On December 29, 2012, Julie Cart writes in the Los Angeles Times that modest-size projects can produce electricity at a lower cost to consumers and the environment, bit government loan guarantee financing goes to big plants.

The Obama administration’s solar-power initiative has fast-tracked large-scale plants, fueled by low-interest, government-guaranteed loans that cover up to 80 percent of construction costs. In all, the federal government has paid out more than $16 billion for renewable-energy projects.

Those large-scale projects are financially efficient for developers, but their size creates transmission inefficiencies and higher costs for ratepayers.

Smaller alternatives, from rooftop solar to small- and medium-sized plants, can do the opposite.

Utilities charge ratepayers for every dollar spent building transmission lines, for which the state of California guarantees utilities an annual return of 11% for 40 years.

By comparison, small-scale plants can be built near population centers and provide power directly to consumers, reducing the demand for electricity from the grid.

Rooftop solar goes one step further.

I publish an architectural magazine, Ultimate Home Design (www.ultimatehomedesign.com) that advocates responsible green building initiatives, with respect to on-site energy generation. I also built the greenest home in America, the Optimum Performance Home (http://www.ultimatehomedesign.com/oph.php).

The United States should adopt the German model of “Feed-In-Tariff” (TIF) and ensure that anyone who generates power from solar, wind, or hydro is guaranteed payment from the local power company. Under such a program, local power companies are obliged to buy power generated by solar, wind, and hydro home and small business installations.

Germany pioneered legislation, and other European countries––including Spain, Portugal, Greece, France, and Italy––are implementing similar legislation. At present, unfortunately, local power companies in the U.S. are not required to pay homeowners for the energy generated  on-site beyond what the homeowners generate produce a “Zero Energy Home” (ZED) cost operation. Thus, homeowners with systems designed to generate excess electricity are not compensated. “Feed-In-Tariff” legislation, which offers cash incentives, will become the most important means we have to boost the solar and wind energy market, and significantly reduce our country’s dependence on foreign oil. Such legislation will make it lucrative for ordinary people to put solar systems on their roofs and wind turbines on their properties. The end result will produce a new class of homeowners who will be energy-independent and part of a network of clean energy producers.

Beyond the issues explored in the article regarding large solar installations, what is missing is the ownership structure of this advanced renewable energy system development. The article implies that the U.S. Department of Energy is involved. Should ANY power plant involve taxpayer monies, the government should require that the utility users/customers share in the private, individual ownership of the development, turning every customer into an owner of the power utility. This can be accomplished by forming a for-profit, professionally managed, citizen-owned “Community Investment Corporation” (CIC) or Citizens Land Bank (CLB) (www.http://cesj.org/homestead/strategies/community/cic-full-nk.html).

While the CLB would create new private sector jobs and entrepreneurial opportunities, its main accent is on widespread participation, particularly in the ownership of land, technology, buildings and infrastructure that must be fabricated upon the community’s land for expanding the local economy. The Citizens Land Bank is designed to serve as a for-profit land planner and private sector developer geared to rational innovation and change at the community level.

Using the most advanced tools of the free enterprise system––especially innovative credit and financing tools-the CLB would create new owners of newly created assets, without taking existing property away from present owners.

The CLB strategy and its institutional structure for mobilizing citizen action are easily adaptable to areas of virtually any size, such as land surrounding nodes of a mass transit system, a downtown renewal area, or an inner-city neighborhood. The CLB can even be adopted for an entire city, metropolitan area or natural region of the country.

The CLB would create new opportunities for corporate executives, real estate professionals and the best advisors that money can buy, but they would be accountable to the CLB’s lenders and shareholders through the CLB’s broadly representative board of directors. Local enterprises could then compete more dynamically in the global marketplace without special protections or subsidies.

Such policies, when implemented will provide a substantial amount of energy. We need to make the effort and advocate to our political leaders to pass the necessary legislation.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-solar-future-20121229,0,4926686.story