Did California's Solar Incentives Matter?

[pleppik]

Some economists did some analysis and modeling of California's solar incentives and came to the conclusion that the incentives didn't actually make much of a difference in how much solar was installed. The reason being that most people who installed solar panels in California in recent years would have done it anyway, even without the incentive. Here's a link to a summary.

Personally, I'm a little skeptical of this result, mostly because it comes from a sophisticated econometric model which isn't well explained in the article. I'd like to see some confirmation before I really believe it (though it's at least plausible).

But if we assume for the sake of argument that the research is right and California's solar incentives didn't make much difference, there's two ways to interpret this:

1. California wasted a bunch of money paying for rich people's solar panels, and/or
2. Solar is compelling enough in California that people don't need incentive payments, and the industry will grow even without that government support

Take your pick.

[solar pete]

Some economists did some analysis and modeling of California's solar incentives and came to the conclusion that the incentives didn't actually make much of a difference in how much solar was installed. The reason being that most people who installed solar panels in California in recent years would have done it anyway, even without the incentive. Here's a link to a summary.

Personally, I'm a little skeptical of this result, mostly because it comes from a sophisticated econometric model which isn't well explained in the article. I'd like to see some confirmation before I really believe it (though it's at least plausible).

But if we assume for the sake of argument that the research is right and California's solar incentives didn't make much difference, there's two ways to interpret this:

1. California wasted a bunch of money paying for rich people's solar panels, and/or
2. Solar is compelling enough in California that people don't need incentive payments, and the industry will grow even without that government support

Take your pick.

Howdy,

Solar will always do well where grid power costs over .30cents a kWh its as simple as that, well in my humble opinion, cheers.

[rhedayi]

I think the initiatives helped, but luckly the price of solar has come down so at this point the initiatives arent as big a deal. I wonder what happens when the fed tax credit goes !

[J.P.M.]

Some economists did some analysis and modeling of California's solar incentives and came to the conclusion that the incentives didn't actually make much of a difference in how much solar was installed. The reason being that most people who installed solar panels in California in recent years would have done it anyway, even without the incentive. Here's a link to a summary.

Personally, I'm a little skeptical of this result, mostly because it comes from a sophisticated econometric model which isn't well explained in the article. I'd like to see some confirmation before I really believe it (though it's at least plausible).

But if we assume for the sake of argument that the research is right and California's solar incentives didn't make much difference, there's two ways to interpret this:

1. California wasted a bunch of money paying for rich people's solar panels, and/or
2. Solar is compelling enough in California that people don't need incentive payments, and the industry will grow even without that government support

Take your pick.

The arguments about gov. subsidizing the rich may have some merit, and I may well agree with that that more than most, but there was a real, somewhat unique value in the CSI program that people outside and inside CA never noticed. It was a VERY valuable tool to find out the real cost of a solar electric system. ALL the information about EVERY solar job in CA from about 2008 until sometime last that got a rebate, except the name and address of the user, was public knowledge.

EVERYTHING. Want to compare vendor pricing ? It's there. Sizing ? Orientation ? How long start to finish ? Panel type, number, inverter /etc. + lots more ? All of it. And more. And all of it verified - not hearsay or B.S. bragging.

It was about the best, most accurate shopping tool a solar consumer could ask for. Don't think so ? Vendors hated it and avoided/denied talking about it like the plague. The tragedy was, most of the sheeple, solar ignorant did the same as the vendors, mostly out of lazy ignorance and missed a great opportunity. IMO, I saved about 10+ % or so because I had a roadmap.

It may not have made much of a difference how much solar was installed, but for those with a brain to use, it probably resulted in a few systems that were less overpriced than they otherwise might have been. Look at the picture with a broader eye and perspective.

[sensij]

Speaking of wasted money, is there any rationale that makes sense for the"climate credit" we get twice a year to combat carbon usage? As a regressive stimulus, ok, but that has nothing to do with climate change.

[J.P.M.]

Speaking of wasted money, is there any rationale that makes sense for the"climate credit" we get twice a year to combat carbon usage? As a regressive stimulus, ok, but that has nothing to do with climate change.

Yea, I see that 2X/year on my bill. At the bottom of the page it's all about politics and power. Climate change or appropriate tech. or saving the environment has squat to do with it. Calling it a "giant doggy steamer" is about as accurate as calling it a "climate credit". It's more of the same stuff about the powerful manipulating the great unwashed masses, same as manipulation of the tax system to influence behavior.

[pleppik]

Speaking of wasted money, is there any rationale that makes sense for the"climate credit" we get twice a year to combat carbon usage? As a regressive stimulus, ok, but that has nothing to do with climate change.

I don't live in California, so can you educate me a little? How is this credit calculated, where does the money come from, etc.?

There seems to be a fair consensus among economists that the "best" way to reduce CO2 emissions is to attach a price to CO2 (at least insofar as there's consensus among economists for anything). That could take the form of either a carbon tax, or some sort of payment for avoided emissions, or both. But the devil is always in the details, and any credit should be applied equally to all non-emitting power sources including solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear.

[inetdog]

(at least insofar as there's consensus among economists for anything).

Q: How many Chicago School economists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. If the light bulb really needed to be changed the market would have taken care of it already.

Q: How many Keynesian economists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: All of them, thereby increasing employment and shifting the demand curve to the right.

[J.P.M.]

Q: How many Chicago School economists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. If the light bulb really needed to be changed the market would have taken care of it already.

Q: How many Keynesian economists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: All of them, thereby increasing employment and shifting the demand curve to the right.

On A2: That's only in the northern hemisphere.

[sensij]

I don't live in California, so can you educate me a little? How is this credit calculated, where does the money come from, etc.?

There seems to be a fair consensus among economists that the "best" way to reduce CO2 emissions is to attach a price to CO2 (at least insofar as there's consensus among economists for anything). That could take the form of either a carbon tax, or some sort of payment for avoided emissions, or both. But the devil is always in the details, and any credit should be applied equally to all non-emitting power sources including solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear.

Here's a link to a fact sheet. The way I understand it, more or less, is that the state charges power companies some fee based on their carbon footprint. Power companies raise their rates to pay the fee. The state gives some portion of the money back to the customers, though a bill reduction twice a year. The amount they give back is probably not enough to pay the higher rates, since some portion of the collected money goes other places (including, I'm sure, overhead). However, we are encouraged to spend that money on LED's, or other energy saving measures, and pretend that it was free, instead of out of our pockets to begin with. CA Politics at their best.

[Alisobob]

solar76.JPG

[ericf1]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6349[/ATTACH]

So, the CA Climate Credit will effectively eliminate my $0.17/per day minimum fee. Or does the $0.17/day minimum fee eliminate my CA Climate Credit?