Solar Push in Texas Fails

Texas’s efforts to create incentives for solar power production are dead, dashing the industry’s hopes that the huge, sunny state would see a surge in demand for panels.

Austin capitolAAS Legislators in Texas could not agree on solar incentives that were expected to spur the industry.

Last-minute maneuvering this weekend at the end of the state legislative session prevented the appropriation of $500 million for solar rebates. Efforts to change Texas’s renewable portfolio standard to create extra requirements for solar, biomass and geothermal power had failed earlier.

Solar had previously appeared to be on a roll, and so many bills flooded the state legislature this session that it was sometimes called the “solar session.”

“Is that how hope dies? With a whimper and a bang of a gavel?” wrote one disappointed environmentalist on Twitter.

Texas leads the nation in producing wind power but it is not even in the top ten for producing electricity from the sun, despite being the second-most populous state. (California, with the largest population, is the solar leader.)

Solar power is more expensive than wind, and the costs of the proposed rebates, although just 20 cents per month on homeowners’ bills, had stirred concerns among some lawmakers.

Another bill that would have made it harder for homeowners’ associations to ban solar panels also failed.

The only solar-related legislation that passed, according to Luke Metzger of Environment Texas, was a provision to let homeowners finance their solar installations with help from the local government, and pay back the cost via extra property taxes over 20 years.

The model is used already in several California cities and is quickly spreading around the country. Mr. Metzger, who expressed his disappointment with other developments on Twitter, expects Gov. Rick Perry to sign that legislation.

John Berger, the chief executive of Standard Renewable Energy, a Houston-based solar installer, said in an e-mail message that the failure of the solar legislation would have a “bad impact” on the state. He had previously told Green Inc. that the rebates could provide a major boost for business, as had another Texas installer, Meridian Solar.

A number of manufacturers, including Suntech Power and SunPower, have been watching Texas’s solar moves and evaluating the state as a possible site of manufacturing plants. Whether the legislative failure would affect their decisions was unclear, but Mr. Metzger was pessimistic.

“Texas will lose out on major opportunities for solar manufacturing,” he predicted.

Already this spring, a Texas solar start-up announced plans to move its headquarters to New Mexico and also open a manufacturing plant near Albuquerque, citing better incentives there.

The legislature in Texas, like a handful of other states, meets only every two years. So unless the governor calls a special session, solar incentives will not be considered again until 2011.

This is the second big state to see renewable energy incentives fall short in the legislature in recent days.

Florida’s legislature failed to enact a renewable portfolio standard, which would have established requirements for the state’s renewable energy use, despite a plea from the governor, Charlie Crist.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

Selling food to make ethanol is right up there with the Iraq war as far as blunders go.

However, if we can’t get behind an industry that provides electricity powered by the sun . . . that will prove the Greater Fool theory is alive and well . . . and obviously living in Florida and Texas.

My guess is that oil companies have no dog in this fight. Oil is mostly used in the U.S. for transportation , cars.

Solar panels would be used in homes.

George Bush moved to Dallas. No solar. No incentives for the film business. New Mexico is booming. The political system in TX is seriously flawed.

I’m moving. Bye.

Several comments miss the mark when they claim that there is no relationship between oil and solar. They are right that hardly any electricity is generated with oil (there is some, but it is less than a percent). However, oil and natural gas are what economists call “substitute goods” in the heating and transportation sectors, while solar and natural gas are substitute goods in the electricity sector. So, If oil prices go up, there’s more demand for natural gas for heating and driving, forcing up natural gas prices for electricity and making solar more economically viable. This also means that adding solar energy keeps natural gas prices down, which helps contain oil prices. Yes, the effect is small now, but it’ll be significant when solar is 10% of our generation, up from around 0.05% now.

I would also like to add that in the next few years, more car companies will be producing plug in electric cars and hybrids. Solar will help power those cars for less than the rising utility rates.

Meanwhile, today, solar does need subsidies to make it competitive with polluting coal. But as many here have pointed out, all of our other commodities get subsidies too. Solar is just another one, except it’s clean and helps offset the future costs of global warming. We’re seeing these costs now with more hurricanes, flooding and drought. Solar is an affordable and reliable solution to stop the damage from going further. Otherwise, it is our kids that will be left with a worse problem.

If you live in another state besides Texas, be sure to check out http://www.dsireusa.org/solar for summaries of the subsidies that exist already for your state. You can also visit my solar advocate blog. http://www.solarfred.com for more info on solar and the increasing number of ways to finance it, including solar leases, solar power purchase agreements, and municipal financing mentioned in the post above.

I know from speaking to these innovative finance companies that they will now avoid Texas, taking away terrific solar jobs. I hope Texas changes its mind in the near future.

As a resident of Texas, I’m happy with this outcome. Let California and New Mexico pump money into this technology until it either becomes cost effective, or they figure out it’s all just big waste. If it does become cost effective, I’ll buy it then, and only then.

“dashing the industry’s hopes that the huge, sunny state would see a surge in demand for panels”

If the industry wants to see a surge in demand for their panels, why don’t they just get the price down. I’m sure Ferrari would like to see more people buy their cars in Texas. Should we subsidize those too?

David (#32)

The price of solar is coming down. Not that this makes sense to many consumers, but it is now hovering around 2.50-3.50/watt for panels (This does not include installation and other necessary gizmos.) Just a few years ago, the price was 8.00/watt, So we’ve come a long way and it will continue to come down.

Not that this helps Texas, but in Vermont today, a new Feed in Tariff just went into effect. This will make Vermonth utilities pay for the power solar panels produce, thus inspiring everyone to get solar, create jobs, help the environment, bring down the cost of solar further through competition and higher volume…. What’s not to love?

Texas, I hope you reconsider.

Vermonters, see this article in renewable energy world, an industry news source, about the Vermont subsidy:

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/06/vermont-fits-become-law-the-mouse-that-roared:

I was the “disappointed environmentalist” mentioned who tweeted that tweet that was mentioned in this article. Surreal that it ended up here.

What was utterly dysfunctional about most of this was not that the bills wouldn’t have passed, given the chance. Every time there was a vote for or against solar, it was almost always 3-1 in favor of solar incentives. But because of the dysfunctional vagaries of the TX Leg’s procedures, good and popular bills died a miserable death.

Andy Wilson
Global Warming Program Director
Public Citizen Texas

Solar Fred (#33)

What’s not to love?

Nothing. I don’t live in Vermont. I honestly hope that they subsidize solar until nobody there has any money to spend on anything else. Then after they’ve absorbed all the startup costs and weeded out all the bugs and inefficiencies, the companies can come down here to Texas and put solar on all our houses and businesses for 1/3 of the cost.

David, (35)

The subsidies in Vermont will largely go away as competition improves. Nobody’s going broke. According to the analyst’s report, I believe this will cause Vermont tax payers an average of an extra 20 cents on their electric bills. If they have the right roof and the right amount of sunlight, and some home equity or other type of municipal financing (that typically costs tax payers nothing, just the home owner), they should get solar and eliminate that extra 20 cents a month, help the environment, and benefit greatly from generating power for Vermont.

As to the price coming down without subsidies, it’s not likely to happen. It will probably end up being about the same price, just without the subsidies. Meanwhile, anyone who took advantage of the subsidies is well on their way to the 8-12 year payback, and free electricity after that. My best wishes for Texas and solar being affordable for everyone, with or without subsidies.

When are people going to understand that there currently is no perfect renewable energy source? There are trade-offs to everything, but some trade-offs are small than others. Another blog post talks about this same thing, http://www.pilmerpr.com/blog/pr-strategy/environmentalists-message-is-confused/

From my years as the Chief Energy Writer at the Houston Chronicle all the way through this most recent legislative escapade, the Texas legislature never ceases to amaze. Texas ‘gets it’ about wind, why not solar? Kudos to the GOPers who do get it. And shame on the Dems and others who don’t.

sebastian interlandi June 3, 2009 · 11:16 am

On the batteries:

We don’t really need good batteries.

What we need to do is switch to hydrogen as the fuel source.

You can use solar systems and windmills to produce electricity. That electricity can be used to produce hydrogen by the electrolysis of water. The hydrogen can be compressed and shipped to where ever, just like gasoline and diesel fuels.

We can convert our cars from gas powered to hydrogen powered, and sell hydrogen instead of gasoline.

NO BATTERIES NEEDED and this saves the problem of transmitting electrical power long distances.

I can’t figure out why we are not doing this on a grand scale.

I like your style Angie from Idaho!! I’ll try though to be more conciliatory…
There are studies that show that fossil fuels are at least subsisdized 10cents/kwhr when you consider ALL costs to society like greenhouse gases, higher cancer rates and other diseases, cleanup costs from spills (Exxon Valdez…), storage of nuclear waste, related death and accidents, etc (you could add IRAQ and KUWAIT WAR costs too..).and this is an old number with much lower oil prices. So when you consider ALL costs, solar energy is comparable to other sources of electricity. Again, please compare apples to apples. ALL fossil fuels are subsidized; if you do not believe it, please read the text of the last “stimulus package ” that has huge subsidies for nuclear and oil.
Listen people!, your electricity bills are only going to go up every year 10-20%; these days you are paying cheap electricity, probably 8 to 10 cents per kwhr, at 15-20 cents/kwhr we reach grid-parity (cost of a kwhr generated from solar is the same as a kwhr from other polluting, finite fossil sources. So think of Solar also as a hedge against higher electricity prices.

I read with disgust the politics around the whole debate in Texas…What can we do now?
Can Gov Perry in a moment of grand inspiration sign an executive order mandating basically what was on the solar bills HB1243/SB545? (…very unlikely but possible?)…
Anyone knows what it takes to put a version of both bills in the ballot in Texas, like Colorado did in 2004 (amendment 37)?
Peace and Solar Energy Now!

Marco
Austin, Texas

Texas republicans and their leader Darth Sidious are a big joke and is in need of being removed from office like yesterday….
They Texas Republicans think some thing might help the people they will stop at nothing to prevent it from happening look at the toll road ponzi scheme fools in texas don’t see that they’re being ‘double dipped ‘ meaning they’re paying for taxes already and now paying a toll to use a road that you are paying taxes on alreay…. inwhich is Stupid…Question who profits from this ?….Bet it’s the crooks in office and they’re friends….

Former,
G.O.B.N (Good Ole’ Boy Network) member

Robert from Austin June 8, 2009 · 7:11 pm

Having worked directly on several solar bills during the Texas Legislature this time around, I would suggest that the majority of the blame for this actually falls at the feet of the very environmental activists who initiated the solar push in the first place in Texas.

Lobbies like Public Citizen were not content to make incremental progress; instead, they demanded too much progress too fast, and as a result, legislators (most of whom lack even the most fundamental understanding of solar energy) got confused….hence, out of nearly 200 bills filed for solar, almost none received passage.

This is not the time to point fingers at “Big Oil” or the GOP agenda. Environmentalists, such as myself, should have worked harder to ensure that we spoke to legislators with one voice, in a consistent and direct fashion. Instead, the 60s “protest rally” mentality took over, and the extremists destroyed the entire game for all of us.

It’s the fault of solar proponents – NOT its opponents – that Texas made zero progress during this Legislative Session.

That hurts the PV folks, but we’re still moving forward with the more cost-effective solar hot water heaters.
http://www.sunbelt-solar.com

Anyone who thinks natural gas is clean, cheap, and dependable energy is ignorant of the expensive, labor, water, and time intensive process required to get the gas out of the ground and purify it to a level fit for consumption. The Barnett Shale is a particularly good illustration of a bad energy investment.

Get wind, get solar, get hydro, and get off the carbon. We have plenty of renewable options, which is actually the problem. We have a few powerful industries and lobbyists who would rather make quick buck (or a few million) than try to guess which type of renewable energy will come out on top.

I am one born and raised in Texas, and I was terribly disappointed, too that this measure (and some others) fell through. But I guess in the legislators minds, asking a household to pay 20 cents a month extra is proof positive that it would bankrupt the average Texan. After all, that works out to an “astronomical” $2.40 per year!

Those things said, let me ask people from elsewhere to please not tar all Texans with the same brush. Yes, the state has it’s own unique character, but to ascribe the traits of that character to every Texan isn’t merely simplistic: it’s wrong (not to mention unfair).

There are bright spots in the state. The Dallas-Fort Worth area is building mass transit — including light rail — at a frantic pace. Austin is a surprisingly green city. And T. Boone Pickens had a plan for a massive wind farm until the recession hit, and I’m not convinced he wouldn’t be willing to revisit that once the economy is clearly recovering. A consortium has just recently announced plans to build another massive wind farm in the state. And there are many other examples.

Our state leadership does let us down — regularly.

Finally, I’m no fan of President Bush, but I have to give the man credit for being a pretty decent governor, better, in my view, than Perry — by a long shot. And that includes in ways that at least indirectly supported alternative energy.

Newer