A new report from The Greenlining Institute, an public research and advocacy organization out of California, suggests that electric vehicles are not benefiting poor communities, specifically communities of color where incomes aren’t that high.The study, titled “Electric Vehicles – Who’s Left Stranded?”, shows that the overwhelming majority of electric car and hybrid owners are white people with an annual income of over $75,000, and that because electric vehicles are so concentrated, the potential impact on air quality is not as beneficial as it could be if the cars were adopted by a wider variety of drivers in more neighborhoods.

According to The Greenlining Institute, non-whites represent roughly 60% of the population in California. This factoid showcases an issue – if EV sales are similarly concentrated in white and relatively affluent areas, communities most in need of the environmental benefits from these vehicles won’t get them. The report, however, says education about range concerns, charging stations, and how to best take advantage of the smart meter and smart grid off-peak charging rates is needed as well to teach those in lower income communities about the benefits of the technology.

Although California recently announced new green car rebate incentives, the study notes that the future of federal and state subsidies for electric vehicles is uncertain, and the removal of those programs will further hinder purchasing ability in poorer communities. Because of the high personal cost of owning an electric car, The Greenlining Institute says more efforts should concentrate on cleaner public transit and car sharing fleets, which would have a broader impact on air quality.

A longer form preview of the report as a 12-page PDF document is available to download on the organization’s website.

Think green, and a few thoughts come to mind, like how Green energy sources and new popular gas saving cars are picking up speed to help the world breathe a little easier in the future.

When public policy advocate CC Song thinks Green, she  also ponders pollution, and how it hurts the nation’s urban core more than its suburbs, or how most

Blacks and Latinos can hardly get approved for old gas hogs, let alone pricey new electric cars.

But as hybrids are deployed where most companies fail to go — the inner cities — it will drastically reduce smog, improve health and create jobs.

C.C. Song, a green assets fellow at the Greenlining Institute in Berkeley, said electric cars must become affordable for people who need them the most, such as communities that live around highways and power plants and other polluting sources.

While getting an electric car in every American driveway is one goal, it’s not likely to happen anytime soon. Technology is expensive.

In their latest report, “Electric Vehicles: Who’s left Stranded?” the Greenlining Institute reports that in California, 73% of  whites, 19% of Asians and only 8% of Latinos could afford the car, with no significant representation of Black ownership.

Citing the Department of Transportation for 2009, the group also found that 92% of electric car owners earned $75,000 or more a year.

She said that jobs must also be targeted in communities that suffer the worst pollution and worst unemployment. The group is calling for more investment and more diverse community outreach.

“If they can’t afford the car, can we at least give them experience and feel they have ownership over some of the jobs?  When they are ready to make purchases they will be able to,” Ms. Song said.

Investment in clean public transit is another important move for those most hurt by pollution.

On the horizon, she sees increased jobs in grid infrastructure. Switching to hybrids will require installers for public battery chargers, repair and maintenance.

Long Beach is inundated with highways, truck pollution, and countless other industrial sources. Next door, Wilmington has numerous oil refineries and is home to some of the highest asthma and cancer rates in the state.

“All of those reasons combined, electric vehicles is definitely one of the pieces that can help,” Ms. said.

This week, the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are trying out the latest technology with the world’s first and only zero-emission hydrogen fuel cell-electric Class 8 truck. The electric truck, a pilot run for Total Transportation Services Inc., comes by way of Vision Industries Corp., with pure water as its only byproduct.

“Today we celebrate the birthplace of the hydrogen economy and zero-emission transportation,” said Martin Schuermann, Chief Executive Officer of Vision Industries. “This partnership between the ports and private industry has brought tangible results that will lead to cleaner air and green jobs in California.”

If everything goes as planned, TTSI intends to pay roughly $27 million for 100 vehicles, possibly buying another 300 trucks in the future.

“The ports can play a role in developing and testing this new technology through our Technology Advancement Program. This is a promising and exciting new technology,” said Susan E. Anderson Wise, Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioner President. “We’re all looking forward to seeing how it performs on the docks.”

In the past ten years, environmental groups and local residents had a big part to play in the new clean plan.

They have fought bombardment of emissions from trucks, ships and trains, heavily hit communities living next to the ports. During that time, study from the Air Quality Management District confirmed the community’s fears, that diesel pollution increased cancer and asthma rates.

The National Resources Defense Council brought a series of successful lawsuits, resulting in both ports realizing that they couldn’t grow as long as the community stood in strong opposition, said Morgan Wyenn, project attorney with NRDC.

She said those lawsuits effectively stopped the ports from being able to grow for seven years.

“We kept winning, and they kept losing and they weren’t able to do their infrastructure projects until they knew that we would stop suing them,” she said.

Out of that effort, and with strong community involvement, in 2006 both ports jointly developed their Clean Air Action Plan to reduce emissions over time. One of the measures was a clear commitment to move toward zero-emissions.

“I would definitely say the litigation by NRDC with the support of the local community years ago is what got both ports to get on the ball and finally do this,” she said. “It seems the delivery of this new hydrogen fuel cell is all of the result of that effort. It’s great.”

I hate to generalize but think about it, when was the last time you heard any one of your black friends hype up a Prius, a Nissan Leaf or any other environmental-safe automobile?  You haven’t. And as much as we complain about the rising cost of gas, unfortunately, environmentally conscious vehicles and black folks just don’t seem to be mixing right now. But is this really just a black thing?

According to recent research, it just might be.  The Greenlining Institute released a report on hybrid and electric vehicle, or EV, usage among California residents and discovered that 70% of hybrid owners in California are white, even though the overall state population is 60% non-White.  Likewise, only 20% of hybrid owners are Latinos and even fewer are African-Americans. The researchers have concluded that lack of enthusiasm from people of color in the alternative fueled vehicle revolution has to do with a combination of cost, education and attainability.

Initially, I thought that this might be the case. Previously research has shown that African-Americans still lag in environmental advocacy, although they are most likely to be effected by environmental issues.  However, even as President Obama has called on the general American citizenship, along with automakers, to embrace the electric car, and become less dependent on oil, the reality is that hybrids only represented approximately 2.5 percent of the overall market in 2010, equating to only 28,592 vehicles. So the meme of black and brown people’s being the only ones not driving off into a pollution-free sunset doesn’t quite fit.

Nevertheless, we can’t simply ignore that for whatever reason, EV have a lack of appeal in our communities. So I decided to do an informal and very unscientific poll on my Facebook wall and ask some very smart people, why are Black & Brown folks generally opposed to stuntin’ in an EV or hybrid?

First and foremost was the concern about the overall cost of the vehicle.  A 2011 Prius ranges from $23,225 to $30,700 while a 2011 Honda Insight will run you around $33,000. Even with the $7,500 federal tax credit, these vehicles are not exactly priced to move.  Moreover, the lack of recharging stations in urban areas combined with the cost of regular maintenance and up-keep, which requires ordering special parts from the dealer, pretty much diminishes whatever practical values the vehicle may offer for the everyday user. However, it can’t all be about cost considering that a Cadillac Escalade is almost double the price of a Prius and the average owner will spend about $100 filling up at the pump.  Yet still there is no shortage of Caddy trucks, and other gas-guzzlers, in the ‘hood.  And rarely – if ever – have we seen a basketball player, hip-hop artist, actor or other Black folks of means stepping out of a Chevy Volt.

And another one of my Facebook friends pointed me in the direction of this study, done by the Strategic Visions, which suggested that pride and individuality are key aspects in an African American’s choice of vehicle. Call it the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Need of car buying but according to this study, African-Americans tend to see themselves as strong, very successful and highly motivated.  Likewise, they seek out traits in a vehicle that tends to reflect this strong sense of self-esteem.

Unfortunately for vehicles like the Prius, the Chevy Volt and the Nissan Leaf, the overall design doesn’t seem to denote high strength and high self-esteem.   In short, A Prius with its bugged-eyes and hunched-back are aesthetically challenged.  Technically, it is not really the vehicle-makers fault as the body on the Prius has to be shaped that way to package the battery inside the passenger compartment behind the rear seat to keep the battery cool.  However, for drivers, particularly African-American, who see a vehicle as an extension of our personality, driving around in a Prius just doesn’t seem to promote the images as successful and strong as a Mercedes or a BMW.

Now whether or not you agree with black people’s motivations is irrelevant. Because we are consumers, we shouldn’t have to conform to a product but rather a product should conform to us. However, if the EV and hybrid makers can’t find a way to change the design of the vehicle or manage to bring the upfront cost down of owning one, I’m afraid that this EV revolution might be passing us by – that is until somehow manufacturers can convince Rick Ross to squeeze in a plug and make a song called Prius Music.

Asians and Latinos in California are widely worried about air pollution and climate change, yet they are among the least likely to own hybrids or electric cars.

C.C. Song

The demographics of hybrid vehicle purchasers in California may be a predictor for future buyers of electric cars. If so, says C.C. Song, Green Assets Fellow at the Greenlining Institute in Berkeley, that doesn’t bode well for the residents of communities of color.

As shown in these graphs (taken from the Greenlining Institute’s Report, Electric Cars: Who’s Left Behind?)  concerns about air pollution are higher  among ethnic subgroups in California. But at the same time, the owners of non-polluting

vehicles tend overwhelmingly to be white. Read the full report here.

Who will own the electric car?

A new report on electric cars released by The Greenlining Institute — “Electric Vehicles: Who’s Left Stranded?” — says the cost of the vehicles, plus the potential inconvenience of charging them, could keep these cars out of minority communities that have some of the worst smog problems in the state.

“There’s the message and there’s the messenger,” said the Greenlining Institute’s C.C. Song, lead author on the report. “The marketing just doesn’t reach to these communities. People of color, growing up, the cool cars are the Mercedes, the Lexus,” she added.

The report calls on companies selling electric cars to do more marketing to minorities, for government policymakers to make information more easily available about the benefits of the electric cars and for environmental groups to target minority communities that cast pollution as a social justice issue.

Song said that this came home to her recently when she was talking to a woman in her late 40s, an affluent professional involved in the environmental movement. But she thought of electric vehicles as something out of her price range, but was surprised that an all-electric Nissan Leaf would cost $33,000, with tax breaks making the real cost closer to $20,000.

To some, an economic bias in electric vehicle sales may be found in a bill widely supported by environmental groups. That bill, SB 209 by state Sen. Ellen Corbett, D-San Leandro, was signed by Gov. Jerry Brown on July 25. It is designed to make sure that condominium developments offer sufficient electric charging access for residents who are asking for it. There’s nothing in the bill, however, about rental units or apartment complexes.

Song said that economic and racial issues are factors in the study, For example, the awareness of the advantages of electric and hybrid vehicles lags among middle-class people of color in California, where whites make up 42 percent of the population but are 69 percent of hybrid buyers.

The electric vehicle market is still tiny. Through the first six months of this year, combined sales of the Nissan Leaf and Chevy Volt nationwide totaled fewer than 7,000 cars.

So far, the sales figures seem to be following the trends established by hybrids. According to 2009 research from the federal Department of Transportation, whites bought 73 percent of electric vehicles sold in California. Ninety-two percent of these cars were sold to people making $75,000 or more a year.

To supporters of electric and hybrid cars, clean and efficient vehicles have a cool factor that trumps the economic arguments. In general, these cars came with a higher initial sticker price than comparable all-gas models, with the owner making up much of the difference in fuel costs over several years.

Song noted that it’s a mistake to equate “minority” with “lower income,” noting that the disparity is mainly seen among middle and upper middle class minority residents. This disparity is particularly seen in the growing Latino middle class. Latinos make up 39 percent of California residents but comprise only 19 percent of hybrid buyers.

Cost, not philosophy, appears to be a factor here: A Los Angeles Times/University of Southern California survey from last year found that 72 percent of Asian Americans and 85 percent of Latinos said that they were very concerned about air pollution.

That same poll found that about half of these groups said they were concerned about global warming. Among whites, some 61 were concerned about air pollution and 27 percent said they were worried about global warming.

The Greenlining report projects that by 2015, a million electric vehicles will have been sold nationwide, and suggests that it’s imperative to get minority communities engaged in purchasing. California is the single biggest market for cars — there are seven million vehicles registered in Los Angeles County alone — and also has several cities that rank among the worst for smog in the country.

Communities Most in Need of Clean Air May Benefit Least, Advocates Fear

BERKELEY – A new report to be released Wednesday by The Greenlining Institute, the first ever to examine the impact of electric vehicles on communities of color, raises serious questions about whether EVs will have the needed impact on the communities most in need of clean air, within California and nationwide. Cost and lack of consumer education, the report argues, may blunt EVs’ impact in the communities that need them the most.

“Electric vehicles will do little to clean the air if the only people buying them are in Malibu and Marin,” said report author C.C. Song, green assets fellow at The Greenlining Institute. “We all want cleaner air and less use of fossil fuels, and electric vehicles and strong mileage standards can play a big part, but communities of color – 60 percent of California’s population – may miss out on the benefits of electric cars.”

Among the report’s findings:

• Polls have shown Californians of color to be more concerned about air pollution than whites, making them a natural market for EVs and hybrids.
• Despite this, 70 percent of hybrid owners are white, which does not bode well for widespread adoption of EVs in communities of color.
• Affordability remains a major concern, and the long-term future of federal and state tax incentives and rebates is uncertain.
• Creative efforts will be needed to increase EV market penetration in communities of color, including education about how the “smart grid” can help minimize charging costs.
• Because EVs will likely be unaffordable for many Americans for some time, clean air efforts must include a variety of other strategies, including strengthened public transit and car-sharing programs for low-emission vehicles.

Journalists can preview the report Electric Vehicles Report

In the backyard of the Tesoro and Valero refineries in Wilmington, California lives a thriving community that has been fighting back against the oil giants for years. Because of Proposition 23, attention has finally been brought to local residents who wake up to see the refineries’ smoke day after day.

Jasmine Cortez, a senior at nearby Banning High School, told the stories of her asthma attacks at a news conference held on October 14 at nearby Veterans Park.  “Growing up in Wilmington, I never knew I had asthma until 10^th grade when I had an asthma attack on a hiking trip,” Cortez said.  On the way up the trail, she found breathing getting more and more difficult, and eventually she began wheezing and tearing up.

“No one knew what to do with me,” Cortez said.  “I felt like I almost died.”  After that, she didn’t go on as many hiking trips, even though she loves outdoor activities.  When she does go hiking, she makes sure to bring an inhaler, and she pays careful attention to her breathing pattern.

Cortez’ story is common in Wilmington.   At a sign-making party the night prior to the news conference, almost every high school student had a story about asthma, about a family member with cancer, and missed school and work days.

These stories are the real face of Proposition 23: illnesses caused or worsened by air pollution.  Wilmington and its Long Beach Harbor region neighbors host a wide range of refineries, and local residents hope that one day these pollution-belching facilities will be replaced by clean energy generation and healthy jobs.

After the news conference, residents and students marched along Pacific Coast Highway to the Tesoro refinery, the largest refinery in Wilmington. Wilmington resident Kat Madrigal named all the refineries—not just Valero and Tesoro—as the plants’ flares blended into the clouds.  “Not sure if you can see the orange plant over there, but that’s supposed to be a pumpkin.  If you go there on Halloween, they’d give you candy.  But what about the cancer they gave us?”

Madrigal said that Tesoro and Valero have poured money into projects like the Global Environmental Science Academy in an attempt to silence local opposition.  In August, Tesoro also hosted a family picnic day, and around 75 residents came and protested the community-friendly façade Tesoro put on.

Oil giants telling Californians we must choose between old industrial jobs and a healthy environment.  But Californians have already made a win-win decision in 2006: We want both green jobs, and a better environment where children don’t have to carry inhalers while hiking.

State Assemblyman Warren Furutani, who represents the region in Sacramento, stressed the benefit of green jobs at the news conference.  “Maybe some jobs that create pollution will be lost, but they will be replaced by double and triple the number of green jobs.”  And these jobs are what Californians need, and what Wilmington residents are waiting for.

The news conference was organized by The Greenlining Institute, Communities for Better Environment, Coalition for a Safe Environment and the Wilmington Wire, with the support of Communities United Against the Dirty Energy Proposition. We’re all determined to help communities like Wilmington and stop the Texas oil companies from attacking the health of our citizens.

Lo están haciendo otra vez: De nuevo, los intereses especiales están tratando de arrebatar la iniciativa de ley en la boleta de California para enriquecerse a costa de nuestras comunidades.

Dos grandes compañías petroleras están gastando grandes cantidades de dinero para matar la creciente economía verde de California y los cientos de empleos que esta economía ha creado. Prepárense para las mentiras que se esparcirán rápido y recuerden quién está detrás de ellas.

Las palabras “Petróleo texano’” deberían darnos escalofríos a los californianos. Todos hemos presenciado las aterradoras imágenes provenientes de la costa del Golfo – las aves muertas, las playas manchadas de petróleo, y los miles de negocios en el ámbito de la comida marina que han sido eliminados.

Y ahora las grandes compañías de petróleo (Valero Energy y Tesoro Corporation de San Antonio) están diciendo que nos quieren proteger y salvar empleos en nuestras comunidades… Seguramente.

Podemos apostar que van a dirigir todo su falso discurso de “protejamos los empleos” hacia los latinos y africano-americanos, cuyas cifras de desempleo han estado corriendo tres o cuatro puntos porcentuales por encima de los caucásicos.

Pero la iniciativa de ley de las compañías petroleras texanas (la propuesta 23 en la boleta electoral de noviembre) no va a proteger los trabajos en nuestras comunidades; más bien los va a eliminar. Va a estrangular el sector económico de la energía renovable, que además representa en California el sector con mayor crecimiento, justo cuando este comienza a despegar.

La industria de la energía renovable está creciendo con mayor velocidad en California que en cualquier otro estado, gracias en parte a A.B. 32, La Ley para Solucionar el Calentamiento Global, que compromete a nuestro estado a moverse en una dirección hacia una economía más saludable y más limpia.

Para los negocios que quieren equipar hogares para ser eficientes en su uso de energía, producir paneles solares, o construir vehículos eléctricos, la ley ha otorgado certeza de que habrá un mercado creciente para sus productos y servicios. Y ellos, a su vez, han respondido creando más de 500,000 nuevos trabajos, según el Departamento Nacional de Desarrollo, incluyendo 93,000 en el sector de la manufactura y 68,000 en construcción.

Y A.B. 32 está escrita para asegurar que nuestras comunidades obtengan una buena fracción de estos empleos. Específicamente señala que las agencias estatales deben “dirigir la inversión directa pública y privada hacia las comunidades más en desventaja de California y proveer de oportunidades a los negocios pequeños, las escuelas, las asociaciones de vivienda accesible, y otras instituciones comunitarias, para así participar y beneficiarse de los esfuerzos estatales para reducir las emisiones de gases con efecto invernadero”.

Desde que la ley fue instituida, la inversión de tecnología limpia en California se ha disparado, y ahora excede la de todos los otros estados combinados. Una nueva economía que puede impulsar a nuestras comunidades está naciendo, aquí y ahora. Este es el único sector de nuestra economía que ha estado generando empleos constantemente durante la recesión.

Y a los gigantes petroleros tejanos y el resto de la industria de la energía sucia no les gusta esta idea. Escribieron la Proposición 23 para matar la legislación antes de que avance más. La iniciativa 23 alega solamente “suspender” nuestra ley de energía limpia, pero de hecho, hacen casi imposible que la ley surta efecto. Muchos de estos trabajos de energía limpia simplemente van a desaparecer.

Pero no es solamente acerca de los trabajos. Es también sobre nuestras vecindades, el aire que nuestros niños respiran, y el ambiente en el que todos vivimos.

Es bien sabido que en las vecindades de minorías existe el aire más contaminado, en parte por las instalaciones contaminantes como refinerías petroleras y plantas de producción de energía que están conglomeradas en estas áreas. Estos conglomerados aparecen en varias partes del estado, incluyendo el área de Wilmington —Carson área en el condado de Los Ángeles— señalado el año pasado por Communities for a Better Environment (Comunidades por un Mejor Medio Ambiente) como “un claro ejemplo de injusticia ambiental, donde una comunidad de color, en un espacio socioeconómicos bajo, es impactada desproporcionadamente por múltiples instalaciones contaminantes”.

Al estrangular los esfuerzos para separarnos del petróleo y otras fuentes de energía contaminantes, La Propuesta 23 garantiza que nuestros hijos continuarán respirando aire contaminado por décadas.

Entre hoy y noviembre, las grandes petroleras nos van a tratar de convencer de votar contra nuestras propias comunidades con falsas alegaciones de “protección a nuestros trabajos”, y gastarán millones de dólares para hacerlo. La manera real de proteger nuestros empleos —y nuestro aire, y nuestros niños— es diciendo un fuerte NO a las compañías petroleras de Texas y NO a la Proposición 23.

Contact: Bruce Mirken, Greenlining Institute Media Relations Coordinator, 510-926-4022; 415-846-7758 (cell)

Greenlining Joins Growing Opposition to Texas Oil Company Measure

BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA – The Greenlining Institute has joined the swelling ranks of opposition to Texas oil companies’ dirty-energy proposal, now known as Proposition 23 on the November ballot.

“As an organization devoted to economic opportunity for communities of color and low-income Californians, we can state unequivocally that Prop. 23 would be a disaster for our communities,” said Greenlining Institute Executive Director Orson Aguilar. “Texas oil companies are pushing this measure to protect their profits, knowing it will be a job-killer.”

Proposition 23, which would suspend California’s landmark Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32), is being sold as a measure to protect jobs, but the authors of a UC Berkeley study sometimes cited by proponents have stated that AB 32 “will generate enormous opportunities for California by fostering leading-edge technologies, processes and products that can be exported to the rest of the world.” Investment in green technology in California has exploded since the law’s enactment, greatly exceeding all other states combined.

The largest donor to the Prop. 23 campaign thus far is Valero Energy, a Texas-based oil company.

“Voters need to understand what is happening here,” Aguilar said. “Texas oil interests want to kill clean energy in California in order to protect their ability to get rich, and they don’t care how many Californians they put out of work to do it. Prop. 23 will hurt all Californians, and it will especially hurt the minority and low-income communities who most need the green jobs this new industry is creating — and who often breathe our state’s dirtiest air.”

As one of the nation’s top solar generating cities, San Diego is a popular place for the business of solar installation. The city has the most solar installations and generating power in the state and more solar rooftops than either Los Angeles or oh-so-green San Francisco, according to advocacy group Environment California.

While the idea of solar power came early and obvious to San Diegans who enjoy more than 300 sunny days a year, most of the solar installation businesses remained small and local until the combination of rebates, tax credits and financing schemes began with the California Solar Initiative and became more substantial with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

“It’s difficult to keep track of the businesses because solar energy is blossoming so quickly here,” said Sue Kately, executive director of the California Solar Energy Industries Association. “But most of the companies installing solar energy systems are small, local companies with fewer than 25 employees.”

California has about 770 companies in the solar installation business, according the association.

A study by Berkeley-based The Greenlining Institute released in January found that the 10 largest installation companies captured just 41 percent of the large-scale installation work in the state, and less than 30 percent of the small-scale installation contracts. Put another way, there’s plenty of room for small companies to compete in the rapidly changing industry.

“Smaller companies have shown the greatest concern and connection for the communities they serve,” said Samuel Kang, managing attorney for The Greenlining Institute. “They are more likely to be diverse and to reflect the diversity of their communities.”

Solar Benefits Converge

Small businesses are also benefiting from the combination of decreasing wholesale prices, extraordinary rebates and incentives, and a national consciousness moving toward sustainable resources.

“We’ve been growing like crazy and it’s going to get better,” said Trey McCann, director of operations for Solaire Energy Systems, a Mission Valley-based company with 11 employees. “With the rebates and better financing options, we’ve seen a lot of growth in the past year and we expect the demand will increase rapidly.”

Solaire is a family-owned business, started by Jarrod Fisk, who worked in heating, ventilation and air conditioning while he started the solar energy business out of his home four years ago. He moved to San Diego from Orange County because there’s far more interest in alternative energy here, McCann said.

The company works on mostly residential installations, buoyed by generous rebates, tax credits and incentives.

Like many small companies, the focus is on technical expertise and financing. Marketing has been taking care of itself, as the world turns green.

“We’re set up to work with the city and state on rebates, and we work with the California Credit Union pretty regularly on financing,” McCann said. “Right now, customers are finding their way to us.”

Consolidation Trend

Solaire and many smaller businesses share that in common — and it makes them ripe for consolidation, according to Solar Today magazine Deputy Editor Seth Masia.

“What we think will be the next trend is consolidation, as the companies merge or are acquired,” Masia said. “Most of these smaller companies are started by engineers and construction guys, people who like to bolt stuff together. They save money on administration and insurance, get help with marketing and can go back to being paid to do what they really like to do.”

Acro Energy Technologies Corp., Real Goods Solar, SolarCity and Akeena Solar Inc. are among the most aggressive large solar companies acquiring smaller companies, according to Rhonda Fried, director of SustainableBusiness.com. Acro, she notes, began acquiring California companies in February 2009 and is already in the top 10 market share for small solar installations.

None of the big 10 installation companies are based here, but most have local offices, including Akeena, a publicly held company.

Akeena launched in Silicon Valley in 2001, after founder Barry Cinnamon put panels on his own roof — and then on his neighbors’ roof.

Akeena has several different businesses within the company. The company builds its own panels, selling to installers, and just recently began working with Lowe’s home improvement stores to sell photovoltaic solar panels and easy installation kits directly to the public. The company also installs both large- and small-scale solar projects.

“We’ve grown into the largest solar company in California, with seven offices statewide,” said Jose Tengco, Akeena’s director of public affairs. “We’ve worked extensively in San Diego and we’ll be here in the small and large installation markets for some time to come.”