Roberto1 wrote on Mar 21, 2008 11:49 PM:California should continue to the lead the way...we don't need no stinking import of dirty power from Mexico, Texas, Canada etc power lines....make California first and continue to be original despite all the name calling by the anti-Californios that don't like us, but love our money....yes to solar power.

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 22, 2008 5:39 AM:It is not surprising that the bill to correct this long-overdue injustice was introduced by a Democrat. The proposal to allow homeowners to be reimbursed for generating excess solar electricity provides important incentives for real "mom and pop" free-market competition against the energy giants. We will see whether our local Republican legislators will get on board to back up their lip service on entrepreneurship with real action, or if it is true that they are the puppets of Big Energy.

Howiek wrote on Mar 22, 2008 6:20 AM:$20,000 is just a bit low for a solar installation—closer to $50,000 to $100,000 is more like it. And besides, in today’s economic times there isn’t anyone loaning money for solar (unless the rate is somewhere above 15%).

Kathleen wrote on Mar 22, 2008 6:37 AM:San Diego's tourism is based on the beautiful weather and sunshine. Why not use that same sunshine to power our homes and businesses? I installed my solar system when the cost of electricity became so expensive. I never regretted doing it. Now gas and diesel are becoming unaffordable. I look to powering a "plug-in" hybrid with my solar power too. With the right incentives such as being paid for the "over production" and tax credits I believe more people will invest in solar energy. One fact is that natural gas and oil are not going to cost less in the future. They will continue to go up. A solar energy system is a one time investment that continues to produce for many years. The investment costs are coming down and the efficiency is going up all the time. Just as we keep advancing the capabilities of computers so are we advancing the efficiency and production of solar energy producing panels, inverters, charge controllers, etc.

Mary wrote on Mar 22, 2008 6:40 AM:A day without solar panels is a day of wasted sunshine. People respond to incentives and another source of income will make this an attractive alternative.

People Lover wrote on Mar 22, 2008 7:05 AM:I had solar panels and never had enough energy to send back. But it is a good idea.

Robert24 wrote on Mar 22, 2008 8:18 AM:How interesting; Ms. Briscoe feels that most people won't do this because of the cost ($20K-ish, according to her), but they will continue to pay SDG&E their continually rising prices! Doesn't she realize that I can make the payments on my solar system and generate enough electricity to not have to pay SDG&E, and at some point my payments will stop? I'll then own my system, while those that think like Ms. Briscoe will still be paying SDG&E monthly for their ever price increasing power! Heck, you can't hardly buy a car for 20K anymore, and it depreciates right off of the lot! Bring on the solar power (and don't pay any attention to people like Ms. Briscoe who are just trying to save their jobs)!

Sunny wrote on Mar 22, 2008 8:19 AM:Hopefully, the new law will require all new homes constructed in the state to have enough solar panels to provide all of the energy for each house. Also, while $20,000 is not pocket change, most people pay that much and lots more for a car, so what's the big deal? Maybe we need to start a campaign to make solar panels a status symbol like granite counter tops and Lexus SUVs.

Carter: wrote on Mar 22, 2008 8:30 AM: I just read that solar electrical system manufactures (for the home) recommend that all major electricity consuming items in the home such as, heat, clothes dryer, frig, freezer, water heater, and such be changed to natural gas, propane, etc. All those things consume enormous amount of electricity that exceed the capability of a solar system, and are manufactured to run on AC power. While solar generates DC power which is stored in a bank of batteries. The rotation of a clothes dryer drum can be ran by solar power. What does that leave in the home to be powered by solar? Lighting, TV, Microwave maybe, computer, etc. Just the smaller electrical units can be ran on solar or DC power. And some of them will need an inverter to run. Then there is the up keep and maintenance of the solar system. Everything electrical and mechanical is subject to failure at all times and needs repairs. Remember this would be my system and my responsibility. It just crossed my mind that it might pay for me to load up my back yard and roof top with solar panels and sell all my solar generated electricity to SDG&E. Of course here comes the cost of an inverter again, because that electricity would have to be changed for DC to AC power. And then to prevent killing a workman on the job near your home there will have to be safety devices installed and maintained at my expense.
Hold on there - I think I will back up and start all over - perhaps contact a contractor. Anybody no one you can trust?

David wrote on Mar 22, 2008 9:32 AM:The price for installing solar electric on your roof (material and labor) is about $10 per watt. The idea is to put back into the grid what you take out. Having the utility company pay you for excess is not worth it. They are only going to give you the wholesale rate (1 to 2 cents per kilowatt hour).

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 22, 2008 9:35 AM:This proposal to correct a long-overdue injustice and allow homeowners to be reimbursed for generating excess solar electricity provides important incentives for real "mom and pop" free-market competition against the energy giants. Our local Republican legislators often give lip service to supporting real entrepreneurship, so let's see if they will get on board, or if they will act as the puppets to enable Big Energy to continue ripping off those who are actually doing something to help energy independence and a clean environment.

Vista Watchdog wrote on Mar 22, 2008 9:53 AM:We continually here the nay sayers telling us that it would take million os square miles of space to generate enough power from solar to power all the houses, buildings, etc. Yet, how many millions of square miles of roofs do we have around here? covering your roof with solar panesl not only generates electricity, it also shades your roof, thereby allowing your roof to be cooler in the summer. This saves electricity requried to cool your house. Additionally, the panels help keep the elements off your roof, including UV rays, rain, etc. Thus extending the life of your roof. All in all over the life of your house, solar panels on your roof will save you more than they cost, just from the savings in energy required to cool the house in the summer and the cost of replacing/repairing your roof, not to mention the energy they produce! Now, if only we could find ways to finace these home additions, and provide other incentives to homeowners to install them.

David wrote on Mar 22, 2008 10:06 AM:Solar power is a homeowner investment, not a purchase - it will provide power for long after you have paid for it and inflation-proof. If you have a $200 electric bill in SDGE, then you'll pay SDGE $60000 (plus inflation at about 6%) over 25 years and at the end you'll still be paying and own nothing. $25,000 on Solar now and you'll have positive cash flow in less than 10 years

Go Solar wrote on Mar 22, 2008 10:36 AM:I have been waiting for this issue to surface and finally it has! My brother has solar panels and always has to go back to zero at the end of December. This has been such a waste when by changing the law, many folks including myself will be willing to sell back energy to SDG&E. They have wanted to OWN the source of production which make them more money. Now let's see if they really want more power from homeowners, or if they really want more money by having their source of production.

JSten wrote on Mar 22, 2008 11:15 AM:This is an old problem. The energy production and accounting issues are far too complicated for a mere citizen's to comprehend (too many figures, sire).

Of course the question of how you get your 110 volt power to the 14 kv grid is fairly well known (transformers work both ways). Sometimes transients and surges mux things up, you know when a neighbor's dirty power fries your computer and refrigerator (thank god the toaster was saved). Then there's the bad ground loop that sets fire to the barn, or worse yet, the shop where your homegrown substation is located.

So who should be responsible for the intra neighborhood fights over dirty power? SDG&E?

Let me be clear, I have no love for Sempra, and I do believe that onsite power generation is a good thing.

But for now, lets just try to be locally self sufficient, raise your own milk, carrots, chickens and kilowatts. And leave me the hell out of it.

Useful Life wrote on Mar 22, 2008 11:18 AM:Robert and Sunny - While solar panels are a neat idea, the problem is that they do not pay for themselves. The solar panels will degrade over time and by the time you break even on the cost, it is time to replace the panels. Do not think it is an investment in the financial sense of the word, rather an investment in the environment. At this time the cost of the panels, even considering the incentives, is a money loosing venture. I have worked the numbers every year for the past half dozen years... You just can't win. When the technlogy improves to reduce the cost and improve the life of the panels it will be different. For now, unless you want to spend you money for the "neato effect" it is a waste.

John E wrote on Mar 22, 2008 12:07 PM:Rising prices for traditional energy sources and improving solar technology are gradually making both thermal and photovoltaic solar power generation increasingly economically attractive. The post-industrial age is all about decentralization (think of personal computers and networked workstations replacing big mainframe computers), and I applaud anyone who can wean him/herself off-grid.

We do need to provide appropriate incentives and to make SDG&E realize, that as a public utility, it has some social responsibility.

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 22, 2008 12:25 PM:The post from "Howiek" (6:20am) is not only unnecessarily negative, but factually incorrect.
We installed 32 solar panels in 2007, producing far more than we can use, and the cost was, indeed, less than $30,000.
"Howie" is living in the past, or has some other motive from trying to dissuade people from something that is good for them and good for the environment. It is good for everyone except the pushers of non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS.

Chase wrote on Mar 22, 2008 12:41 PM:The bottom line is the panels are not efficient enough and the ware out, break, fail. The state will not buy back the excess energy and even if you now produce what you use they charge you a meter fee anyway. Not to mention the deal where they start you at zero each Jan 1st. And California can't lead as other states already buy the extra power back.

To Roberto1 wrote on Mar 22, 2008 12:51 PM:My family has been here since the 1800's and the only thing I have seen us lead in is perversion thank you Hollywood. We are a dump for the pre-verts of the other 49. Our environmental program is run by hugger wackos vs greedo's. Note we sit on billions of gallons of oil and yet pay near $4.00 a gallon and we drive monster vehicles.

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 22, 2008 12:55 PM:The posts from "Useful life" (11:18am) and "Chase" (12:41pm) continue the disingenous misrepresentations of the current level of feasibility. All of us who have installed solar, including many hard-headed "bottom-line" businesses, are not stupid. My wife is a CPA who spent many years as a corporate cost accountant, and apparently these two are not looking at the same numbers or are not very competent comparative shoppers -- or else they have some vested interest in promoting the Big Oil propaganda line.

Chase wrote on Mar 22, 2008 1:00 PM:If California or SDG&E will partially rebate us or credit for installation. If SDG&E will buy back the power, set the meter fee at break even cost, knock off the zeroing at the start of each year...then I (a home owner only) and I imagine builders will get onboard. The savings will then pay for equipment repair.

Karl wrote on Mar 22, 2008 1:01 PM:So let me get this straight "DD Wiz
@ 5:39 AM: if you get your way (by the way I agree with you on this one) you will credit your party of choice. If the measure fails it is the Republicans fault. Do I have it just about right? By the way what percentage of both state houses do the Democrats control?

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 22, 2008 1:18 PM:The post from "Karl" (1:01pm) misstates what I said at 5:39am.
I apologize for not being more clear.
If the proposal fails, then it will be the fault of whoever killed it. If the Democrats pass it and our Republican governor signs or vetoes it, I will give him credit or blame accordingly. If the Democrats kill it in committee or some procedural thing, I will absolutely hold them responsible, though I did say I was not surprised to see it being introduced by a Democrat since it seems more consistent with what I see as the Democratic philosophy.
In my 5:39am post I asked a question regarding ourlocal North County Republican reps. I honetly do not know which side of the balance will win for them -- support for entrepreneurship and (literally) "mom and pop" energy production, or support for their Big Energy donors.
"Karl," I think this is a fair question to ask of our own local represenatives.
(By the way, our panels have a 25-year warranty, so the thing about wearing out or breaking is bogus.)

Kathleen wrote on Mar 22, 2008 3:08 PM:To Carter. Yes I know of a master electrician that installs solar power systems. That would be Mark Snyder Electric. He is located in Poway. He installed my system and has used solar for his ranch for many years. As for the conversion, when you purchase a system the inverters, charge controllers, panels, racks or trackers and safety devices are part of the deal. A good installer such as Mr Snyder sizes the system to your needs. There is no one size fits all. They are all custom. If you wish battery backup as I did that can be done too. If the power goes out at night when there is no sun my batteries take over and keep my refrigerators, freezers, lights, etc. on. If you really want security you can have a generator hooked up too. I love my system and during the fires of 2003 when all the power poles were burned down, I had power and it felt really good.

Kathleen wrote on Mar 22, 2008 5:05 PM:For those of you that say the figures do not add up, check this out. I just received my bill in today's mail. With net metering you get a statement once a month but only "true up" once a year. For my last billing period I sent back an excess of 322 kwh. That means that my system generated ALL the power I needed to run 3 refrigerators, 1 deep freeze, an electric heater, microwave, spa, well pump and all other misc. items for one month and it also generated 3/4 of what SDG&E calls my baseline of 482 kwh. My "true up" with SDG&E for last year cost me $62.39 for the entire year and I do run a central A/C in the summer. The $62.39 was the charge for "storing" my power on their grid. I sent back 574 kwh more than I used for the entire year. For those that do not understand "net metering" it means that when the sun is shining you are running your meter backwards for all energy that you are not using at the moment. At night when the sun is not shining you are pulling power from the grid. I find that watching my meter run backwards is more fun than watching TV. Many of you that are condemning solar should do some real research. Kyocera panels produced in Japan 25 plus years ago are still producing at about 90% of their original capacity and that is OLD technology. The panels and other components today use power-point tracking and maximize their out put. I am no expert but I do have first hand knowledge of what solar can do. Unless the government or someone else can figure out how to charge us for the sun we can have a supply of power for free. I rolled the cost of my solar system into my house payment so now I write off the cost and get my water and electric included. It also increases the value of your home but does not increase your property taxes. So do some research and talk to people that have installed solar.

Useful Life wrote on Mar 22, 2008 5:27 PM:DD Wiz - I have no agenda. I would love to have solar installed, but as an electrical engineer I can tell you without doubt, the panels output will decrade over time and will need to be replaced. Sure technology is getting better every day. However, 25 year warranty or not, it is the nature of the current technology used in the photovoltaic device: 20 years is all you get out of them. Sure the longevity will vary slightly, but the fact is you WILL be replacing the panels near the 20 year point. For my household, the cost savings on a monthly electric bill over 20 years, equals the cost to purchase and install the system. Even at that cost, it will not offset my electric usage 100% during peak times. It is simple math, even for an educated electrical engineer. In fact, calculus is not even required.

Granted I am not a salesman of solar panels, so my information must be biased. However, if you think you can do better than the last three companies that have quoted this for me, be my guest. How can I contact you for your best shot?

(BTW: My father-in-law was selling Solar Panel Systems a couple of years ago. He put together a proposal which included "good guy pricing" and the numbers still did not work out. That also included the California incentive rebate.)

Roberto1 wrote on Mar 22, 2008 5:34 PM:What's really sad is we are able to subsidize imported power justified on the bases of necessity....what about subsidizing the solar power at the state level?

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 22, 2008 6:55 PM:The post from "Useful Life" (5:27pm) asserts that he is an electrical engineer, but he is nevertheless hopelessly out of date on the subject of photovoltaic electric production.
For my part, I am neither an electrician nor engineer nor do I have any connection to the solar industry other than that I purchased a very expensive item, but also made a very large electric bill disappear.
It is kind of like the engineers who say that the laws of physics say the bumblebee cannot fly, but it still flies.
Sorry, "Useful."
As for your father-in-law selling systems several years ago, that is an eternity in this field. Costs dropped significantly just in the year that we were actively shopping, and there are new credits that did not exist at that time.
That said, my system was a system of Sharp panels purchased via a special COSTCO program, through a contractor arrangedby Costco. Frankly, those are two major corporations and I do trust they will be around to support the 25-year warranty. By the way, the Costco deal was almost $10,000 less than the next best deal. I have no ties to Costco other than being an appreciative member.

Useful Life wrote on Mar 22, 2008 8:15 PM:DD Wiz- Granted I have not researched the technology improvements over the past two years. Technolgy does improve at a very rapid rate, and I am sure the panels are better than they were two years ago. However, if the cost (after rebates) is not less that $20K it will not make economic sense in my house. The raw dollar figures do not lie. I just looked up some data, right now a system suitable for my situation is $33K after incentives. Break even on the purchase is the year 2030. Any positive cash flow would be when the system is 22 years old. At the 20 year point I would be over $11K in the hole on such a venture. Maybe another place has a system at a better cost, even then, I am still upside down until I have the system in operation for many many years. My annual electic bill is about $1200-$1300, with peak usage during the summer over the past 5 years at 1691kwh during July 2005. Typical summer usage is 1000-1100 kwh and non-summer is 600-800kwh.

Believe me when I say I would love to have a solar system on my house. Even the wow factor alone would be cool... I am a techie after all. At this time the economics just do not make it a smart financial decision for my household. Next year maybe, but the prices just do not seem to be coming down to a reasonable level.

igor wrote on Mar 22, 2008 9:15 PM:The first month after my panels were installed, my bill was only $8. My average bill had been between $600-$800. But saving money is only one of the many benefits. One benefit that no one mentioned is National Security. Those long unsecured miles of transmission lines are very vulnerable to terrorist acts. By decentralizing those targets we make it harder for them and safer for us. We need to produce the power closer to where we consume it. Not every home is right for solar panels but there are many other options. Several companies will be offering fuel cell generators no bigger than your a/A/C unit that can supply all the power a home will need. Another option is cogeneration at your home using natural gas. How about all the hundreds of acres of rooftops of the bigbox retailers. They should all be covered with solar panels.

One act of terrorism could knock out a major power plant or transmission line and disable power to hundreds of thousands of homes, businesses, schools etc.

Alice wrote on Mar 22, 2008 9:31 PM:RE: Useful life. After reading all that you have to say you are either a very ill informed individual with tunnel vision and an insatiable desire for instant gratification or you have a huge investment in one or more power companies and do not want to see your dividends dwindle. It is truly pathetic how someone who claims to be an electrical engineer cannot see beyond his own figures when there are countless others out there who have worked the figures, made the investment and are reaping the benefits, telling you it is being done and yet you still say "nay". Maybe you should let a cost accountant show you. You keep saying maybe next year and you keep padding the pockets of SDG&E with nothing to show except a paid electric bill. Just like the person that pays rent and at the end of the year what do you have to show....alot of receipts but nothing tangible. Do you still drive a horse and buggy because a new car or truck does not pay for itself and its "useful life" is much shorter than even what you project for solar panels?

tom wrote on Mar 22, 2008 9:52 PM:Yo DD Wiz:

You seem to rail on Republicans. The Democrats running the State created the deregulation mess leading to the current crisis. It was after we dumped Gray Davis and installed the Governator that solar got some legs under it. I wish we could capture the energy spewing from your narrow view of the world. I have a large solar array on my Republican house. Do you?

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 22, 2008 10:00 PM:The post from "tom" (9:52pm) demonstrates some of the most absurd historical ignorance I have ever witnessed in these forums.
The energy "dergeulation" mess that fell apart after Gray Davis took office was actually passed when Pete Wilson was the governor and one of the rare periods when the Republicans had taken control of the Assembly.
Please, look at the facts before you embarrass yourself.
He closes by asking if I have a solar array on my house.
Dude! Have you read any of the preceding posts? I have 32 solar panels producing far more than I can use at the present time (planning to get either a plug-in hybrid or full electric car to make up the difference).
Do you always spout off like this without checking ANY of the facts you are talking about? Sheesh!
In any case, glad to see even the Republicans (and even Wal-Mart!) are coming aborad.
For any doubters, this has got to close the door!

Useful Life wrote on Mar 22, 2008 10:03 PM:Ok, fine... You guys win. I have presented the facts of my situation with supporting data. Maybe the numbers worked out for others, but a $33K investment with no return for 22 years makes no sense for me. Even at that, it is only a 5kw system and which is only about 80% of my usage and does not include batteries. The fact is I still get to pay Edison either way. So I would rather pay my $100-$150/mo than dig a $33K hole that I HOPE will cover itself up in 22 years. For me, it is not a sound financial move no matter how you serve it up.

Another issue is it would take 25 - 200 Watt panels that are 60" x 39". Where do you think I can put all of those? That takes a lot of space.

As for comparing this to a car, that is rediculous. A car purchase is rarely considered an investment. You do not buy a car with the belief that it will some day be worth more.

I do like the sound of the fuel cell: Now THAT has some serious "wow" factor.

Robert24 wrote on Mar 23, 2008 12:35 PM:"Useful Life": Do you have a roof on your house? Is your house painted? Does it have an air conditioner or heater? These are all depreciating items that contribute nothing to making a difference in the world, yet I bet you paid for them. They break down and need to be replaced also. Maybe you need to look at some more efficient panels (try looking at the SunPower line)and get a little more educated on solar. Chances are you wouldn't need as many panels as you think you need if you get more efficient ones than you've been looking at. Or, just keep paying SDG&E and spewing how unrealistic solar is (Wanna bet SDG&E's equipment breaks down sometimes or needs to be replaced also? Who do you think pays for that?).

Useful Life wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:20 PM:Robert - Solar is very realistic, just not practical for your average homeowner at this point. It is a large investment for no real financial gain. I wonder how much bad stuff is done to the environment to manufacture the solar panels, switches, batteries etc for a solar system? I would almost bet the environemntal impact is worse than the benefit of operating the solar system for its 20 year useful life.

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 23, 2008 10:43 PM:The post from "Useful Life" (8:20pm) continues to offer his hypothetical theorizing over the real-world experience of people who have actually installed solar.
Sorry, "Useful," but your theories and hypotheses are worth nothing if they do not match the real world.
We refinanced our first mortgage at a lower interest rate.
Our house payment is lower AND we have no more electric bill AND we had no net out-of-pocket costs.
So what the heck are you talking about?
I understand property values, and thus equities, are down, but there are still plenty of homeowners who could lower their house payments and make their electric bills disappear NOW.
That is not theory. That is the real world. That is what I did.

Useful Life wrote on Mar 24, 2008 10:20 AM:DDWiz-Good for you. I will not finance my future by adding debt against my house. Cash and carry... House payment? What is that?

Facts do not lie. The numbers I provided are the facts of my situation. Work with my real world data from my situation and see how good this looks. I'll tell you what is looks like: It looks like you put lipstick on a pig, that is what it looks like.

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 24, 2008 11:26 AM:The post from "Useful Life" (10:20am) says the numbers don't work for his situation.
If he can't find the same deals or is out of touch with what is actually available today, then he is obviously in no position to make a change. But he is quick to ridicule those who are reporting what is actually being done now, not dealing with hypothetical guesses.
He calls it putting lipstick on a pig.
At least I'm bringing home the bacon -- and no more electric bill!

Useful Life wrote on Mar 24, 2008 12:22 PM:DDWiz - First of all, no ridicule here. As previously stated I would really love to find a way to make the numbers work out and get a system on my house. The fact is a 5KW system is around $33K (after incentives) which will cover only 80% of my electic usage. This means 80% of my electric bill would be gone, so lets say my electric bill would be $30/mo instead of $150/mo. If I pay $33K cash for the system at the $120 savings per month, how long to recover the cost? $33K/($120*12) = 22.9 years to just recover the cost of the system, and I still have an Edison Bill. At this point, the best solar panel technology has to offer is reduced to under 90% power output after 20 years, so the 80% electric offset will decrease to about 70% which mean my electric bill would be now $40 (not considering inflation of course.) Of course, now it is nearing the time to replace the PV panels.

And I still have the problem of trying to locate 400 sq ft of panels facing the proper direction for the highest effeciency. Anything other than optimal would lower my output to less than 5KW thus increasing the length of time to recover the cost of the system.

Instead of suggesting I am out of touch, and posting false information, please offer some information of value which I can realistically consider to make this a reality. Serveral places I have looked at for a system have all come back at near the same cost. I used the $33K from the lowest estimate I have obtained.

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 24, 2008 4:22 PM:The post from "Useful Life" (12:22pm) simply states incorrect facts.
You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts.
I'm sure you can find someone who would be glad to sell you a 5Kw system for net $33K after incentives. But stop saying that is the best price because some of us know better from actual experience.
The FACT is that I have a 5KW 32-panel system (Mfg: Sharp; Retailer: Costco; Installation: Pacific Sun Technologies) and the net cost for everything, after incentives, installations, etc., was under $30,000.
That is not speculation or hypothetical. It is what I paid and what I got, and it sounds like others here have a similar experience to mine.

Useful Life wrote on Mar 24, 2008 7:31 PM:DDWiz - Thanks for the info. I will see what that combo of suppliers can do for me. I looked at that particular retailer last night (online) and could not find anything. I suspect they have some flyer in-store, or maybe at the customer service desk.

The data I provided earlier are real world from my estimates and my current electric usage/bill. It does not get more factual than that.

When did you have your system installed? From what I can tell, the incentives may have been lowered since you had your system installed. Currently in Riverside Co it is showing $3.00/W while the state wide is showing $2.20/W, so I could get $12K-$15K incentive, plus a minimal tax break somewhere around $2K. $12K-17K... Not to bad really. I bet Riverside Co is kicking in an incentive of their own.(Dropping the incentive amout makes sense because that is what has happened fairly regularly since this incentive was started, and is what is written into the program.) Maybe that is why your cost was less that what I am seeing? I really did get 3 estimates around $33K for the 5KW system. They were all within $1K of each other. California has a website to estimate based upon location, and I put in my info there and it comes in at $30.5K after incentives. That was set at $9/W installed.

I wish you the best with your system.

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 24, 2008 10:44 PM:The post from "Useful Life" (7:31pm) asks further questions about my solar photovoltaic system.
I had my system installed near the end of 2007.
The state and federal credits were increased in 2007, which helped, but part of the Federal credit will expire at the end of 2008 unless action is taken to restore them, so the only sure thing is to try to get something before the end of this year, though I am optimistic that the federal credits will be reinstated. I am not aware of any local credits handled by the counties.
In any case, my contractor handled all the processing for the credits; I just paid the net cost. I did not deal with any state, federal or local agencies regarding the rebates.
At current costs for electricity, the system is worth it. At current prices. But, seriously, does anyone think the current cost of electricty is going to be staying the same?

Look at SDG&E Bill more Closely wrote on Mar 25, 2008 11:44 AM:I don't use a lot of energy (about 425 kWh per month), but the total SDG&E rate per kWh that I pay is the SAME AS IT WAS 7 YEARS AGO. Apparantly residential rates were capped due to legislation (Assembly Bill 1X in 2001) for most residential customers and only larger-use customers have been subject to rate increases. May not seem fair, but I don't expect any significant electric rate increases for me.

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 26, 2008 9:57 AM:The post from "Look at SDG&E Bill more Closely" (3/25 - 11:44am) notes that baseline rates have not increased in 7 years and are set by law (though laws can be updated).
The idea was to give incentives to conserve.
If you live in an apartment or very small house, or along the coast with lower A/C needs (I live in sizzling Escondido), or are just very frugal with electricity, perhaps solar is not right for you.
However, "SDG&E Bill" dismisses high-use customers, who do see the rates in higher tiers continually increasing.
Well, some of us do use more electrictiy, and we want to prove that you don't have to live in a cave to be environmentally friendly. The more you use, the more sense solar makes.
As I have said before, while those funky low-energy light bulbs do grow on you and I've come to like 'em, it doesn't matter what kind of bulb you use if it is powered by sunshine.

Ian wrote on Mar 28, 2008 4:14 PM:I am all for solar, in fact I am working on an idea where people without roof space, or reduced solar days, could get involved. But consider this extreme case. Everyone has enough solar panels to sell energy back to their power company - where does the power company get the money? Solar only works during the day, and the USA is three hours wide (not including Hawaii and Alaska). We would have to have a way to store excess energy. I think that a homeowner will be doing really well if they can make their power bill neutral.