Across the country, houses of worship are going solar | Hacker News Reader

Across the country, houses of worship are going solar

grist.org

25 pointsgeox25 comments

> As of 2021, about 2 percent of houses of worship in the United States have solar systems, according to Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, which the University of California manages for the U.S. Department of Energy. That’s disproportionately high; houses of worship make up only 0.6 percent of all non-residential buildings.

What they meant here was that 2% of solar systems in the United States are on HoW and 1.9% of HoW have solar systems (page 5 of https://live-etabiblio.pantheonsite.io/sites/default/files/h... )

I don't see how this is significant...? So 1.9% of 0.6% of non-residential buildings have PV. Okay, so what? Warehouses, gas stations, parking lots, apartments, campuses... solar is everywhere. Why is it notable that a tiny minority of HoW also have PV? Even if they accounted for, say 3% of all non-residential PV... still, so what?

(Not directed at you, parent poster, just wondering out loud. Like I don't get why this was a study at all, much less what the results signify...)

Doesn't having those numbers available help you ask questions like "why are houses of worship more likely to install solar panels than a warehouse?" which could possibly point towards answers to the question "how can we increase the percent of warehouses that are installing solar panels?" Maybe it doesn't lead to anything (many churches are more motivated by ideals and less motivated by profit than a warehouse) but studying outlier categories even if they're minorities seems like a reasonable thing to do.

Yes, you have a point there, but I think my gripe is that the numbers are so tiny as to be potential rounding errors on an otherwise pretty self-evident hypothesis: that solar subsidies (like direct pay) increase solar installations. We've known that for decades already.

If there were something special about HoW that make them disproportionately susceptible to subsidy-driven PV, that would be an interesting finding... but I don't think you can make that determination on 1.9% of 0.6%.

Still, you have a point. If nobody studied this, we wouldn't know if that was 1.9% of 0.6% or 90% of 50%. And maybe the numbers will change in the coming years, and this gives us a great baseline starting point.

Some people oppose solar panels (and wind farms) purely for aesthetic reasons. Buildings with flat roofs render this a non-issue, but then the lack of a sloped roof means you have to deal with water runoff. I wonder why we don't do roofs in the shaped of a mostly flattened V or W, comprising one or two shallow troughs, which would also ameliorate the need for gutters all the way around. I know sawtooth roofs are a thing, but it doesn't address the aesthetic problem.

I object to lots of aesthetic issues on buildings around me.

How can I use my objections to force the building owners to do what I want rather than what they want? Is there a way, or does it only work for things like solar and wind power?

I know this is only half-serious, but people will often try to use environmental review processes to stop development (both for conservation or just because they don't want something). Especially in California, where the California Environmental Quality Act has a lot of teeth: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/signature-...

Handbook: https://www.califaep.org/docs/2024_CEQA_Statute_and_Guidelin...

PDF pages 348, 50, and cases in the appendix discuss aesthetic impacts.

Anybody can raise these objections about a development (usually during a public comment period), with or without merit, and if enough people do so over enough comments, it can really mire down a project. Even if all the concerns are ultimately dismissed, it forces the developer and agency to spend time evaluating and rebutting them, and sometimes developers will just give up out of frustration and move onto areas with less regulation.

Aha, so the answer is that once something has happened, it's fine. But if a change is proposed, it can be stopped, or at a minimum much more costly and delayed.

What an odd and counterproductive thing for an "environmental" law to do when the very status quo is what must to be changed to protect the environment.

Its intent was to place guardrails/checks and balances around new development that could potentially damage fragile ecosystems. (It's still used this way a lot)

In actual use, though, it's often also (mis-)applied and weaponized by NIMBYs who just hate changes of any sort.

Affirmative (as opposed to preventative) environmental laws also exist, such as the solar subsidies discussed in the article, CAFE (fuel economy) mandates, etc. They're just different.

Anyway, I don't mean to lecture, lol, just point out that sometimes laws can be weaponized against their original intent.

I realize you jest, but this is not a difficult answer.

If your objections are yours alone, then best to move to a very rural area with minimal zoning laws.

If you find like minded individuals, join a HOA with these "issues".

>If your objections are yours alone, then best to move to a very rural area with minimal zoning laws.

If you don't like it, move? Seriously? You also have that option; move to a rural area and put up all the solar power you want.

NIMBY laws can be a burden, but statements like the above make me realize why they have to continue to exist; people will drive you out of your home if you don't go along with their projects.

Why have you posted this as a reply to me? Do you think you're going to get an answer from me to the questions you're asking—and the people you have an issue with?

I would have rather not had my comment here at all if I knew it was going to get this kind of obnoxious "response".

I certainly did not mean to be obnoxious to and I offer my apologies for annoying you.

You seem open to the discussion of aesthetic concerns, but perhaps not the premise that these concerns only seem to matter for solar? Or was it merely the way I made my point? I didn't mean this comment to target you, but the idea of aesthetic concerns being a blocker for buildings, but rereading I could see that it might be ambiguous.

It's a great example of someone thoughtlessly dumping energy into a system in a way that (a) frustrates the people working towards the same thing you are and (b) leaves those you oppose unscathed. I.e. not just annoyingly unproductive but outright counterproductive.

> You seem open to the discussion of aesthetic concerns

I am not. That's why the questions I asked were targeted at crafting a way to sidestep/neuter the aesthetics debate entirely and rendering opposition moot.

Become a landlord, live the dream.

Most flat roofs aren't really flat. They're built with a slight slope, I think it's a 2% slope, or 1/4" for every 12", towards a drain.

My non profit was approached about a direct pay opportunity, and that led me to similar directions and reading up on this law

If there are any wind and solar farm investors/operators looking to get that kind of thing off their books, make the project power producing, and receive some of the direct pay subsidized output, I have a private foundation available for this

email in bio

smart -- this appears to be a good initiative. I have to mention that in California, a non-profit Foundation based at Stanford already made a close legal deal with PG&E, to identify sites and install very high quality equipment at deep discounts, in exchange for long-term binding agreements. The consumer is not paid enough to eliminate the bill, just "close".

The quality of the siting, equipment, strictness and result of the legal agreement, all indicate to me a very carefully built system, not necessarily to the full benefit of the consumer. It may be that a) ad-hoc and disperse efforts like yourself may still be attractive, and b) the market forces are still changing, so better deals for consumers might be possible.

I take the time to write because this is important IMHO.

If the CPUC is going to establish statewide policy on the claim that solar is taking from the poor and giving to the rich... incentivizing non-tax-paying churches is a really bad idea.

Granted, the CPUC's position is untenable. I think any entity should be incentivized to invest in distributed energy generation. But let's not kid ourselves that churches need special carveouts versus residential in the current climate of CA politics.

> incentivizing non-tax-paying churches is a really bad idea

what you're missing is that the federal law allows non-profits to receive direct pay benefits. it is not possible for the federal government to distinguish between types of non-profits, or congress simply didn't even attempt to this time. the entire 500-section tax code is eligible, 501(c)3, 4, 5, 6, 7, private operating foundations, private non-operating/grantmaking foundations, public charities, labor groups, fraternities, religious institutions everything

how we got here: the prior "tax credit" approach was not useful for builders and producers, because organizations in the renewables energy spend so much on operations that there typically isn't a net profit any given year to reduce by a tax credit. simultaneously, Congress and the IRS do a lot to try to reduce fungibility of tax credits. So now the tax credits are useless and the behavior they are intended to incentivize is not done.

so finally, they've come to the conclusion that fungibility is okay but to non-profits, but non-profits also don't have any tax liability to reduce, so they are just going to pay them cash equivalents at rates set by the department of energy.

but churches! okay. we're about to have the greenest megachurches the world has ever seen. and the CPUC? state level predilections aren't really a factor here

there's a perspective where the consumer is not much of a factor at this stage, this is just a push to get modernized renewable infrastructure, and much more of it. its still very likely that the owners of each site will unilaterally price their power at higher rates over time, based on demand growth and competition in that area.

> And, because houses of worship generally don’t pay taxes, they’ve also had trouble capitalizing on renewable energy tax benefits.

Well, there's an easy fix for that but they won't like it.

Reading the article, I believe the number was nearly 2% of Houses of Worship have solar systems and at first glance that seemed kind of low.

Thinking about it more, the number kind of says nothing. Or at least you can't draw any conclusions without a lot more information.

For example, just taking into account a radius of about 2 miles from my home there are 4 churches. All are very old, one is a historic site, none have property (other than maybe a graveyard, but I suspect there'd be complaints) or buildings that would be great for solar (several of the older even have tree issues to contend with). Extend that out and you get two Mega Churches -- one took over a large movie theatre, one was purpose-built as an auditorium with a roof slanted in a manner that might work out well given the position of the sun in our latitude.

The picture they show is of a rural (likely protestant church) -- I suspect these present optimal circumstances, as well, in northern latitudes if they're placed appropriately[0]. It also looks like that's a shiny new roof on that part of the building (possibly an add-on designed to the aesthetic of the adjoining building which will likely get turned into a chapel/event space). Off-hand, I can picture at least two churches in the thumb that have wind turbines on their property[1]. Parts of the thumb are positively amazing from a wind perspective (water on both sides, frequently farms in-between)[2].

I suspect 99% of the reasoning is economical. Churches are complicated beasts. The economics include all of the same lopsided reasons that businesses choose these things along with the weird things churches operating as charities face, like large grants for specific purposes (affecting smaller churches differently than larger[3]). It wouldn't surprise me much if part or whole solar installations aren't being donated in some cases.

If the business provider attends that church, they probably already have a small informal (or sometimes formal) list of businesses they use "because they're honest Christian places." Before the protesting begins about "Honest Christians", it's really more about "This person attends my church implying his personal and professional reputation would be affected if he ripped me off." And if your donation wasn't intentionally anonymous, it'll come with plenty of gratitude from the pulpit and a bronze plaque "or whatever non-tacky thing you want to donate, and maintain, too" indicating that the solar installation was donated by "SunCo" or whatever.

It's an interesting captive audience[4] who is hyper-loyal if you treat them well (for mechanics in my area, it's a ripe market). You tend to get forgiving customers, too. Sometimes repairs go wrong -- I'd jump to "crook", before, and never return. "Seriously, I'm two miles down the road and it's doing it again" ... yes, it's happened with my new mechanic, too. Sometimes a new part causes a failing part to fail and it's not always within the few miles of QA they do after a repair.

But now I just take my car back and "it gets fixed right" (and usually lasts longer than the previous installation).

Back to the hypothetical solar installation. In any market where solar is reasonably hot, if I'm "seriously thinking about solar" but haven't picked a company yet, they shot to the top of my list if they are somewhere near competitive on price. And in the imagined voice of my Mom a decade ago: "They put these solar panels up on our church, but they're not those stupid pink-gold ones, they look really nice!"

... my grand-mother would have complained that they didn't put a Jesus in the middle of the solar cross, or something "Blasphemy!" about it, but every generation evolves.

And some Houses of Worship outright advocate environmental causes. My understanding (from people I used to associate with who were members) of the LDS church is that they encourage various forms of environmentally sound behavior (conservation to the point of canning ... the only 20-year-old bachelor I knew who 'canned'), planting gardens in a sustainable manner. The closest friend of mine who was LDS was the first person I knew with solar panels (really, he had a house with solar panels before many of my peers purchased their first home and he owned it outright in ten years) in our latitude because his goal was to be able to live off the grid and that had something to do with his LDS beliefs (according to him...). I'd imagine you'd have an unusually motivated set of customers.

[0] I don't know anything about solar -- the sun feels like it's directly overhead in the summer, but it at like 70 degrees and 20 degrees in the winter if I'm thinking of the right number and remembering it correctly. I'm not sure what that means for solar positioning, though.

[1] Since this wasn't something I had put much thought to prior to reading this, I am not positive the turbine isn't on the bordering farmland.

[2] There was a map of renewables that had some of the turbines up north -- I know of at least two that aren't on the map as well as a solar installation (both over a decade old but I think the map is pulled from crowd-sourced data/satellite analysis, so I'm not knocking them) but my gut feeling is that there are twice as many as the map indicates. I don't know the economics of it but there must be some money involved to the farmers (and some who feel ripped off) b/c there were some angry road signs.

[3] An accountant at a large church nearby explained to me that there is no point in writing something or another on your check to direct your giving to a particular ministry unless it's a massive amount of money -- they have a set budget per year and if someone gives extra to "Mission Trips", they don't just make the Mission Trip budget bigger -- they balance it against the general fund, so unless you plan to fund the entire category and sprinkle some on top, they'll have the same budget they had last year. And for a large church, they better -- everything is dependent on people; over-funding doesn't make them appear.

[4] My mechanic is well known for handling the cars for everyone who attends (now a handful of local) mega-churches. One year he chose to donate $500 of services to single moms on Mother's Day (fifteen were pre-selected before each service, not a small donation) and if you know the shop, that $500 is $1,000 anywhere else. The first year he did this it took a day to get into his shop. It's been years of him doing that on-and-off, his shop moved to a location four times the size and he still can't keep under a week wait (and I wait, happily -- he's a very honest mechanic that I would not have found outside of that church service).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com