| CT Residents to Get Solar Panels with No Upfront Cost |
| Written by Hank Green | ||
| Monday, 18 August 2008 | ||
|
The solar systems will be installed for free, and then the residents will pay a flat low rate, presumably in exchange for the power the panels generate. While the upfront costs of solar panels (often more than $30,000) are out of reach for most homeowners, they actually promise to save money over the life of the panels. So the state is absorbing the up-front costs of the panels for anyone who makes less than 150% of the median income of their area. The households will pay a monthly rate of less than $120. This should represent a nice steady source of income for the state. And, of course, it has wonderful environmental consequences as well, all for less than the cost of some cable TV packages. Still, they only expect about 1,000 homeowners to take advantage of the program over the next three years. It seems to me that more people would be interested in taking advantage of the program. It's possible that CT is limiting applications at first to ensure viability of the program. Similar solar lease programs have taken off in California as well, and Wal-Mart has installed many of it's solar panels with similar financing techniques. So if you're a Nutmegger, go to the CT Solar Lease site and see if you can get into the program. And if you have any report on how it goes, email me at This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
Comments
(8)
Successful Strategy
written by gmoke , August 18, 2008
This is a successful strategy that is being used in India, Sri Lanka, Bangla Desh, and other countries with smaller scale solar lights. Essentially, it is lease to own. It can be combined with the energy services model which is currently used in the US by such companies as Sun Edison - you pay Sun Edison for energy and they install, maintain, and own the PV panels on your roof.
What do you mean, CA?
written by Hamumu , August 18, 2008
We're trying to get our panels right now and I'd kill (environmentally - we'd compost the remains) for a program like this! We tried getting a home equity loan, but it turns out you can't do that on a manufactured home (which it took BofA 3 weeks of tax form sending to tell us, then we tried a couple others and asked first! No go). So now I think we're basically looking at saving our money to buy them with cash. I tell you, doing the right thing has never been so hard.
If a program like this, or like anything, exists in CA (outside of Palm Desert or Berkeley, however), we could sure use it. Our utility won't even offer any rebates, it's a little one and they aren't required to. All we can get is the $2000 tax credit, which would be awesome... but it's expiring at year's end. So we are trying to move at high speed on this! We're in Anza in Riverside County, if anybody happens to know anything.
Naugatuck, Connecticut
written by Jacklyn Scott , August 18, 2008
I can't even express how pleased I am with Connecticut for doing this. I live in Naugatuck and the state is also funding our high school by paying for solar panel roofing to be put in place of our asbestos roof that leaks.
 Hopefully we will qualify to get them put on our home!
...
written by Paul Koenig , August 18, 2008
Ummmm. Isn't it cloudy a lot in CT? Seems like the feds should promote solar in the southwest and other solutions elsewhere. In the meantime get household electricity consumption down to 120kwh/month. But what do I know?
Newtown, Connecticut
written by Sarah Smith , August 18, 2008
I am so pleased that Connecticut has decided to do this. I am a resident in Newtown, and I know that I will be taking part in this!
...
written by Jacob , August 19, 2008
Same tack as Australia, why are they marketing this stuff to low income families? Is there something so wrong about stimulating the upper using middle class into using their money for something worthwhile?
Connecticut Sun
written by gmoke , August 19, 2008
Germany has more solar electric than most any other country. Their insolation is on the order of the worst in the continental USA, the state of Washington. CT probably sees about 400,000 btu's of sunlight per square foot each and every year.
Interesting concept but retailers/busine
written by electricity cycles , August 22, 2008
This is an interesting idea. My question would be if the cost for installation goes down over the next 5 years to be 3/4 but the output of panels increases by 10-15% at the same time, won't it make sense to wait a while? If I adopt early I get stuck with something that provides little benefit to me as a homeowner relative to what it could be. For example, if I did this on my own and the job costs 35K to put panels on my 2000 sq ft house, and I get 15K back from the state, 20K seems like a lot less to swallow than a 45K lease, even at 150 a month for 30 odd years.
They have a good idea here but I think going after businesses would be a much better idea. There are tons of box stores that could be converted and provide power back to the grid. I'd rather work on reducing my overall consumption of power by figuring out small ways that I can make changes to my power consumption such as motion detectors and smart outlets that shut off power when I turn off a device(aka unplugging). Lastly, I think heating of homes would be a much better way to go. Pushing the idea of smart furnaces that can burn biofuels seem like a much smarter way to reduce Nutmegger's carbon footprint. | ||
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Science, technology gadgets and...baby seals. We're in a bit of an eco-mess, but we've got the brains to lick any problem. And that's why EcoGeek.org publishes up to ten stories daily about innovations that are saving the planet.
And if that sounds interesting to you, then congratulations, you're an EcoGeek.
A new program for Connecticut homeowners is promising to 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
