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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 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. > _______________________________________________ RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for: [email protected] http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
