Archinect
anchor

Cali One Step Closer to Requiring Solar Panels on New Homes

wurdan freo

Cali will require solar panels on all new homes

My initial reaction is that Cali really wants to help make housing more affordable... 

Average system... 4kw average price for install = 35k  addon for solar requirement... spensive... 

 
May 10, 18 7:14 pm

1 Featured Comment

All 13 Comments

Without standardization?

May 10, 18 8:21 pm  · 
 · 
wurdan freo

The real question is how many executives at the cali energy commision got free teslas?

Elon Musk is jumping with joy... yay ... lets hear it for batteries...

May 10, 18 11:18 pm  · 
 · 
citizen

Next up: a state bill proposing sales tax on professional services.

May 11, 18 12:37 pm  · 
 · 
proto

i'm going thru my first project in california right now & the level of bureacracy is nuts. And, of course, the attendant fees add up quickly.

May 11, 18 1:33 pm  · 
 · 
Featured Comment
b3tadine[sutures]

as California goes, so goes the nation. 

May 11, 18 1:44 pm  · 
1  · 
h.rodriguez3866

Being told what to do isn't a great feeling. But keep in mind, solar panels help the environment and keeps your money in your pocket in the long run.

May 18, 18 9:26 am  · 
 · 
chigurh

cal green is a joke, in theory, the concepts are noble but the enforcement will end up being one more way to destroy the middle class, meanwhile any 1%er can build a 25,000sf mansion on the coast and get LEED platinum, just pull out the low flow regulators after occupancy and enjoy your 25 shower head experience in all 10 of your bathrooms...Oh yea, you got 1kw of PV on your roof, true  environmentalists! 

May 18, 18 10:08 am  · 
 · 
zonker

I work on Multi-family housing in the Bay Area, and we have to provide for future PV installation on all projects - must be indicated on roof plans

May 18, 18 12:21 pm  · 
 · 
citizen

Same here in the Southland, though the difference between leaving space and actual installation is going to be significant in several ways.

May 18, 18 12:36 pm  · 
 · 

For anyone concerned about costs, per the San Francisco Chronicle

"The California Energy Commission, which since the 1970s has set energy-efficiency standards for buildings, took the historic step even as the state faces a housing affordability crisis.



But the commission’s staff estimated that while the mandate would add about $40 to a typical new home’s mortgage, it would cut the monthly utility bill by $80 — or more if solar prices continue to fall."


May 21, 18 9:39 pm  · 
 · 
citizen

And, as we know, cost projections are always accurate.

May 22, 18 11:20 pm  · 
 · 
wurdan freo

If people really were saving $40/month you wouldn't have to mandate it.

May 22, 18 11:59 pm  · 
 · 
Janosh

We can pay $40 a month to save $80, or we can pay for it by drowning the shit out of Florida. I've never cared much for Florida but the former still seems preferable.

May 23, 18 3:08 pm  · 
1  · 
citizen

Or just do the mandate, sans the unverified claim.

May 23, 18 3:19 pm  · 
 · 
Janosh

I don't know how you "verify" a projection, but the CEC required an independent cost analysis to be done before the regulation was even considered. E3 performed the analysis and is well known for doing this kind of work - most everyone seems to agree that the projected savings are conservative, as the first costs in their model will probably be lower in real life, and the cost of grid power is going to increase faster than the model suggested. They did it this way to mollify skeptics, but of course someone who isn't familiar with the math is always going to go ahead claim it is a scam anyway.

May 23, 18 3:37 pm  · 
 · 
shellarchitect

thatd be nice, Michigan doesn't allow anyone to profit off a home pv system

May 23, 18 8:38 am  · 
 · 

Here in Paradise the corporate utilities have been very successful in limiting the size of systems that can be installed, eliminating the purchase of overproduced energy (they take it and charge others for it but won't pay you for producing it) reducing / eliminating solar tax credits and subsidies, etc. 

May 23, 18 9:16 am  · 
 · 
proto

i think the utility where i am is silently selling the generated excess, but not offering much in return. You are required to be connected to the grid. But, if the grid goes down, you can't use your power unless you have a battery system, which obviates one reason to even install the system. The available incentives still don't address the high expense of install, not to mention the short timeline to obsoletion.

Jul 20, 21 2:01 pm  · 
 · 
SneakyPete
JLC-1

you mean how unscrupulous contractors used a single flawed program to scam poor and uneducated customers? besides, none of that has to do with policy, it's just a badly thought loan program. There are many more that work and are succesful.

Jul 20, 21 1:16 pm  · 
1  · 
SneakyPete

We need our lawmakers to write better laws, our bureaucrats to make better programs, and our regulators to protect us from bad actors.

Jul 20, 21 1:51 pm  · 
1  · 

Block this user


Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?

  • ×Search in: