Hollywood lights

L.A. ballot initiative on solar energy faces questions about cost and feasibility 4

solar roof

An ambitious solar energy plan for the smoggiest city in America might sound like a hands-down winner, but the Green Energy and Good Jobs for Los Angeles ballot initiative has stumbled over some unsettled questions about its likely costs, transparency, and timing.

Angelenos will vote on the plan March 3. If passed, it would add solar panels on rooftops and parking lots across the city and require the city’s energy utility to produce a sizeable 400 megawatts of solar power by 2014. Supporters say it will it would remove 400,000 tons of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere annually and help position L.A. as a solar energy leader and industry center. They unveiled a string of new endorsements on Thursday, including ones from actor Ed Begley Jr., the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the California League of Conservation Voters, and the American Lung Association (ALA).

The ALA’s annual “State of the Air” reports have repeatedly found the L.A.‘s smog and soot levels to be the worst in the nation, and the group endorsed the plan based on the reductions it could bring in lung disease, asthma, and other public health problems.

But nothing draws votes these days like the promise of jobs (especially, of course, green jobs), and the thousands of predicted jobs are a hallmark of the solar initiative, known locally as Measure B. The plan includes retraining for workers to work in the solar industry and the broader green economy and a job recruitment program that will target low-income neighborhoods.

“Thousands of jobs already exist in California because of investments in our clean energy economy. Measure B will support good paying, local jobs and develop our city’s renewable energy industry,” David Pettit, the NRDC’s Southern California air quality project leader, said in a release.

But jobs are also the source of much of the plan’s controversy. Measure B requires that all work be performed by the unionized workerforce employed by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the country’s largest municipal utility. Critics see this as a power grab by the union and say the job-creation claims don’t have data to support them.

They level the same charge at the costs that supporters estimate: about one dollar a month extra for the average utility customer. For the price increase to remain that low, federal tax credits, technological advances, and improvements in the supply of solar panels would be required. Supporters of Measure B acknowledge these factors are out of their control.

At the center of the cost debate are two dueling—nay, swashbuckling—consultant reports. (You try to make utility reports sound exciting.) The first report warned that costs for implementing Measure B could reach $3.6 billion in the absence of federal support, and it questioned LADWP’s ability to install so many solar panels in such a short time. The second, commissioned by the utility (PDF), put the cost at $1.6 billion, though it’s based on an analysis of the larger three-part Solar L.A. program, of which Measure B is only one part.

Things get pretty nitty gritty from there, with the L.A. Times opinion page hosting much of the back-and-forth. The paper’s editorial board criticizes of the lack of information and the late release of the more optimistic report. It appeared just four weeks before the election, with mail-in voting already underway.

From the Times:

This page wants smart “in-basin” [local] solar power as an integral part of the city’s energy generation and distribution strategy, and we remain open to the idea that this ballot measure may be the best way to get it. But the process seems designed to get voters to sign off on a plan without sufficient knowledge of it, and it is undermining a broader discussion of solar power in Los Angeles. There is a point at which process gets so bad that it outweighs substance, no matter how good that substance may be. We’re rapidly approaching that point.

Who’s got a rebuttal? Ed Begley Jr., of course: “For too long my hometown, Los Angeles, has led the nation in air pollution and producing greenhouse gases. It is time for a change. If voters in Los Angeles join me and vote for Measure B March 3, we can lead the nation in clean solar power and the new green economy,” he said Thursday.

Then again, there are a lot of L.A. eco-celebrities who are keeping quiet on this. If Begley’s the only one endorsing Measure B, do the rest know something he doesn’t? Or is this thorny municipal debate too un-glamorous for the globe-trotting, seal-saving types?

Clearly, we need to hear from more Hollywood greens. Leo? CameronBrad and Angie? I’m ready to take your calls.

Jonathan Hiskes is a Grist staff writer. He reports, tweets, eats, asks questions, self-promotes, looks out windows, and wonders if it could be like this.

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. amazingdrx Posted 3:18 am
    13 Feb 2009

    Exclusive utility installation?This would seem to be a bit restrictive.  Why not specify instead that utility workers would put solar on city property.  Privately owned buildings could employ private solar businesses.
    This is outstanding!  Let's hope it passes.  I think it will show a large majority of us want solar, that should help propell initiatives around the country.  A smart grid initiative along with the solar plan might be good.
    And especially in LA, with it's smog, plugin buses,taxis, delivery, and garbage trucks and electric commuter rail ought to be considered.  This is the big smog solution.
    Solar should also be configured in cogeneration designs, collecting domestic hot water and factory scale processing heat.
    Conservation with ground source cooling would immediately cut a huge slice off of electrical demand in LA.
    It is very likely that a lot of factory sites are large enough to make CSP a good option, mirrors mounted on factory roofs and over parking lots could focus solar energy on a solar tower on the factory roof.
    And what about garbage, sewage, food waste, and even farming waste?  It should all be tuned into biogas to backup the new green smart grid and organic fertilizer that cancels huge amounts of GHG from chemical fertilizer.  Biogas digestors also allow water to be recycled.
    Maybe they need a green power commision with people like Ed and Jay Leno on it?

    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
  2. Pangolin's avatar

    Pangolin Posted 2:11 pm
    15 Feb 2009

    Sure utility installationUtility installation eliminates in a brushstroke the opposition argument that this measure will result in profiteering by fly-by-night operators like those that installed thousands of faulty solar hot water systems in the 70's and early 80's.
    In addition to the job creation aspect of this program a major benefit will be that money spent on imported natural gas or coal power from out of state. Wage money paid in the LA basin is going to get spent in the LA basin.
    IF this program succeeds then having the utility install a thermal sump service to buildings would make far more sense than drilling millions of wells for ground-loop thermal systems. In addition to the job creation THAT would entail Los Angeles would get instantly quieter on summer days as air conditioning fans were traded for quiet-running geothermal heat-pumps.
    The simple replacement of the probable millions of aged and poorly functioning air-conditioners and furnaces would take a massive chunk off of California's electric and natural gas loads. Integrating them into thermal utilities would do this cheaper and better than piecemeal installation.

    Put the Carbon Back
  3. robert 136 Posted 9:33 am
    17 Feb 2009

    Robert 136    I think it is a good idea to make the whole city of Los Angeles solar panal power. No matter what the cost is, it would be a step in the right direction in trying to save the planet from global warming. It  would remove 400,000 tons of greenhouse gases every year. Espcialy since L.A is the most poluted city in the United States.
  4. henryjoe Posted 8:24 am
    18 Feb 2009

    LA Solar Plan Call for Support - dumbOnly in LA would an article think that help for a ballot measure would be effective by endorsements from the celebratecy. Yah actors understand the impacts on working people of a 5 to 15 increase in their electricity bill, or that the cost of a solar watt is three or four times the cost of a natural gas watt. Even if that entereed their mind as being critical.

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Advertisement