By Connor Hoffman, Lockport Union-Sun & Journal
They come from different backgrounds and hold a wide variety of political beliefs. The one thing they do have in common is a dislike for a plan that they fear could have a negative and long-lasting impact on the fabric of their community.
“We’re regular Joe Shmoes,” said Ed Saleh, one of more than 200 members of the group called Cambria Opposition to Industrial Solar. “We are Independents. We are Democrats. We are Republicans. It doesn’t matter what party line we are. We’re everybody. We’re the forgotten people of New York state.”
Saleh and dozens of his neighbors have banded together in an effort to stop the development of a 900-acre solar project which has been proposed by the company Cypress Creek Renewables.
Cypress Creek Renewables, a company with corporate offices in California and North Carolina, has proposed the Bear Ridge Solar Project, which involves the proposed leasing of 900 acres of private land throughout a 5,000-acre project area in southern Cambria and a portion of northern Pendleton. The developers plan to install solar panels mounted in rows on racking systems up to 12 feet high. The panels would be visible from a distance of about 1-1/2 miles, including from sites on Bear Ridge Road and IDA Park Drive in Lockport.
Opinion: The Phony Numbers Behind California’s Solar Mandate
By Steve Sexton, The Wall Street Journal
California’s energy regulators effectively cooked the books to justify their recent command that all homes built in the Golden State after 2020 be equipped with solar panels. Far from a boon to homeowners, the costs to builders and home buyers will likely far exceed the benefits to the state.
The California Energy Commission, which approved the rule as part of new energy-efficiency regulations, didn’t conduct an objective, independent investigation of the policy’s effects. Instead it relied on economic analysis from the consultancy that proposed the policy, Energy and Environmental Economics Inc. Its study concluded that home buyers get a 100% investment return—paying $40 more in monthly mortgage costs but saving $80 a month on electricity. If it’s such a good deal, why aren’t home buyers clamoring for more panels already? Most new homes aren’t built with solar panels today, even though the state is saturated by solar marketing.
The Energy Commission is too optimistic about the cost of panels. It assumes the cost was $2.93 a watt in 2016 and will decline 17% by 2020. Yet comprehensive analysis of panel costs by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory estimated the average cost of installed panels to be $4.50 a watt for the 2- to 4-kilowatt systems the policy mandates. That is $4,000 more than regulators claim for a 2.6-kilowatt model system in the central part of the state, where 20% of new homes are expected to be built. Berkeley Lab further estimates that costs fell a mere 1% between 2015 and 2016, far short of the 4% average annual decline the regulators predict.
Now consider the alleged savings on energy bills. The commission’s analysis assumes California will maintain its net energy-metering policy, which effectively subsidizes electricity produced by a rooftop solar panel…
Read full op-ed in the Wall Street Journal