Let's hope that the Senate passes the bill and that the UK government introduce similar measures.

This would be a great bill. However, I wonder how long it will take before the coal lobby does everything it can to stop it from becoming law?

Makes too much sense, therefore, will never pass. It does give hope seeing Kerry and Specter co-sponsoring, though.

Who can we write to to encourage its passage?

I, too, doubt it will pass in anything but name. A crippled husk of a bill is more likely to make it through.
Still, I have hope. It might get done. Let's see, 10 million roofs... average family size somewhere between 2 and 4... if each solar roof completely meets the energy use of the home that has it, this could make solar soar to 10% of residential electricity use. That'd be awesome.

Bernie's great! Another reason to be proud of living in Vermont. Unfortunately I agree with everyone. The oil/coal lobbies will do everything they can to block it and the various reps and senators in their pockets will try to cut chunks out of it until it is ineffective.

Rebates for 50% of the cost....that's a pretty fat subsidy. Of course, it seems rather unfair that tax dollars which are paid by everyone would go to subsidize systems which offset the energy costs of only those who can afford the other 50%. But I guess that's the case with any subsidy....everyone pays a little so that a few can benefit a lot. Let's say that a large photovoltaic installation is placed on a local business. Are they going to lower the costs of their goods and services in accordance with their reduced energy costs or are they going to pocket the savings as profit?

I'm all in favor of developing distributed solar generation, but it needs to compete on it's own merit. Where is the incentive for manufacturers to bring down the system costs when the government is footing 50% of the bill? I know, I know....economies of scale. Well, we seem to have economies of scale today seeing as manufacturers are selling their entire capacity, yet prices are not coming down to grid parity.

Subsidies are not appropriate in any portion of the energy sector, in my opinion, whether it be petroleum, wind, or solar. There are alternatives to a direct hand-out. Leasing or power purchase agreements sponsored by installers or utilities, for instance. We should strive for equal treatment...not special treatment, including the oil and gas industries.

Hi this is John from www.GlobalSolarCenter.com

Although there is a lot of talk about solar and wind, when you get down to numbers, its no surprise that that renewable energy tax credits are floundering. In the 2006 elections, the fossil-fuel industry spent about $60 million on lobbying while all renewable energy donations totaled less than $400 thousand. Join the facebook group "Renew Solar and Wind Incentives" to register your support!

I can install it myself, what I want is to be reimbursed for the purchase price of the equipment. In the end I'll hire an electrician to inspect and quality check my work.

I love this BUT:

There is a clear problem with the legislation. The two key aspects of it are possibly at odds. In one section it states that the rebate "shall be at least $3 per installed watt." In the next section it states that the rebate "shall not exceed 50 percent of the cost".

This works out fine if the price of the system costs over $6 per watt but not so good if it falls (as it quickly should) under $6 per watt. For example, if the system costs $7 per watt the rebate should be $3.50 and the actual price to the customer will also be $3.50 thereby satisfying both of the sections. However, if the price of the system is $5 at least one of the two sections will be violated. That is, the rebate has to be at least $3 but if it is $3 than the price of the system is $2 and it therefore makes up more than 50 percent of the system cost. Likewise, if the rebate is only $2.50 (which makes up exacly 50 percent of the system cost) it violates the "at least $3" first section.

If this wording was left unchanged it would necessitate that once prices fall to $6 per watt they would get stuck there and everybody would get a $3 rebate per watt while also paying $3 per watt.

Like I said, I love the idea but the language needs to be cleaned up a bit before final passage.

Each year, approximately 5.7 x 1024 joules of solar energy are irradiated to the earth's surface, and recent technologies and innovations have made it seem very likely that utilizing this solar power may be the most viable way for us to solve the energy crisis. It is wonderful news to hear that our legislature has recognized that and is helping this technology move toward economies of scale along. Even if this bill doesn't pass, it's a precedent that will hopefully be followed by more legislation that involves public-private alternative energy partnerships.

Already, the outlook is “bright” The use of solar power has been expanding rapidly, growing an average of 40 percent per year since the beginning of this decade, and a new study from Clean Edge says that solar energy could reach cost parity with retail-electricity rates in most regions of the U.S. in only a few years. New developments on the part of the private sector have further led to solar price slashing.

For example, efforts on the part of BioSolar, Inc. have lead to cost-cutting technology in which photovoltaic cells are produced from bio-based renewable plant sources (story: http://www.biobasednews.com/node/16166). In addition, the Garland Group, a commercial roofing manufacturer, has offered solar roofing products for the past decade, further pushing the technology toward viability. Garland has announced it will collaborate with the University of Toledo to combine its roofing expertise with thin film photovoltaic technologies to produce turnkey, factory-integrated solar roofing projects (story: http://www.biobasednews.com/node/13459).

Let's see where this bill takes us!

Hey Mad Marcus,

A couple of points. The current industry does not have economies of scale. Yes, many manufacturers are essentially sold out for a year or two but it does not imply that they have reached the necessary scale to get it to grid parity. According to a report by NREL about 4 years ago they thought that the manufacturing size needed was in the 2.1 to 3.6 GW per year range. The good news is that we are moving toward that range. REC is building a plant in Singapore that will have capacity at around 1.5 GW and a similar sized project was recently announced for India. In addition, the polysilicon production is ramping up and in about 4 years should be 3 to 4 times larger than it was a couple of years ago. Add to this Nanosolar says that they have made a single line that can produce over 1 GW of thin film per year and you are seeing that the economies of scale are only several years off.

As for your comments about subsidies... In an ideal world I'm with you. However, the fact is that we do subsidize fossil fuels and we don't price in their externalities (pollution, additional healthcare costs, military budget used to protect oil supply line, etc.) If we did a 5 to 10 year phase out of all subsidies to the energy industry and we then taxed the various energy sources according to their external costs I believe that most renewables would be cost competitive.

With that said, it's almost not worth talking about because it simply isn't going to happen. Not with an ignorant public and not with the "leadership" that we, in our collective wisdom, are allowing to run the country.

as for the beginning of this post, you could not be MORE WRONG about the action taken by the BLM. sheesh! how many of the hearings did you attend? oh, right, just a knee-jerk reaction to a temporary moratorium after the first MILLION ACRES went onto the chopping block in a SINGLE YEAR, while they address the cumulative impacts to the fragile desert wilderness of slaughtering huge sections of it for wasteful, expensive and unnecessary power plants that only increase monopolies and decrease ecosystems. get informed before you "report" something.

if you want to fight The Man, then fight Big Solar! you stick a halo on someone because they say the word "solar" but you don't bother showing up to hear them ranting about how they don't want environmental impact reports, how they demand access to national parks, national forests, ACECs, DWMAs and other critical habitats so they can tighten their chokeholds on consumers who might otherwise benefit from renewable power at point of use, the only sustainable solution.

my thanks to rep sanders, who, unlike the folks at treehugger, seems to recognize that there is good solar and there is bad solar. Big Solar are the same mentality as Big Coal - kill off our environment for private profits...

I would be happier if they would cut the subsidies for coal, oil & nuclear instead.

Solar subsidies should only be spent in optimal areas and not wasted in places like Seattle & New York like the last program did.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/states/alternatives/photovoltaics.cfm

Likewise, wind subsidies should be applied here:

http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/maps/chap2/2-01m.html

Since this article is pertaining to solar power and its funding, I am going to ask an important question regarding the topic.
First off, my grandfather owns a farm in central PA. He mentioned to me one day about contacting a cell phone company and having a cell phone tower installed on his land. They take up about 1/4 acre and the land owner gets paid a certain amount, and usually gets free cell phone service. I hate the cell phone towers though. Yes, they may be necessary, but they are FUGLY! and they don't help the environment, emitting radiation...
Although I can't say that I am doing everything possible to reduce my "carbon footprint," I am very interested in getting away from using fossil fuels.
I suggested that my grandfather have wind turbines (like the many used in Pittsburgh), or install solar panels on his barn. To my surprise, he told me that if I draw up the plans and give him the bill, he will go for it!

So now I am looking for information on where to buy solar panels, and everything needed to create a "sell back to the grid" type of system. My grandparents don't use that much electricity to begin with so I know it would pay for itself in a relatively short time. I just don't know where to go to get a hold of the materials. I have no problem installing the system (as long as I have some sort of instructions). The barn roof is unobstructed (no trees or anything shading it) and one half of the roof has the surface area of at least 2000 sq ft.

We can spend days debating what is right about this bill and what is wrong about this bill. What is GOOD about this is that it will make one more needed step to getting this kind of thinking into the mainstream. I hope.....