D.C. reneges on aid to install solar panels

[lostinblue 1,989]

D.C. reneges on aid to install solar panels

Although city officials say they are looking for more money, Brian Levy was told he won't get $12,200 to offset part of the cost of the $27,500 solar system he had installed on his home. By David Nakamura

Washington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, February 27, 2011; 6:25 PM

It isn't easy going green, and it may also prove costly.

Dozens of District residents who installed solar panels on their homes under a government grant program promoting renewable energy have been told they will not be reimbursed thousands of dollars as promised because the funds were diverted to help close a citywide budget gap.

In all, the city has reneged on a commitment of about $700,000 to 51 residents, according to the D.C. Department of the Environment. The agency has pledged to try to find money in next year's budget, its director, Christophe Tulou, said.

"It just doesn't seem fair to go through a process with them and have them make investments in solar panels under the assumption they would be reimbursed," Tulou acknowledged. "It's really sad we are having these economic woes when we are."

The abrupt suspension of the city's Renewable Energy Incentive Plan, an annual $2 million fund that was supposed to last through fiscal 2012, threatens to dampen budding enthusiasm for clean energy among homeowners. The program has helped 315 people install solar panels, with another 417 on a waiting list that has been closed by city officials.

D.C. Council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3), who is leading the push for a sustainable energy utility to encourage green energy in the District, said officials are scouring the environment agency's budget in hopes of finding reimbursement money for the 51 homeowners this year.

But, she said, "I would think people would take a cautious approach" to future installations.

The District established its incentive program in 2009, joining a growing renewable energy movement among states and the federal government. The D.C. program is funded by a dedicated tax on city residents' and businesses' gas and electric bills. The fund reimburses participants about a third, and sometimes more, of the cost of their solar energy systems.

As budget deficits have soared, however, states have been scaling back their incentives or eliminating them entirely. In December, the D.C. Council voted to approve an emergency funding bill that closed a projected $188 million citywide budget gap by cutting social services and furloughing some city workers for four days. The $700,000 from the renewable energy fund was reallocated to other needs, officials said.

That came as a shock to Brian Levy, 35, who received a letter from Tulou on Jan. 25 informing him that the city would be unable to pay him the $12,200 it had promised last September. In October, Levy had hired a contractor, Green Brilliance, to install a $27,500 solar energy system on the roof of his row house on Florida Avenue in Northwest. The work was completed in December.

"I'm not ready to throw a Molotov cocktail at the D.C. government, but I'm very disappointed," Levy said. That money "is my backup fund I use in case of sickness, my safety fund."

Solar energy proponents banded together to create a network called DCSun, whose e-mail listserv has included missives from frustrated members.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/27/AR2011022702910.html

In all, the city has reneged on a commitment of about $700,000 to 51 residents。(affordable green energy)????????

Edited March 16, 2011 by lostinblue

[john & jean 37]

They voted for CHANGE??

[lostinblue 1,989]

a commitment of about $700,000 to 51 residents, according to the D.C. Department of the Environment. The agency has pledged to try to find money in next year's budget, its director, Christophe Tulou, said.

Green energy will bankrupt this country.All off the backs of working americans and business.$700,000 for 51 homes.......what will the cost be for a few million homes.

[Danno 1,228]

Is there any commonly available energy source which is less efficient than Solar?

Wind has it beat by far.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Apparently solar panels are not attractive unless the government pays for at least part of the cost. And while global warming is really just talking points for liberal politicians. Paying union government workers is real. Thank goodness THEY will get THEIR money so they can pay dues to be contributed to liberal politicians who will promise to subsidize green energy to get the liberals to vote for them.

The wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

a commitment of about $700,000 to 51 residents, according to the D.C. Department of the Environment. The agency has pledged to try to find money in next year's budget, its director, Christophe Tulou, said.

Green energy will bankrupt this country.All off the backs of working americans and business.$700,000 for 51 homes.......what will the cost be for a few million homes.

Well, if they owe $700,000 to 51 homes that works out to about $13725 per home. Multiply that by 2 million and you get around 27.5 billion. That is just for a few solar panels on the roof. Trouble is there are a lot more than 2 million homes in America. It would really be more like 100 million homes to cover everyone.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Why is that Right Wingers don't support government subsidies to renewable energy technologies, but are in support of government subsidies to fossil fuels and nuclear power?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Why is that Right Wingers don't support government subsidies to renewable energy technologies, but are in support of government subsidies to fossil fuels and nuclear power?

Well you will have to call me "not a right winger" but I do not support government subsidies of any energy product. No need for subsidies.

I am particularly against nuclear power, if anyone wants to know why...read the news.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Why is that Right Wingers don't support government subsidies to renewable energy technologies, but are in support of government subsidies to fossil fuels and nuclear power?

Funny, I didn't see the left wingers cut all the subsidies for fossil fuel when they had the chance. That means they own it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Well you will have to call me "not a right winger" but I do not support government subsidies of any energy product. No need for subsidies.

I am particularly against nuclear power, if anyone wants to know why...read the news.

At least you are consistent. There are those (see GOP Congress), however, who are against government subsidies for renewable energy, but support subsidies for fossil fuels. I'd like to know the logic behind it.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

At least you are consistent. There are those (see GOP Congress), however, who are against government subsidies for renewable energy, but support subsidies for fossil fuels. I'd like to know the logic behind it.

None that I can think of. Seems like fossil fuels are all the rage and the oil companies make enough money selling fossil fuels (about 1/10th as much per gallon as the government makes taxing it) so why do we need to subsidize it.

How's this?

We eliminate the TAX on fossil fuels AND the subsidies for fossil fuels?