A few things you should know about Obama’s favorite Colorado solar panel maker
At the invitation-only porkulus signing in Denver yesterday, President Obama exalted Namaste Solar, a Boulder-based company that made the solar panels adorning the Denver Museum of Science and Nature. The CEO of Namaste, Blake Jones, extolled his savior:
Blake Jones, CEO of Boulder-based Namaste Solar, said his company’s future is already looking brighter with the signing of the bill. Jones, who led Obama and Vice President Joe Biden on a tour of solar panels his company installed on the museum’s roof, said he had been considering laying off some of his 55 employees. Now, he’s looking to expand his work force by 40 percent by 2010, he said.
“We’re just one small business, creating one to two dozen jobs,” Jones said. “The point that I want to stress is that there are thousands of businesses just like ours that will be doing the same thing.”
Well, the little point I want to stress is that Namaste has already benefited from generous government largesse to prop up his business.
Namaste’s own website lays it out:
OVERVIEW:
On both National and State levels, there are programs in place to help “level the economic playing field” between green, renewable energy sources (like solar electricity) and polluting, finite energy sources (such as fossil fuels and nuclear energy). The latter already receive billions of dollars annually in subsidies and incentives, so we’re extremely pleased that renewable energy technologies are now receiving government assistance as well.
GEO solar rebates now available for customers in Fort Collins, Longmont, United Power, Poudre Valley, Estes Park and other territories! Click here for more information.
Residential Systems (smaller than 10.0kW):
* 40-50% utility rebate ($3.50 per DC watt) for Xcel customers
* 30-40% utility rebate ($3.00 per DC watt) for Fort Collins, Longmont, United Power, Poudre Valley and Estes Park customers
* 30% federal income tax credit
* 15% rebate of City sales and use tax for projects within Boulder City limitsSUMMARY OF INCENTIVES IN COLORADO:
Residential Systems (smaller than 10.0kW):
* 40-50% utility rebate ($3.50 per DC watt) for Xcel customers
* 30% federal income tax credit
* 15% rebate of City sales and use tax for projects within Boulder City limitsSmall Commercial Systems (smaller than 10.0kW):
* 40-50% utility rebate ($3.50 per DC watt) for Xcel customers
* 30% federal income tax credit
* 5-year MACRS accelerated depreciation schedule
* 15% rebate of City sales and use tax for projects within Boulder City limitsLarge Commercial Systems (larger than 10.0kW):
* 25-30% utility rebate ($2.00 per DC watt) for Xcel customers
* 20-year utility payments for system’s “REC” production for Xcel customers
* 30% federal income tax credit
* 5-year MACRS accelerated depreciation schedule
* 15% rebate of City sales and use tax for projects within Boulder City limitsThe Bottom Line
In practical terms, state and federal incentive programs can reduce your total “out-of-pocket” costs for a solar electric (PV) system by as much as 60-70%!!!…THE EMERGENCY ECONOMIC STABILIZATION ACT OF 2008:
On October 3, 2008, President Bush signed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 into law. The new energy bill extends extends the 30-percent federal investment tax credit for both residential and commercial solar installations for 8 years (2009-2016). The legislation improves upon the previous investment tax credits by removing the $2,000 cap for residential solar PV systems and allowing Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) filers to take the tax credits.
…COLORADO’S AMENDMENT 37 AND HOUSE BILL 1281:
In November of 2004, Colorado voters passed Amendment 37 (A37), mandating that a certain percentage of Colorado’s electricity come from renewable sources such as wind and solar power. The rules were finalized and Xcel began paying out rebates in the Spring of 2006. House Bill 1281 (HB1281) was signed into law by Governor Bill Ritter in early 2007 and effectively doubles the original goals of A37 to 20% by 2020. The incentive is divided into a $2.00 per watt rebate and a $1.50 per watt Renewable Energy Credit payment (REC). Because a typical flush-mount roof array costs about $8 to $9 a watt, the combination of rebate and REC from Xcel, along with the federal tax credit, means that your final out-of-pocket cost can be reduced by about 40% to 50%. This assumes that your system can be installed such that it produces at least 90% of what an optimally positioned array in a shade-free area would produce. If your installed system is predicted to produce less than 90% of optimum, then the REC portion of the Xcel incentive (which is production-based) is reduced accordingly.
…CITY OF BOULDER REBATES & INCENTIVES:
Solar energy systems installed within Boulder city limits are currently eligible for a tax rebate. Boulder City Council approved an ordinance in November 2006 to provide rebates for a portion of sales and use tax on both solar electric (photovoltaic) and solar thermal (hot water) systems. The ordinance was passed to encourage residents and businesses to install renewable energy systems in the city of Boulder. The end effect is a 15% rebate on the Boulder City sales and use taxes paid on a solar PV system.
All that and Namaste can barely keep its 55 workers onboard. Instead of having to rethink business practices such as these…
Outsiders were baffled by some of these company plans:
• Environmental concerns would be a driving force in every aspect of the company.
• Six weeks of paid time off.
• Employees, no matter what their job description, have the same pay scale.
• One percent of yearly revenues goes to solar systems donated to community groups.
• All major decisions would be made by consensus of all company employees.
…the porkulus package will shovel even more taxpayer subsidies their way.
Question: If existing solar and wind energy companies can’t make it with the present level of government aid, why should we pretend that throwing more money at them will guarantee success? The new funding will result in the same market distortions that were induced by the bipartisan-supported ethanol subsidies (which I also opposed).
Kermit the Frog said it wasn’t easy being green. In the Age of Obama, it’s your pipeline to porkulus funding.
***
Related question: Hey, President Obama, did you turn the White House thermostat down before you jetted off to the West Coast to play the eco-card?
Inquiring minds want to know.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- I’d Like to Stimulate Sarah Palin « JoHNBRoDiGaNDoTCoM
- A few things you should know about Obama’s favorite Colorado solar panel maker « PaulSwansen’s Weblog
- What’s Worse - Big Government or Big Business? « Frustrated with Politics
- Michigan Taxes Too Much » Addressing The Stimulus
- Left Of Center » Blog Archive » A Rhetorical Question
- Speaking of Life Imitating “Atlas Shrugged”… « MarsBlog.net
- Michelle Malkin » Obama’s favorite solar panels: The rest of the story
- Captain Nemo's Periscope
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: fiscal stimulus
Power Line
» The Alarmists Do "Science": A Case Study
Mudville Gazette
» When the wind won't blowMudville Gazette
» Bad Weather (Part I)Legal Insurrection
» Hacked E-mails or Else!Pundit & Pundette
» About last night's voteJustOneMinute
» "Unequivocal"?
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of externalities. By definition they are not accounted for in the price.
I don’t think we can have a conversation about externalities if you don’t know what they are.
i agree with moving away from petroleum based vehicles, but they have to be viable in the real world. today, hybrid vehicles are making the grade, although the long term effects of all these batteries once discarded may be troublesome. but biodiesel for diesel vehicles seem the easiest, most viable change we can produce. our car companies and virtually all european car companies have diesel vehicles which get 25% or more better gas mileage than a similar gasoline engine. it is torque rich which is what america values as we don’t have autobahns. and biodiesel can be made from waste products be they grease, algae, or rotten fruit. IF we could get our politicians to stop kissing the butt of these crazy environmentalists, we could bring these vehicles into the u.s. tomorrow. especially since the two largest selling vehicles in the world year after year are the ford and gm pickup truck, a natural for diesel.
SOX, NOX, and particulate matter are externalities which are already priced into the market.
CO2 is NOT an externality.
As they say Michelle, insanity, by definition, is repeating the same behavior and expecting a different outcome. Such is manifest in the mental disorder known as “liberalism”.
The FACT that a market can exist WITHOUT any government at all makes YOU .. fundamentally wrong.
Tin foil hat?
The initial concept of ethanol subsidies was likely to have been hatched with the INTENTIONAL EVIL PURPOSE to starve the burgeoning masses of the third world – the ones doing the most damage to mother Gaia. It is beginning to show signs of achieving that purpose at only 10% ethanol.
Ditto? The purpose of bankrupting the USA is so we can no longer afford to support the third world attempting to pull them out of poverty and set them on a course to self sufficiency. (which they’ll never be able to do without coal and oil anyway – the way we did it.)
The above are philosophies consistent with the cult of Gaia (more humans will only harm the Earth more), observed by people like Maurice Strong and Al Gore.
A market is not an end in itself. Efficiency is the end, the market is simply the means.
Also, perhaps I wasn’t too clear, but I am not suggesting that government must fix all market externalities. Private citizens are very good at correcting market failures in some instances. Government is better at others (especially when the externality affects are large number of people).
That’s a valid criticism. However, I think most scientists would disagree. I don’t think I’m going to change your mind on that matter, so let’s agree to disagree.
Is that so? Then if the market is only ‘a means’ then there must some alternatives that achieve the SAME end … name ONE!
Any specs? Nameplate MW?
“Nuclear plant” is a lot like “light bulb”: Could mean flash light, could mean search light.
If I guess at 2 1500MW reactors in one “plant”, then thats $6 billion for 3 billion watts that’s 2 bucks a watt installed. Not bad.
PV solar panels run $4 to $5 dollars a watt right now, then you have to add installation, copper, inverters.
BUT: The nuke will run for 95% of the time for 50 years. Solar panels only “run” at best 40% of the time and with fixed panels on a roof, maybe closer to 25%.
So your solar panels cost a minimum of $9/watt, or as high as $20/watt, just for the panels. You can add anywhere from 50% to 100% to install and connect them.
That nuke plant looks pretty cheap at $2 per installed watt.
There’s no market for the US military. I suppose the means for that would be government.
I also think government is inherent in our conception of markets.
It’d be very difficult to have a functioning and efficient market economy without well defined property rights. Those rights are defined and enforced by the government.
Given that other countries choose to buy weapons from us based on their performance in combat, I’d say that’s a market.
What are we agreeing to disagree about?
That CO2 isn’t an externality?
Or that most CLIMATE scientists would agree that CO2 isn’t an externality?
bluesoc, you might want to get on the correct side of these arguments while there’s still time.
The weapons and the military are not the same.
Actually, I have to defend part of what bluesoc is stating.
bluesoc is stating that government management of externalities is not a liberal-conservative issue.
I mostly agree.
Take a look at The Tragedy of the Commons. The point of the article is that:
…multiple individuals acting independently in their own self-interest can ultimately destroy a shared limited resource even where it is clear that it is not in anyone’s long term interest for this to happen.
In fact, many individuals benefiting from such limited resource will often call for regulation in their own self-interest. Trade associations, etc. are great examples of this.
Additionally, I prefer when these industries are self-regulated, but that doesn’t always happen.
For this reason, I don’t have a problem with charging private enterprises for the disposal of harmful substances into the public air and water. Overall, I think the pollution credit system used in this country has been a terrific success.
As I already indicated, however, coal plants are already charged for their disposal of harmful substances into the air.
Here’s where I completely disagree with bluesoc. bluesoc mistakenly believes that the coal companies should also be charged for the CO2 released – which is an insane idea.
Also, bluesoc.
You’re crazy if you think that all of these solar companies would survive EVEN if coal companies were paying for CO2 disposal. I’ve analyzed dozens of solar companies. A very few are great, a few are good, and many suck. However, the suckie ones are attempting to get a free ride on the green train (much like many of the suckie bio diesel companies were doing last year).
I don’t know about this particular company, however, you might not want to make too many claims about its ability to turn profitable.
It’s only insane if you don’t think there are additional costs associated with CO2 emissions. But that’s a discussion for another day.
No. I don’t think they’d necessarily survive. That’s why I like the tax better than subsidies – we’d let the market decide. However, a carbon tax isn’t politically viable.
Also, I agree that the subsidies could end up being a complete waste of money. I don’t actually know enough about them to form much of an opinion though.
Sorry, that’s incongruous and does not answer the question that I asked. Note that I said ‘SAME’. So you have to pick an alternative means to provide for something that a market supplies to begin with – like food for example.
Fair enough.
BTW, I thought I’d get a little more credit for helping you out against the mob.
Thousands of small businesses that could hire more people if they wee not paying outrageous taxes and dealing with nanny-state regulations.
Yeah, that nuke energy fuel is pretty finite.
It’s too bad these lib nitwits never thought they could do better without such a tangled web of regulations, and less taxes.
If Boulder libs were serious, why not eliminate all taxes on this form of “energy”?
So how do you prove your weapons are battle ready without a military?
Also, how many countries have allowed us to open bases in their countries so we can defend them? They provide incentives for us to do so and we get a strategic location.
Corkie, you are nothing if not intellectually honest, if not always correct
and always fair.
Awwww. Shucks.
You have no idea what I understand or do not understand.
Why do you believe government understands the true cost of something when buyers and sellers of that very same thing do not? I would argue that those invested financially have far more knowledge about something than those who do no have an investment. You seem to believe otherwise.
It seems to me there is a logic problem concluding that externalities are known by regulators but not by investors.
As I’ve said before, just because something is taught in a classroom – even by highly regarded professors, DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUTH.
I may have to look back through my weel worn and dog-eared copy of Atlas Shrugged, but I distinctly remeber a certain company that employed a Mr. J. Galt trying this very thing and it not working out for them. I realize that was just a piece of fiction, but we seem to be following the storyline more and more on a daily basis, except that the real producers don’t have a Galt’s Gulch to run away and hide in. I for one will be standing by with a ready paint supply at the end.
It was much appreciated. However, it appears they’re back…
Investors may be aware of externalities, they simply do not factor them into their decisions. Remember, externalities affect third parties not subject to the transaction. Consider a chocolate factory that’s right next to a city. It produces pleasant aromas (positive externality) that the entire city enjoys. However, when the factory is making business decisions, it does not take this into account (because no one is paying them for the aroma). They may be aware of the externality, but that doesn’t mean that it is reflected in the price.
Externalities are EVERYWHERE. If you’ve ever put up Christmas lights, you’ve created externalities.
My argument is why you think government is smart enough to completely understand and “fix” externalities.
Further – I think it rather naive of you to conclude that those with a financial stake completely ignore the external effects of their decisions – both “good” and “bad”.
I don’t think bluesoc is claiming that the government is always smart enough to “fix” externality problems correctly.
In fact, I bet bluesoc would admit that the government has made may mistakes attempting to “fix” externality problems.
This doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t try. Would you completely abolish FCC licensing of the EM spectrum? Would you completely abolish the entire pollution credit system?
I don’t think bluesoc is concluding that. I think bluesoc would agree that many people are cognizant of the external effects of their decisions. In fact, those people are probably the ones in favor of making everyone play by the same rules.
If you were owned a factory that decided (because you were a good citizen) to pay 15% of your sales to cleanly dispose of your waste, then you wouldn’t want one of your competitors to gain a cost advantage by dumping their waste into a nearby river for free.
Again, I think you’re making the wrong argument with bluesoc. bluesoc is trying to argue that grid electricity power is artificially cheap because producers are not being charged for releasing CO2. I disagree with the CO2 charge, but bluesoc has tabled that argument (the better argument) and decided to focus on arguing externalities with a few of you (the weaker argument).
Let’s not allow bluesoc to chose the argument here. Let’s chose it ourselves.
Coming to my defense two days in a row! Thanks.
The reason I table the CO2 argument is that both of us will simply be deferring to experts. There’s not much fun in an argument of that sort.
Even if you were knowledgeable enough in the field to form an opinion without the assistance of experts (which may be the case, I honestly don’t know), I most certainly am not. It would basically be your opinion vs. my opinion of expert opinion. Again, not a fun argument.
Actually, I would LOVE it. But I understand your point.
You seem very reasonable. You might want to keep an open mind on this one. The tide of opinion really is turning on this. It will probably never be “settled,” but I honestly think that the voices of AGW will be reduced to a whisper.