It’s the rare industry these days that isn’t getting hit by the global financial storm. Chinese solar stocks, after years of rosy prospects and burgeoning growth, are facing a mountain of a challenge, in the form of wobbly share prices, exorbitant costs of silicon and increased caution from investors. The decline of the euro and the wane of the once-generous solar subsidies in Europe, the world’s largest market for photovoltaic solar modules, has not helped matters any.

From Reuters:

“Chinese solar cell and module makers are the most exposed to a downturn, analysts and investors said, since they sell much of their product to Europe, have some of the highest costs, and some of the least differentiated products.”

Because of the current financial climate, investors are more likely to invest in the companies that have more established names and higher quality—which applies to primarily American and European companies—according to the above article. Indeed, share prices for Chinese solar companies JA Solar, LDK Solar, Canadian Solar Inc, Trina Solar Ltd and Suntech Power Holdings Co, Ltd all currently stand at less than four times 2009 earnings estimates, compared to 9.5 and 17 times for U.S. firms SunPower and First Solar Inc. Furthermore, Chinese solar cell manufacturers entered the market later than their western counterparts, who secured long-term contracts ahead of time that allow them to purchase silicon for $70 to $80 a kilogram, rather than the $200 to $220 (down from $350 earlier this year) the Chinese pay. And while the Chinese solar manufacturers are not sitting idle—JA Solar’s Chief Executive Samuel Yang has said that the company would press its polysilicon suppliers to cut costs—lowered prices could take weeks or even months to take effect. There hasn’t been any news yet (that I’ve seen) of the effects on Chinese solar thermal, which is what the majority of Chinese people use, but the big bucks are in the solar cell industry.

In spite of the doom and gloom above, however, not all financiers have run scurrying from the Chinese solar sector. Just last week, 400 American and Chinese entrepreneurs, policymakers and business and technology professionals gathered in Shanghai for the U.S.-China Green Tech Summit, a two-day long conference sponsored by the Bay Area Council. Green tech presentations, panels and marketing abounded, although the optimism was tempered by some caution from the venture capitalists present. Still, Intel’s $20 million investment in Chinese solar cell manufacturer Trony Solar Holdings Co, Ltd three weeks ago had some seeing a silver lining.

In recent weeks, a number of state governments have announced plans to cut back the per-watt rebate offered to residents who purchase a solar energy system. In October, the Connecticut Clean Energy Fund (CCEF) announced a downward revision ranging between $1.00 and $1.80 per watt, depending on system size. Xcel Energy, Colorado’s largest investor-owned utility and biggest provider of solar energy rebates, recently reduced the amount paid to solar owners in exchange for solar on-site renewable energy credits (SO-RECs). The level was cut by a dollar, from $2.50 to $1.50 per watt. The rebate, which stands apart from the SO-REC payment, will remain at $2.00 per watt, meaning that Colorado homeowners can expect to receive about $3.50 per watt of installed DC solar power. Not bad at all, but a far cry from the $4.50 ($2.00/watt rebate + $2.50/watt SO-REC payment) that was available up ’til now. (Details are outlined in a recent letter (PDF) from Robin Kittel, Director of Regulatory Administration at Xcel.)

Following the actions of Connecticut and Colorado, California and New Jersey have opened the issue for debate, and lawmakers from New York are also considering a reduction in that state’s juicy $3-$5/watt rebate. For individuals looking to make a solar purchase, it may be fair to ask, “What the heck is going on here?” And, “Should I be worried about my ability to finance a solar energy system?”

An answer to the first question is offered by the Connecticut Clean Energy Fund:

On October 3, 2008, President Bush signed into law the “Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008,” which extended for eight years the 30 percent Federal Personal Income Tax Credit on qualified solar systems, but eliminated the $2,000 incentive limit.  The federal tax incentive benefits Connecticut’s electric ratepayers by increasing the allowable federal contribution, thus decreasing the need for the CCEF’s ratepayer funded contribution for residential solar systems in Connecticut.

To maintain the same percentage of “out-of-pocket” expenses for residential solar systems as was previously offered to applicants under the CCEF’s Solar PV Rebate Program, the CCEF Board has approved reductions to the solar rebate cap levels (excluding solar lease applications) as follows:

Previous Rebate Level: $5.00 for the first 5kW; $4.30 for the next 5kW

New Rebate Level: $4.00 for the first 5kW; $2.50 for the next 5kW

These new solar rebate levels will apply to all solar systems commissioned on or after January 1, 2009. The previous rebate levels will continue to apply to those solar systems commissioned prior to January 1, 2009.

The extension in October of the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) means that you can claim a tax credit representing up to 30 percent of the costs of your solar energy system. For a 3-kW residential system costing $27,000 (at $9.00 per installed watt), the eligible credit would be worth over $8,000. There are limits on how much of the credit you can take in a given year, but it’s clear that the new federal rules are a real boon for buyers of solar energy systems. So, from the state lawmakers’ perspective, it makes sense to reduce the rebate levels available. As Barron’s blogger Eric Savitz notes,

… Xcel said that because customers will get a bigger boost from Uncle Sam, it could cut its own discount without much of a change in overall consumer system costs. The [Denver Post] story notes that Xcel now estimates that a typical rooftop solar system of 4.5 KW will cost customers $14.175 after all credits and rebates, versus $13,750 before Xcel’s credit reduction. While not a big change in overall costs, the move does have the effect of sharply increasing upfront costs, since the tax credit is not received immediately.

What does all this mean for you, a potential solar buyer? Should you be worried? As noted in the preceding quotation, a lower per-watt rebate need not sink your solar aspirations. Bolstered by tax support at the federal level, you can still reduce the financial burden associated with purchasing a solar PV system. A lower per-watt rebate does mean, however, that you’ll likely need to foot a bit more of the upfront costs. Of course this is a pain in the butt for many of us, but there are many new financing options and lenders available.

In the end, the move by states to reduce individual rebate payouts shouldn’t be viewed as a new era of doom and gloom for renewable energy. As solar technologies continue their upward march in efficiency (and downward march in price), prospects will continue to brighten. And as the market for renewable energy credits (RECs), like New Jersey’s, are strengthened, there will be increased opportunities for PV owners to derive cash value from their system’s output.

Recently, two states have taken greater steps towards energy independence by taking stronger action than has been federally mandated. Most states already have programs in place, and some states offer quite strong incentives for residential and commercial entities to adopt renewable energy technologies (Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, California, Arizona…). It’s good to see these two, previously among the more laggardly states, joining rank.

Hawaii: A partnership between the State of Hawaii and the US Department of Energy (DOE), the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative was announced in January 2008. According to the DOE, “The partnership aims to have 70% of all of Hawaii’s energy needs generated by renewable energy sources by 2030, cutting crude oil consumption in the state by 72%.” Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle and the DOE have worked hard to create a plan for implementing this agreement, and they finally released it in late October. This is truly great news for Hawaii, a state with limited conventional energy sources but a superabundance of sun, wind, tidal, and geothermal sources. The implementation plan includes elements such as:]

• the addition to HI’s electric grid, over the next 5 years, of 700 megawatts of power from already identified renewable energy sources (with another 400mw to follow);
• doubling the current RPS to 40% by 2030;
• a feed-in tariff;
• no construction of new coal plants;
• lifting the current cap on net metering;
• providing energy cost safety for low-income families;
• biofuel and electric vehicle initiatives;

…and a heck of a lot more besides. It’s a whopping move from a state that has heretofore been a bit sluggish with renewables, considering Hawaii’s real need for change.

Missouri: On November 4th, a few states had clean energy questions on the ballot in some form. Proposition C in Missouri put forth an RPS of 15% by 2021, and was voted in by a gratifying margin (66% of voters were for it). Missouri, a state with traditionally low incentives for renewable energy adoption, was a surprise here–California’s similar prop didn’t pass by about the same margin. So way to come on board with style, MO! Hopefully that RPS, which is not terrifically strong but is a great first step, will get strengthened over the coming years. Since the prop was voted in with such enthusiasm, it seems safe to expect MO residents to continue to support development of renewable energy resources and implementation.

Cargo ships from China’s biggest shipping company will soon use solar-powered sails from Australian renewable energy company Solar Sailor to power its journeys across the seas. The sails will be 30 meters long—rivaling the wings of a Boeing 747 or Airbus A380 in size, made of aluminum and covered in solar panels. What’s more, these computer-controlled sails will harness wind power as well, with the goal of using wind to cut fuel consumption by 20 to 40 percent and using solar to meet five percent of a ship’s energy requirements by partially meeting the energy needs of the crew and electronic navigation devices. Computers will angle the sails for maximum wind and solar capacity, and the sails are expected to have a payback time of four years. Chinese company COSCO will be fitting the sails—which can be “retro-fitted to existing tankers”—to a tanker ship and a bulker ship, which is less than an ideal number, but a start nevertheless.

Considering how much China exports (although the global financial crisis and a succession of unpleasant food and product scandals over the past two summers have put a damper on business) or just trades in general, this is some pretty exciting news, with perhaps a dash of relief on the part of environmentalists everywhere.

While China is one of the most practical places to utilize this technology, another Asian country actually beat it to the punch: Japan announced in July that it was currently working on an enormous freighter (carrying capacity: 6,400 automobiles) equipped with 328 solar panels, which the developing countries hoped would produce 40 kilowatts of power (0.2 percent of the ship’s energy consumption). Expected to be completed by December and built for the purpose of transporting vehicles for Toyota, this mega-cargo ship is, according a Japanese official, the world’s first (partially) solar-powered cargo ship. Although it certainly won’t be the last, here’s to hoping it’ll be the first in a definitive trend.

How well does my state government support renewable energy?

OK, so you’re looking into buying a PV system for your home or business. Like any rational consumer, you want to know first and foremost about cost. We totally agree. But before you start investigating prices, you should make sure you understand some of the larger issues at work–namely, government programs that provide incentives for citizens to install renewable energy systems.

As you’ve probably learned, renewable-energy systems, such as PV panels, are eligible for a 30 percent tax credit, with no set limit. This is a pretty good start, but it turns out that many state and municipal governments have taken other, more aggressive steps to encourage the adoption of renewable energy. This means that, depending on where you live, you can receive cash or other benefits for installing a PV system. Some guarantee that you’ll be able to secure a net-metering agreement, which essentially permits you to sell any excess power from your PV system back to your utility. Others simply create standards for utilities, with a view to achieving long-term renewable energy goals. This article provides a brief introduction to the kinds of programs and initiatives going on at the state level. This activity represents the beginning of a long-term trend away from conventional energy sources. While coal, oil and gas are unlikely to disappear any time soon, state governments are playing a key role in paving the way for a more sustainable energy future.

Net Metering
It takes money and resources to produce electricity. So it makes sense to us that we send a check to our utilities in exchange for the energy we consume each month. Well, imagine if you put your money and resources into a PV panel array and hooked it up to the electrical grid. You’d expect to be compensated for any extra electricity that you don’t use that’s piped back into the grid, right? Well, it turns out this isn’t always the case. There are a number of reasons for this.

First, there’s no nationwide law stipulating that utilities must provide net-metering agreements. (This is a lot do with the fact that utilities are typically regulated through Public Utility Commissions (PUCs) at the state level, not at the federal level.) Under net-metering agreements–also often called interconnection agreements–customers receive credit for their extra electricity, called net excess generation (NEG). Typically, the credit for any NEG is applied to your next month’s bill. In the absence of a uniform federal law, net metering laws vary on a state-by-state basis. Our interactive U.S. map outlines the details.

Second, some states have laws stipulating that only certain kinds of utilities–such as investor-owned (private) utilities–must provide net-metering agreements. And third, a lot of states have laws that require utilities to offer net metering for only a year. In these instances, after the first 12-month billing cycle, any NEG that you produce will be automatically granted to your utility–without any compensation.

So, as you can see, the kind of net metering agreement available in your state may not be perfect. Chance are, though, net metering will continue to improve in the future. As of mid-2008, there are only seven states that don’t offer any net-metering laws of any kind: Alabama, Alaska, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Mississippi and South Carolina. It’s important to know what’s required in your state, as the type of agreement available will determine the expected value of your system.

Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPSs)
RPSs are an increasingly popular way to induce utilities to increase the amount of renewable power they make available to their customers. Generally, it works like this: state lawmakers pass legislation requiring that all utilities must get, say, 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025. Some states, like Connecticut and New Jersey, for instance, include minimum levels that must be sourced from specified sources, like solar. From there, it’s the utilities’ responsibility to meet the goal. One way they commonly do so is by investing directly in renewable alternatives like wind, solar and biomass. In this case, the utility will either build a wind farm, say, or purchase wind power from a third party and sell it on to their customers.

In some states, another approach actually creates cash incentives for homeowners and companies to install PV and other renewable energy systems. Under this approach, utilities are able to meet RPS goals by purchasing renewable energy credits (RECs). Essentially, it works as follows. Any net excess generation (NEG) from PV that is sold back to the utility represents a certain number of RECs. The utility can then apply these credits to meet RPS energy goals. So instead of sourcing renewable power from a large-scale outfit, utilities can, in effect, source directly from the roofs of individuals and companies. While not without their flaws, RECs are a clever way to encourage adoption of PV and other renewable-energy systems at the small scale while at the same time increasing the means for utilities to attain broad energy goals at the statewide scale.

Tax Incentives
As a homeowner or a businessowner, you probably don’t need to be reminded that taxes can be a real drag. Luckily, most states provide a property tax exemption for individuals and businesses that install PV systems. As a rule of thumb, PV panels will increase your property value by about 20 times your energy savings in the first year. (This logic stems from the fact that, were you to sell your home, the buyer would be able to afford a larger mortgage because of reduced monthly energy costs.) Depending on the size of your system, and on where you live, your property value could increase by tens of thousands of dollars. So it’s a good thing that your tax liability won’t increase even though your property value will. Some states that have an income tax provide modest exemptions on that front.

Cash Incentives
Last, but certainly not least, we have state-sponsored rebate programs. In other words, CASH. As you know, solar power is still more expensive than conventional forms of electricity. As advances in technology and manufacturing processes progress, we’ll see PV prices continue to drop. Without healthy demand, however, there’s little incentive for producers to pursue such advances. In an effort to encourage demand in the interim, many state governments sponsor programs that provide cash incentives to individuals (and in some states, businesses) that install PV systems. The incentives typically take the form of a per watt rebate, ranging from $1.50/watt to $4.00/watt (New York). Some states, like California, have established a graduated system to achieve statewide renewable-energy targets. In practice, this means that as the amount of installed PV increases overall, the per watt incentive declines in predictable steps. (If you live in CA, this means that if you’re considering a PV system, it’s in your interest to act fast!)

Depending on where you live, these rebates can do a lot to offset costs. It’s not unheard of to see these programs cover 40 to 45 percent of the costs of a PV system. Lets assume, for example, that you live in New Jersey and that you’re installing a 3.6-kW PV system. Through their Clean Energy Rebate, you qualify for a rebate of $3.50 per watt of PV. Bear with us, the math is simple: 3.6 kW x 1,000 watts/kW = 3,600 watts. 3,600 watts x $3.50/watt = $12,600. It’s reasonable to assume that you could get your 3.6-kW system installed for about $24,000 or less, so the NJ state rebate has already taken care of half your costs. Add to this the 30-percent federal tax rebate, and take account of the gains in terms of property value and saved energy costs, and you’ll begin to see the conditions in which solar energy is a favorable investment. (NOTE: due to its popularity, rebate funds have run out for 2008. As such, the NJ rebate program is NOT currently accepting applications. The state’s Board of Public Utilities (BPU) is set to meet in early December, so check back in then–we may know what funding levels will look like for 2009.)

The purpose of this article was to outline some of the larger trends that will effect your bottom line when investing in PV. Moving on from here, you’ll want to look deeper into system costs and performance, financing options, payback period and return on investment.

And for more information on state-based rebate programs and other incentives, see our U.S. map of state-sponsored incentives.

With solar subsidies starting to dwindle in Spain and Germany no longer the world’s solar poster child, the search for the next big solar power—in terms of both market and production—has been going on ever since Germany slashed its subsidies. There are of course the usual heavyweights, such as the U.S. and Japan, and developing countries such as China and India. This article from BusinessWeek joins the foray as it makes a case for and suggests ways for the Philippines to become a solar power.

Already home to several large solar manufacturing facilities belonging to Silicon Valley-based photovoltaic giants such as SunPower and Solaria, with exports from SunPower alone totaling $220 million in 2006, the Philippines is one of many sun-drenched countries positioned to benefit from solar energy. It already has both on-grid and off-grid solar projects in the works—the latter particularly important, as country consists of 7,100 islands, many of which are not connected to the grid. The Philippine Congress also recently passed a renewable energy bill which includes investment incentives such as tax credits and net metering. Dennis Posadas, the author of the piece, posits that the country’s solar sector could grow substantially if industry and academe increased collaboration, a viewpoint that seems to be validated worldwide by the sheer number of results that appear when you Google “solar power university.”

But perhaps the next big solar power is right in our own backyard—or, rather, we are living in it. Many industry experts, both from home and from abroad, have pinpointed the U.S. as the biggest user of solar energy within the next decade—and with such a burgeoning American solar market, manufacturing jobs appear to be trickling back in.

At 11:00pm, EST, November 4, Barack Obama was officially declared the presumptive 44th President of the United States of America. Congratulations, Senator Obama! There’s no way of knowing what the four years of his term will bring to the nation, or the world, or really even to the solar industry: but during his campaign, the Senator made some bold statements about his intended support for renewable energy, and “a planet in peril” was referenced during his acceptance speech last night. So let’s take a look at the history of solar legislation in this country so we can understand more fully what Obama’s promises really mean.

• 1978: Congress passed both the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA) and the Energy Tax Act (ETA). PURPA allowed independent energy producers to connect to municipal grids and let utilities purchase power from large-scale solar plants (for example), while the ETA incentivized the adoption of renewable energy technologies and efficiency standards with tax credits. The credits phased out under Reagan fewer than ten years later, but it did kick off a round of R&D and excitement about renewables. The ETA included the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA).
• 1980: The Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act (WPT) bulked up the tax credits available for both residential and commercial renewable energy installations. The bump was more significant to commercial customers, whose credit went from 10 to 15% of system size (residential incentives increased from 30 to 40% but remained based on the first $10k of costs).
• 1981: The precursor to our current MACRS was introduced in the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA), allowing for the accelerated depreciation of most renewable energy equipment.
• 1982-1986: It was sweet while it lasted, but the public fervor for renewable energy sparked by the oil crisis of the late 1970s came to an end with the repeal of all of the ETA’s tax credits, culminating in the Tax Reform Act of 1986 where even the basic 10% ITC was snatched away. Different sectors of the renewables market received different new levels of tax credits, all phasing out by the late 80s.
• 1992: The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT) saw a return of the 10% ITC. Keep in mind this was during the Gulf Wars and oil prices were once again in the public eye. The EPACT swept production incentives into the marketplace as well, later extended by 1999’s Tax Relief Extension Act.
• 2005: Let’s just pass over that awkward decade or so of stagnant waters. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 resurrected some bits and pieces of 1978’s NECPA, looking for a reduction of 2% in our annual energy usage by fiscal year 2015. Section 204 of the bill stipulated 20,000 new solar energy installations to be completed in federal buildings by 2010. It also put in place an investment tax credit equal to 30% of solar system costs (capped at $2k for residential systems).
• 2007: For the first time ever, legislation for a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) passed the House. Although similar legislation had passed the Senate a few times previously, the bill didn’t make it through to law due to extenuating circumstances (too many swing votes to get past a filibuster was the going excuse). But the fact that such a bill passed the House was historically significant and very encouraging to the industry.
• 2008: The much-maligned bailout bill snuck, under its skirts, the hotly contested ITC extensions for renewables. Solar got 8 more years of its cherished 30%, while wind got another couple years of breathing room. Plus, 2005’s miserly cap of $2k for residential systems was lifted. There was much rejoicing.

Which brings us to the present day, poised on the brink of a new year and a new presidency. Obama has called for $150 billion to be invested in clean energy over the next ten years, with the aim of spurring huge private sector growth; to see that we get 10% of our electricity from renewable sources by 2012, and 25% by 2025; and to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050 through the use of a cap-and-trade system. What this amounts to is a vigorous RPS. If you take a look at the legislation outlined above, you’ll see that this would pretty much be the biggest, boldest stride for renewable energy in the history of our country. We’ve reached a turning point with energy in this country. If Obama and his first Congress can realize the new President’s vision, we’ll be looking at rampant growth across all sectors of a new clean economy, taking our place among world leaders in renewable energy. The American solar industry, we can hope, will soon outshine the rest.

Sources: Energy Information Administration; SEIA; EERE; barackobama.com

This is just a friendly reminder from the team at GetSolar.com that today is Tuesday, November 4, Election Day. Get out there and vote! If you’re not sure where your polling station is, check out Google’s nifty new service to figure out where it is, and how to get there.

Buying a solar energy system is like buying any other product: in order to make an educated purchase, you’ve got to understand a bit of the lingo. This week, we’ll briefly review net metering - a concept that lies at the very center of how, and why, solar energy can make financial sense. Then, we’ll take a look at Arizona, which last month updated its rules on net metering.

To begin, what you buy from your utility is best thought of as an electric current. The AC current flows from the point of generation, along the grid and to the final point of use - say a flat screen TV. A meter measures the amount of electricity that flows into your house and, at the end of each month, you pay your utility for each kilowatt-hour used. In a conventional setup, the flow of electricity is uni-directional. That is, it only flows from the grid to your home.

In a net-metering arrangement, the flow of electricity is bi-directional. The DC current generated by your solar panels flows into the inverter, where it’s converted into usable AC current. Any of the AC power that’s not consumed flows back into the grid, running the meter backward. This portion of electricity that flows into the grid is sometimes referred to as net excess generation, or NEG. Many states require utilities to purchase any NEG from you, usually at the going retail rate for electricity. In this way, solar panels derive value by enabling you to offset monthly electricity charges.

Going a step further, net metering is even more helpful when you’re able to combine it with something called time of use (TOU) billing. In many states, electricity is priced according to the basic rules of supply and demand: when demand is low, power is cheap; when demand is high, power is relatively more expensive. In general, demand for electricity is highest during the day. As a result, utilities may charge more for power during so-called “peak demand hours.” Individuals who want to avoid fluctuating prices may opt to pay an average per-kWh price. Indeed, chances are this is how you’re currently set up to buy electricity.

On a time of use (TOU) pricing schedule, however, you pay whatever the going rate is when you actually use the electricity - at the time of use. As it turns out, solar energy systems generate the most electricity during peak demand hours - that is, during the middle part of the day. It also turns out that many homes draw very little electricity during these hours, as most individuals are away at work. The result is close to an ideal scenario: armed with solar panels and a TOU schedule, you can buy electricity when it’s relatively cheap (in the evenings) and sell electricity back to the utility when it’s relatively expensive (during the day).

To get started, call your utility to see if they offer (1) net metering, and (2) time of use billing. A number of state governments have taken steps to require investor owned utilities (IOUs) to provide net metering to their customers. Arizona, for one, just updated its net metering rules to include all IOUs and electricity cooperatives. This comes on the heels of Florida lawmakers’ efforts to strengthen net-metering rules in that state. These outcomes reflect a nationwide trend towards a very simple, yet important, principle: that individuals who invest in solar panels and other forms of renewables should be entitled to fair compensation for the electricity they pipe back into the grid.

Marin County is now offering an excellent solar leasing program through the combined efforts of GoSolarMarin (a nonprofit dedicated to advancing solar in Marin County) and SolarCity (solar design and financing). This is GoSolarMarin’s second effort to push solar in the county. Their first effort resulted in 100 new solar installations, an achievement they hope to surpass this time around. By bringing the benefits of community or essentially “bulk” pricing to the no-money-down solar leasing program, the program is able to price systems at $6.56/watt DC. Compare that to national averages that range between $8-9/watt DC, add the newly uncapped federal ITC of 30%, and you can see this is one sweet solar deal.

A bit further south, councilmen in LA have okayed a draft for a solar initiative for the March ballot. The initiative, planned largely by the IBEW, looks for 400mw of additional solar power on commercial roofs by 2013. The LA City Council voted unanimously in favor of the initiative (14-0), though no one seems to have had time to figure out how such a measure would affect local electric rates. (Though they do hope to have this information by the time they have to decide whether or not to actually include the measure on the ballot–the deadline is November 7.) It sounds pretty swell, but at an estimated cost of up to $3 billion, hopefully the Council will have it figured out sooner rather than later.

Briefly: the first solar thermal plant to be installed in California in over 20 years is being launched by Ausra. The 177-mw plant in Bakersfield will produce enough electricity to power over 120,000 homes.

Now to the other coast. North Carolina has just had a strange week of it: Duke Energy, the major electric utility for the state, announced it was cutting back its solar energy plan in a serious way: the plan is being cut in half, down to $50 million from $100 million. Why the change? Because critics thought Duke was going above and beyond. Your Renewable News reports:

Under Duke’s original proposal, the utility would generate 16 MW of electricity…The Utilities Commission staff objected, saying that Duke doesn’t need the full rooftop plan to meet its solar-power obligations through 2014. Duke has already contracted to buy 16 MW from a SunEdison solar farm to be built in Davidson County…The size of the original proposal could also have handicapped development of cheaper forms of renewable energy, the staff said. Duke could “bank” excess solar credits for future years, it said, but miss the chance to generate power more cheaply if solar costs come down as expected.

That’s certainly a blow to solar in the state over the next few years, but this home to the DSIRE database isn’t going to stop trucking along just because Duke’s plan got ambushed. A new 1mw solar plant is going up on the site of an old landfill in Asheville, courtesy of Project Energy Carolinas and FLS Energy.