Shadow over solar power in L.A.

Why the rush to put an initiative on the March 3 ballot? Politics, of course.

November 7, 2008

» Discuss Article (3 Comments)

The Los Angeles City Council had better hurry up and put something called the Green Energy-Good Jobs Initiative on the March 3 ballot, or we will never, ever have solar power in this city. There's no time to see where the plan fits into an as-yet-unseen comprehensive solar plan. There's no time to wonder why its chief sponsors are labor unions. There's no time to ask why the leader of the city-owned Department of Water and Power took this initiative to the City Council over the heads of his commissioners.

At least that's the message that has emerged from council chambers over the last two weeks, after this initiative to install city-owned solar panels on Los Angeles rooftops materialized. Boosters argue that, for goodness' sake, we just have to get this thing on the ballot by today's artificial deadline, and then we'll have plenty of time to answer everyone's questions.

This rush to the ballot has the scent of swindle about it. Council members and a smattering of environmentalists speak about the plan with happy words, but through gritted teeth. That's because, just out of view, their arms are being twisted.

The plan put together by Working Californians -- headed by Brian D'Arcy, business manager of the union representing DWP electricians, and Marvin Kropke, business manager of another International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union that does a great deal of city contracting -- theoretically could form part of an acceptable proposal to expand Los Angeles' supply of solar power. Instead, it does little to advance energy supply and much to reveal who's pulling the strings in Los Angeles.

It stands the priority list for intelligent solar policy on its head. Increased electrical generation capacity and benefit for ratepayers fall to the bottom. They're replaced by secondary priorities, such as economic stimulus and job security for DWP workers, or even non-priorities (for L.A. residents, anyway), such as near-exclusive IBEW power over awarding solar-panel-installation jobs and union support for elected officials.

A comprehensive solar plan might well provide welcome job opportunities to Los Angeles residents and businesses. This one appears to be more about locking up those opportunities for its sponsors than opening them to potential competitors. Meanwhile, there are serious questions about the numbers being batted about the council chamber. The 400 megawatts the program would presumably produce by 2014 appear to have more to do with political marketing than with reality. The estimated increases in electricity rates seem similarly speculative.

Council members -- even those seven who are up for reelection March 3 and crave labor donations -- should sober up. If this really must come before voters, there will be plenty more opportunities in this city, where elections are more frequent than rainy days.

Post Comment

Discussion

Comments accepted through Monday

1. Well done L.A. Times on bringing this editorial to taxpayer’s attention. Councilman Richard Alacron’s negative statement during today’s meeting regarding this editorial is another example of how much out of touch to taxpayer Alacron and the other council members are. We need jobs for private sector and local business. This is a plan for city DWP union workers only. Private sector jobs and local business will not be involved. This is another non transparent program initiated from the Mayor, IBEW Local 18 Brian D'Arcy and DWP. Supporting the hiring of more high paid union DWP employees for this plan will only cost ratepayers dearly.
Submitted by: meterman
9:52 PM PST, Nov 7, 2008

2. why should we always have to pay for LADWP to own and control all our power supplies, even in an era of rooftop solar? seems to me that RATEPAYERS ought to get better incentives, like AB 811 loans, feed in tariffs and grants from LADWP to install oversized systems on our own homes, and get paid for producing clean power. this monopolistic behavior is despicable. time for a new paradigm of decentralized, clean power that we can own ourselves and which protects our open spaces.
Submitted by: what about us?
9:29 AM PST, Nov 7, 2008

3. I used 3300 kWh last year, $430 worth of power. A 20,000 solar panel will add $250/year property taxes. Owning a trampoline may increase your insurance times $200/y. I suspect a similar increase from owning a solar PV system once enough hardware-store parking-lot contractors fall off roofs cleaning solar PV systems. Add another $200/year increased insurance cost. Spraying water on an energized electric device is an act of natural selection. So, if somebody gives me a solar PV system for free, my property taxes and insurance increases will exceed my present electric bill.
Submitted by: William Ernest Schenewerk, Ph.D.
4:22 AM PST, Nov 7, 2008

Read all 3 comments


OPINION » A bipartisan blueprint for immigration reform By Jeb Bush, Thomas F. McLarty III and Edward Alden The U.S. needs to create a system that responds to labor market needs, provides more effective enforcement and offers a fair way to deal with those living here illegally. EDITORIALS\|OP-ED\|LETTERS				FROM THE BLOGS Opinion L.A. Opinion L.A. The best in Southern California opinion journalism Syfy Channel? Y o Y? Sun, Jul 12 2009 6:48:41 PM My television pretty much stays dark during the week, so it took until the... more Bit Player By Jon Healey Technology The business and culture of our digital lives, from the L.A. Times SuperFan, taking affinities further Fri, Jul 10 2009 5:31:33 PM Social networks are partly about broadcasting information to a far-flung... more

Email
|
Print
|
Text
|
RSS

Mexico Under Siege

The drug war at our doorstep
Video Q&A | Photos | Interactive map

1.	Republican pundits open fire on Sarah Palin
2.	Concern grows that healthcare overhaul won't cut costs
3.	Doctor helps give homeless man a second chance
4.	National Briefing
5.	Judging the judge: Senate committee to question Sotomayor this week