Renewable Revolution

Can a State's Solar Market Start Without It?
John Farrell
March 04, 2015
 
In about half of U.S. states, an individual or business can have solar installed on their roof owned by someone else, and either buy the power or lease the array from that third party. These power purchase or lease models drastically simplify the process of going solar (at a price), avoiding the work of managing tax credits, utility or state rebates, and system maintenance.

It also appears that a state’s solar market doesn’t really start growing until solar gets simple.
Let’s look at the top 10 states in solar per capita. Guess which states allow third party ownership of solar arrays?
 
State                       Capacity (MW)   Population (Millions)   Per Capita PV (MW/Millions of People)      
Arizona               776                   6.7                           115      
New Jersey       845                   8.9                            95      
Nevada               214                   2.8                            76      
New Mexico       152                   2.1                            73      
Delaware                 61                   0.9                            65      
Vermont                 39                   0.6                            62        
California              1893                 38.8                            49      
Massachusetts       267                   6.8                            39      
Connecticut       106                   3.6                            29      
Colorado               134                   5.4                            25   

Every single one.

But it’s not just the top 10. If you look at the 26 states with more solar installed per capita than the national median — 2.3 megawatts per million persons — 21 of the 26 solar market leaders allow third party ownership. In the map below, you can see the clear overlap of third party ownership rules with solar capacity.
Note: the “Top 25″ is actually the 26 states at or above the median capacity per million persons.



These “Top 25″ states account for 99 percent of all solar capacity in the country.

In other words, people will go solar if it’s simple and — with the possible exception of Indiana — not before.
Third party ownership — via a solar lease or power purchase agreement — makes solar simple, and this simplicity is necessary because financing solar remains so complex. In contrast, 75 percent of Americans choose ownership over leasing when acquiring a new car, because there’s financing available at the dealer and few, if any, federal, state, and utility-based incentives to manage. If solar ownership can be made as simple as owning a car (or even a home), expect solar ownership to swell.

So why doesn’t every state jump into third party owned solar arrays?

Because there are substantial advantages to states in simplifying solar ownership. Ownership means more of the economic value of of a solar array stays local, whereas the third party market for solar is dominated by a few national firms. These firms are less likely to tap the in-state supply chain for everything from legal services to panel manufacturing. In other words, the cost of third party provided simplicity is economic returns.

Unfortunately, few states (if any) have figured out how to make solar ownership as simple as leasing, and the data shows that states that want solar have to make it simple. It’s no easy choice.
This article originally posted at ilsr.org. For timely updates, follow John Farrell on Twitter or get the Democratic Energy weekly update.
Photo credit: Matthias Friel via Flickr (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 license)
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2015/03/can-a-states-solar-market-start-without-it

Agelbert NOTE (and rant): PV needs sun. The more sun, the more RENEWABLE ENERGY is available to reduce fossil fuel and nuclear pig profits. And, of course, Global Warming caused by greenhouse gasses spurs more people to transition to RENEWABLE ENERGY. This is disturbing to fossil fuelers  .

SO, they DO what they ALWAYS have DONE to make their horrendously polluting and outrageously expensive energy product appear "more competitive". They dream up a Geo-Engineered "heat shied" to be PAID for by we-the-people, OF COURSE. They don't tell us about it, OF COURSE. The fact that it might do more harm than good (which has now been PROVEN to be the case) is irrelevant to these biosphere math challenged, game theory worshipping idiots. It's the old "break a few eggs to make an omelete" fallacy. 



The DOE (department of Energy) and the DOD (Department of Defense) received their marching orders around the year 2000.

If YOU were the USAF, tasked by our Fossil Fuel Government to Geo-Engineer a "heat Shield" to save fossil fueler profits and assses, do you think it is F UCKING OBVIOUS, from the chart below, where you would order your jet tankers to fly the MAIN AEROSOL DISPERSAL FLIGHT PATTERN?

Study the above chart, please. Now study the below chart, please. 


The law of unintended consequences strikes again.  DROUGHT is only one of SEVERAL deleterious effects of this incredibly stupid "aerosol heat shield" attempt to save fossil fueldom's ass.




So how come YOU haven't heard about this correlation that really IS deleterious causation?
The M.I.C. mens rea modus operandi evidenced below is standard operating procedure when a giant expense is being foisted on the unwitting public.


Why are these policy makers so reticent to recognize the folly of Geo-Engineering? Why are they willing to risk irreparable harm to the biosphere for the sake of DIRTY ENERGY PROFITS?  

Because they are fascists.


The above is a 1975 patent for a contrail MODIFIER. I'm sure some "enhancements" have been made since then.


Have a nice day.