This article was posted 08/31/2011 and is most likely outdated.

Mike Holt Newsletters
 

 

Topic - Alternative Energy
Subject - Budget cuts trigger early end to solar energy credits

August 31, 2011
This newsletter was sent to 17654 newsletter subscribers

Ask a Question |  Continuing EducationQuizzes |  Free Stuff Instructors Products | Seminars | SubscribeUnsubscribe
[ image1 Post Comments | View Comments | Notify Me When Comments Are Added ]  

Budget cuts trigger early end to solar energy credits

California homeowner Jim Adams, right, installed solar panels on his roof -- saving $10,000 thanks to tax incentives.

California homeowner Jim Adams installed solar panels on his roof -- saving $10,000 thanks to tax incentives.

By Jim Roope, CNN Radio

August 30, 2011 10:46 a.m. EDT

 

Los Angeles (CNN) -- If you've ever thought, "One day, I'm going to put in a solar energy system," today might be the day.

Economic issues across the nation are contributing to the early demise of solar incentives such as tax breaks, grants and rebates.

"We've been thinking about this for several years," said California homeowner Jim Adams.

"The cost wasn't really coming down, so we went to the bank, asked for a loan and decided to get it done."

So Adams had a 16-panel system installed on his roof in La Crescenta, California, about 15 miles north of Los Angeles.

He received a 30% tax credit from the federal government and a 10% cash rebate from the state.

It cost him $16,000 -- a savings of $10,000.

This year, a federal 30% cash rebate through the U.S. Treasury Department comes to an end. And the 30% federal tax credit program will conclude at the end of 2016.

These incentives, created as part of the federal stimulus package a few years ago, were designed to create a vibrant solar energy market. Along with the federal program, 29 states offered incentives. Many of those state programs are also becoming victims of budget cuts.

In Florida, Michael Hoffman, a taxation professor, hoped that between the federal tax credit and the state rebate, he'd be able to better afford a solar energy system.

But a computer error in the state's application process actually cost him $20,000 more than he had planned on paying.

Hoffman blamed "poor record-keeping" on the state's end.

"They took more applications than they had money for," he said.

"If we'd known that our cost was going to be $33,000 instead of $13,000, that would have been a fairly hard one to sell to ourselves just for the ecological, environmental warm and fuzzies."

Sales of rooftop solar panel installations jumped 67% last year, compared with 2009, according to the Solar Energies Industry Association.

Now, those sales are starting to drop because of state budget cuts and administrative problems like Hoffman's experience in Florida.

The solar industry is lobbying the federal government to continue the 30% cash rebate program that's ending this year.

But there's not much hope for an extension, considering the current political climate in Washington, where lawmakers are focused on trimming the budget.

Still, there are signs that Americans will continue to invest in solar energy systems for their homes over the next few years, helping to bring down the costs of solar panels in some areas.

 

 

Click here to post a comment

[ Post Your Comments | View Comments | Notify Me When Comments Are Added ]
[ View More Newsletters ]

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © Mike Holt Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved.
This article is protected by United States copyright and other intellectual property laws and may not be
displayed or published on the internet without the prior written permission of Mike Holt Enterprises, Inc.

http://www.MikeHolt.com     1-888-NEC-CODE (1-888-632-2633)

 

 
Comments
  • This is one more example of government picking favorites. An industry lobbies the government to pass bills giving the industry preferential treatment. Such lobbies are based on portrayed concerns such as environmental or safety benefits. Then the industry and the participating consumers benefit at the expense of the taxpayers at large.

    Such subsidies always cause skewed markets and, since the general tax payer base cannot support the chosen benefactors forever, ultimately the chosen favorites will fall to the whims of a free capitalistic market.

    When an industry grows on its own values, and without preferential support, it will tend to last due to genuine support.

    We could argue that these programs would never be allowed to prosper without government interference and support, and we would not receive the benefit. But that is exactly my point. It is a little like supporting your children well into adulthood so that they cannot fail. Then one day, you can no longer provide that support and they must become independent. Independent, but stronger for the change. They would have been stronger still if they had accurately weighed their choices and made well informed decisions, rather thatn making decisions based upon artificial support from some benefactor.

    If an industry wishes to prosper and has a much needed product, it should bring the product competitively to a non-skewed market. Wouldn't we all like to get government funding (money from our neighbors) to start and operate our business, rather than build that business on its own merits -- regardless of how much we think the taxpayers need our business?

    Bill  September 1 2011, 4:57 am EDT
  • Reply from: Mike Holt   September 1 2011, 7:38 am EDT
    Wow, your comment is 100% right on! I'm glad to see that some see the reality of the public policy.


Reply to this comment
* Your Name:
   Your name will appear under your comments.

* Your Email:
   Your email address is not displayed.
* Comments:

This newsletter is closed to new comments.

Email Notification Options:
Notify me when a reply is posted to this comment
Notify me whenever a comment is posted to this newsletter