Bribery and Solar

Zero-Sum Game

This is bribery, pure and simple.

Legal, yes, but still, after you strip away the gauze of legitimacy, it still is bribery.

I speak of the $3.7 million in grants over six years the city of Suffolk gave to Unilever, the parent company of Lipton Tea, to stay.

The state, generous as usual, threw in a $1 million grant to sweeten the pot.

That’s $4.7 million in total that government has risked in the hope the plant will stay in Suffolk for the long-term, however you measure the long-term. A year? Ten years?

“Reportedly,” the company “considered relocation offers from Kentucky, North Carolina and South Carolina.”

Reportedly?

In other words, the company decided to leverage the threat of closing down the Suffolk plant by telling city officials it had sweeter offers from other states.

The reasons for Unilever’s decision to shut down the plant in the first place and move production to another plant are obscure.

First, Suffolk bribed Unilever to keep the plant open.

Second, Unilever, a multinational conglomerate, exhorted money from government coffers to offset the cost of taxes on new equipment.

But Suffolk is caught in a vise, as are other cities faced with the same dilemma.

Let the plant shut down and deal with the social and political costs of 300 unemployed workers. Or accede to the company’s demand and keep the plant open – at a significant cost.

No matter how you view it, the city lost its leverage. In fact, it never had any leverage. 

Solar Homes

Forget windmills.

It may be a decade before any of us in Tidewater will see the distant flashes of windmills turning in the wind off the coast.

Let’s go solar instead.

Here’s a chance for cities to show their fortitude.

Lancaster, California, did, and now the town of 155,000 will see solar panels on new homes, beginning in 2014.

Starting on Jan. 1, 2014, all newly constructed single-family homes must include a 1.0 kW solar system at bare minimum, according to a Huffington Post article, citing Mother Nature Network's Matt Hickman. From Mother Nature Network's Matt Hickman:

Here’s a selection from a draft of the ordinance:

"The purpose of the solar energy system standards is to encourage investment in solar energy on all parcels in the city, while providing guidelines for the installation of those systems that are consistent with the architectural and building standards of the City."

Specifically, all newly built single-family family homes on lots larger than 7,000-square-feet must have a 1kW to 1.5 kW system, the article reported. The minimum for rural homes on lots greater than 100,00-square-feet is 1.5 kW.

The homebuilding industry, naturally, wasn’t happy with the city council’s decision to mandate the requirement.

Lancaster has a history of pioneering solar energy.

In 2010, Lancaster partnered with SolarCity to launch a successful solar financing program for homeowners, nonprofits and businesses called Solar Lancaster.

According to Greentech Media, the 1.45-megawatt program will generate $1.5 million annually through 2017 and then $800,000 per year for the next 20 years.

The program includes not only private homes and businesses but also city hall, the Lancaster Performing Arts Center, Clear Channel Stadium, churches and schools, the article said.

So could it happen here?

Not in a state that penalizes hybrid car owners with a $100 fee.