So if you believe that the government is getting some tangible value out of rooftop solar being widespread then you need to account for that value as well as the value for the homeowner.
This looks like lending for non-commercial project; there are guaranteed to be better uses of the money than this scheme even if it is going to end up as welfare. They could even end up with more money for these people and still get solar panels installed by deferring the purchase for 10 years.
A much better alternative plan is ban coal, wait until electricity prices jump so high that the panels generate a 5-8% rate of return, then install them. Which is a terrible plan, but better than what they seem to be doing here based on one admittedly rather detail-light sentence.
When did this become a factor?!
> better alternative plan is ban coal
In Pennsylvania? This is how you get solar banned.
Spivak's comment justified pump installations because of positive externalities. Which is a good justification; but as far as I know nothing similar exists for $150 million of spend on solar panels. Is there a benefit here I can't see? Do these panels protect against storms or something?
> In Pennsylvania? This is how you get solar banned.
Possibly. It is still a better plan than what the article suggests. Buying these panels looks like a mistake from all the angles I can think of. If Pennsylvania's legislature has the numbers and view that it worth making uneconomic decisions for these households there isn't a good reason to leave the non-renewable sources of power operating. In the converse, if they don't have the number or the view then they just shouldn't be making uneconomic spending decisions when they could give the people involved the money as welfare, but more of it.
This appears superficially like it is an unprincipled position that creates no particular benefits but in a wasteful way. Maybe it isn't, but if it isn't it'd be helpful if someone outlined why not.
This seems like a mistaken use of funds. A 5% rate of return suggests that the scheme should be saving something like $400 million to really be cost effective. These people would be better off if they were just given $156 million in 20 year US government bonds which as I recall yield about 5%. Productive users of the money would probably often even higher yields! Then the recipients of this largess could buy their own solar panels if they want and have money left over.
If someone can't afford solar panels on their own then making bad financial decisions on their behalf doesn't seem like much of an improvement. Cash is a great help to people without much money.