Comments on: Solar Power Can Make Difference on Hot Summer Days http://actlocallysf.org/blog/topic/2007/08/30/solar-power-can-make-difference-on-hot-summer-days/ Join the Debate! Read and comment on articles posted on actlocallysf.org. Fri, 04 Jul 2008 20:15:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=wordpress-mu-1.0 by: Gretchen Cotter http://actlocallysf.org/blog/topic/2007/08/30/solar-power-can-make-difference-on-hot-summer-days/#comment-773 Fri, 31 Aug 2007 21:31:44 +0000 http://actlocallysf.org/blog/topic/2007/08/30/solar-power-can-make-difference-on-hot-summer-days/#comment-773 I had solar panels installed on my home (Inner Mission) in 2001. I strongly believe that City should take an aggressive role in promoting solar installations in SF. In particular, I believe we should take some (or all) of the following steps: 1. City planning code Article 1.2, Section 149 mandates that 25,000 square foot office projects must allocate 1% of the budget for public art. I propose that this be amended to say one-half percent for art and the other half percent for solar panels, wind turbines, or other renewable energy installation. In the absence of renewable energy solutions, the 1/2% cost would be charged as a non-compliance fee and paid into the city solar fund. 2. All new residential construction should have solar or other renewable energy review and installation requirements as part of the permit process. If a new building is solar eligible - that is, if it is in a "solar zone" (see notes below) it must have solar panels installed or pay a fine equal to the cost of installing solar, e.g., $20,000. Fines would go to the city solar fund. 3. All new commercial construction must install grid connected solar or wind generation systems. Look at any Costco, Home Depot, or other commercial building and visualize the acres of solar panels that could generate the electricity needed to power the appliances being sold. We have a new deYoung museum, the Moscone Center expansion, the new Four Seasons hotel - all represent opportunities to generate solar power at little or no cost to the taxpayers 4. Major remodel and renovation construction projects e.g. residential projects with cost estimates exceeding $1,000,000 and business projects with cost estimates exceeding $5,000,000 should be required to incorporate renewable energy components. 5. Any home sold after Jan 1, 2010 that is in a "solar zone" and does not have solar should be charged a solar assessment on their property taxes every year until solar is installed. The solar assessments would go into the "city solar fund". (O.K. I know this won’t fly, but it could be a long term stretch goal who would have thought that smoking could be legislated?) NOTES: A "solar zone" would be any property lot that has continuous period of not less than x hours in the summer and y hours in the winter when the roof is not blocked by trees, buildings, hills, etc. The designation could be added to property zoning codes e.g., RH-3 could be RH-3S. The "city solar fund" would need initial seed money but should be designed to become self-funding. Income to the fund would come from builders/owners who elect to pay fees/fines instead of incorporating solar or wind power to new construction and from the 1/2 of the 1% Article 1.2, Sec.149 monies collected. In the future, the amount of tax breaks, loan amounts, or penalties can be adjusted so that the "solar fund" neither loses money nor makes a profit.<ul><li><label>Overall Rating</label>: 10</li> </ul> I had solar panels installed on my home (Inner Mission) in 2001. I strongly believe that City should take an aggressive role in promoting solar installations in SF. In particular, I believe we should take some (or all) of the following steps:

1. City planning code Article 1.2, Section 149 mandates that 25,000 square foot office projects must allocate 1% of the budget for public art. I propose that this be amended to say one-half percent for art and the other half percent for solar panels, wind turbines, or other renewable energy installation. In the absence of renewable energy solutions, the 1/2% cost would be charged as a non-compliance fee and paid into the city solar fund.

2. All new residential construction should have solar or other renewable energy review and installation requirements as part of the permit process. If a new building is solar eligible - that is, if it is in a “solar zone” (see notes below) it must have solar panels installed or pay a fine equal to the cost of installing solar, e.g., $20,000. Fines would go to the city solar fund.

3. All new commercial construction must install grid connected solar or wind generation systems. Look at any Costco, Home Depot, or other commercial building and visualize the acres of solar panels that could generate the electricity needed to power the appliances being sold. We have a new deYoung museum, the Moscone Center expansion, the new Four Seasons hotel - all represent opportunities to generate solar power at little or no cost to the taxpayers

4. Major remodel and renovation construction projects e.g. residential projects with cost estimates exceeding $1,000,000 and business projects with cost estimates exceeding $5,000,000 should be required to incorporate renewable energy components.

5. Any home sold after Jan 1, 2010 that is in a “solar zone” and does not have solar should be charged a solar assessment on their property taxes every year until solar is installed. The solar assessments would go into the “city solar fund”. (O.K. I know this won’t fly, but it could be a long term stretch goal who would have thought that smoking could be legislated?)

NOTES:
A “solar zone” would be any property lot that has continuous period of not less than x hours in the summer and y hours in the winter when the roof is not blocked by trees, buildings, hills, etc. The designation could be added to property zoning codes e.g., RH-3 could be RH-3S.

The “city solar fund” would need initial seed money but should be designed to become self-funding. Income to the fund would come from builders/owners who elect to pay fees/fines instead of incorporating solar or wind power to new construction and from the 1/2 of the 1% Article 1.2, Sec.149 monies collected. In the future, the amount of tax breaks, loan amounts, or penalties can be adjusted so that the “solar fund” neither loses money nor makes a profit.

  • : 10
]]>