Solar energy deserves strong state support

Published June 15, 2015

Editorial by Fayetteville Observer, June 15, 2015.

A group of lawmakers in Raleigh wants to pull down the shades on this state's thriving solar-energy business. The state, they say, is spending too much money subsidizing the young industry, and they are moving to scale back the state's commitment to solar.

This, solar backers say, would be a costly mistake for North Carolina, which is one of the top states in developing new solar resources. The industry has been encouraged by a 2007 state law that required utilities to get increasing portions of their electricity from renewable sources. Solar is the most economically viable source for renewable energy and hundreds of solar farms dot the state's rural landscape.

 In this region, solar companies have invested about $420 million through the end of last year. Two new solar farms in Cumberland and Bladen counties will add another $325 million investment soon.

The state's Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard has required utilities to get 3 percent of their electricity from renewable sources. That doubles to 6 percent this year, moves to 10 percent in 2018 and to 12.5 percent in 2021. Given the growth of the solar industry, meeting those goals should be no problem.

But that will change if some lawmakers have their way. Rep. Mike Hager, a Rutherfordton Republican and former longtime Duke Energy engineer, has led a dogged fight against the portfolio standards and other measures that have offered subsidies to the solar industry. Hager is pushing a measure to cap the incentives where they stand and back away from other assistance to the industry.

Rep. John Szoka, a Fayetteville Republican, sees it the other way around. The growth of the solar industry is a good thing for us, bringing new investment here that we otherwise wouldn't have gotten. The subsidies aren't harmful, he says - "My response to that is all energy is subsidized." He's right. At both the state and federal levels, traditional energy industries have had a good friend in government. Why shouldn't solar?

Szoka says companies including Wal-Mart, Google, Apple and Facebook have spoken up in favor of solar here. "Private industry recognizes that it's good for business," he said. The military - another big business around here - is pushing hard for renewable energy too.

Solar-generated power, in fact, is getting steadily cheaper as the industry matures. The best course for the General Assembly is clear: Don't try to stall the solar industry - encourage it. That's the winning strategy.

http://www.fayobserver.com/opinion/editorials/our-view-solar-industry-deserves-strong-state-support/article_661c02a7-eae4-5f7c-a736-df34c3b57280.html

Read More NC SPIN >>

June 15, 2015 at 8:32 am
Richard L Bunce says:

Of course subsidies are harmful, to all the other businesses that compete with the subsidized businesses. Solar voltaic electrical generation is not the only renewable energy business. Solar thermal, wind, tidal, hydro, nuclear, natural gas, coal, etc are all harmed when having to compete against government subsidies. If I build a home with passive solar and substantially reduce my winter grid electricity use over a conventional home I get no subsidy. If I build a home with solar voltaic cells on the roof and substantially reduce my winter grid electricity use over a conventional home I get a subsidy.

Lower taxes and regulations for all NC businesses and let the market, the customers, not government bureaucrats decide which businesses will flourish.

June 15, 2015 at 10:12 am
Norm Kelly says:

'"My response to that is all energy is subsidized." He's right. At both the state and federal levels, traditional energy industries have had a good friend in government.'

Please explain what ANYONE means by 'all energy is subsidized'. This is the excuse typically used by libs to encourage more government spending on ideas that won't survive on their own in the marketplace. Like most other things lib, never explained though. How is all energy subsidized?

Are libs claiming that energy is subsidized because energy businesses get to deduct the same exact expenses that every other business gets to deduct from their taxes? The only business that no longer gets to deduct all the same expenses are those businesses in the medical device manufacturing. Remember that Obamacancer, what libs won't call socialized medicine but really is, taxes medical device manufacturers on GROSS INCOME rather than adjusted income. This is the only business that is so penalized. (but if this outrageous approach is accepted by voters, it won't be the last such business market taxed in this fashion!)

So, is this what y'all are referring to as 'subsidized'? If so, this is a false statement, what thinkers rightfully call a 'lie'!

On the other hand, solar is directly subsidized. Businesses and individuals are PAID by government to take on solar. Having some profitable business get PAID to install solar is a waste of MY MONEY! I don't choose to install solar because 1.) it's too expensive 2.) the payback period is extremely long 3.) it is currently extremely inefficient. Early adopters should take responsibility for themselves, not pass the expense on to the rest of us who CHOOSE not to be an early adopter!

At what point will solar stand on it's own? At what point will y'all STOP taking money from me to GIVE to the solar industry? And, just as importantly, how much of MY MONEY that you TAKE from me to GIVE to some solar company ends up in the hands of a manufacturer NOT located in the United States? How much of the solar equipment is produced by foreign companies? So, how much of MY MONEY ends up in the hands of some company/individual that HATES my country?

Please explain your statement that all energy is subsidized. Please explain how much tax money should be spent on this one specific industry? Why is this carve out good and so many other carve-outs are despised? Please explain how much of the tax money spent by the state to subsidize an otherwise inefficient business stays in the US vs. how much travels abroad.

' "Private industry recognizes that it's good for business," '. Then if it's truly good for business, won't private industry invest even if the state doesn't pay them for it? Of course, the answer is YES. Business almost always does what's good for their bottom line. Only when government forces business to take a not-profitable step does business not care about their bottom line. When coerced by government, business will do what's required. But otherwise business does what's good for business. And if solar is good for business, business will do it. Kinda like K's relatives who took the subsidy but ONLY because the government paid them dearly for participating. They DIDN'T make the move until it was worth their time. When the government paid to make an otherwise bad business decision, suddenly the decision wasn't so bad. And people with lots of money of their own ended up getting paid by some of us who don't have lots of money to make a bad business decision. And the got the benefit of appearing to be environmentally friendly. One of those lib feel-good things that's actually more of a waste than worthwhile!

So far solar energy remains unpredictable and inefficient. Until the industry makes progress, this should remain a niche market. Kinda like when the feel-good central planners forced us to switch from incandescent light bulbs to twisted florescent bulbs. They didn't let us know about the special downsides to this technology until AFTER they had forced the change on us. The industry was NOT ready for such a drastic change, yet central planners decided they KNEW better than the industry and better than individuals what should happen. I'm sure a lot of this had to do with the relationship between socialists in DC and GE, but that's just my conspiracy mind at work again. If the market were allowed to mature WITHOUT government/central planner interference, the market would have matured on schedule and people would have VOLUNTARILY moved to more efficient lighting choices. But, then, we would have known the up and downsides to each choice. But central planner socialists took choice away from us. Again. Cuz central planner socialists believe they are smarter than us, and believe they implement their ideas for our benefit. What they usually do is penalize us while rewarding themselves. Like forcing socialized medicine upon us and exempting themselves. Like telling us to use the VA Health system as a perfect example of what Obamacancer would be like for the masses right up until the socialist VA Health system showed us what socialized medicine was truly like. Then the socialists didn't mention VA Health again as an example of what the masses can expect. Cuz they know we would reject it if given a choice! Central planners do NOT like choice for the masses! What they are doing to solar is also removing choice!