Sector Outlooks
Solar Power to the People
Worries about safety and neighborhood aesthetics will spawn new rules but won’t stop solar installations.
By Jim Ostroff, Associate Editor, The Kiplinger Letter
May 20, 2010
- Comments
- Email This Article
- Print This Article
- Order a Reprint
Advertisement
While installations of solar electric systems by businesses and homeowners continue to grow -- thanks in part to a tax credit from Uncle Sam -- some homeowners are giving new meaning to the phrase “solar power.”
They’ve won in- and out-of-court battles against homeowners’ associations that tried to prevent them from installing solar electric and solar water heating units on their rooftops. In Palos Verdes, Calif., a homeowner prevailed in court, and in Dallas, an association threw in the towel rather than incur court costs.
But the issue is far from settled. Tiffs between homeowners and associations over solar installations are cropping up in other states, too.
In a few states -- California, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, North Carolina, Vermont and Virginia -- homeowners are getting a hand from state lawmakers courtesy of new laws limiting the ability of associations to issue blanket denials of homeowners’ requests to install rooftop solar electric and water heating systems.
Associations still have leeway to determine whether any installation, including TV satellite dishes and rooftop plantings, could cause roof damage, a big concern for condominiums that are legally responsible for maintaining the integrity of buildings.
Another worry: fire danger from rooftop solar installations. Look for Underwriters Laboratories -- a product safety certification group -- to issue a standard within a year or so that will require installation of devices that sense any controller malfunctions and immediately turn off all power flowing into a building should a malfunction occur.
Local building codes will also be amended, requiring switches that’ll cut power flowing from solar panels in an emergency. In a handful of incidents in California, firefighters were impeded in putting out home fires because of solar modules that couldn’t be easily turned off.
So far, federal legislative efforts to strengthen homeowners’ rights to install solar electricity and water heating systems have gone nowhere. But it’s a good bet that broad new energy legislation likely to be considered by Congress within the next several months will bolster such installations.
A new energy bill will also probably require electric utilities to purchase a percentage of their power from renewables, including rooftop electricity sold directly to power companies. The best bet is for that percentage to be 5% within a few years of enactment, rising to 20% a decade or so afterward.
Meanwhile, the 30% federal tax credit for solar electric systems will keep stoking installations. The 30% credit, which runs through Dec. 31, 2016, applies to any amount spent on an installation; there’s no dollar cap. For an installation costing, say $30,000, the credit would reduce the expense by $9,000. Moreover, homeowners can typically save 25% to 50% on their monthly electricity bills once such systems are up and operating.
Electric utilities from New Jersey to California are also arranging low interest, long-term loans to help consumers and small businesses buy solar electricity units in order to slow the growth of power usage and to delay or eliminate the need to build costly new generating stations.
- Comments
- RSS
Permission to post your comment is assumed when you submit it. The name you provide will be used to identify your post, and NOT your e-mail address. We reserve the right to excerpt or edit any posted comments for clarity, appropriateness, civility, and relevance to the topic.
View our full privacy policy


Reader Comments (6)
Posted by: Nomen at 05/20/2010 02:45:39 PM
While I am a big fan of solar energy, I find the claim of 25-50% monthly savings on electric bills to be way overly optimistic for most locations. The other downside has been that most of these systems rapidly lose what efficiency they have over time and require frequent monitoring. The same can be said for wind generation systems. For most of us it is much more realistic and cost effective to save on electric costs by conservation.
Posted by: Go Solar at 05/21/2010 12:36:07 PM
It is about time this happened. I'd much rather take my chances of having a fire on just ONE rooftop than have to deal with the tragic devastation that BP has wreaked on the the entire gulf and Louisiana in the name of producing energy. There needs to be criminal charges filed against them for all the loss of wildlife and jobs that are a result of their selfishness and negligence. Bring on Solar and stop giving corporations the power...
Posted by: Common Sense at 05/21/2010 04:08:47 PM
If the argument is an economic one; then this is a loser's bet. Owning a solar array incurs risk (hail, rain, and other weather, and accident risk). There is maintenance of the equipment, and the responsibility to correct the problem. A homeowner incurs liablility should someone get hurt from their equipment. There is interest to be paid on the capital, and the power generated costs more than equivalent from the utility. In short, it is a worthwhile thing to do environmentally; but a poor one economically. The best bet this country has for adequately addressing fossil fuels is nuclear power; or utility based solar/wind where the climate permits. We should be concentrating on that venue.
Posted by: MekhongKurt at 05/22/2010 02:40:45 AM
I never have understood the opposition of homeowners' associations to *rooftop* solar panels, at least not if those panels have fail-safe on-off switches. It's not as if a homeowner is seeking to put a mini-commercial solar plant in his backyard, i.e., an array of mirrors focused on a tower to heat a liquid. As a huge proponent of solar power, I do look on rather anxiously at expiration dates of tax credits, hoping the technology becomes competitive in its own right with coal and natural gas sooner rather than later. At some point, the tax breaks will go away -- and they should, if the technology flat doesn't pan out. Were that to happen, then we'd need to shift focus to other alternative sources even more, and look for new ones.
Posted by: Victor Rabinovich at 05/22/2010 03:57:21 PM
If I owned a home outright and loved my community and was not going to move, I would install PV cells or passive solar, because the returns are higher than 1% at the bank. 1) Chances are that fossil fuels will be more expensive in the future 2) Chances are the U.S Dollar will continue to lose half its value every 20 years 3) Better use your Dollars while they are valued by the foreign manufactures and the fossil fuels to make the solar cells are low too. 4) An indebted future government will not tax you more for having solar cells. I rent and I see no advantage otherwise. Lesson, gotta be rich to have fun!
Posted by: Fhefferren at 05/22/2010 10:46:23 PM
Solar is great idea other than the overall cost is much greater than it saves. Huge initial investment that needs to be replaced about every 20 years. Until it's breakeven or better I'm all for nuclear or fossil fuels. Unlike most liberals/progressives I live (independently) in the real world.