Multimedia News

Sexiest older women. How old are they?
20 photos
Actress Kate Walsh poses for pictures after l...
Beautiful people in Cannes
20 photos
Australian actress Diana Glenn poses for phot...
Celebs out and about
18 photos
Actress Lindsay Lohan arrives at the Diesel x...
NFL Sunday
20 photos
New York Jets quarterback Brett Favre passes ...
The best of college football
20 photos
Miami's Graig Cooper scores a touchdown as Ce...

Skies darken for solar rebate plan

Apr 3, 2008 3:00 AM (194 days ago) by John Upton, The Examiner
This story ranks Not ranked
Related Topics: SAN FRANCISCO
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.

This story continues below
Advertisement

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.

jupton@examiner.com

Add a Comment


Name: (required)
Comments:
characters left
Comments are regulated by the Terms of Use.

Comments from Examiner Readers

8:36 PM MST on Wed., Aug. 20, 2008 re: "A bowl soars in the Richmond"

Examiner Reader said:
Anonymous wrote: Having actually seen and experienced this building, I can tell you that it is an extremely poor building conceptually, tactically and technically. A more "honest" photograph of it in context would clearly show this. Conceptually, its scaleless "Minimalism Uber Alles" aesthetic seems perversely inappropriate. Tactically, the essential positioning of its reductive elements (i.e. the concrete "bowl" and metal "block") should at least be inverted -- with the "bowl" marking the street corner and the "block" set into adjacent alignment with the neighboring fabric of row houses. Lastly, in terms of the most basic technique it is a failure. A minimalist architect should, at least, master the integration of building services. Highly visible from the street is a mess of rooftop mechanical equipment--in the photos that I have seen published of the building this reality has been conveniently "photoshopped" out.

1 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

1:14 PM MST on Thu., May. 29, 2008 re: "Parking officers prepare to deal with rising tide of anger"

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
8:12 AM MST on Thu., May. 29, 2008 re: "Parking officers prepare to deal with rising tide of anger"

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
9:32 AM MST on Thu., May. 1, 2008 re: "Asketh The City: ‘Where art thou, Shakespeare plaques?'"

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 | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
7:21 PM MST on Wed., Apr. 30, 2008 re: "Cost of home-improvement permits to soar"

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 | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
10:43 AM MST on Tue., Apr. 29, 2008 re: "Skies darken for solar rebate plan"

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?

1 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
1:39 PM MST on Sat., Apr. 5, 2008 re: "Skies darken for solar rebate plan"

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 | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
1:08 PM MST on Fri., Apr. 4, 2008 re: "Skies darken for solar rebate plan"

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
3:04 PM MST on Thu., Apr. 3, 2008 re: "Skies darken for solar rebate plan"

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
Advertisement