Slashdot Mirror
California To Become First US State Mandating Solar On New Homes (ocregister.com)
OCRegister reports that "The California Energy Commission is scheduled to vote Wednesday, May 9, on new energy standards mandating most new homes have solar panels starting in 2020." From the report: Just 15 percent to 20 percent of new single-family homes built include solar, according to Bob Raymer, technical director for the California Building Industry Association. The proposed new rules would deviate slightly from another much-heralded objective: Requiring all new homes be "net-zero," meaning they would produce enough solar power to offset all electricity and natural gas consumed over the course of a year. New thinking has made that goal obsolete, state officials say. True "zero-net-energy" homes still rely on the electric power grid at night, they explained, a time when more generating plants come online using fossil fuels to generate power. In addition to widespread adoption of solar power, the new provisions include a push to increase battery storage and increase reliance on electricity over natural gas.
Pretty easy to enforce when you don't allow new homes to be built anywhere.
There is -- pumped-storage hydroelectric power.
Just imagine how mind-blowing it must have been when some municipality dictated that all home built after a certain date MUST have flush toilets. "Oh, come on, the outhouse idea has been working for a long time. Why change it? Now I need to reserve space in the home and put in plumbing. Home prices are going to skyrocket so only the rich can afford it."
Finally! This is the direction we need to move all newly constructed homes. We could power almost every home off of isolated power systems (solar+battery) if we only made the effort. It doesn't solve all our energy needs but if you are looking for a silver bullet then you aren't really looking for a solution.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
"But that $25,000 to $30,000 will result in $50,000 to $60,000 in the owner’s reduced operating costs over the 25-year life of the home’s solar system, Herro said." So the proposed legislation will make homes more efficient, and cost less to own in the long term. Let's see how the fossil fuel lobby try to twist this.
I get it, in your religion, solar panels are free. Hate to break it to you, but your religion is fake.
Nobody claimed they were free but dude, solar panels are cheap as hell now. I mean, have you even looked at the price per watt in recent years?
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Toilets aren't free, but they require every home have one of those, too (except in West Virginia, I think). In Texas, the state mandates that every house have heat, and furnaces aren't free.
You're not happy about solar energy. We all get that. But don't act like renewable energy is some kind of pie-in-the-sky myth. It just makes you look ridiculous. We've passed the point where solar panels now pay for themselves. Having one on a house actually brings down the cost of home ownership over time.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I get it, in your religion, solar panels are free. Hate to break it to you, but your religion is fake.
Nobody claimed they were free but dude, solar panels are cheap as hell now. I mean, have you even looked at the price per watt in recent years?
The cost of the solar panels themselves is only part of the issue--the cost of building a roof capable of supporting the weight of solar panels also has to be taken into account, as well as the simple fact that California has areas with serious problems with affordable housing. They shouldn't be adding to the problem for anything not required for safety or basic habitability.
If they want something like this, it'd be better to offer money up front for new houses to have solar panels on the roof than flat-out assume anybody wanting to own a house or build their own has money to burn.
California doesn't have an affordable housing problem. San Francisco does. Los Angeles does.
A quick Zillow shows tons of houses in the same price range as my midwestern house. Check Sacramento or Fresno.
Yes, Silicon Valley costs a lot.
There is plenty of standards that go beyond habitability - there are rules about power, water, heating, even storage space.
Heck, in my neighborhood there are rules about requiring fencing, a minimum number and maximum height of screening plans, the paint color, the current state of your shingles, there are rules about car washing, parking large vehicles and so on and so forth.
If there was a rule about solar power it would be just an additional item on the list of things one has to do to build and own a property.
I mean, solar panels are light and easily put on roofs that weren't designed to 'handle the weight.' you undermine your argument of increased cost when you stretch into the ridiculous here.
There is plenty of standards that go beyond habitability - there are rules about power, water, heating, even storage space.
Heck, in my neighborhood there are rules about requiring fencing, a minimum number and maximum height of screening plans, the paint color, the current state of your shingles, there are rules about car washing, parking large vehicles and so on and so forth.
If there was a rule about solar power it would be just an additional item on the list of things one has to do to build and own a property.
The difference is, if you don't like the rules of an HOA, you can go find a different neighborhood. If your job is in California, you can't just go find a different state.
Looking for a computer support specialist for your small business? Check out
From the article:
- Exceptions or alternatives will be allowed when homes are shaded by trees or buildings or when the home's roofs are too small to accommodate solar panels
...
- Builders installing batteries like the Tesla Powerwall would get "compliance credits," allowing them to further reduce the size of the solar system.
Itâ(TM)s been illegal to install shake roofs in CA for over twenty years due to the fire hazard.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
Sure you can... you can move to one of the republican paradises like Kansas, Wyoming, or Oklahoma where low regulation and and taxes have produced places where everyone wants to live.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
"Forcing a solar installation protects nobody's rights."
It can, indirectly. For example, if it obviates a need for burning carbon for heat, which differs from your water example, only because it's atmospheric.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
In this pathological social construct we call civilization the rich elite have convinced the masses that by removing a person's inherent ability to construct a house for themselves and ensuring a monopoly for the construction companies they are somehow protecting people.
What? I can only conclude one of two things from the tone of your post:
Option A, you have never actually tried to build your own home and so have no idea what the process actually entails
Option B, You actually tried to build your own home, but your own ineptness caused you to fail so miserably that the local building department put a stop to you, probably saving your life in the process.
I have built 1 house completely from scratch, and renovated almost a dozen others in the course of my life. I am not a builder by trade (Software engineer currently). I do not have any professional certifications or licenses in the building trades, and I live in NY state, second only to California when it comes to building regulations. In spite of that, I have never had undue trouble with the building department or the building inspector. On the very first house, I did have to hire an architectural engineer to draft the plans for the renovation I wanted. They didn't know me from adam, and they wanted some assurance that the walls I was planning to move weren't just going to fall over. All of my other work was very straight forward. I did all of the plumbing and electrical myself. The inspectors all came through and sometimes asked for some changes for relatively minor things, but never made me take anything out or completely redo anything. Truth be told, the most trouble I ever had was with a lineman from the electric utility. He didn't like the electrical entry I had planned, and was of the opinion that it did not meet code in spite of the requisite signatures from the building inspector. I had to spend about 2 days playing phone tag with the chief building inspector and the utility supervisor before the whole thing finally got straightened out.
If you want to get along with your local building department, seek them out before you start work on anything, and be sure to do your homework as far as what regulations apply so that you can have plans in place to address them appropriately. The first time you deal with them, expect to have to pay somewhat extra for certain engineering related costs, but once they know you, and trust you are not a nitwit, they will start working with you to help you save money on the things you don't need. If you go in with a combative attitude in the first place, you can expect the most miserable and expensive process imaginable, and you will deserve every minute of the pain you get for being a douche.
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
the cost of building a roof capable of supporting the weight of solar panels also has to be taken into account,
It has been taken into account. No additional changes to regulations to support the weight of solar panels. I guess you don't know about fire codes but your roof has to be able to support a fully geared up firefighter.
California has areas with serious problems with affordable housing.
And that literally has nothing to do with the cost of the houses themselves but rather their scarce availability.
They shouldn't be adding to the problem for anything not required for safety or basic habitability.
This is required for the basic habitability of our planet.
Congratulations on failing to make a competent argument!
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Or spring mechanical energy. Large pistons into the earth.
I now have this vision of a giant trebuchet!
Mandatory siege weaponry for everyone!
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
And that literally has nothing to do with the cost of the houses themselves but rather their scarce availability.
Why do you suppose that is? Is there not enough room for housing in California? What makes California so different from other states that housing is so expensive?
The reality is scarce availability is a direct result of out of control NIBYism implemented by those with power over the states regulatory regime. This solar thing is just one more drop in California's massive over-regulation bucket that is hurting real people in order to protect those with money/power by erecting even more barriers.
One need only look at the epidemic of "illegal" additions where single family dwellings are being converted into mini-apartments and the growing homelessness epidemic (Home to 1/4th of the countries homeless population) to see that California's legitimacy has been eroded by insane racist policies that disproportionately disadvantage the poor.
This is required for the basic habitability of our planet.
Since when has decentralized generation ever amounted to anything other than inefficient token gestures? Has always been the case much better results and higher efficiency are realized with large scale industrial production. Edison lost this fight a century ago.
It would be better policy and more environmentally sound simply to levy some kind of tax on power consumption to support large scale solar projects vs piecemeal rooftop installations operating at low efficiency power conversion that won't be professionally maintained or tracked. It isn't like there is no space in California for solar farms. Mojave desert by itself has more than enough land area to supply the energy needs of the entire country.
I mean, solar panels are light and easily put on roofs that weren't designed to 'handle the weight.'
Agreed. In addition, about half the cost of rooftop solar is the installation, which should be significantly cheaper if it is done as part of the construction.
Also, the cost issue is bogus. The FHA is offering 3% down mortgages to first time buyers, at less than 6% APR, and the cost of solar can be part of the mortgage. Since solar in California (where power costs are high, and sunshine is plentiful) has an ROI of about 8%, this means the house with solar has LOWER monthly payments than the same house without.
Enron wouldn't have been a thing at all if the State of California hadn't have been in the business of fixing energy prices.
"His name was James Damore."
Building standards are created by the rich elite to ensure that only the companies they own and control can build houses.
Are you too stupid to read a regulation or too weak to lift a 2x4? Or why not both.
Building a house to code isn't hard.
One of the nice things about living in the midwest is that you don't have to live in a congested urban shithole.
California has areas with serious problems with affordable housing.
And that literally has nothing to do with the cost of the houses themselves but rather their scarce availability.
Not so. California's housing prices are a huge part of their affordable housing problem. In the booming tech cities, housing prices have gone up so much that minimum wage workers can't afford to live in the city they work in.
Here’s how many minimum-wage hours it takes to afford a two-bed in SF
Low-wage jobs are plentiful in S.F., but where can you live?
I tried living on an $8 per hour salary in San Francisco and it was a disaster
This is required for the basic habitability of our planet.
You are dismissing an entirely valid line of thinking. In this specific case, the real goal is to make houses energy efficient, or carbon-neutral, or something like that. There's many ways to do that other than solar panels. Maybe someone wants to use a geothermal energy system, or a wind turbine. Or maybe they don't want to connect to the grid at all. Maybe they want to use a passive cooling design and a green roof. Often times regulations that tell people *how* to solve the problem are really corporations trying to use the regulations to steer people toward their products. Like requiring a particular safety valve, that only one company has a patent on. This prevents other companies from innovating by developing similar products.
This has not always to do with HOAs. There are also historical districts that set strict rules. Most codes are more practical in nature, such as how many windows a house can have. That matters for fire safety especially in densely built neighborhoods.Or the pipe coming from a sump pump, it is usually not allowed to be connected to the sewer line, but has to dump outside and away from structures. That is to protect the sewer system during a rain storm. There are other codes such as no longer allowing aluminium, iron, or knob and tube cabling, no lead water or drain pipes, have cabling in conduits up to 30 ft high, working smoke alarms in multi-unit dwellings.... That all costs money, not only for new construction, but also for remodels. Those rules exist for a reason. Adding solar panels will increase cost, but there is a general benefit to the community. The lack of affordable housing has many other reasons, mainly that municipalities shy away from being landlords and that those who already live in an area are typically strongly opposed to have any affordable housing in their area. Administrators and politicians deciding otherwise tend to be looking for a new job soon after. Companies are not bound to turn a big profit on affordable housing either. The housing crisis is not due to cost, but because we as a society don't want low income households next door. Once that attitude changes and profit maximization is not the core focus, the issue can be resolved in rather short time.
I'm not familiar with CA building codes, but I wonder which requirements they have for insulation. Preventing from heat to come into the house will significantly lower the power consumption for cooling and thus lower the power needs of households...which, by the way, are on average three times higher in the US than in Europe.
Enron wouldn't have been a thing at all if...
Spoken like someone who doesn't understand what actually happened. You should watch Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room which is on Netflix.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Spoken like someone that only likes half of the story in order to protect the demonstrably bad Statist price fixing ethic they have.
but thanks for playing the information game.
Enron could only do what it did because California thought it was better than the free market at setting energy prices. The ensuing arbitrage across State lines was PREDICTABLE, the politicians of California were WARNED IT WOULD HAPPEN, but they thought their good intentions would beat market forces... again.
You Californians are suckers for excuses that cover for Californian political stupidity.
"His name was James Damore."