Slashdot Mirror


California Is Giving Away Free Solar Panels To Its Poorest Residents

MikeChino writes: Oakland-based non-profit GRID Alternatives is giving away 1,600 free solar panels to California's poorest residents by the year 2016. The initiative was introduced by Senator Kevin de León and launched with funds gathered under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GCRF), the state's cap-and-trade program. SFGate reports: "Kianté London used the program to put panels on his three-bedroom North Richmond home, which he shares with two sons and a daughter. 'It helps me and my family a great deal to have low-cost energy, because these energy prices are really expensive,' said London, 46, whose solar array was installed this week. 'And I wanted to do my part. It’s clean, green energy.' London had wanted a solar array for years, but couldn’t afford it on his income as a merchant seaman — roughly $70,000 per year. Even leasing programs offered by such companies as SolarCity and Sunrun were too expensive, he said. The new program, in contrast, paid the entire up-front cost of his array."

10 of 272 comments (clear)

  1. How do the "poorest residents" own homes by geekd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You need a roof on a home to mount solar panels. Not an apartment, a home.

    Have you seen housing prices in California? My house cost $389,000 in 2002 and it's only 750 square feet.

    So, how do the "poorest residents" own a home?

  2. Re:Since fucking when by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Funny

    No way, man. He can only afford a new iPhone every other year! That's bordering the poverty line.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  3. A few things here... by acoustix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First off, $70k isn't poor. Not even in California. Can people afford to put a solar array on their house with $70k income? No. But that doesn't mean they are poor.

    Second: Truly poor people don't own homes. Middle class and upper class own homes. Poor people rent. Renters have no choice where their power comes from.

    Third: The solar panels are usually the cheapest part of adding a power source to your home. The transfer switch, batteries and inverter are the bulk of the cost.

    --
    "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
  4. Their criteria need work. by bistromath007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Poorest residents"

    "three-bedroom home"

    :|

  5. Re:$70000 is poorest? by chipschap · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, I have always loved the concept of my paying more taxes so other people could have for free the things I can't afford for myself.

  6. Re:$70000 is poorest? by DarkSabreLord · · Score: 5, Informative

    It warms my heart, however, to see the money I must pay for the tax on air putting panels on the homes of other people.

    Did you RTFA? I'm going to assume not, so here's the link again

    The program is paid for by cap-and-trade - namely, companies creating environmental waste, not you, are the ones paying for his solar panels. There are plenty of reasons to complain about the CA government misappropriating the tax money you personally give them, but this is not one of them.

  7. Re:$70000 is poorest? by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, I have always loved the concept of my paying more taxes so other people could have for free the things I can't afford for myself.

    Share your wealth or they will share their poverty.

    The more money people have, the less they tend to do for the poor. If it worked the other way around, you wouldn't be whinging now.

    It's a shame the middle class won't band together and come after the rich, but those poor idiot fucks won't realize that they have a better chance to win the lottery than to actually work their way into the upper echelons of society. They still think they're going to be the ones looking down their noses at someone else someday.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  8. Clarification of target group by jamescford · · Score: 5, Informative

    The submitter used the word "poorest", which seems chosen rather... poorly. The SFGate article uses the somewhat less extreme term "low income", but toward the end it is also more specific about the criteria: "To qualify, applicants must live in a neighborhood designated as disadvantaged by the state. They must own their homes and make no more than 80 percent of their community’s median household income." The provider, GRID Alternatives, promises "to make renewable energy technology and job training accessible to underserved communities", which seems more in line with what is actually going on.

    So, one view of this is that this is a program to direct cap-and-trade money (generally collected to be used specifically for environmentally beneficial projects) into areas of the state that wouldn't get it otherwise. It uses donated equipment and labor as well as the C&T funding, so it's not at all tax funded. Besides helping recipients in the targeted areas get cheaper power, it is possibly reducing overall electricity demand in a green way (though this is debatable, given the limits of solar power as a baseload source).

  9. Re:$70000 is poorest? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As a Californian making $10-$15K/year, excuse me if I don't think we need to donate charity handouts to people making $70K, which by the way is well above the median income.

    As a Californian making $10-15k/year, you will be paying fuck-all in taxes. Depending on where you live, you may well be receiving back services whose cost is well in excess of what you're paying in.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  10. Re:That poor man by N1AK · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well no one is forcing him to live in one of the most expensive areas in the world (assuming it actually is). I make less than 15k per year after taxes and I don't really consider myself poor. In the country I'm living in now the average income is about $250 per month or about $3000 USD per year.

    You're earning 500% the average income for the country in which you live, no shit you don't consider yourself poor. Your entire point is nonsense, of course you have to consider location when defining what 'poor' is. I don't care that someone earning $5k in another country can live like a king or not, someone earning $5k in the UK is poor.

    Your inability to consider what is worth paying people decent money for says a lot more about your ignorance than anything else.