San Francisco Adopts Law Requiring Solar Panels On All New Buildings (theguardian.com)

San Francisco will soon become one of the first major cities in the U.S. to require solar power on new buildings. The rule, which received approval from San Francisco's Board of Supervisors this week, is set to go into effect in January 2017. According to the legislation, all new buildings with 10 stories or fewer -- both residential and commercial -- will have to use either solar panels for electricity or a solar system to heat water. The Guardian notes that smaller Californian cities such as Lancaster and Sebastopol already have similar laws in place, but San Francisco is the first large city to adopt the new standard. "In a dense, urban environment, we need to be smart and efficient about how we maximize the use of our space to achieve goals such as promoting renewable energy and improving our environment," Supervisor Scott Wiener said in a statement. Vox has more details.

Comments

going from illegal to mandatory overnight

[Pseudonymous Powers]

San Francisco Adopts Law Requiring Solar Panels On All New Buildings

What about heat pollution? What if you wanted to build a nice roof garden instead?

Why does absolutely everyone have to do exactly the same thing all the time?

Re:going from illegal to mandatory overnight

[sims 2]

Roof garden is OK by the new law.
Surprisingly they also let you keep water that falls from the sky.

As for thermal pollution how can solar panels create more heat than the black shingle roof that was there before?

Re:going from illegal to mandatory overnight

[AmiMoJo]

American buildings are extremely inefficient by international standards. The market seems to have failed to do anything about it, so intervention is required.

Before complaining about it how about seeing what the law says. I don't know who competent your lawmakers are, but I'd hope roof gardens are catered for.

Re:going from illegal to mandatory overnight

[__aaclcg7560]

Because our planet is dying and that trumps your right to be a unique snowflake.

Sorry to break the news. Mother Earth doesn't need humans. Never has, never will. Go ask the dinosaurs if you don't believe me.

At least it's not a huge price burden

[Sowelu]

With the ridiculous land values, installing a system like this would only be a tiny fraction of the home value, at least.

Re:At least it's not a huge price burden

[Mr D from 63]

It says something like 15% of applicable area, so if only 25% of your roof is solar capable, then you only need to cover about 4% of it. Its a way for the politicians to say they are doing something wonderful, without really doing much of anything.

Re:Really???

[vux984]

and if I'm building on the north side of a hill???

Did you read the bill? They are typically more than one liners. There's probably all sorts of caveats and exclusions in the details. Not to mention that just because the law says something any builder can request a variance.

So its a bit premature to just assume you would actually need to put solar panels on a building that gets no sunlight.

idiots....

Once you've determined the bill actually does require you to put panels on your permashaded building AND your request for a variance has been denied you can call them idiots.

Until then though, I figure the idiot is more likely to be you.

Location, Location, Location

[jklovanc]

Not all locations are conducive to solar energy. Some properties are in shadows most of the day due to topography and surrounding terrain. Some properties face the wrong way so sun only hits directly half the day.

How many of these systems will be installed and never maintained? How many of these systems will just be shut off?

There will be many systems that will never recoup their costs installed under this new regulation.

too feel good

[Anonymous Coward]

what happens when you spend thousands on the infrastructure to install solar, then a slightly taller building goes up right beside you, putting your array in shade and rendering it useless?

people already bitch about losing their views when a new building goes up beside them. and the view costs nothing.

San Francisco Has New Buildings?

[Tenebrousedge]

Since when does San Francisco allow people to put up new buildings?

I thought they just put up as many barriers to build things as they could. Hey, wait a sec...!

Half-way There!

[CrashNBrn]

Now, if they could only adopt a law to actually allow the construction of NEW buildings.

Re:Expense?

[SeaFox]

How will small businesses that are just making ends meet cope with this mandate?

A small business that is "just making ends meet" can't afford to have a new building constructed. They would be leasing space or buying an existing property.

rooftop garden

[goombah99]

what about rooftop gardens

Re:Hostility

[DamonHD]

Hostility towards knee-jerk nasty responses which clearly have not involved even reading and comprehending TFA is not that astonishing.

While laws can be stupid it may be worth not *assuming* that they were created blindly by drunken morons.

And indeed 5 minutes' reading shows that there are all sorts of caveats, but in particular all this law seems to do is require fitting solar on the area that a state law already mandates being 'solar ready'. So not *that* dramatic.

Rgds

Damon