Sunday, June 26, 2005

THROUGHOUT the energy crisis of 2000 and 2001, as a confluence of political ineptitude and corporate greed led to rolling blackouts and breathtaking price spikes in electricity, the sun never stopped shining in California.

It's time to connect the dots.

Solar energy has the potential to help this state buffer the demand for new power plants that consume natural gas -- and leave Californians vulnerable to the types of wild price fluctuations that sent public utilities into bankruptcy and forced Gov. Gray Davis to grope for desperate financing schemes just to keep the lights on.

One of the many lessons of the energy crisis was that California needed to develop a more diverse and reliable supply of electricity.

Solar energy should be one of those elements.

Two state senators, Republican John Campbell of Irvine and Democrat Kevin Murray of Los Angeles, have been pushing legislation to promote solar development in California. Their measure (SB1) has the endorsement of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has been compiling a commendable record of leadership on environmental issues. SB1 has been called the "million solar roofs" bill, though the actual number of units that result would depend on how Californians respond to the measure's incentives.

"The energy crisis of a few years ago made it obvious and plain that we needed to gain control of our destiny," Murray said in a telephone interview last week. "There's no trader that can game the system and drive up the price of the sun."

One of the more innovative provisions of the bill would require developers of subdivisions of 50 or more homes to offer solar panels as an option. A similar bill by Murray last year would have required a percentage of a development's homes to have solar panels, but its defeat led Murray to turn the mandate into an option in the latest version.

Obviously, the appeal of the solar option requires more than a tug at a homeowner's conscience to do his or her part to reduce global warming and reduce the state's dependence on fossil fuels. Consumers are going to want to do the math: Does the $15,000 investment of a solar panel generate a sufficient return in lower utility bills?

Today, for most homeowners, the answer is no -- though state rebates and tax credits help narrow the gap.

The Campbell-Murray bill would extend state solar rebates for homes and businesses -- now set to expire in December 2007 -- through 2016. The cost of those subsidies would be covered by a fee on utility bills to be determined by the California Public Utilities Commission.

The prospect of a new surcharge on utility bills has encountered resistance from The Utility Reform Network, a consumer advocacy group. The fee is expected to be in the range of 50 cents a month for most residential consumers. But it is important to note that ratepayers would be bearing the cost of any power plants that might have to be built if the solar option is not cultivated. Also, SB1 specifies that low-income customers would be exempt from the fee.

Japan offers a model of how government policies can nurture an economically vital and environmentally beneficial solar industry. The island nation began its intensively subsidized solar effort in 1994 and within a decade it possessed nearly half of the world's photovoltaic capacity. Cost of the solar units dropped steadily -- as did the need for government subsidies, which are expected to be fully phased out in the next year.

Today, many Japanese homes actually generate more electricity than they consume, allowing homeowners to sell back the excess to their utility company.

Campbell and Murray have a similar vision for California.

"I think it probably would happen on its own, but it may take 10 years," Campbell said in a telephone interview last week. "What this will do is accelerate the process."

California's residential development and energy-consumption patterns are ideally tailored to solar power. Much of the state's growth is occurring in the inland areas, where scorching summer days get the air conditioners blasting and put the greatest strain on the energy supply.

The sun can be part of the solution. The Campbell-Murray bill cleared the Senate on a bipartisan 30-5 vote, but it faces a difficult course in the Assembly, where some members have a disturbing tendency to "take a walk" on measures opposed by powerful interests. Homebuilders are skeptical about the prospects for solar; utilities and manufacturers are objecting to the ratepayer surcharges; labor unions want to be assured a piece of the action.

Nothing is ever easy in the politics of Sacramento. The biggest hurdle to passage of SB1 may be the effort by organized labor to include a provision that would require the payment of "prevailing wage" -- or union scale -- to installers of solar panels on all homes and businesses that receive state subsidies. But as Campbell noted, the purpose of this bill is to reduce the cost of solar energy. A prevailing-wage requirement would clearly be at odds with the spirit of SB1, which seeks to lower the cost of the systems.

The development of solar energy is important to this state's long-term interest, both for its economy and its quality of life. The Assembly should send SB1 to the governor for his signature.

Encourage your Assembly representative to support SB1. You can find names and contact information for all Assembly members at http://assembly.ca.gov. Or you can send postal mail to legislators at the State Capitol, Sacramento, CA 95814.