[SustainableTompkins] Berkley pays for solar installations

[Bethany Schroeder]

I hope this works out for Berkeley residents, but just so you know: Jon 
and I had a home in Berkeley until we returned to Ithaca two years ago. 
I looked into a PV system and learned that a lot of houses in Berkeley 
have so much tree cover with roofs pitched at such angles that PV isn't 
always a possible amenity. Truth to tell, Berkeley is very densely 
packed, so much so that it's uncommon to have more than a postage stamp 
of a yard, and houses are often close enough to one another that 
neighbors can hear one another's internal doors close. The local company 
I was working with thought it'd cost 50K to put in a system, although 
they doubted they could successfully install PV without sacrificing a 
few of our trees and doing something very strange to our mansard roof.

Let's wish them luck--and steal their ideas and put them to the best 
imaginable use. We have three local installers that I know of, perhaps 
more these days, whereas Berkeley only had one when I was making my 
inquiries. Solar can't solve all of the world's problems, but it's a 
much better investment than a McMansion.

A skeptical,

Bethany



Stephen Nicholson wrote:
>  Berkeley going solar - city pays up front, recoups over 20 years
> 
> Carolyn Jones, Chronicle Staff Writer <carolynjones at sfchronicle.com>
> 
> Friday, October 26, 2007
> 
> Read complete article at:
> 
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/10/26/MNAIT0DQO.DTL
> 
> Berkeley is set to become the first city in the nation to help thousands of
> its residents generate solar power without having to put money up front -
> attempting to surmount one of the biggest hurdles for people who don't have
> enough cash to go green.
> 
> The City Council will vote Nov. 6 on a plan for the city to finance the cost
> of solar panels for property owners who agree to pay it back with a 20-year
> assessment on their property. Over two decades, the taxes would be the same
> or less than what property owners would save on their electric bills,
> officials say.
>  property owner would hire a city-approved solar installer, who would
> determine the best solar system for the property, depending on energy use.
> Most residential solar panel systems in the city cost from $15,000 to
> $20,000.
> 
> The city would pay the contractor for the system and its installation, minus
> any applicable state and federal rebates, and would add an assessment to the
> property owner's tax bill to pay for the system.
> 
> The extra tax would include administrative fees and interest, which would be
> lower than what the property owner could obtain on his own, because the city
> would secure low-interest bonds and loans, officials say. The tax would stay
> with the property even if the owner sold, although the owner would have to
> leave the solar panels.
> 
> The property owner would save money on monthly Pacific Gas & Electric bill
> because electricity generated by the solar panels would partly replace
> electricity delivered by the utility. After the assessment expired, the
> solar panels - of a simple technology that requires little or no maintenance
> - would continue to partly replace PG&E electricity.
>