![]() ![]() That’s because the agency’s calculations don’t account for the near-inevitability that electric rates will continue to rise, leading to higher monthly bill savings than they’ve estimated.Īre there extra incentives for low-income households? They also think the commission used a lowball figure for the cost of solar, and thus underestimated how long it will take consumers to make back their investment.Ĭommission members have made the opposite argument, saying payback periods will probably be shorter than they’ve calculated. Solar installers say that’s too long for households that don’t have money to burn. The Public Utilities Commission has estimated a payback period of nine years for Edison and PG&E residential customers who go solar after April 13, and six years for homes served by SDG&E. Starting in mid-April, when the new rules take effect, the calculation will change. ![]() SDG&E customers could expect an even shorter payback of four years, due to the utility’s especially high electric rates. After that, they’d continue to accrue bill savings for as long as their systems lasted. That means Edison and PG&E customers who bought solar panels - a purchase typically in the $20,000 range, once federal tax credits are taken into account - could expect to make back their upfront investment in five to six years through lower electric bills. Under the old rules, the expected “payback period” for homes served by Edison and PG&E was five to six years, according to an industry trade group. It just might take longer than it did before. You can definitely still save money with a rooftop system. The big utility companies - Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric - said it didn’t go far enough to reduce incentive payments, and would result in continued bill increases for their non-solar customers. Solar installers and environmental activists said it would crater the market and put clean energy out of reach for far too many Californians, lower-income households in particular. The commission’s long-awaited decision, which I wrote about for The Times last week, spurred all sorts of fiery reactions. “We required the to design a program that does two things: create certainty for rooftop, and at the same time address the cost shift for non-solar customers,” then-Assemblymember Henry Perea, who wrote the legislation, told me in 2015. But the bill also ordered the Public Utilities Commission to ensure that the solar market “continues to grow sustainably,” and to adopt incentives targeted at low-income families who might not be able to afford solar otherwise.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |