Slashdot Mirror


California Becomes First State To Mandate Solar on New Homes (bloomberg.com)

California regulators said on Wednesday they have unanimously approved a historic plan that will require most new homes in the state have rooftop solar panels that turn sunlight into electricity starting in 2020. From a report: Most new homes built after Jan. 1, 2020, will be required to include solar systems as part of energy-efficiency standards adopted Wednesday by the California Energy Commission. While that's a boost for the solar industry, critics warned that it will also drive up the cost of buying a house by almost $10,000. The move underscores how rooftop solar, once a luxury reserved for wealthy, green-leaning homeowners, is becoming a mainstream energy source, with California -- the nation's largest solar market -- paving the way.

The Golden State has long been at the vanguard of progressive energy policies, from setting energy-efficiency standards for appliances to instituting an economy-wide program to curb greenhouse gases. The housing mandate is part of Governor Jerry Brown's effort to slash carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2030, and offers up a playbook for other states to follow.

15 of 360 comments (clear)

  1. Great. by Jhon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    California already has a housing cost issue. Lets make new housing MORE expensive!

    1. Re:Great. by Narcocide · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Over here, $10,000 is also known as "a trivial pittance compared to the existing price of an average house." Feel free to pretend it won't lower the air conditioning costs, too. You clearly live somewhere cold and sunless if you think this isn't the opposite of wasteful.

    2. Re:Great. by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It adds about $10,000 to the cost of a new home, which is about 1-2% of the cost of new home construction in the bay area. It's tiny. And cost will come down. As will the cost of installation.

      Yeah, screw the rest of California.

    3. Re:Great. by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      $10K, really? I've heard ~$30k - which is a lot more in-line with reality.

      Your "heard" anecdotes are not data. It's possible that a large solar installation could cost $30k, but a typical house isn't going to need anything like that.

      My solar system, which produces enough electricity to power occasional use of A/C and daily use of an electric vehicle, cost about $18k, which included the cost of installing an EV charger. The cost of solar panels has dropped since then, although Trump's solar tariff may have balanced that out. Bear in mind that a lot of the cost for a residential installation is in planning and permitting. If included as part of the original construction, a lot of costs will be much lower.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    4. Re:Great. by Ichijo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Thank you for supporting the repeal of laws that make housing more expensive including but not limited to: mandatory solar installations, building height limits, minimum parking requirements, minimum setbacks, maximum floor area ratios, minimum dwelling unit sizes, prohibitions against accessory dwelling units, and single-use "Euclidean" zoning.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    5. Re:Great. by JThundley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah! We shouldn't force people to install toilets in new homes either, outhouses work just fine!

    6. Re: Great. by Frank+Burly · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This reminds me of another benefit I didn't see mentioned (browsing at +X on my phone): there is an infrastructure component to this as well. Having semi self sufficient homes reduces the need for more generation facilities. And the decentralized generation may be helpful when the big one hits.

  2. Re:This isn't good by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The environmental cost of producing solar cells virtually negates the green benefits for many years.

    Not even close. Even the dirtiest types of solar panels, the thin-film kind, only produce about 1/10th of the pollutants as the next closest fossil fuel, which is natural gas. Compared to coal or oil, it's closer to 1/50th.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  3. Re:This isn't good by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The environmental cost of producing solar cells virtually negates the green benefits for many years.

    The numbers I've seen show that over a 30 year lifetime, a solar panel (conservatively) results in about 10% the emission footprint when compared to coal and about 30% the footprint of natural gas. That doesn't seem terrible to me.

  4. Re:20% of new California homes construalready inst by Q-Hack! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not a drastic change from the status quo, but it will be interesting to see how fast other states follow California's lead, as they do with vehicle emissions, etc.

    In New Mexico or Arizona where the sun shines 300 days a year, economically quite probable. In Portland Oregon... Not so much.

     

    --
    Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
  5. Mainstream? by Maxwell'sSilverLART · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The move underscores how rooftop solar, once a luxury reserved for wealthy, green-leaning homeowners, is becoming a mainstream energy source

    So mainstream, we're making it mandatory!

    --
    Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
  6. Pricing.. by thesupraman · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Yes, I see you point!

    Now that you are legally required to include solar, I am quite sure the companies that are certified
    (what? you thought ANY solar install would be ok... interesting...) to install that solar for you, now
    that they have state controlled maket, are SURE to lower their prices, making it cheaper and happier
    for everyone!

    Oh, wait a second, no, they will increase their pricing locally, because you have to use their service.

    1. Re:Pricing.. by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, wait a second, no, they will increase their pricing locally, because you have to use their service.

      More solar installers will start up business. People will even come from other states to start installation businesses here. And since California doesn't make grid tie a PITA, the total cost of the installations will probably not be that high. If you don't need batteries, the total cost is quite reasonable these days.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  7. Re:California housing costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    California housing costs are ridiculous. Full stop. The houses simply are not worth the asking price. The traffic, ridiculous total-left policies, insane taxation, insane gun laws, pandering to the left only, all reasons to not live there. I live in Texas, am not a Republican, and live in a house (north Houston) that in California would be well over a million dollars, and for which barely cost me $200k. I live 300 from a lake, have well-paved roads, highway only to work, great colleges, good night life, and no one panders to anyone else. People are free to pursue their own paths. This is Texas, after all. The cowboy spirit is alive and well here. People are expected to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, there is no entitlement mentality here, no political ruckus, and the crap one hears about Texas is largely Internet drivel. I've lived around the world because of my job, and this place is affordable, with low taxes, and no one is forcing anyone else to go green, go fossil fuel, whatever. People do what they want here, and that's how it should be.

  8. Re:Bracing for impact by nospam007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "jealous midwestern rural coal miners angrily ranting on and on about how solar panels are simultaneously a threat to their well being "

    There are 5 times more employees in the solar industry than the coal one.
    Coal is dead.