Solar panel heist foiled
Two men caught in South County
By DAVID RYAN
Register City Editor
A tip from a watchful citizen led to the capture of two men believed to have stolen solar panels in Rutherford.
Before dawn on Monday, an unidentified resident saw two men adjusting a tarp over the back of their small, imported pick-up truck along Rutherford Cross Road, according to the Napa County Sheriff’s Department. The resident knew about a rash of recent solar panel thefts — in which more than $100,000 worth of solar panels were taken from arrays at two Rutherford wineries and a Lake Hennessey site owned by the city of Napa — from media reports and an e-mail message put out by the Napa Valley Vintners.
The activity looked suspicious enough that the resident called police with the direction the truck was going and its license plate number.
The Napa County Sheriff’s Department immediately put out a countywide broadcast for all police agencies to be on the lookout for the truck, and searched the Rutherford area. A patrol caught up to the truck at Tower Road and Highway 29, near the American Canyon city limit.
Officers found solar panels underneath the tarp.
In a prepared statement, the sheriff’s department identified the two men as Thomas Lee Rivamonte, 50, of Oakley, and Jason Lee Allen, 34, of Antioch. Both were placed under arrest on suspicion of grand theft and possession of stolen property and later booked at Napa County Jail.
Deputies later determined the solar panels were taken from the city of Napa Water Facility on Sage Canyon Road — the second theft at that site in the last two weeks.
Although the sheriffs department offered no information about the panels taken in the most recent theft, the earlier theft saw the loss of 40 Sanyo 3-by-4.5 foot solar panels estimated by city representatives at $30,000.
The panels were part of a $2.7 million solar collector system the city installed July 2006 to generate power at the foot of Conn Dam.
The solar arrays are connected to a pump that lifts water to the water treatment plant from Lake Hennessey, cutting the city’s power bill by $100,000 each year, according to Pat Costello, a city water department representative.
It was the fourth reported theft of solar panels in Napa County this month. Recent thefts of solar panels also took place at ZD Winery and Honig Vineyard and Winery.
The Napa County Sheriff’s Department is continuing to investigate the thefts. Anyone with information about the thefts is asked to call Det. Todd Hancock at 253-4591.
The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.
What gets your comment posted?
• Staying on topic
• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less
• Avoiding name-calling
• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger
What gets your comment deleted?
• Personal attacks
• Derogatory remarks
• Name-calling of any sort
• Going off-topic
• Hate speech
• Racially-insensitive comments
• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict
• Posting e-mail addresses
• Posting comments of a commercial nature
• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS
• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.
The fine print
- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.
- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.
- Comments may take several hours to be posted.
- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.
- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our
virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.
- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact
online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.
napablogger wrote on Dec 30, 2008 12:37 AM:
starling wrote on Dec 30, 2008 5:56 AM:
nanner wrote on Dec 30, 2008 7:07 AM:
Farmgirl wrote on Dec 30, 2008 7:56 AM:
amelia wrote on Dec 30, 2008 7:59 AM:
kittyamma wrote on Dec 30, 2008 8:26 AM:
yoyo wrote on Dec 30, 2008 8:30 AM:
possible wrote on Dec 30, 2008 8:40 AM:
mikeb wrote on Dec 30, 2008 8:41 AM:
oldnapaneighbor wrote on Dec 30, 2008 8:59 AM:
tiredofcomplainingnapkins wrote on Dec 30, 2008 10:03 AM:
msdemo wrote on Dec 30, 2008 10:05 AM:
Straight Talk wrote on Dec 30, 2008 10:51 AM:
To mikeb – As a financial conservative I support using the least costly means of creating and supplying energy. Like you, I'm a big fan of "regular old power from the grid" and nothing is as cost effective as electricity generated from coal power.
Well… I mean… unless you factor in the financial costs of cleaning up the billion gallons (enough to fill 1,660 Olympic swimming pools) of thick sludge that gushed from a Tennessee coal plant last week. There is a ton of "public money" being spent as cleanup crews try to remove the goop from homes, railroads and to stop it from oozing into the adjacent river.
Then there are the destroyed homes, undrinkable water, human health and environmental impacts - the full cost of which we may never know. And you worry about $2.7 million over 27 years. Chump change.
But you weren't thinking we get our electricity from coal were you? In California, our electricity comes from the magic electric ferry that flies around California dusting our homes with clean, green electricity so we can stay warm, light our homes and clean our clothes.
"Feel-good hug-a-tree project" indeed. What rubbish... or should I say sludge.
MvG "
Dwayne wrote on Dec 30, 2008 11:46 AM:
pm1972 wrote on Dec 30, 2008 11:59 AM:
mikeb wrote on Dec 30, 2008 12:01 PM:
msdemo, yes the cost of energy will go up in the future, but this investment will not pay off or even break even within the short window of 20 years, even with increases to the cost of electricity.
Straight Talk, sarcasm and red herrings aside, the investment in this solar panel system at the time it was done still makes no sense, unless of course you are attributing the cause of all environmental issues everywhere to the power usage at Lake Hennessey, AND you ignore the environmental consequences of producing new and disposing of old solar panels.
Bottom line, the theives caught today belong in jail, but we need to get out of this mindset that everything labeled "green" is a worth while investment. Much of it is overpriced hype. "
WHY wrote on Dec 30, 2008 12:01 PM:
Solar is a great way to go and helps reduce the coal that is needed to generate electricity. Coal is nasty! "
Straight Talk wrote on Dec 30, 2008 12:29 PM:
I totally agree, we need to take a close look at the environmental consequences of producing new and disposing of old solar panels. I don't know the facts about that and will take a closer look. I also agree with you that should not accept everything labeled "green" as a worth while investment.
Let's talk about the issue: Clean energy.
In 2007 - 48.6 percent of our nation's electricity was generated from coal. Nuclear energy produced 19.4 percent. Natural gas supplied 21.5 percent. Hydropower provided 5.8 percent. Fuel oil provided 1.6 percent of the generation mix. Renewable resources, such as geothermal, solar, and wind, provided 2.5 percent, with other miscellaneous sources providing the balance. - Edison Electric Institute statistics.
20 percent of California's electricity comes from coal plants in Nevada, Wyoming, Utah and other Western states. There are 27 new coal-fired power plants being proposed for the western United States. Is this really the best long-term and cost effective plan for our Nation and community? I don't believe it is.
Solar panels are a step in the right direction. The cost of solar panels makes sense as the cost of producing other energy increases. Mid-East wars, OPEC controls, environmental disasters like the coal sludge, and other costs must be added to your calculations when you compare the cost of solar to CO2 emitting energy sources.
You seem to care most, as I do, about costs. So, what do you believe is the real cost of doing nothing to change our usage and sources of energy? "
VERUM wrote on Dec 30, 2008 12:38 PM:
Rich wrote on Dec 30, 2008 1:09 PM:
Seems to me that there is more to this story .....
Every time I went into the park area next to the solar field people flooded from those homes to make sure I belonged there. "
Skip M. wrote on Dec 30, 2008 1:27 PM:
It must be tough going from the solar business to the license plate business. "
cheezcakemaker wrote on Dec 30, 2008 2:38 PM:
imamonk wrote on Dec 30, 2008 6:12 PM:
notpc wrote on Dec 30, 2008 7:04 PM:
Facts wrote on Dec 31, 2008 6:17 PM:
PG&E rebates covered nearly half of project costs, so price for City was just $1.5 million (not $2.7 million). Annual benefits have been $100,000 for first couple years but will escalate with electricity price inflation. Sanyo PV modules are warranted for performance for 25 years but should last more than 30.
From a purely financial investment standpoint, project has >20% internal rate of return even factoring in maintenance costs. "