Fed Tax Credit Grant for Commercial Solar Jobs Extended!
On December 17, President Obama signed into law the tax legislation that includes a one-year extension of the Federal Tax Credit Grant Program.
The successful program has allowed 1,100 solar projects in 42 states to move forward and supported $18 billion in investment. The program has been critical in allowing the solar industry to grow by over 100 percent in 2010, create enough new solar capacity to power 200,000 homes and provide work to more than 93,000 Americans.
The program was created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Section 1603) to provide commercial solar installations with a cash grant in lieu of the 30 percent solar investment tax credit (ITC). President George W. Bush signed the 8-year ITC into law in 2008, but the economic conditions created by the global recession made it clear that few would be able to utilize the tax credit.
In addition, a 100% depreciation bonus on new equipment placed in service after Sept. 8, 2010 has been approved. Instead of depreciating a project over the normal depreciation period, the entire cost could be deducted in the year the project goes into service.
The 100% depreciation bonus is equivalent to an additional 5.2% investment tax credit on a solar project. The 30% Federal Tax Credit for residential projects will remain in place for 2011.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Monday, December 20, 2010
Pace Loans Must Be Repaid
Homeowners Must Pay Off Energy Improvement Loans
Many homeowners who participated in a program that let them repay the cost of solar panels and other energy improvements through an annual surcharge on their property taxes must pay off the loans before they can refinance their mortgages, two government-chartered mortgage companies said recently.
The guidance came from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as efforts to resolve a dispute over the program call Property Assessed Clean Energy, or PACE- Have failed.
Approved by 22 states, the program let municipalities sell bonds to finance improvements in energy efficiency. Homeowners typically pay back the loans over 20 years through an annual property tax assessment. As is the case with other property tax assessments, a lien is placed on the home that has priority over the mortgage if the homeowner defaults.
In July, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie and Freddie, effectively derailed the program when it issued guidance to lenders stating that the liens violated the agency's underwriting standards. Fannie and Freddie buy and sell most of the nation's home mortgages.
Than guidance led to the halt of most PACE programs and left in limbo those homeowners who had already taken out energy improvements loans.
On Tuesday, Fannie and Freddie issued guidance to lenders stating that borrowers with sufficient equity in their homes must pay off the loans before refinancing. Those homeowners without enough equity to take cash out of their home to pay off the lien can refinance with the loan in place.
The program's proponents have argued that it overcomes obstacles to installing expensive solar panels and making other energy efficiency improvements that reduce greenhouse-gas emissions while creating jobs.
"It is absolutely clear now that the Federal Housing Finance Agency is not at all interested in working out a solution that would allow PACE to proceed-the agency appears intent only on obstructing the program," Janill L. Richards, a California supervising deputy attorney general, wrote in an 3-mail.
Many homeowners who participated in a program that let them repay the cost of solar panels and other energy improvements through an annual surcharge on their property taxes must pay off the loans before they can refinance their mortgages, two government-chartered mortgage companies said recently.
The guidance came from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as efforts to resolve a dispute over the program call Property Assessed Clean Energy, or PACE- Have failed.
Approved by 22 states, the program let municipalities sell bonds to finance improvements in energy efficiency. Homeowners typically pay back the loans over 20 years through an annual property tax assessment. As is the case with other property tax assessments, a lien is placed on the home that has priority over the mortgage if the homeowner defaults.
In July, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie and Freddie, effectively derailed the program when it issued guidance to lenders stating that the liens violated the agency's underwriting standards. Fannie and Freddie buy and sell most of the nation's home mortgages.
Than guidance led to the halt of most PACE programs and left in limbo those homeowners who had already taken out energy improvements loans.
On Tuesday, Fannie and Freddie issued guidance to lenders stating that borrowers with sufficient equity in their homes must pay off the loans before refinancing. Those homeowners without enough equity to take cash out of their home to pay off the lien can refinance with the loan in place.
The program's proponents have argued that it overcomes obstacles to installing expensive solar panels and making other energy efficiency improvements that reduce greenhouse-gas emissions while creating jobs.
"It is absolutely clear now that the Federal Housing Finance Agency is not at all interested in working out a solution that would allow PACE to proceed-the agency appears intent only on obstructing the program," Janill L. Richards, a California supervising deputy attorney general, wrote in an 3-mail.
Friday, July 9, 2010
PG&E's Prop 16 Battle
Despite a massive $46 million campaign, Proposition 16 — the California ballot measure backed by utility Pacific Gas & Electric — failed in yesterday’s election with 52.5 percent of voters saying no to the company’s attempt to block local governments from creating or growing their own municipal utilities.
Specifically, if passed, Prop 16 would have required a super-majority of two-thirds of voters to support the formation of a municipal utility (the Sacramento Municipal Utility District and Los Angeles Department of Water and Power are good examples) before it could happen. Very clearly, PG&E’s dominance is threatened when other utilities are permitted to spring up in its coverage area. But that wasn’t its argument. Rather, the company positioned it as a burden for taxpayers to not have more of a say over their local governments spending money on new energy ventures.
The measure’s failure is a major victory for its opponents — a group that includes the Sierra Club, the AARP, and the city of Palo Alto, Calif. All told, they only raised $90,000 to defeat the proposition. Obviously, their argument that PG&E was actively working against the incorporation of renewable forms of energy — and the insincere nature of the utility’s motivations — were enough to persuade voters. The vote was actually so close that PG&E didn’t concede until this morning, and PG&E’s campaign seems to have won voters over in Southern California (ironically, where Southern California Edison provides power).
Prop 16’s defeat has major ramifications for the energy industry in California. First and foremost, it says a lot about public sentiment against PG&E. Since residents of Bakersfield, Calif. filed a class-action lawsuit against the utility over smart meter-related rate hikes, public opinion of the company, its suppliers (including Silver Spring Networks), and even smart grid deployments in general, has soured. Clearly, this has come back to bite the company in other areas. In fact, the Prop performed the worst in large population centers served by the utility, namely San Francisco.
Secondly, this result could mean great things for energy and grid innovation in the state. With most Northern California residents required to use PG&E’s services, there was very little incentive for the company to diversify its offerings, provide consumer-facing energy management tools, or extend its reach in renewable energy sources. Now that municipal utilities are easier to set up — adding some competition to the market — new advances are sure to follow.
As the largest electric company in the entire U.S., PG&E is often held up as an example and precedent for the hundreds of other utilities across the country. Many of them look to the company to see what their next moves should be, or what challenges they should pay more attention to. So this decision, while contained to state borders, could have national consequences.
Specifically, if passed, Prop 16 would have required a super-majority of two-thirds of voters to support the formation of a municipal utility (the Sacramento Municipal Utility District and Los Angeles Department of Water and Power are good examples) before it could happen. Very clearly, PG&E’s dominance is threatened when other utilities are permitted to spring up in its coverage area. But that wasn’t its argument. Rather, the company positioned it as a burden for taxpayers to not have more of a say over their local governments spending money on new energy ventures.
The measure’s failure is a major victory for its opponents — a group that includes the Sierra Club, the AARP, and the city of Palo Alto, Calif. All told, they only raised $90,000 to defeat the proposition. Obviously, their argument that PG&E was actively working against the incorporation of renewable forms of energy — and the insincere nature of the utility’s motivations — were enough to persuade voters. The vote was actually so close that PG&E didn’t concede until this morning, and PG&E’s campaign seems to have won voters over in Southern California (ironically, where Southern California Edison provides power).
Prop 16’s defeat has major ramifications for the energy industry in California. First and foremost, it says a lot about public sentiment against PG&E. Since residents of Bakersfield, Calif. filed a class-action lawsuit against the utility over smart meter-related rate hikes, public opinion of the company, its suppliers (including Silver Spring Networks), and even smart grid deployments in general, has soured. Clearly, this has come back to bite the company in other areas. In fact, the Prop performed the worst in large population centers served by the utility, namely San Francisco.
Secondly, this result could mean great things for energy and grid innovation in the state. With most Northern California residents required to use PG&E’s services, there was very little incentive for the company to diversify its offerings, provide consumer-facing energy management tools, or extend its reach in renewable energy sources. Now that municipal utilities are easier to set up — adding some competition to the market — new advances are sure to follow.
As the largest electric company in the entire U.S., PG&E is often held up as an example and precedent for the hundreds of other utilities across the country. Many of them look to the company to see what their next moves should be, or what challenges they should pay more attention to. So this decision, while contained to state borders, could have national consequences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
