As an Arizona native, I’m very familiar with residential solar panels, which are a common sight on the rooftops of Phoenix-area homes. Whether or not solar power can become a viable industrial option for large-scale, cost-effective energy production is an interesting question worth pursuing. But there might be storm clouds ahead for solar, in the form of wildlife advocates. Last week, California PG&E announced it has signed a deal to buy electricity to be produced by two photovoltaic power plants. The plants will require massive amounts of land. From Fortune magazine:

With the PV plants, PG&E now has contracts to obtain 24 percent of its electricity from renewable sources.

But contracts are no guarantee the even a watt will be generated. The Topaz and California Valley projects must overcome a number of obstacles, not the least of which is the U.S. Congress’ failure so far to extend a crucial 30 percent investment tax credit for solar projects that expires at the end of the year. SunPower’s Blunden acknowledges the PG&E project is contingent on the tax credit being renewed.

PG&E executive Fong Wan said as much at a press conference Thursday afternoon: “That is a major hurdle. If the investment tax credit is not extended, I expect many of our projects will be delayed.”

Then there’s the question of how welcoming rural San Luis Obispo County residents will be to two massive solar power plants in the neighborhood. Along with a 177-megawatt solar thermal power plant being built by Silicon Valley startup Ausra for PG&E adjacent to the Topaz project, the county has become a solar hot spot. Ausra has run into some community opposition and state officials are growing concerned about the impact of the power plants on protected wildlife.

“The challenge is going to be the magnitude of these projects,” says Tisdale, the energy analyst. “Other projects are already facing opposition from the environmentalists.”

One thing is indisputable. The need for low-cost energy is vital to the prosperity of this country. That’s why the Locke Foundation continues to monitor and challenge the assumptions and proposals being considered by North Carolina’s Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change (LCGCC). There are costs and benefits to every public policy. The LCGCC is charged with the task of investigating costs and benefits but, to date, has instead focused on building a case for CO2 reduction policies. North Carolinians deserve a full and accurate review of science and economic impact before any policies are adopted.