
|
Los Angeles City Guides
|
Article History SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - A city proposal to provide $3 million to help private companies and homeowners meet the costs of solar panel installations stalled at the Board of Supervisors on Wednesday on concerns that The City’s legislators should have originally approved the funding, which will be taken out of a solar power project on a municipal building.
In January, Mayor Gavin Newsom submitted a ballot measure for the June 2008 election that would have created a solar power rebate program to help subsidize installation costs.
In March, he withdrew the measure, and said the rebates would be funded through $3 million of money from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission.
On Wednesday, the Board of Supervisors’ Budget and Finance committee considered a resolution by Supervisor Jake McGoldrick to put the program on hold.
The Board of Supervisors should have been consulted about funding for the program, McGoldrick said during the meeting, adding that he wanted to “hit the pause button.”
No action was taken and the committee is scheduled to discuss the issue again in two weeks.
The program would have been funded from a fund for energy conservation and alternative energy projects set up in 2001, Barbara Hale, general manager of power at the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, told supervisors. Nearly $10 million was allocated to the fund last year, she said.
The $3 million for the solar rebate program had been previously earmarked to pay for the installation of solar panels at Pier 96, according to Hale.
In February, the SFPUC released new bid documents that propose instead to lease space at Pier 96, where a private company would install solar panels and sell the solar energy back to The City.
A typical 2 kilowatt rooftop solar panel installation in San Francisco costs around $20,000 and provides the “lion’s share” of a household’s electricity needs, according to Greg Kennedy, who manages a solar installation company in The City. Federal and state rebates and tax credits slash $6,000 from that price, he said.
Kennedy said the incentive program, which would have cut another $3,000 to $5,000 from the price, would be a boon for the local solar industry.
Newsom spokesman Nathan Ballard said he believed McGoldrick was holding up the program unnecessarily and said that if the program went on the ballot he was certain voters would approve it.
Not ranked |
EMAIL ME THIS STORY |
ARTICLE HISTORY |
Sports
Business |
Real Estate Family Movies and Books Venues, Sports and Music Concerts, Artists and Tickets Be Inspired - Quotes and Stories |
Comments from Examiner Readers
1:14 PM MST on Thu., May. 29, 2008 re: "Parking officers prepare to deal with rising tide of anger"
Report as inappropriate
8:12 AM MST on Thu., May. 29, 2008
re: "Parking officers prepare to deal with rising tide of anger"
Report as inappropriate
9:32 AM MST on Thu., May. 1, 2008
re: "Asketh The City: ‘Where art thou, Shakespeare plaques?'"
Report as inappropriate
7:21 PM MST on Wed., Apr. 30, 2008
re: "Cost of home-improvement permits to soar"
Report as inappropriate
10:43 AM MST on Tue., Apr. 29, 2008
re: "Skies darken for solar rebate plan"
Report as inappropriate
1:39 PM MST on Sat., Apr. 5, 2008
re: "Skies darken for solar rebate plan"
Report as inappropriate
1:08 PM MST on Fri., Apr. 4, 2008
re: "Skies darken for solar rebate plan"
Report as inappropriate
3:04 PM MST on Thu., Apr. 3, 2008
re: "Skies darken for solar rebate plan"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
People should leave the parking officers alone and assault city hall. The mayor and the planning department keep approving more and more development without adequate parking in a city with very limited parking as it is. People aren't likely to get out of their cars and use transit for their needs until the transit performs at an acceptable level. I don't believe anyone can honestly claim SFMTA operations in SF are acceptable.
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
bee said:
There is no excuse for assaulting a parking officer. There is also no excuse for the rudeness of some parking officers, nor their double parking and blocking traffic with impugnity. Just the other day I saw three parking "officers" taking a break together in a North Beach bakery... Also, why are they called "officers" now that they are no longer under the Police department?
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
this article was a exsotic amazement someone so selfish would take away the only wonderful time being art of william shakespeare he is a amazing designer and who ever shou take the art of an amazing person has a holed heart
1 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Dadee said:
They should reduce the number of employees. Most of them are incompetent and make it more difficult and expensive to get the project done.
1 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
That sucking sound we here is the Mayor playing to his friends and collegues at LENNAR CORP with the solar offer. The same people who are going to rebuild the Bayview for no cost to taxpayers. Really?
0 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Eric Brooks - SF Green Party said:
One very important fact that your report fails to note, is that the Mayor's solar plan lets the SFPUC wave caps and allow an unlimited public subsidy to private corporations for building solar on their property. So under the Mayor's plan, if Lennar Corporation builds us a new stadium, it could also deck out that stadium with millions of dollars of solar panels and stick San Franciscans for the bill! Let's make sure that public money goes to public solar, not private corporations. We should scrap the Mayor's plan.
3 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
The city should not pay for these small, inefficient, expensive residential installations. They are poorly monitored and maintained, the actual output is unknown, it's like buying a pig in a poke. If the SFPUC can convince a private company to operate a large installation at Pier 96 and sell the electricity back to the city at a guaranteed reasonable rate, that would be a better deal. However, it's questionable whether or not the SFPUC can make such a deal.
3 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Let me see, the supes find time to debate and pass a pointless bill on China, but didn't have time to look at and pass a useful bill actually pertaining to San Francisco.
1 agree | 4 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree