Obama’s contradictory statements regarding his State of the Union Address-Clean Energy

Two statements during President Obama State of the Union 2012 address stood out with regards to his renewable energy use policy. At first glance, Obama’s statements could be seen to contradict each other with regards to helping the end consumer and even enabling the solar industry to mature and become less reliant on government subsidies.

Firstly, we all applaud President Obama’s commitment to, “Not walk away from the promise of clean energy…….. “. While laying out few detailed plans, President Obama proposed several avenues to support renewable energy solutions. In his speech he called for new clean energy tax credits, as well as an end to oil subsidies.

Which begs the question, why then did Washington let the Federal ITC 1603 Grant sunset then? The tax grant vs. credit has had a major impact on commercial solar installation projects either being cancelled or pushed out. The Congress on both sides of the isle has perfected the art of “double accounting”. Would it have been that difficult to extend the tax credit into a grant for another year if they really wanted to? The ITC Credit is written into Federal law till 2016, i.e. it has already been accounted for.

As a solar integrator, I believe we don’t need new or more solar subsidies. What we need is a more stream lined permitting and engineering process. Compare the city of South Pasadena to Santa Ana in California. South Pasadena took 1 hour to obtain a commercial solar permit, while Santa Ana took over a month and several thousand dollars to obtain a commercial permit.

The second statement which will be received with mixed emotion in the solar industry was, “I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here……….”

On the surface this seems like a fair or even a common sense statement. However, ask any solar integrator in the US for his comments on customer service from US solar manufactures vs. China? 18 Months ago ask the same group just how difficult it was to place an order with a US manufacturer if they were a small “mom and pop” installer?

These issues have nothing to do with government subsidies, rather mind set and attitude with US manufacturers. Taking that history into account, we might not simply want to step in and protect the likes of SolarWorld too quickly. Additionally, whatever side of the agreement you fall on, it must be remembered the Chinese manufactures have played a large part in driving down the costs of solar panels over the last 18 months.

The result being a more affordable product for everyone! Good for the environment? Good for Main Street? Good for small business? So which therefore is better for America? Protecting higher priced US manufactures or seeing more affordable clean energy?

Image by Getty Imagaes