Abraham Scarr: Illinois lawmakers can cut red tape and make going solar more affordable
'We haven't paid for electricity in years,' said Andrew Hoffman, a retired psychologist who lives in Morton Grove, a suburb just outside Chicago.
Hoffman installed his first rooftop solar panels around 2010, among the first in his neighborhood, and added a second solar array in 2013. 'It's pretty amazing that the sun just powers our lives,' he told Environment Illinois Research & Education Center.
That's the magic of rooftop solar, an energy source Illinoisans can tap into directly. Rooftop solar eventually pays for itself and, thanks to battery storage, can be used to power our homes year-round. And, as a nonpolluting energy source, it helps keep our air clean and our climate stable.
Yet in Illinois, we are tapping only a small amount — 2%, according to 2022 figures — of our potential solar energy generation, despite rapidly falling costs, improvements in technology, favorable tax incentives and growing demand. Increasing the number of homes with solar panels and battery backup systems is a critical component of Illinois' clean energy transition.
One of the major obstacles to unleashing that potential, as detailed recently by the Tribune in its coverage of our recent report, are cumbersome municipal and county permitting procedures that add unnecessary delays and costs to the simplest residential roof project.
Solar installers we spoke to highlighted a range of problems such as having to personally drop off or mail in applications, navigate different safety codes in jurisdictions across the state and deal with slow-moving third parties outsourced to handle applications, who also add costs.
By contrast, instant permitting software such as SolarAPP+ allows local authorities to quickly evaluate and process applications in a safe and streamlined manner. SolarAPP+ was developed by the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory in collaboration with building and safety experts and is offered free to local governments.
Instant permitting will help consumers get their projects done more quickly, cheaply and predictably, while also reducing the time that understaffed towns and cities have to spend on solar permitting. It's a win-win.
Thankfully, Illinois lawmakers are now considering the Residential Automated Solar Permitting Act, sponsored by state Sen. Bill Cunningham and state Rep. Marcus Evans, which would implement instant permitting statewide. The projected benefits to consumers, jurisdictions and the clean energy transition would be tremendous.
According to a recent report from the Greenhouse Institute and the Brown University Climate Solutions Lab, instant permitting could lead to an additional 35,000 to 36,000 home solar roofs in Illinois by 2030 and as many as an additional 300,000 by 2040. Those 300,000 solar roofs could eventually save 30 million to 31 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, the equivalent of shutting down eight coal-fired power plants for a year. In addition, instant permitting could bring down the cost for a family to install solar by as much as $2,100 by 2030 and by more than $4,000 by 2040.
Across the country, around 300 jurisdictions — including Phoenix, Oklahoma City, New Orleans and Houston — are already benefiting from instant solar permitting.
But we'll only get the full benefits and cost savings of this technology if jurisdictions across our state, rather than isolated cities or counties, offer this option. Making the process simpler and more uniform across the board is what is needed to save consumers precious money and time and help unleash rooftop solar across our state.
It's time to remove unnecessary barriers so more Illinoisans can access the benefits of solar power. That's why we're calling on state lawmakers to stand up for consumers and cut red tape by passing the Residential Automated Solar Permitting Act. Together, we can make going solar easier, quicker and cheaper for communities across Illinois.
As Hoffman of Morton Grove told us, rooftop solar feels good, 'not just for your wallet, but for your soul.'
Abraham Scarr is director of the Illinois Public Interest Research Group, better known as PIRG.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: Chicago's Springfield delegation socks it to the city's taxpayers with reckless pension bill
The fiscal hits just keep coming for Chicago, this time courtesy of the city's representatives and senators in Springfield. The latest fiasco played out in the final hours of the General Assembly's spring session, with the passage of legislation sweetening pension benefits for Chicago police and firefighters hired beginning in 2011, the first year of less generous 'Tier 2' benefits ironically meant to help the state and municipalities close their yawning pension deficits. The measure was passed so hurriedly that city officials appeared caught flat-footed and weren't able to say how much the changes will cost Chicago taxpayers over the long haul. Rest assured, though, the tax bill will be substantial. Chicago Chief Financial Officer Jill Jaworski, who lodged her opposition to the bill on behalf of the city shortly before its passage, told senators it would cost the city an estimated $52 million beginning in 2027, its first year in effect. Chicago faces a deficit exceeding $1 billion in 2026 and a similarly daunting hole for 2027. Here's how seriously Springfield took Jaworski's objections: The bill passed unanimously in both chambers. After voicing some opposition in committee, Republicans voted for it on the floor mainly because Chicago's Springfield delegation was in unanimous support. After all, there isn't a single GOP House member or senator from Chicago, and the bill raises taxes in Chicago alone. 'I think a lot in the Republican caucus said, 'Well, if this is what all of the voices representing Chicago want to do, who are we to disagree with them?'' Republican state Sen. Li Arellano Jr. from downstate Dixon told the Tribune. Many Chicago lawmakers will be boasting as we approach yet another campaign season about how they held the line on income and sales taxes in a particularly tight budget year in Springfield. Voters shouldn't be fooled. Every single one of those legislators acted to force inevitable future property tax hikes. Pension contributions are mainly funded by property taxes. Jaworski in her fruitless arguments against the bill called it an 'unfunded mandate.' And indeed it is. Arguments for the measure — which will raise the ceilings for annual pension payments, drive up those annual payouts for many beneficiaries via formulaic challenges in how they're determined, and boost cost-of-living increases — principally relied on fairness. Downstate police and fire retirees got those richer pension changes in 2019 when their disparate pension funds were consolidated. Since then, unions representing Chicago first responders have argued for the same treatment. We understand the desire to reward police officers and firefighters, who especially in the city of Chicago perform dangerous work and deserve our gratitude. But a pension, however sweet, won't be worth much if it helps drive the sponsor — in this case the city of Chicago — into insolvency. As of the end of 2023, Chicago's police pension fund held just 21.7% of the assets needed to meet its current and future obligations. Depressingly, that status was slightly worse than the 21.8% recorded in 2018. The city's firefighters fund was slightly worse off, with 21.6% of the assets required to be considered fully funded. The two funds at year-end 2023 together accounted for about $20 billion of Chicago's total $37 billion in unfunded pension liabilities. Joe Ferguson, president of the Civic Federation, told the Tribune he thought the state legislation would add billions to the two funds' long-term liabilities. With the plans so severely underfunded, just about the last thing rational people would do right now would be to add substantially to their liabilities. But that's what lawmakers just did. And where was Mayor Brandon Johnson in this debate? He and his intergovernmental affairs team seemed to be missing in action when it came to this extraordinarily damaging bill. It's troubling that lawmakers voted unanimously for a measure with such serious fiscal implications — and so little cost analysis. Who other than CFO Jaworski was raising alarms? The Johnson administration has made annual contributions to the city's retirement plans over and above what's required in law through a series of tough budgets. Those taxpayer contributions, well into the billions each year now, make no dent in these pension deficits if officeholders keep moving the goalposts farther away through more generous benefits. Common sense must prevail at some point. As difficult and embarrassing as it would be given the unanimous votes, Johnson ought to ask Gov. JB Pritzker to veto this bill in the interest of negotiating something more reasonable. And if the mayor won't do so, Pritzker should wield his veto pen anyway. Someone — anyone — with the power to do so needs to protect Chicago taxpayers. Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@
Chicago Tribune
7 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Editorial: Chicago's Springfield delegation socks it to the city's taxpayers with reckless pension bill
The fiscal hits just keep coming for Chicago, this time courtesy of the city's representatives and senators in Springfield. The latest fiasco played out in the final hours of the General Assembly's spring session, with the passage of legislation sweetening pension benefits for Chicago police and firefighters hired beginning in 2011, the first year of less generous 'Tier 2' benefits ironically meant to help the state and municipalities close their yawning pension deficits. The measure was passed so hurriedly that city officials appeared caught flat-footed and weren't able to say how much the changes will cost Chicago taxpayers over the long haul. Rest assured, though, the tax bill will be substantial. Chicago Chief Financial Officer Jill Jaworski, who lodged her opposition to the bill on behalf of the city shortly before its passage, told senators it would cost the city an estimated $52 million beginning in 2027, its first year in effect. Chicago faces a deficit exceeding $1 billion in 2026 and a similarly daunting hole for 2027. Here's how seriously Springfield took Jaworski's objections: The bill passed unanimously in both chambers. After voicing some opposition in committee, Republicans voted for it on the floor mainly because Chicago's Springfield delegation was in unanimous support. After all, there isn't a single GOP House member or senator from Chicago, and the bill raises taxes in Chicago alone. 'I think a lot in the Republican caucus said, 'Well, if this is what all of the voices representing Chicago want to do, who are we to disagree with them?'' Republican state Sen. Li Arellano Jr. from downstate Dixon told the Tribune. Many Chicago lawmakers will be boasting as we approach yet another campaign season about how they held the line on income and sales taxes in a particularly tight budget year in Springfield. Voters shouldn't be fooled. Every single one of those legislators acted to force inevitable future property tax hikes. Pension contributions are mainly funded by property taxes. Jaworski in her fruitless arguments against the bill called it an 'unfunded mandate.' And indeed it is. Arguments for the measure — which will raise the ceilings for annual pension payments, drive up those annual payouts for many beneficiaries via formulaic challenges in how they're determined, and boost cost-of-living increases — principally relied on fairness. Downstate police and fire retirees got those richer pension changes in 2019 when their disparate pension funds were consolidated. Since then, unions representing Chicago first responders have argued for the same treatment. We understand the desire to reward police officers and firefighters, who especially in the city of Chicago perform dangerous work and deserve our gratitude. But a pension, however sweet, won't be worth much if it helps drive the sponsor — in this case the city of Chicago — into insolvency. As of the end of 2023, Chicago's police pension fund held just 21.7% of the assets needed to meet its current and future obligations. Depressingly, that status was slightly worse than the 21.8% recorded in 2018. The city's firefighters fund was slightly worse off, with 21.6% of the assets required to be considered fully funded. The two funds at year-end 2023 together accounted for about $20 billion of Chicago's total $37 billion in unfunded pension liabilities. Joe Ferguson, president of the Civic Federation, told the Tribune he thought the state legislation would add billions to the two funds' long-term liabilities. With the plans so severely underfunded, just about the last thing rational people would do right now would be to add substantially to their liabilities. But that's what lawmakers just did. And where was Mayor Brandon Johnson in this debate? He and his intergovernmental affairs team seemed to be missing in action when it came to this extraordinarily damaging bill. It's troubling that lawmakers voted unanimously for a measure with such serious fiscal implications — and so little cost analysis. Who other than CFO Jaworski was raising alarms? The Johnson administration has made annual contributions to the city's retirement plans over and above what's required in law through a series of tough budgets. Those taxpayer contributions, well into the billions each year now, make no dent in these pension deficits if officeholders keep moving the goalposts farther away through more generous benefits. Common sense must prevail at some point. As difficult and embarrassing as it would be given the unanimous votes, Johnson ought to ask Gov. JB Pritzker to veto this bill in the interest of negotiating something more reasonable. And if the mayor won't do so, Pritzker should wield his veto pen anyway. Someone — — with the power to do so needs to protect Chicago taxpayers.
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
LinkedIn's founder says Gen Z graduates are 'enormously attractive' to employers for one reason
The rise of AI has sparked fears that it will cause jobs to disappear. But Reid Hoffman says young people should embrace AI in their job hunt. The LinkedIn founder said knowing how to use AI will make them "enormously attractive" to employers. Reid Hoffman, venture capitalist and the founder of LinkedIn, says young people should use their familiarity with AI as a selling point to potential employers. "You are generation AI. You are AI native. So bringing the fact that you have AI in your tool set is one of the things that makes you enormously attractive," Hoffman said in a video he published on his YouTube channel on Thursday. Hoffman was addressing questions sent in by college students on how they should best navigate the job hunt. Several students had asked Hoffman about AI's impact on their employment prospects. Hoffman said in his video that AI's impact on jobs is a "legitimate worry," but he added that students could try to use it to their advantage. "Look, on this side, it's transforming the workspace, entry-level work, employers' confusion. But on this side, it's making you able to show your unique capabilities. That, you know, in an environment with a bunch of older people, you might be able to help them out," he said. A representative for Hoffman did not respond to a request for comment from Business Insider. The rise of AI has sparked fears that companies could end up hiring fewer staff in the years to come. Last month, the CEO of Anthropic, Dario Amodei, said in an interview with Axios that AI may wipe out half of all entry-level office jobs. In the interview, Amodei said he expects unemployment to rise by 10% to 20% over the next one to five years. "Most of them are unaware that this is about to happen," he said. "It sounds crazy, and people just don't believe it." But not all business leaders agree with Amodei's dire prediction. Jensen Huang, the CEO of chip giant Nvidia, told reporters on the sidelines of VivaTech 2025 in Paris this week that Amodei was wrong. "I pretty much disagree with almost everything he says," Huang said of Amodei. "He thinks AI is so scary, but only they should do it." Huang said that while some jobs would disappear, AI could also create new job opportunities. "Do I think AI will change jobs? It will change everyone's — it's changed mine," Huang said. Mark Cuban had a similar response to Amodei's comments as Huang. The "Shark Tank" star wrote in a BlueSky post last month that AI will create, and not destroy, jobs. "Someone needs to remind the CEO that at one point there were more than 2m secretaries. There were also separate employees to do in office dictation. They were the original white collar displacements," Cuban wrote. "New companies with new jobs will come from AI and increase TOTAL employment," he added. Read the original article on Business Insider
