Schwarznegger sponsored legislation this afternoon which is supposed to fix it.

http://greenvolts.blogspot.com

Press release:

From: govpressoffice@GOV.CA.GOV

Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 17:04:23

Subject: Gov. Schwarzenegger Sponsors Legislation to Correct Flaw in California's Million Solar Roofs Plan

GAAS:366:07

For Immediate Release:

Contact: Aaron McLear

Wednesday, May 9, 2007

Bill Maile

916-445-4571

Gov. Schwarzenegger Sponsors Legislation to Correct Flaw in California's Million Solar Roofs Plan

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today announced that he is sponsoring legislation to fix an unintended flaw in legislation passed last year to complete his Million Solar Roofs plan. The program, administered by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), provides financial incentives to home and business owners to install solar systems to reduce electricity demand in California, helping to ensure an adequate supply and protect the environment.

"California is a national leader in solar energy. By expanding its use in homes and businesses across our state, we can help fight greenhouse gases while bringing more jobs to California." said Governor Schwarzenegger. "Last year's legislation had an unintended flaw we are seeking to immediately fix so we can maximize Californians' participation in the program."

To expedite the passage of urgency legislation, the Governor has reached a conceptual agreement with a bipartisan group of legislators including Assemblymembers Lloyd Levine, Rick Keene, Bonnie Garcia, John Benoit and Senators Christine Kehoe, Bob Dutton and Jim Battin to quickly introduce a bill that fixes the problem. The Governor has also worked with utilities, environmental groups and other stakeholders to craft the agreement.

The unintended problem is related to the current statutory requirement for Time of Use rates for electricity customers that install solar systems. The solution allows the CPUC to temporarily change the rate structure for solar systems installed since January 1, 2007. The legislation must be signed into law by June 6, 2007, to allow the CPUC to take action at its next regularly scheduled meeting.

The legislation will also allow the CPUC to offer rebates or credits to ratepayers impacted by the current rate structure.

Since taking office, the Governor has made it a priority to develop a self-sustaining solar industry for California. Gov. Schwarzenegger worked for more than two years with the legislature and the California Public Utilities Commission to create a solar program for the citizens of California. To fully implement the incentive program, he signed SB 1 by Senator Kevin Murray (D-Los Angeles) in August, 2006.

One million solar roofs will greatly increase the state's rooftop solar energy capacity, providing the output equivalent of five modern electric power plants. This program's 3,000 megawatt goal, taken together with other aggressive solar initiatives such as requiring utilities to acquire 20 percent of the power used within the state from renewable sources, will make California once again a world leader in solar power.

In October of last year, the Governor launched the Go Solar California Web site (www.GoSolarCalifornia.ca.gov:

), a one stop shop for information on the state's solar programs for California residential and commercial power users.

Brazil uses sugar beets for ethanol. This has about 8 units of energy for every unit of energy spent creating it. The US uses corn which produces 1.7 units of energy per unit of energy input. But imagine if we sold the Brazilians on growing our sugar beets for us and they tore up a chunk of rain forest the size of Ireland. It might not end of being that green in the end.

"Has the Global Warming fanaticism hit SO hard that now we direct attention away from one of our most patriotic days celebrated in our nation to declare our allegiance to ... "Mother Earth"?... Leave the 4th of July alone, as a day we pause to celebrate our nation's Independence and to appreciate all that America is. It is a patriotic day. It's not a day to "go green.""

Uh, most Americans don't even know WHY we celebrate July 4!

A few years ago, I heard a radio DJ interview 10 people at a July 4 celebration. He asked them what they were celebrating. 8 out of 10 did not know the reason they were drinkin' beer, rockin' out to classic rock, and milling around a hot, tree-less festival ground, waiting for dark.

We need to refresh the spirit of revolution on July 4. I think most of us have forgotten how to be independent of tyrants!

although i know a little of the science here, i don't really know the economics of the corn vs. sugarcane debate.

i understand that the net yield of energy from corn isn't that much, because it takes so much energy. i'm assuming a large part of this is involved not only in distillation and fermentation, but also in the energy required to convert cornstarch to sugar, the one step that is circumvented using cane sugar. also, there might be more yield from cane sugar, i'm not really sure.

so, is the energy that we use to physically transport ethanol from brazil small enough that it is offset by the energy gained from using a "higher-energy" source of sugar?

is there any advantage to importing the cane sugar (or some other intermediate processing step) and processing it ethanol here (better technology?)?

if there is a shift to using brazilian biofuels, that will have a much larger impact than the fuel market. if you ask any englishman living in the united states, they can attest to the fact that cane sugar imports are highly taxed to drive food processors to use high-fructose corn syrup (sorry cadbury lovers). if we were to begin importing brazilian sugar or ethanol produced from brazilian sugar, it might lead to a severe reduction of corn sugar usage in the whole of the u.s. food industry as well, making corn virtually worthless. i don't think the cargill's will let that happen.

instead of constantly being hung up on "gas prices" can we change the way we talk about this and say our goal is to lower "energy costs"?

it seems like this would be more all-encompassing terminology that implies that there are environmental (and as a consequence long-term economic) costs to energy consumption. this kind of phrasing goes hand-in hand with energy independence, rather than running up against it.

i know it doesn't inspire the gutteral responses phrases like "what you're paying at the pump!" and the like you tend to hear on local news, but at the same time, it has the flexibility to reflect everyone's individual energy crisis du jour (e.g. california electricity, new england heating oil, etc.).