Some economists did some analysis and modeling of California's solar incentives and came to the conclusion that the incentives didn't actually make much of a difference in how much solar was installed. The reason being that most people who installed solar panels in California in recent years would have done it anyway, even without the incentive. Here's a link to a summary.
Personally, I'm a little skeptical of this result, mostly because it comes from a sophisticated econometric model which isn't well explained in the article. I'd like to see some confirmation before I really believe it (though it's at least plausible).
But if we assume for the sake of argument that the research is right and California's solar incentives didn't make much difference, there's two ways to interpret this:
Take your pick.
Personally, I'm a little skeptical of this result, mostly because it comes from a sophisticated econometric model which isn't well explained in the article. I'd like to see some confirmation before I really believe it (though it's at least plausible).
But if we assume for the sake of argument that the research is right and California's solar incentives didn't make much difference, there's two ways to interpret this:
- California wasted a bunch of money paying for rich people's solar panels, and/or
- Solar is compelling enough in California that people don't need incentive payments, and the industry will grow even without that government support
Take your pick.
Comment