for this," said Katrina Perez Morton, a program manager for the center. "This was not something they (installers and suppliers) saw coming. They expected a 10-year program."

Darker days

As subsidies fell, some solar installers couldn't handle a sudden drop in demand: National installation company groSolar shuttered its El Cajon office and got out of the residential installation business in California two weeks ago; Solana Beach installer Sequoia Solar Inc. folded; Akeena Solar, based in Los Gatos, stopped installing in California; and the list goes on.

"The real magic point happened from May 2010," said Scott Gordon, vice president for sales for Murrieta solar installer HelioPower.

That was when, in San Diego County, the subsidy took a big drop, from $1.10 per installed watt to $0.65. A typical residential installation in the state is 5,000 watts, which means the subsidy declined from $5,500 to $3,520, a difference that caused a drop in demand. Today, it's at $0.35 per watt, which pins the subsidy at $1,750 for a typical system.

Daniel Sullivan, owner of Sullivan Solar Power in San Diego, said he thinks newer installers just weren't aware of the seasonality of the solar installation business, and they didn't plan for a normal drop in sales in winter.

"For newer companies, it’s a major eye-opener. They think their ship is sinking," he said. "It just so happens, the rebate level is so low, people are looking to that as why sales are down."

Gordon said he thinks that some companies failed to anticipate that the drop in subsidy would come with a drop in demand, and so they failed to manage their savings to get through any lull.

Solar still shines

But he also said HelioPower is still doing big business in other parts of California, and as a result, the company has been hiring staff and adding offices. Though subsidies in Pacific Gas and Electric Co. territory in Northern California were at the same step as in San Diego, he's doing plenty of business there, thanks to substantially higher electric rates. And he's still doing installations in Southern California Edison territory because the utility's subsidies are still high.

Edison subsidies are just now dropping a step to $1.10 per watt for residential customers, and there's still room in its nonresidential program, said Gary Barsley, solar initiatives and self-generation programs manager for Edison.

Barsley said PG and E charges more for electricity than Edison, so PG and E's customers have stronger financial incentive to install solar. He didn't offer a clear explanation for why Edison's customers have been installing solar panels slower than SDG and E's customers.

Indeed, San Diego County leads all counties in California in residential solar capacity, with 23.8 installed megawatts of solar panels among 5,245 residential customers. Riverside County is fourth, with 2,007 applicants installing 11.5 megawatts. Among nonresidential applicants, San Diego County ranks first in applications, but fourth in capacity, with 21.8 megawatts. Riverside County is fifth with 16 megawatts. One megawatt can power 650 typical houses.

Sullivan disagreed with Gordon's assessment of San Diego installations. He said his business increased 50 percent in 2010 from 2009, and 2011 looks good, too.

He said that although the subsidy has dropped, the cost of solar materials and installation dropped faster. According to the California Solar Initiative, costs per watt dropped 22 percent in inflation-adjusted terms in SDG and territory for residential customers to $8.04 per watt (before subsidies), and they dropped 9 percent in Edison territory to $9.64.

Sullivan's not worried about the industry surviving the subsidy.

"We see a new company jumping into the solar industry every week or every couple weeks," he said. "We see the same amount falling out. They think it's a way to get rich quick, they come in, they see it's not easy, and they fold. Companies such as ours, they've been fine, and sales have continued to increase."

SOURCE: http://www.nctimes.com/business/article_68999a60-477a-5adb-95c8-bc9e82b456f4.html

Solar Scammer a Free Man in Nevada

Investigators say they've made contact with the "Solar Scammer," but right now he's still a free man.

Nicholas Jansing is accused of promising homeowners he'd get them solar panels with with government grant money. But once he got their deposits, he'd allegedly take off with the money. Apparently, he's stolen around ten thousand dollars.

Investigators say he is being cooperative as they build a case against him. Jansing could face up to five felony charges and nine misdemeanors for things like obtaining money under false pretenses, and contracting without a license.

SOURCE

Los Angeles Delays Changes in Solar Incentives

Rebates for solar panels on Los Angeles rooftops may stick around as the new year begins. The L.A. City Council has agreed to delay changes in the solar incentive program.

Every utility in the state has offered cash credits for each kilowatt of power their customers get from rooftop panels. The state's Million Solar Roofs bill made that money available.

The idea was to help solar break into the energy market. From the start, the plan was to decrease the rebates over time as the market evens out. Then federal incentives for solar increased, the cost of the solar panels dropped and California's demand for rooftop solar has spiked.

About 70 percent of rebates so far have gone to commercial projects; residential solar is supposed to be half the program. L.A. water and power commissioners decided earlier this month to ratchet down the incentives, reconsider the program and possibly tweak it.

Unhappy with that, some solar installers lobbied the L.A. Cty Council to get involved. The council rejected the DWP's decision to reduce rebates, but added that the utility should freeze rooftop solar applications for three months as it works up a different plan.

SOURCE

Judges Dismisses Solar Power Rebate Lawsuit

A Missouri judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed over a renewable energy law that would require utilities to offer rebates to customers who install solar power systems.

Voters approved the renewable energy law in 2008, which included a requirement for investor-owned utilities to use solar power. Customers were to receive a $2 per watt rebate if they installed solar electric systems. The measure, called Proposition C, also required investor-owned utilities to meet thresholds for using renewable energy.

Months before the initiative petition was approved, the Legislature passed a bill exempting utilities from the rebate requirement if their renewable energy capacity was equal to at least 15 percent of their fossil fuel capacity by Jan. 20, 2009.

The lawsuit, which was filed in the Capitol's home of Cole County, sought to have that exemption declared invalid. The suit was filed against The Empire District Electric Co., a Joplin-based utility, and the Missouri Public Service Commission. The plaintiffs included two southwest Missouri residents who wanted the solar-power rebates.

The Empire District has said it should be exempted from the solar rebate portion of the voter-approved law because the utility exceeded the 15 percent renewable energy level in December 2008.

The lawsuit claimed lawmakers could not modify an initiative petition after voter signatures had been submitted and before the initiative appears on the ballot. It also suggested that the rebate exemption that took effect in August was overridden after voters approved the ballot measure in November.

Cole County Circuit Judge Paul Wilson dismissed the suit Friday and called it premature. Wilson ruled that state utility regulators have not determined how apply to the voter-approved law and the Legislature-approved exemption.

"It is for the Public Service Commission to say -- in the first instance -- what Empire may do and must do regarding Proposition C's renewable energy mandates and rebate requirements," Wilson wrote in his ruling.

SOURCE