Con Edison was responsible for almost none of the hold-up. The state took a long time to approve the subsidy payment, perhaps because funding for alternative energy has been raided and there isn't enough to go around.

Multiple city agencies took forever to process multiple permits and inspections. The solar company had to hire an architect and an expeditor.

The Department of Finance required a survey to prove the solar panels would not pass through the zoning height and setback regulations of the R5B district. Obviously there ought to be some rule so a homeowner would not be allowed to put up a 200-foot tower covered with panels, but R5B was designed to limit height to a flat roof whereas solar panels slant. The problem is solar panels are not listed among the permitted penetrations of a sky exposure plane/height and setback regulations, like building bulkheads, aerials, flagpoles etc. That list hasn't changed since the 1960s -- its all individual Department of Buildings interpretations.

Another homeowner told me he was getting a pushback from the Fire Department, which in the absence of rules created an ad hoc requirement for roof access which would have basically banned solar panels from rowhouses. Should roof access in the event of a fire be considered? Absolutely. But with everyone imposing ad hoc, unilateral rules, it isn't being considered very well.

The city required an asbestos survey of the roof before the roof could be cut into, something that would not be required for anything else. I hustled the guy down to the basement to look at some pipe coverings there and provide some advice, so the inspection I paid for wouldn't be a total waste.

The installer told me NYC and Nassau are bad places to install solar panels from a regulatory point of view, with Suffolk, Westchester and NJ much better. Eventually the subsidy for solar per installation is going to have to drift down if the industry is to grow. All the more reason to have the bureacratic cost fall as well. It is what economists call a "deadweight loss."

There are enough sleazy contractors in this world that I wouldn't suggest "self certification" for green building retrofits. But if NYC really wants more green retrofits, it should create new a single agency to review, approve and inspect them across the whole range of requirements -- with a new staff lacking the inbred mess of overall city government. Like it did for the motion picture industry, even if the solar guys aren't as rich or good looking as movie stars. Government agencies have a lifecycle, beginning with idealism and efficiency and degenerating to sloth, corruption and a beat the system mentality. A new agency might reset the clock for 25 or 30 good years, until the initial staff retires.

What's it like having solar panels? Highly motivating. Suddenly, even the teens in the house are shutting off the lights when they leave a room. Replacing the frig, buying a spin dryer, and making some other adjustments, it looks like we'll be able to cut our average power use down to 8.5 kilowatt hours per day from 12. That will get us to break even over a year, even though street trees shaded half the roof and we could only put panels in the back. Breasking even would be kind of cool, and would lock in the cost of our electricity at a pre-paid rate for the next 25 years, a nice hedge against inflation.

The neighborhood will benefit as well, in exchange for the subsidies, as we directly use very little of the power we produce. On a hot afternoon in the summer, when the electric infrastructure is strained and electricity costs the most, our panels are throwing power into local grid for others to use. On a winter evening, when power is cheap and the grid is under less strain, we'll be buying it back. That's why solar makes sense -- it isn't a good deal based on average cost, but it is the cheapest based on peak cost. But if NYC wants it, then it should cease offsetting the benefit of its subsidies with costly delays.