default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
Logout|My Dashboard

Lodi Unified School District launches solar energy project

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Thursday, March 17, 2011 6:51 am | Updated: 5:04 pm, Thu Mar 17, 2011.

The Lodi Unified School District broke ground Wednesday on a multi-campus solar energy system.

The $9.95 million project, funded by federal stimulus incentives provided by the Qualified Energy Conservation Bond, includes four solar systems mounted on parking lot canopies at McNair and Bear Creek high schools, Christa McAuliffe Middle School and the Lodi Unified School District office.

Subscription Required

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login now

Need an online subscription?



You must login to view the full content on this page.

Thank you for reading 20 free articles on our site. You can come back at the end of your 30-day period for another 20 free articles, or you can purchase a subscription at this time and continue to enjoy valuable local news and information. If you need help, please contact our office at 209-369-2761. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login now

Need an online subscription?



Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.


  • Jerry Bransom posted at 8:01 pm on Fri, Mar 18, 2011.

    Jerry Bransom Posts: 364

    Well I am not sure there are actually any "green energy alternatives" as long as the consumer listens to what the Power Company is telling them. But I am puzzled at where the matching money is coming from. Most of the time, on Rebate Projects, you have to put up about 70% of the cost as the Federal Incentive for Tax Credits is only 30%. Unusual for a School District so poor that they have to layoff teachers.

  • Doug Chaney posted at 10:42 am on Fri, Mar 18, 2011.

    Doug Chaney Posts: 1232

    The same practice goes with Lodi electric. General mills and the other "big 6" companies in Lodi receive their power for less than cost and at the end of the month have excess, which they then sell back to literally either profit or pay little for power, thanks to deals brokered by the likes of council Hansen, chairman of the board for the NCPA, and a major player in LEUD's decisions, that cost residential ratepayers plenty in high rates to subsidize the large corporations, who are also some of the biggest energy wasters in Lodi. The companies are the one that should be paying higher rates for their wastefulness and unwillingness to conserve or convert to green energy alternatives.

  • Kevin Paglia posted at 7:38 pm on Thu, Mar 17, 2011.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2106

    Yeah, I'm usually the one who is toting the advantages of solar and alternative power but something is wrong here. Spending 10 to save 5? Only in government can this sound like a good idea. I keep trying to look at it from different perspectives to see if there is something we just aren't seeing but I can't quite see it yet. Most solar systems usually pay for themselves in ten to fifteen years, not 50 years. Someone is getting fleeced and someone is making second home money on this deal.

    This "deal" needs to be better explained or halted until the money trail can be explored.

  • Jerry Bransom posted at 5:23 pm on Thu, Mar 17, 2011.

    Jerry Bransom Posts: 364

    No.. your Math is correct. I have done a few of these. What you need to do is see which lawmaker or local politician has commercial interests in Solar Power. Another surprise for all of you... as more of these go in, power prices will continue to rise. Why? Because they still need the same amount of people to maintain the wires and equipment yet they will be getting less revenue as solar increases. The Scam is that people are selling it BACK to PGE. Therefore the only change is the direction of the electricity supply. True Solar is a Battery Bank and Inverter. i.e. complete independence. Otherwise, its just another scam like Wind Energy that uses $0.25/kw turbines to generate $0.04/kw of electricity (thanks to the $0.21/kw taxpayer subsidy).

  • Craig Cawelti posted at 12:25 pm on Thu, Mar 17, 2011.

    Craig Cawelti Posts: 36

    Todd, I did the math and came up with the same results. The article does't say if there will be rebates given back by the Lodi Electric Utility or PG&E, which would be interesting to know. The things that I see in this article is that Cupertino Electric (not from this area) will be the recipient of a huge winfall from this. The solar system and installation will cost less than half the installed price. And the though you said that it's "Federal money", the fact of the matter is that it's OUR tax dollars that are being used for this frivolous expenditure. We should demand more for our tax dollars than a potential 5 million dollar rip off.

  • Betty Dean posted at 9:53 am on Thu, Mar 17, 2011.

    Betty Dean Posts: 144

    This is Rediculas, and dosent surprise me a bit! Why dont they just go and make sure that all the lights, Computers, Plug ins, lamps, are turned OFF during the 2 week break???

    And then have the Teachers shut everything DOWN EVERY DAY!!!! That would save a TON of money.
    Stop spending all this money!! @ Todd, I am sure she got a nice stipend!!!

  • Todd Oesterman posted at 9:04 am on Thu, Mar 17, 2011.

    Todd Oesterman Posts: 18

    I thought this would be a great idea . . . and then I did a little math based on information from the article. So, if I understand correctly, the system costs about $10 million and it saves about $200,000 annually over 25 years ("life of the equipment") which comes out to about $5 million in total "savings". . . does that mean the whole project loses a total of $5 million ? What the . . . ? Now I'm all for "green energy" and I know it's federal money, there for the taking, but is it money well spent? My fellow citizens, if we wanted to burn $200,000 a year over the next quarter century, why not hire another district superintendent?



Popular Stories



Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists