North Carolina and South Carolina residents have been comparing themselves since the two colonies split in 1729. In recent years, the two states have begun striving to increase investment in renewable energy sources, specifically solar energy, and comparing the two states demonstrates a dichotomy of policy. The two states have taken drastically different paths in hopes of increasing investment in solar energy and to date the states have seen vastly different results. Each states’ policy has pros and cons with portions of the policy working and portions failing. This paper attempts to explain the differences in the policies of the two states, compare the results and ultimately suggest opportunities legislators can utilize to improve public …show more content…
This ranks the state second behind only California. Almost 400,000 homes owners have installed solar panels on their homes and approximately 3.25% of electrical energy in the state comes from solar. Total investment in the state tops $5B dollars.
Results in South Carolina
As of 2016, there are 144 MWs of solar installations in South Carolina. This ranks the 27th amongst the states. Only 16,000 homes owners have installed solar panels on their homes and less than 1% of electrical energy in the state comes from solar. Total investment in the state is almost $300 million.
Policy Improvement Opportunities Solar polices in both North Carolina and South Carolina have pros and cons. The goals were similar, increase investment in the state and incentivize early investment in renewable energy. States wishing to maximize these efforts, but limit the length of time for incentives should adopt a three-part strategy.
1. Establish and authorize a value-of-solar methodology and calculation
2. Limit subsidies using appropriate safety levers
3. Maximize incentives early, with an agreed upon exit
…show more content…
The results were exceptional. However, without safety levers and exit ramps, the industry seemed to get away from legislators. This caused disruption and confusion amongst stakeholders as the law was being changed or reconfigured. Since the goal is adoption and investment, states ought to incentivize early adopters and developers. Creating a first adopter strategy on tax incentives would be beneficial. This can be hard, but the state tax agency could give out guarantees with penalties for developers. The rule would work something like