[Update on 2-11-13: The confusion about the meaning of "community solar" may be partially to blame for the current absence of  a public host/public benefit in the current draft of HB1301.  Perhaps the wisest course is to accept the existing definition of community solar in the cost recovery program, clarifying and defending the incentives for public benefit.

Key recommendations remain essential:

• Create a Rolling 10 year incentive for investors in all projects that qualify.
• To qualify for the highest incentive program, an automatic transfer of ownership to public host is required. [Depending on when in the term this transfer is made, an additional benefit to
  the investors is a potential tax deduction for the donation. In trade for the simplified transfer of ownership, the public host could more easily/legally waive rent, assume insurance and maintenance responsibilities.
• Change $5k incentive payment per person/household, per year limit to $5k per project, per person, per year. This removes an impossible reporting burden on the utilities, while maintaining some safeguard that WA State tax dollars cycle back into local economies rather than funneling money out of state speculators.
• Make all public and tribal facilities, including colleges qualified hosts.]

Recommendations presented here are the result of many conversations with a variety of stakeholders in “community solar” efforts across Washington State. Though these ideas are generally supported by a number of stakeholders, these are not officially endorsed by those parties.

“The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name.”
~ Confucius

To call things by their proper names is a Confucian virtue, echoed in the movie Into the Wild. When many of us first came across the idea of community solar some years ago, it was because of the work of Gary Nystedt, resource manager for the Ellensburg public utility. Gary created a program for long term ownership of shares in solar systems located on city property by community investors .  Virtual net metering, i.e. power generated by each share is credited to the owner’s actual utility bill makes this model simple, clean, easy to understand. In my opinion, the term community solar should be reserved for that model of shared ownership and method for distributing long term benefits to the investors/owners.

The program spelled out in WAC 458-20-273 includes something it refers to as “community solar,” for which it designates what appears to be the most generous production incentive in the world. But part of the problem
is that it isn’t really community solar. Why do I say this?

1. Unlike the Ellensburg project, there is no incentive for long term ownership as all benefits or ROI rely solely on the production incentive scheduled to expire June 30, 2020.
2. Though it is not forbidden, there is no provision for or requirement for virtual net-metering for the owners, but instead the public host (school, library, retired land fill) receives the benefit of the power generated.
3. Though not clearly spelled out by the law, the only sensible path after the production incentive expires is to transfer ownership to the public host. After the incentive period ends overhead such as rent, insurance, maintenance, and accounting and other costs consume all economic benefit of the power savings.

The financing and creation of renewable energy installations on public facilities, for long term public benefit is a great cause. But to call it community solar just confuses people, and in the realm of investment for public benefit, complexity and confusion are the enemy. Ideally, this aspect of the State program would be called
something like “Citizen Financing of Renewable Energy on Public Facilities for Public Benefit.” When framed as such, a few tweaks to the current program will clarify the goals and rescue the currently named “community solar” component from irrelevance. I distinguish that component from the residential element because it seems that the residential program is more or less ok as is, though simplification may be desirable regardless.

Changes to the “community solar” element of the program that we propose would retain the current incentive formula to encourage in-State equipment, and the requirement that to benefit from the “Community Solar” doubling of that incentive, the system must be placed on public facility and deliver public benefit through long term power savings for tax-payers. (Note: My use of “solar” is due to our situation and not meant to undermine wind and other renewable generation allowed under the current program.)

The key recommendations we have developed through conversations with a broad variety of stakeholders and are currently presenting to those in Washington State government agencies and legislature include:

• Create a Rolling 10 year incentive for investors in all projects that qualify.
• To qualify for the highest incentive program, an automatic transfer of ownership to public host is required. [Depending on when in the term this transfer is made, an additional benefit to
  the investors is a potential tax deduction for the donation. In trade for the simplified transfer of ownership, the public host could more easily/legally waive rent, assume insurance and maintenance responsibilities.]
• Change $5k incentive payment per person/household, per year limit to $5k per project, per person, per year. This removes an impossible reporting burden on the utilities, while maintaining some safeguard that WA State tax dollars cycle back into local economies rather than funneling money out of state speculators.
• Make all public and tribal facilities, including colleges qualified hosts.

Additional recommendations:

• Allow Dept. of Commerce, WSU, Housing and Finance Commission or other agency to assume administration from Department of Revenue (DOR) on appropriate elements of program.
• Ensure that Department of Financial Institutions (DFI) involvement is not triggered or involvement minimized, possibly through making shares nontransferable, passing of ownership to host, automatic guaranteed incentives.
• Eliminate the arbitrary 5% company owned, 25% utility owned, 70% individuals and groups limits on the incentive pool to avoid prorated of incentives in certain categories, while others remain
  untapped.
• Lift the current limit of .5% of utility tax burden allotted to incentives so a successful program putting renewable energy on schools, libraries, and public facilities can flourish, not be choked, and is not under threat of having incentives oversubscribed and prorated undermining the guaranteed return.
• Retroactive decisions, such as those by DOR should not be allowed;
• All projects in the current program are grandfathered in;
• That incentive rates are locked for each project and not vulnerable to future prorating or elimination.

Dear Friends,

Your interest in Backbone’s Community Solar project is deeply appreciated. Believe me, I hate delivering this message, I wish that I was writing to tell you that all the money was raised and we are moving forward, BUT I am not. As a Vermont farmer once told me, “You cannot push the river.” But I am not giving up, just shifting strategy and asking for your support in that decision.

I am pushing the “pause” button on our ambitious project, and directing energy toward fixing the state law, so that Vashon and other communities can benefit in the future. I recommend the recent article Community Solar Shouldn’t Be this Hard by John Farrell (Institute for Local Self Reliance) that outlined some of the difficulties frustrating the Backbone Campaign and efforts by other organizers in Washington State. Sierra Magazine also had a great article, Solar for All by Paul Rauber which included our effort and difficulties of organizing such projects in the US.

Ironically, as is indicated in the both articles, we successfully navigated every bureaucratic hurdle placed in front of us. We successfully negotiated a win/win/win contract with King County, the terms of which were approved by the County Council. We successfully developed a solid plan working with the limitations of the State program, and our presentation to investors was clear and thorough. Yet, we were only able to generate about 20% of the applications for investment that we needed to maintain the economies of scale needed to deliver the size array and return on investment worthy of our community investors, i.e. YOU.

The scale of the array we proposed merely amplified the shortcomings of the current State program. Through many presentations to groups and individuals, I repeatedly watched people’s eyes glaze over due to the complexity of the State program. Mixing investment with social/environmental good is easier said than done. The decision making process for a donation is much different than that of an investment. As much as we had designed the project to maximize every opportunity, we could not – by law – guarantee a competitive return. Thus, the multiple large $20k and $30k investments we needed never materialized, and there weren’t enough smaller ones to make up the difference. The $70-80k of applications is just not enough to take advantage of the economies of scale we were counting on with a $450k project.

The lessons are many, but principally they relate to the undue complexity of the state program our project was organized to take advantage of. The good news is that the residential solar component of the State program continues to thrive. The sad reality is, that with more than seven years remaining in the ten year program, very few community projects are likely to be initiated, especially west of the Cascades. The State’s “community solar” program will work for those willing to take some loss, but not for those who need a CLEAR path to a reasonable ROI.

If you are person who does not require certainty of a return on your investment, believe strongly in the various educational, social and environmental value of distributed, renewable energy production and want to see it get a foothold on Vashon Island, then I strongly recommend that you participate in phase two of the installation at the Harbor School. More information at VashonSolarLLC.com.

As was true with the Credit Union project (see CUorganizer.org), the Backbone Campaign is not here to do heroic Herculean projects that rely on angels and a wealthy community. Our “local laboratory” projects need to be at least theoretically replicable. Therefore, I have stopped promoting our current plan, and have instead worked with our partners at King County to instigated a dialog amongst stakeholders. The result is a set of recommendations for fixing the “community” element of the Washington State Renewable Energy System Cost Recovery Program, WAC 458-20-273.

The key recommendations we have developed through conversations with a broad variety of stakeholders and are currently presenting to those in Washington State government agencies and legislature include:
(Please read the full text of recommendations below.)

• Create a Rolling 10 year incentive for investors in all projects that qualify.
• To qualify for the program an automatic transfer of ownership to public host is required. [Depending on when in the term this transfer is made, an additional benefit to the investors is a potential tax deduction for the donation. In trade for the simplified transfer of ownership, the public host could more easily/legally wave rent, assume insurance and maintenance responsibilities.]
• Change $5k incentive payment per person/household, per year limit to $5k per project, per person, per year. This removes an impossible reporting burden on the utilities, while maintaining some safeguard that WA State tax dollars cycle back into local economies rather than funneling money to out of state venture capital.
• Make all public and tribal facilities, including colleges qualified hosts

Contact me if you want to help move these recommendations forward before and during the next legislative session. A small group of committed islanders will be meeting to strategize on January 4. On January 14, I will be presenting our recommendations at the January 14, Solar Washington meeting.

Again, Thank you for your commitment to aligning our community’s energy production with our values for a sustainable economy end energy infrastructure. I am deeply sorry that I was not able to deliver in the way I had hoped. I hope you will stay with me on the journey forward and work together for the greater good of a policy shift that will enable many more to benefit.

In gratitude & collaboration,

Bill Moyer
Backbone Campaign
206-408-8058
c. 206-356-9980

Introduction to proposed changes to replace/amend the “community solar” program:
Recommendations presented here are the result of many conversations with a variety of stakeholders in “community solar” efforts across Washington State. Though these ideas are generally supported by a number of stakeholders, these are not officially endorsed by those parties.

“The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name.” Confucious
To call things by their proper names is a Confucian virtue, echoed in the movie Into the Wild. When many of us first came across the idea of community solar some years ago, it was because of the work of Gary Nystedt, resource manager for the Ellensburg public utility. Gary created a program for long term ownership of shares in solar systems located on city property by community investors . Virtual net metering, i.e. power generated by each share is credited to the owner’s actual utility bill makes this model simple, clean, easy to understand. In my opinion, the term community solar should be reserved for that model of shared ownership and method for distributing long term benefits to the investors/owners.

The program spelled out in WAC 458-20-273 includes something it refers to as “community solar,” for which it designates what appears to be the most generous production incentive in the world. But part of the problem is that it isn’t really community solar. Why do I say this?

1. Unlike the Ellensburg project, there is no incentive for long term ownership as all benefits or ROI rely solely on the production incentive scheduled to expire June 30, 2020.
2. Though it is not forbidden, there is no provision for or requirement for virtual net-metering for the owners, but instead the public host (school, library, retired land fill) receives the benefit of the power generated.
3. Though not clearly spelled out by the law, the only sensible path after the production incentive expires is to transfer ownership to the public host. After the incentive period ends overhead such as rent, insurance, maintenance, and accounting and other costs consume all economic benefit of the power
   savings.

The financing and creation of renewable energy installations on public facilities, for long term public benefit is a great cause. But to call it community solar just confuses people, and in the realm of investment for public benefit, complexity and confusion are the enemy. Ideally, this aspect of the State program would be called something like “Citizen Financing of Renewable Energy on Public Facilities for Public Benefit.” When framed as such, a few tweaks to the current program will clarify the goals and rescue the currently named “community solar” component from irrelevance. I distinguish that component from the residential element because it seems that the residential program is more or less ok as is, though simplification may be desirable regardless.

Changes to the “community solar” element of the program that we propose would retain the current incentive formula to encourage in-State equipment, and the requirement that to benefit from the “Community Solar” doubling of that incentive, the system must be placed on public facility and deliver public benefit through long term power savings for tax-payers. (Note: My use of “solar” is due to our situation and not meant to undermine wind and other renewable generation allowed under the current program.)

The key recommendations we have developed through conversations with a broad variety of stakeholders and are currently presenting to those in Washington State government agencies and legislature include:

• Dear Friends,Your interest in Backbone’s Community Solar project is deeply appreciated. Believe me, I hate delivering this message, I wish that I was writing to tell you that all the money was raised and we are moving forward, BUT I am not. As a Vermont farmer once told me, “You cannot push the river.” But I am not giving up, just shifting strategy and asking for your support in that decision.I am pushing the “pause” button on our ambitious project, and directing energy toward fixing the state law, so that Vashon and other communities can benefit in the future. I recommend the recent article Community Solar Shouldn’t Be this Hard by John Farrell (Institute for Local Self Reliance) that outlined some of the difficulties frustrating the Backbone Campaign and efforts by other organizers in Washington State. Sierra Magazine also had a great article, Solar for All by Paul Rauber which included our effort and difficulties of organizing such projects in the US.Ironically, as is indicated in the botharticles, we successfully navigated every bureaucratic hurdle placed in front of us. We successfully negotiated a win/win/win contract with King County, the terms of which were approved by the County Council. We successfully developed a solid plan working with the limitations of the State program, and our presentation to investors was clear and thorough. Yet, we were only able to generate about 20% of the applications for investment that we needed to maintain the economies of scale needed to deliver the size array and return on investment worthy of our community investors, i.e. YOU.The scale of the array we proposed merely amplified the shortcomings of the current State program. Through many presentations to groups and individuals, I repeatedly watched people’s eyes glaze over due to the complexity of the State program. Mixing investment with social/environmental good is easier said than done. The decision making process for a donation is much different than that of an investment. As much as we had designed the project to maximize every opportunity, we could not – by law – guarantee a competitive return. Thus, the multiple large $20k and $30k investments we needed never materialized, and there weren’t enough smaller ones to make up the difference. The $70-80k of applications is just not enough to take advantage of the economies of scale we were counting on with a $450k project.

  The lessons are many, but principally they relate to the undue complexity of the state program our project was organized to take advantage of. The good news is that the residential solar component of the State program continues to thrive. The sad reality is, that with more than seven years remaining in the ten year program, very few community projects are likely to be initiated, especially west of the Cascades. The State’s “community solar” program will work for those willing to take some loss, but not for those who need a CLEAR path to a reasonable ROI.

  If you are person who does not require certainty of a return on your investment, believe strongly in the various educational, social and environmental value of distributed, renewable energy production and want to see it get a foothold on Vashon Island, then I strongly recommend that you participate in phase two of the installation at the Harbor School. More information at VashonSolarLLC.com.

  As was true with the Credit Union project (see CUorganizer.org), the Backbone Campaign is not here to do heroic Herculean projects that rely on angels and a wealthy community. Our “local laboratory” projects need to be at least theoretically replicable. Therefore, I have stopped promoting our current plan, and have instead worked with our partners at King County to instigated a dialog amongst stakeholders. The result is a set of recommendations for fixing the “community” element of the Washington State Renewable Energy System Cost Recovery Program, WAC 458-20-273.

  The key recommendations we have developed through conversations with a broad variety of stakeholders and are currently presenting to those in Washington State government agencies and legislature include:
  (Please read the full text of recommendations below.)

  • Create a Rolling 10 year incentive for investors in all projects that qualify.
  • To qualify for the program an automatic transfer of ownership to public host is required. [Depending on when in the term this transfer is made, an additional benefit to the investors is a potential tax deduction for the donation. In trade for the simplified transfer of ownership, the public host could more easily/legally wave rent, assume insurance and maintenance responsibilities.]
  • Change $5k incentive payment per person/household, per year limit to $5k per project, per person, per year. This removes an impossible reporting burden on the utilities, while maintaining some safeguard that WA State tax dollars cycle back into local economies rather than funneling money to out of state venture capital.
  • Make all public and tribal facilities, including colleges qualified hosts

  Contact me if you want to help move these recommendations forward before and during the next legislative session. A small group of committed islanders will be meeting to strategize on January 4. On January 14, I will be presenting our recommendations at the January 14, Solar Washington meeting.

  Again, Thank you for your commitment to aligning our community’s energy production with our values for a sustainable economy end energy infrastructure. I am deeply sorry that I was not able to deliver in the way I had hoped. I hope you will stay with me on the journey forward and work together for the greater good of a policy shift that will enable many more to benefit.

  In gratitude & collaboration,

  Bill Moyer
  Backbone Campaign
  206-408-8058
  c. 206-356-9980

  ---

  
  Introduction to proposed changes to replace/amend the “community solar” program:
  Recommendations presented here are the result of many conversations with a variety of stakeholders in “community solar” efforts across Washington State. Though these ideas are generally supported by a number of stakeholders, these are not officially endorsed by those parties.

  “The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name.” Confucious
  To call things by their proper names is a Confucian virtue, echoed in the movie Into the Wild. When many of us first came across the idea of community solar some years ago, it was because of the work of Gary Nystedt, resource manager for the Ellensburg public utility. Gary created a program for long term ownership of shares in solar systems located on city property by community investors . Virtual net metering, i.e. power generated by each share is credited to the owner’s actual utility bill makes this model simple, clean, easy to understand. In my opinion, the term community solar should be reserved for that model of shared ownership and method for distributing long term benefits to the investors/owners.

  The program spelled out in WAC 458-20-273 includes something it refers to as “community solar,” for which it designates what appears to be the most generous production incentive in the world. But part of the problem is that it isn’t really community solar. Why do I say this?
  

  1. Unlike the Ellensburg project, there is no incentive for long term ownership as all benefits or ROI rely solely on the production incentive scheduled to expire June 30, 2020.
  2. Though it is not forbidden, there is no provision for or requirement for virtual net-metering for the owners, but instead the public host (school, library, retired land fill) receives the benefit of the power generated.
  3. Though not clearly spelled out by the law, the only sensible path after the production incentive expires is to transfer ownership to the public host. After the incentive period ends overhead such as rent, insurance, maintenance, and accounting and other costs consume all economic benefit of the power
     savings.

  The financing and creation of renewable energy installations on public facilities, for long term public benefit is a great cause. But to call it community solar just confuses people, and in the realm of investment for public benefit, complexity and confusion are the enemy. Ideally, this aspect of the State program would be called something like “Citizen Financing of Renewable Energy on Public Facilities for Public Benefit.” When framed as such, a few tweaks to the current program will clarify the goals and rescue the currently named “community solar” component from irrelevance. I distinguish that component from the residential element because it seems that the residential program is more or less ok as is, though simplification may be desirable regardless.

  Changes to the “community solar” element of the program that we propose would retain the current incentive formula to encourage in-State equipment, and the requirement that to benefit from the “Community Solar” doubling of that incentive, the system must be placed on public facility and deliver public benefit through long term power savings for tax-payers. (Note: My use of “solar” is due to our situation and not meant to undermine wind and other renewable generation allowed under the current program.)

  The key recommendations we have developed through conversations with a broad variety of stakeholders and are currently presenting to those in Washington State government agencies and legislature include:

  • Create a Rolling 10 year incentive for investors in all projects that qualify.
  • To qualify for the program an automatic transfer of ownership to public host is required. [Depending on when in the term this transfer is made, an additional benefit to the investors is a potential tax deduction for the donation. In trade for the simplified transfer of ownership, the public host could more easily/legally wave rent, assume insurance and maintenance responsibilities.]
  • Change $5k incentive payment per person/household, per year limit to $5k per project, per person, per year. This removes an impossible reporting burden on the utilities, while maintaining some safeguard that WA State tax dollars cycle back into local economies rather than funneling money to out of state venture capital.
  • Make all public and tribal facilities, including colleges qualified hosts.

  Additional recommendations:
  

  • Allow Dept. of Commerce, WSU, Housing and Finance Commission or other agency to assume administration from Department of Revenue (DOR) on appropriate elements of program.
  • Ensure that Department of Financial Institutions (DFI) involvement is not triggered or involvment minimized, possibly through making shares nontransferable, passing of ownership to host, automatic guaranteed incentives.
  • Eliminate the arbitrary 5% company owned, 25% utility owned, 70% individuals and groups limits on the incentive pool to avoid prorated of incentives in certain categories, while others remain untapped.
  • Lift the current limit of .5% of utility tax burden allotted to incentives so a successful program putting renewable energy on schools, libraries, and public facilities can flourish, not be choked, and is not under threat of having incentives oversubscribed and prorated undermining the guaranteed return.
  • Retroactive decisions, such as those by DOR should not be allowed;
  • All projects in the current program are grandfathered in;
  • That incentive rates are locked for each project and not vulnerable to future prorating or elimination.

  inance Commission or other agency to assume administration from Department of Revenue (DOR) on appropriate elements of program.

• Ensure that Department of Financial Institutions (DFI) involvement is not triggered or involvment minimized, possibly through making shares nontransferable, passing of ownership to host, automatic guaranteed incentives.
• Eliminate the arbitrary 5% company owned, 25% utility owned, 70% individuals and groups limits on the incentive pool to avoid prorated of incentives in certain categories, while others remain untapped.
• Lift the current limit of .5% of utility tax burden allotted to incentives so a successful program putting renewable energy on schools, libraries, and public facilities can flourish, not be choked, and is not under threat of having incentives oversubscribed and prorated undermining the guaranteed return.
• Retroactive decisions, such as those by DOR should not be allowed;
• All projects in the current program are grandfathered in;
• That incentive rates are locked for each project and not vulnerable to future prorating or elimination.

October 15 King County Council approval of Backbone CSP lease agreement
I am happy to report that as we had foreseen, the lease agreement with King County needed only minor edits and was unanimously approved by the King County Council.  There is no obligation to the project to enact the lease, but this milestone was a critical step toward making the Backbone CSP possible.  Final details of an agreement will be determined when we determine the system size.
Read the original article at King County’s website: Council approves Vashon solar project

Council approves Vashon solar project

Panels to be set up at County transfer station

The Metropolitan King County Council today gave its unanimous approval to a partnership that will install solar panels at the Vashon Island Solid Waste Transfer Station to generate energy for the facility.

“Installing solar panels on county property in partnership with local residents is a win-win that promotes renewable energy, facilitates local investment in solar energy technology, and reduces energy costs for King County,” said Councilmember Larry Phillips, chair of the Council’s Transportation, Economy and Environment Committee and co-sponsor of the ordinance. “I hope to see this pilot project lead to expanded opportunities for renewable energy in our region.”

“Today’s vote lays the groundwork for community driven solar projects in our County. I want to thank Backbone Solar for partnering with the County in this innovative program,” said Councilmember Joe McDermott, who represents Vashon and Maury Islands.

“We can work with communities to jump-start local investment in solar energy while saving money and advancing toward our goal to meet half of the County’s energy needs from renewable resources,” said King County Executive Dow Constantine. “Economic development and environmental sustainability go hand-in-hand.”

The adopted agreement between the County and Backbone Community Solar will allow Backbone to lease a 4,000 Square foot portion of the facility. Backbone, a non-profit organization that is involved in sustainability projects, would install solar panels at their expense on the area they’ve leased. The electricity generated by the solar panels would be sold back to Solid Waste at market rates for operation of the site.

The lease payment to the County will be $2,000 per year and shall be used as a credit against any electricity generated and used by King County. For example, if the solar panels generated $2,500 of electricity, King County would simply reimburse the group with difference between the rent and the value of the electricity; in this case $500.

The partnership between the County and Backbone is part of King County’s Community Solar Program. The program was initiated though a motion sponsored by Phillips and adopted by the Council last year. It takes advantage of a state program that provides incentives for citizens to form investment groups and purchase and install solar panels on public property.

Convening Stakeholders for Improvements to the Current Law

I have invested a great deal of time in the last month interviewing stakeholders with interests in the future of solar, community solar, and distributed renewable energy production in Washington State.  Equipment producers, installers, public hosts, utilities, renewable energy advocates, and community organizers across the state have overlapping interests.  Backbone Campaign is working with our King County partner/potential array host to convene a discussion about how the current law and resulting rules can be simplified and improved in the coming legislative session.  State agencies also have an interest in improving the current program due to its current complexity and unrealized potential.

A couple of the ideas that may have “legs” are to:

• Create a rolling 10 year incentive period and automatic donation of system to public host so that program adequately rewards projects with clear public benefit, and the program remains viable even as the current 2020 scheduled end approaches.  This could also remove some of the burden on community organizers to navigate the through the Department of Financial Institutions
• Simplify or remove annual incentive application process, and participant qualification requirements to reduce uncompensated burden on utilities and agencies.

This is complicated work that Backbone did not anticipate when agreeing to champion Community Solar on Vashon Island.  But as John Lennon (and others) said, “Life is what happens to us while we are making other plans.”  Our inquiries and efforts have propelled us into a position to of leadership at a time when that leadership is needed.  As a “Local Laboratory” project, the considerable effort we are expending on this community solar project makes sense to the extent that it results in lessons for others, and its potential to be replicated. A heroic effort that succeeds only due to the privilege of the community and insane tenacity of the organizers is not a model for others.

Please join me at the Vashon Land Trust Building on Thursday, November 1 at 7pm if you want to learn more and join the next phase of this journey.  Or give a call to the office 206-408-8058 or send an email to bill@BackboneCampaign.org

Jerry Henley’s Letter to the Editor
In case you missed it, Backbone CSP investor Jerry Henley’s letter to the editor appeared in the October 3 Beachcomber. We want to personally thank Jerry for his public support and explanation to other community members why he has submitted an application to participate in the Backbone CSP.  We hope it will inspire others to take advantage of this significant opportunity to invest in our values and vision for the future. ~ Backbone CSP

Backbone Campaign provides a great opportunity | Letter to the Editor

OCTOBER 3, 2012 · UPDATED 2:06 PM

The Backbone Campaign deserves some special thanks for all their hard work getting a
community solar project designed and approved to be installed here
on our Island. For people like me who had considered putting solar
on my home but live in an area with many trees, this project is a
perfect way to invest in the alternative energy of solar while
partially fulfilling what I consider my environmental and social
responsibility.

I also like the way Washington state crafted the “opportunity factor” into the law that
created the renewable energy production incentive, thereby keeping
savings and jobs locally while benefiting several local participants
and investors with the project results.

Though it may seem that the solar project return on investment is smaller than hoped, the
truth is that these days, many people’s assets are placed in lower
returning deposit accounts and investments compared to years past.
Being a retired banker, aware of certain global finacial
considerations, it is likely we all will be seeing lower yields for
some time to come.

Backbone’s Community Solar Project offers a way for me to invest considerably less than a
home solar unit would cost yet receive a valuable payback and do
what I believe is a right choice for my grandchildren. And after
all, this plan was never designed as a get-rich scheme to help only
the investor. It was created because concerned people like you and
me believe that it helps to move us towards the correct direction.

I congratulate Bill Moyer and the Backbone team for their effort. I hope those for whom this
matches their values invest in a way that is appropriate for them
and that our community doesn’t lose this opportunity on all the good
work that was done on its behalf.

Count me in!

—
Jerry Henley

We want to update Backbone supporters, fellow Vashon Islanders and potential investors on our proposed Vashon
Community Solar (VCS) project at the King County Transfer Station
on Vashon.

Since late October we have been working with a multi-departmental team at the County. We’ve identified an empty expanse of land north of the Vashon recycling centre as ideal: excellent solar exposure, easy access to the main panel, reasonable security, and no conflicting plans for other usage. The site is large enough to permit installation of the largest size solar array permitted under the legislation, generating up
to 75 kW, and thus will have good economies of scale.

The County have a mandate to increase their use of renewable energy but they have advised that they will only put the effort into installing community solar if it has the potential to be a large-scale, multi-site program. They are in the process of identifying likely sites and devising template agreements that can:

1. be executed as quickly (because of the fixed-term incentive period) as County procedures permit, and
2. apply at every site.

The County must obtain approval for each specific site. The discussions are taking rather longer than we would wish, but the excellent site and the ground-breaking nature of the project keep ‘our eyes on the prize’.

Stay tuned!

with gratitude,

Carol Eggen & Bill Moyer

Vashon Community Solar

(A project of the Backbone Campaign)

The entire meeting with other related testimony is available HERE.

Download the Community Solar Brochure PDF