Solar Policy: This. Is. War. Will You Join Me In This Fight?

May 1, 2012 :

One ought never to turn one’s back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half.

— Sir Winston Churchill

The storm clouds of war are starting to gather over solar policy. We are seeing the early skirmishes going on already on both the national and state levels. But this is only the beginning — and as Winston Churchill admonished us, we can not run away because it will only embolden our enemies. We must join the battle without flinching and meet it before it gets out of hand. There were a few major skirmishes in the last couple of weeks that have me immensely concerned, which is why I take to my commentary today to — plead, beg, demand — that those of you who aren’t already involved in this fight get ready — because the battle for the future of your industry is in your hands.

I first felt the chill hand of war touch my shoulder when I read this report by Greentech Media discussing the latest funding bill for the Department of Energy will be cut 4% overall and a whopping 17% in the areas of renewable energy, including, of course, solar. The article states:

Representative Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ), who chairs the subcommittee, said in a statement that the cuts would be applied to “research and development which is closest to deployment.”
However, plenty of mature technologies received increased funding, including an extra $207 million for the Fossil Energy program and no cuts for nuclear energy. Yucca Mountain also received $25 million, despite the fact that Obama has closed the site.

Anyone who cares about the solar industry in general and solar policy in particular should see what the current House of Representatives are trying to do. They are trying to cut off the money that funds so much of the innovation in renewable energy. To paraphrase conservative hero Grover Norquist, they are trying to shrink the solar industry to the size where they can drown it in a bathtub. As an industry where breakthroughs are happening at a breathtaking pace, significant cuts to research could cripple the fastest growing industry in the United States during our recent recession. How in the world does this make any rational sense? It doesn’t — until you recognize who’s paying the bills for the representatives who support this bill.

But there’s an even more insidious front opening in this war that I want to bring to your attention.

Meet ALEC (the pleasant sounding, innocuous name for the American Legislative Exchange Council). Who are they? Think of them as the Legal Zoom of state-level legislation. Legislators come to ALEC with a subject they want to introduce legislation on, and ALEC will helpfully write it for them — and spread those laws across the rest of the country.

They’ve been in the news a lot lately for being behind an Arizona immigration law (currently mimicked in South Carolina and Alabama) and the Stand Your Ground law in Florida and 11 other states. But they now feel they’ve done enough in those areas — and now they’re turning their sights on the renewable energy industry.

From The Grist:

Two leading conservative political organizations say they are stepping up coordinated efforts to repeal state-level renewable energy targets.

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) …  says it may soon start crafting laws designed to kill or weaken state targets for renewable electricity, heating, and fuels.

…

Last July, Bloomberg News acquired tax documents showing that Koch Industries, Exxon Mobil, and other energy companies paid membership fees to ALEC in order to help write legislation repealing carbon pollution reduction programs in states around country.

…

ALEC has already attempted to write legislation preventing targets for renewable energy on the federal level. As nothing substantive has happened nationally, it seems ALEC is now preparing to take its corporate-influenced legislation to the 29 states that actually have targets in place.

Read the whole story here. It is actually worse those quotations I’ve given you would let on.

This article made my blood run cold. ALEC has been extraordinarily successful in getting laws passed around the country in the wake of the 2010 elections (known by some as the Tea Party elections), so they know how to do this effectively. With the number of state legislatures that are under the control of ALEC-friendly representatives and senators, it could spell doom for many of the renewable energy supports that have made the solar industry the fastest growing industry in the United States.

Thankfully, ALEC is making its plans clear, so we can prepare for this battle on a state-by-state basis — and believe me, this is going to be the mother of all battles. We can’t allow them to strike first.

You must hold your federal and state representatives accountable. Be evangelists for this industry everywhere you go — block parties, offices, churches. Wherever you have a chance to talk to people about the advantages of solar, do it. Urge your Facebook friends and Twitter followers to call their representatives to demand they stop this attempt to destroy your livelihood — and then after that, urge them to vote in November. Yes, it’s that important.

I’ve been called a partisan before, and it’s true. I’m a partisan for the best interests of the solar industry. I will always defend this industry when it is under attack, and this battle is just about to get more fierce. I will continue to fight the forces that would like to suck the life out of this industry by calling them out and asking all of you to help me hold them to account. We must do this — our livelihoods are at stake.

This is going to be a long war. Will you join me in this fight?

  • Bigbird_ca11

    Funding from governments should go into pure research at the education level not at the corporate level. If government wishes to invest in research technology for a share in the company thats one thing, but to give away money to ANY industry at the cost of the whole should raise alarms. I have to agree that subsidies at any level other than social or health are only proving that the industry being subsidized is not operating as an efficient one. Fossil fuels were never viable on a whole and only through the private interests of profit driven individuals have chemicals, fossil fuels, and pharma corps been allowed to expand to the point where they are able to dictate government policy. Energy production from Earth friendly generation sources is the only way to proceed. Anyone who cannot see that should move to an industrial area (refineries, smelters, chemical waste processing) or any other polluting area and be made to wallow in ignorance, be sure to drink the ground water as well.
    Capitalism as it is, is destroying our planet, our home. Make a change? revolution from the ground up may be the only way.

    • Elvis

      Every business on the planet is profit driven. If they’re not, they don’t survive. You speak as though making a profit is a bad thing. Entrepreneurs go into business to make money. Not give it away. If we work for a corporation, we are also profit driven. Don’t think so? Then go to work for free and don’t take a paycheck. Capitalism works every time it’s tried. What doesnt’ work is subsidizing. I agree. Take away all government subsidies from everything. For those who legitimately need help and can’t help themselves, I’m all for showing compassion. The welfare state is the worst thing to happen to American families. The founding fathers are turning over in their graves at what this nation has become!!! Corporate welfare, public welfare, it’s all a violation of the constitution. The sad testimony of this country is that too many people believe there is a constitutional right to equal outcomes and that it’s ok and even noble to take money away from someone who has been successful and give it to someone who doesn’t have as much. That is communism. People become successful because we as consumers vote for their success by spending our money on their products or services.

      Until a different method of daily transporting millions of travellers across this, the greatest nation in the history of mankind, in a jet with some other fuel than aviation jet fuel is found, we will have to use oil. Oil is the fuel that drives the engine of capitalism. Capitalism is the economic model that raises EVERYONE’S standard of living. I don’t need to go through the litany of products that are derived from oil. The fact of the matter is that as consumers, EVERYTHING we use or consume is brought to us because of a carbon based fuel source. If you want to revolt against oil, have a nut. Do without food, clothing, heat or air conditioning, computers, phones, and jobs. Just don’t try to force me to join you in your quest.

  • Elvis

    It’s important to reduce rhetoric and stick to facts. I am all for businesses being able to legitimately claim business related expenses on their tax filings. To call that a subsidy is a flat out lie. Now giving money to any entity to “stimulate growth and development” is a subsidy pure and simple. When state governments force utility companies to additionally subsidize renewable sources by purchasing the plant output at retail, the utility customer foots the bill twice: through tax dollars and utility costs. That’s where I get upset. If all of the optional sources of energy production are put together and asked to compete on the wholesale level, the true benefit of all resources can be fairly evaluated. Reasonable logic prevents us from trying to compare how well renewable sources compete against base load units if we don’t have wholesale prices for all forms. Anyone who has studied the industry has to admit that nuclear and coal cost per KWH at a wholesale level trump anything that has been developed over the past thirty years in the renewable world. Should diversification occur? Yes. Should the taxpayers/rate payers be forced to double subsidize it? The obvious answer is NO. I am one who completely disagrees with the ethanol subsidy because why does it make sense to drive up the world food price to subsidize making alcohol? World food prices would drop dramatically if the ethanol subsidy was eliminated. That’s not popular in Iowa or southern Minnesota, but our country cannot sustain unlimited, unending handouts!!!

    • Solarguy

      “It’s important to reduce rhetoric and stick to facts”
      Here’s a fact, Texas Gov. Rick Perry pushed thru legislation in 2007 giving the “clean coal” industry in Texas $100 million in tax credits. Where’s that led us? Nowhere.
      Perry sycophants block legislation approving non-tax funding for a $0.20 per month fee on every residential electric bill to fund solar incentives statewide.
      Then he’ll look you in the eye and tell you we don’t pick winners and losers.
      What a hypocrite.

  • Shannoman

    “War”, “enemies”, “battles”, “skirmishes”. Really, Frank? Do you really think of your fellow Americans as “enemies”? I thought liberals agreed to drop this kind of language after Gabrielle Giffords was shot.
    As far as subsidies go, I don’t think any companies should be subsidized by the government, including petroleum and nuclear. They are probably the most heavily regulated industries, though, so I wonder if they break even on the cost of meeting all of those regulations vs. the value of the subsidies they receive. This country was founded as a capitalist country. (Is it a coincidence you posted this article on May Day?) If you can’t compete–if solar power can’t compete, we shouldn’t borrow money from China to prop up your special interest.
    Again, it’s a shame this site can’t focus on solar technology and engineering, but instead feels compelled to wallow in the political mud.

    • Frank Andorka

      Shannoman:

      First off, let’s dispense with the manufactured outrage over the use of the words “war,” “enemies,” “battles” etc. These are terms that are used on both sides (“War on Christmas”, “War on Religious Freedom,” “battle for the soul of America” — need I go on?). Difference is, I’m not asking my followers to shoot or kill any of the people I oppose. I’m not posting their pictures with crosshairs on them.

      I’m merely asking those who feel as passionately as I do about the solar industry to call their representatives — as is their right in a democracy — and express their opinions. I am not asking them to be violent, discourteous or anything of the sort. But they need to let their voices be heard so that the representatives so that a well-funded campaign like the one ALEC is purported to be planning (funded, I might add, by the same oil and gas companies you are hellbent on protecting from the market) is not the only voice that’s heard in the political process.

      So it’s OK for the oil and gas industries to receive subsidies in the form of tax breaks, but you want to take away all the funding for renewable energy sources after the government has supported the others for more than 50 years? I find that a little illogical, and the idea that they’re “breaking even” is ludicrous on its face. Have you seen the quarterly earnings statements for the oil companies recently? I’m thinking they could get by without the tax breaks (and then there’s the whole issue of a carbon tax to bring fossil fuels in line with their natural prices, but that’s beyond the scope of this discussion).

      I’m well aware that this country was founded as a capitalist country and yes, it was just a coincidence (although I did see the five Communists left in Cleveland picketing at Public Square) that it was published on May 1. My e-newsletter comes out on a Tuesday, and it just happened that this Tuesday was May 1.

      As for your earnest but misplaced contention that this site should be strictly a technology and engineering site, I naturally must beg to differ. The future of the industry is being shaped in statehouses and Congress as we speak, and it’s incumbent upon the members of the industry to make sure their voices are heard. This industry won’t just be decided in research labs; it will also be decided on matters of public policy. You may not like it, but that’s how it works in a democracy. As one of my heroes Winston Churchill would say, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” This country wasn’t built by the timid, and I will continue to speak my mind as I see fit.

      I posted this in another comment, but it bears repeating:

      For the record, I’m an avid capitalist, but I don’t support the capitalist system with blinders on. I understand that there will be winners and losers, but I don’t have a blind faith that the market will self-correct (Ayn Rand be damned). All renewable energy companies are looking for is to compete on a level playing field. Right now, the field is tilted heavily in favor of traditional fossil fuels — and the efforts I discussed above would tilt the field even more in the direction of fossil fuels. For those of us who believe in solar power, that’s worth fighting about — and as I stated above, it’s a fight we can’t afford to lose.

      I certainly appreciate this ongoing discussion. I look forward to keeping the discussion going far into the future.

      Willing to work harder,

      Frank

    • Frank Andorka

      Shannoman:

      Let me add one more thing to the discussion, if I may:

      The oil and gas industries spend millions upon millions of dollars to lobby on behalf of their industries, and you’re upset because the editorial director of a trade publication has the audacity to stand up for the industry of which he is part (for free, I might add)? If you don’t mind my saying so, I find that a little odd.

      Willing to work harder,

      Frank

      • Shannoman

        So,
        1. You’re ok with calling your fellow Americans “enemies”, and
        2. You think we should borrow money from China to subsidize your special interest group

        • Frank Andorka

          Shannoman:

          1. Perhaps opponents would have been a better choice of words as I don’t see them as enemies in the classic sense, but my point remains the same. I won’t catalog the times I’ve been called an “enemy” by people who disagree with me ;-) — but I digress.

          I do appreciate your fine attention to the details of my language. As a full-time editor, I can appreciate your meticulousness. But I must point out that your pedantry is just a smokescreen to cover up your complete lack of legitimate arguments. When in doubt, nitpick — and I’ve noticed that many of my opponents on this issue resort to such nitpicking about word choice. I’m not sure, but I believe I’m starting to see a pattern.

          2. We’ve been borrowing money from China for more than two decades to fund a lot of things, including two wars. And think of how cool it would be to use their own money to overtake them in the solar race. How would that be for irony?

          Thanks again for your input. I look forward to continuing this conversation moving forward.

          Willing to work harder,

          Frank

          • Shannoman

            Frank,

            I’m sorry people have referred to you as an “enemy”. I never would, and I wouldn’t support anyone who did. I don’t think it’s pedantic or a smokescreen to criticize you for your choice of words, though. First, I did outline other arguments in separate paragraphs. And, second, words matter. Words mean things. If we’re going to make enemies out of people who disagree with us, we’re never going to be able to come to a solution. I do appreciate you clarifying your position on this and being willing to discuss it.

            We’ve put this country in a terrible position by going so far in debt to China. Republicans have done it, and Democrats have done it. Any day, China could stop loaning the money or decide they want it back. We’ve already spent all of the money today’s children will pay in taxes over the course of their lives. That’s not just stupid, it’s immoral.

            If you can sell a good product at a good price, people will buy it and investors will invest in it, whether it’s solar power or oil or lemonade or Silly Putty. Government shouldn’t be subsidizing any of it. They shouldn’t be picking winners and losers. Let the free market do its job. If you think oil subsidies are unfair, I’d much rather see you rail against that than try to hop on the gravy train yourself.

            NTownsend, I do vote, and I’m sorry you don’t understand the “May Day” reference.

    • http://designworldonline.com/ Ntownsend

      What country are you in? Any and every thing in this country that has the propensity of gaining billions of dollars in revenue is encased in political mud. You “think” the government should not be subsidizing companies. Well, how many government representatives know what your thoughts are? Your thoughts are moot until you put them into action. If you actually articulated your thoughts into words or by voting, then maybe you might have a valid point. Furthermore, pointing out adjectives used in this newsletter does not help your view on the topic posted here.

      BTW, do you even know what May Day is? What relevance does May Day have with Solar Energy and how does it correlate with this newsletter?

      NTownsend

      Willing to Work Harder

  • Geraldine Adams

    Frank, agreed with all you said above. There is a new(er) concern which if handled properly could just mow down your ALEC foes, even while it portends a tragedy of epic proportions for mankind. Reactor #4 at Fukushima appears ready to reach meltdown. It has an unholy amount of nuclear fuel within its precincts and could become a global mass extinction event. An horrific environmental disaster is imminent. Read the article here: http://www.naturalnews.com/035731_Fukushima_radiation_America.html. Certainly, even if this is contained, it could well spell the end of the nuclear power industry. Which, all things considered, it should. If you know anyone of ANY influence, pick up the phone or computer and sound the alarm. The world needs to get experts on the problem ASAP. We can no longer allow the Japanese to dither or struggle in silence! This is now a WORLDWIDE problem.

    Should we survive the next few months, I would direct you to some kids at Harvard who are experimenting with different styles of solar surfaces. They have developed a multi-faceted, extremely light weight solar pillar which they say, is 20x more efficient than solar panels. This may, indeed be the solution to solar on every building!

  • http://www.facebook.com/gowerdavid David Dylan Gower

    This pie-chart shows the reality of federal subsidies…let’s just take the current money given to fossil fuels and nuclear and give it to true renewable clean energy technologies.

    http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/subsidies/images/exhibit28-5.png

  • Mhansston

    Seriously, should governments be siphoning money out of viable businesses in order to prop up ones that can’t make it on their own. Let solar and wind work on its own merit. Don’t get me wrong. I like solar and would love to do an installation on my place, but I don’t like the fact that I have to pull money out of someone else’s pocket in the form of a state subsidy to make it viable.

    • http://www.facebook.com/gowerdavid David Dylan Gower

      But are you are okay with continuing to provide subsidies on the order of 50x magnitude to continue to prop up fossil fuel industry and nuclear industry, one which is already seeing record profits and has a definite end of capacity in sight and the other that would not even be viable without a guarantee from the government that limits liability in the case of disaster (actually that applies to fossil fuels too!) The problem with your rationale is that those that benefit by the status quo which is the equivalent of subsidizing the telegraph in the telephone age, will agree completely to not funding renewables, but still want to continue to be on the dole for their their government hand out….if you take it all away then fine, but how can renewables compete without something to level the playing field…how about no new money, but give the fossil fuel and nuclear money to renewables…you would have your system up and running on your place in no time at all.

      • Ron

        I have had this discussion before. Calling tax breaks a subsidy is a lie. They are tax breaks which are similar for all industry. They amount to large dollars because it is expensive to find and drill a well. Quit begging for dollars to make my energy bill more expensive and my taxes go up.

        • Frank Andorka

          Ron:

          Tax breaks are simply subsidies in another form. When the oil and gas companies don’t have to pay taxes, they can use that money for CEO bonuses and profit-taking for the companies. If you really believe they’re plowing that money back into R&D, then I would respectfully submit that you are being intensely naive. After all, that’s how capitalism works.

          For the record, I’m an avid capitalist, but I don’t support the capitalist system with blinders on. I understand that there will be winners and losers, but I don’t have a blind faith that the market will self-correct (Ayn Rand be damned). All renewable energy companies are looking for is to compete on a level playing field. Right now, the field is tilted heavily in favor of traditional fossil fuels — and the efforts I discussed above would tilt the field even more in the direction of fossil fuels. For those of us who believe in solar power, that’s worth fighting about — and as I stated above, it’s a fight we can’t afford to lose.

          Willing to work harder,

          Frank

          • Elvis

            Frank, I disagree with your assertion that tax deductions are subsidies. Allowing a business, be it a donut shop or a PV generation facility, to legitimately deduct their costs of doing business from their income is not a subsidy. Subsidies come from the general fund after they have been taken from the tax payers. Tax deductions allow businesses to keep their hard earned cash to reinvest and create more jobs. Nothing is given back to them. It’s their money in the first place. Subsidies, with all the waste that surrounds government administrative costs, are funded by all tax payers. That money was taken from them through the tax code.

            That’s why it is never a good idea to take money from tax payers and then turn around and give it to others. There is never a one for one benefit. At best, it’s a three to two ratio and the reason is that the other dollar goes to simply pay for an administrative monster to hand it out.

            This is not anything you don’t already know. Government money always generates passion for the causes we believe in.

        • Frank Andorka

          Ron:

          Let me add one more thing to the discussion, if I may:

          The oil and gas industries spend millions upon millions of dollars to lobby on behalf of their industries, and you’re upset because the editorial director of a trade publication has the audacity to stand up for the industry of which he is part (for free, I might add)? If you don’t mind my saying so, I find that a little odd.

          Willing to work harder,

          Frank