Requiring specific technical solutions is rarely a good idea. For example mandating that all new cars have catalytic converters is a common but not very good requirement. The requirement should be formulated as a goal/limit, not a solution.
Having one solution required means you can’t innovate to find a cheaper or better solution to the same problem.
The answer in this context would be to require a total net power draw for the home. Adding a production unit just gives more room in the calculation and not having one might mean more expensive insulation or smaller windows are needed instead.
That is how title 24 has operated for years. They have two methods for compliance, prescriptive and engineered. The prescriptive method is they specify minimum Efficiency values for things like insulation, doors, windows, HVAC, water heater, etc and takes climate zone into consideration. The engineered gives you an annual energy budget and you just have to meet that in the model. So for instance you can have a house that doesn’t have insulation but with enough solar on the roof you can make up for it. The idea is prescriptive is to make it easier on owner builders and engineered is so that professional builders can optimize with market forces in consideration and designers can make trade offs like spending more money on efficiency in order to allow larger openings (doors and windows) as a percentage of total area.
This solar requirement has been a long time coming. I haven’t looked at the new standard, it’s called Title 24 2019 because it’s still under development but they might just pushing the energy budget low enough that solar is effectively required. Otherwise it may be required for prescriptive title 24 compliance. The article talks about square footage and 2kW minimum systems which to me sounds like the prescriptive requirement.
Personally I’ve never been able to use prescriptive for design reasons but some contractors for sure do, and they don’t understand the concept of modeling.
So yeah, you can innovate all you want and CA set it up that way for years now.
> Requiring specific technical solutions is rarely a good idea. ... The requirement should be formulated as a goal/limit, not a solution.
While I instinctively agree, does anyone know of any research in this area?
I can speculate about possible downsides to legislating a performance specification rather than a solution: Giving people every possible option could result in people gaming the system, it could hamper investment because it creates uncertainty about what the future solution will be, or it could simply reduce transparency because the specification may be written to favor one solution anyway. That's just speculation, however; we need data and expertise.
In principle I agree, but I think in this particular case you might have trouble if you mandated a particular maximum level of energy consumption or a minimum level of on-site power generation, since some houses just aren't in a good place to get sun and there aren't any compelling alternatives to solar for power generation in residential areas.
Perhaps we should discourage people from building in shady places, but that would have a side effect of encouraging people to build where they need more AC.
A more market-based approach might be to just tax electrical use higher. Unfortunately, that would be a very regressive tax. (I don't live in California, but I understand you have or used to have a sort of sliding scale, where if you use more energy than average you pay a higher rate per kwh.)
Another option would be to require new power generation to be built along with new construction, but allow builders to decide how to do that and allow them to share power generation. For instance, a developer building a hundred houses might put solar on each house or they might build (or buy a partial stake in) a solar farm or wind turbine being built outside of town where land is cheap. The tricky part there is to ensure that any new power generation is actually being built specifically for the new construction, and builders aren't just piggybacking on power generation that would have been built anyways.
Likewise the perfect is the enemy of the good. Having an idea of what a perfect regulation would be means that you end up arguing against helpful regulations because they don't meet your standards for "good idea".
Your point isn't incorrect, but it's at best misplaced and mistimed. You should have been yelling about this when the law was being written, not now that it's passed. To those of us who care about the subject, your pedantry is harmful, not helpful.
I'm new to this HN thing so in an attempt to be "civil" I'll simply say I disagree with every single thing you said.
The decision to implement California car emissions standards was not a heavy handed or half baked idea. The Rand corporation was called in to help figure out a solution other than catalytic converter and the ultimate decision was signed off by Ronald "not a fan of regulation" Reagan. Not only have there been improvements in the catalytic converter but also there's this company called Tesla that has innovated and provided an alternative. Your suggestion of goals was implemented in the last administration and is in the process of being removed. Lobbyists kill goals/limits.
A total net power draw is regulating the users behavior. Is that what you want?
Smaller windows or better insulation...? While home A/C is a factor, this is not about the user. This is about clean power for California (whether it's effective at producing the power is a different conversation). Users can still get better insulation or smaller windows or innovate as they see fit. California had two nuclear reactors. It has shut them down. This legislation (which I didn't know about till today) is one in a long string of movements toward cleaner air starting back in 1967.
An unrelated note, I hear all this talk about money As others have said, this is an economic non-starter for a home in California. One thing that has not been mentioned is that currently home appraisers do not consider solar panels in the value of a home.
I agree that a a more general law would be better, but for the foreseeable future I don't see this law having detrimental side effects. Also this law can be addressed in the future when solar is a less compelling technology.
I tend to agree even though I have solar panels on my own roof. I have clear southern exposure but what about houses that are shaded? Maybe a better use of money in such a case would be better insulation or a geothermal heat pump. Perhaps a points system of some kind, with different energy reduction strategies getting different points.
I also think there should be a progressive component to the requirement. The standards could be looser for a $100K house vs a $1M house or perhaps a progressive tax credit of some kind.
One exciting thing about this is that the costs of solar will be much lower for solar than otherwise. All homebuilders will have to make their designs solar ready, soft costs such as customer acquisition will be lower for solar companies, economies of scale, etc.
Having one solution required means if you innovate, you need to convince the rule makers to allow it. Having no required solution creates on ongoing problem of verifying possibly useless implementations.
I agree with this idea in spirit... is there another completely passive way to generate energy with unused space? Windmills and thermal couplers have issues and limitations too.
How do you rectify the free market innovation that was the VW/Audi/Porsche diesel scandal? There are mandated emissions requiments and the businesses are free to innovate solutions to meet them. Result: they just lied and cheated, in support of a specific technology that simply can’t meet the requirements but that they had made a century long commitment to. And became the largest car company in the world while doing it. How do you prevent net power draw regs from a) not resulting in just shitty home construction b) not encouraging cheating, many materials might not even be sourced from the US (like Canadian lumber) if you have to factor net energy into construction and c) not resulting in homes that require aftermarket additions like air conditioners which would in turn require new regulations? Or worse, really jacking up home prices when you simply can’t build new homes. what if you buy a house but then operate it differently than expected? Energy star numbers on TVs are this way, there are some really efficient TVs but nobody hardly ever operates their tv at those most efficient brightness settings, the viewing sucks.
It seems like you might want to reevaluate the rules in 10 years, it’s part of a big energy initiative they are taking on though. There is also room for a ton of grid innovation to make this work out reasonably. This law seems pretty simple in terms of the bigger goals the state has.
This is actually an attempt to drive out poor people by increasing the cost of newly built homes. You have got it absolutely correct that there should be goal and mandating a specific solution only ends up hurting innovation.
Say it costs $100 to install the solar roof. What if I were to invest the same $100 in a company that is building solar farms in Nevada and providing that electricity to California ? Wouldn't that give additional benefit to the planet ?
What if you expand from solar to all renewable including R&D labs ?
When you build a house in bay area you already more efficient because of relatively moderate temperature than the farmer's home in Fresno or Lake Shasta.
I think the politicians who get voted in power because of bay area yuppies have forgotten that their state is also an agricultural state with many hardworking people.
>I just became aware in the last few days of the proposal in the new building energy efficiency standards rule making to mandate rooftop solar on all new residential buildings. I want to urge you not to adopt the standard. I, along with the vast majority of energy economist, believe that residential rooftop solar is a much more expensive way to move towards renewable energy than larger solar and wind installations. The savings calculated for the households are based on residential electricity rates that are far above the actual cost of providing incremental energy, so embody a large cross subsidy from other ratepayers. This would be a very expensive way to expand renewables and would not be a cost-effective practice that other states and countries could adopt to reduce their own greenhouse gas footprints.
>I agree and would add that allowing more building near transit and other hubs as with California’s rejected SB827 would not only lower housing prices, rather than raise them as with this proposal, it would also be a much better way of reducing carbon emissions and saving energy.
Even though rooftop solar might not be the most economical solution to reduce greenhouse gas footprints, I would argue it's very effective. The costs are directly baked into the real estate mortgage and requires zero changes with regards to zoning and planning.
In an ideal world SB827 makes sense, but it was rejected. So I'm glad CA is trying something more pragmatic instead of waiting for a 'perfect' solution. Even if something similar to SB827 is passed in the future - worse case, we'll end up a bunch of rooftop solar installations. That's not so terrible.
I'm not clear on why SB827 high density housing near transit and solar panels for single family homes are mutually exclusive. A solar rooftop on a 4 story high density building is like a rounding error compared to all the other costs. California should be moving forward on both initiatives, no?
The great thing about the requirement is not that it is the absolutely most carbon friendly solution but that it creates a viable alternative to the PG&E monopoly on energy in California. They pretty much can effectively hike prices at will under the current setup. We need to reduce the amount of pricing power of all monopolies via credible competition.
It may not be the cheapest solution. But it does accomplish some good things. It reduces attic temperatures (and thus cooling demand), and the ecologists I know observe that wind & solar farms contribute to habitat loss, while rooftop solar does not.
I doubt this is accurate. Most California homeowners can save money by going 100% off grid vs. 100% grid which suggests home solar + battery is cheaper than an same panels - increased efficiency + electricity distribution system + billing.
That said, currently it's usually cheaper to stay grid connected vs 100% solar. But, the economics of that can shift around as solar becomes more common.
The principle that a central authority gets to decree how we live, eat, breath, and think is inherently dangerous, especially when it comes with no evident limits.
This decree, of course, does not do all that but instead covers a narrow class consisting of one product (new homes) with one requirement (solar roofs). It does not affect existing homes. It does not affect homes in Nevada, Arizona, or anywhere else in America. It does not affect homes in any other part of the world. It therefore can be guaranteed, in itself, to have the most trivial of all impacts on the real world global environment. But it will have a very real impact on people living in the affected jurisdiction, not the least of which will be severely limiting their choices concerning new homes and also adding to the price they pay for such homes. On top of all that, it empowers politicians and bureaucrats who will be further incentivized to find new ways to limit choices in the future in the name of symbolic gestures done in the name of environmental concerns. Today, new homes. Tomorrow, existing ones. Next week, cars. After that, whatever experts and technocrats decree should be the subject of new coercive restrictions. Perhaps this is justified because of some ideal that it promotes or perhaps it is just a sell out to the solar lobby. But, justified or not, it certainly curtails freedom and choice and for what? A symbolic gesture at best or some hidden less-than-noble purpose at worst.
One could argue that there are definite limits to a state potentially abusing its authority in extending such powers. After all, there is a transcending principle behind it having to do with the environment. Yet, that is a very elastic principle that can be bent and shaped in ways that cannot readily be contained.
And so we are left with less choice, more expense, and prospects for a more restrictive future. It may or may not be good, but the animating principle, unless it is subject to clear limits (which do not appear here) is one that poses self-evident risks for a free society.
It would be interesting to know how many houses are built by developers versus their first occupants. If this is all about what developers do, new home buyers aren't making the decisions anyway. The house is already built.
If the question is whether a developer, local community (via zoning), or the state of California gets to make the decision about what houses in a particular area look like, I don't think I have a strong opinion, since it looks to me like collective, political decision-making either way.
>The principle that a central authority gets to decree how we live, eat, breath, and think is inherently dangerous, especially when it comes with no evident limits.
I don't agree that such an authority is inherently dangerous, this kind of legislation is specifically an example where danger is explicitly reduced.
The below is an attempt to show this isn't just a noble gesture, but that environmental legislation has huge positive impacts, and is exactly the kind of thing we want a state doing.
California generates most of its power through natural gas [1], which the burning of creates smog, which has measureable impacts on life expectancy. Early numbers from China indicate that the difference between highly urbanized areas and less urbanized areas amount to at least 5.5 years of reduced lifespan. [2]
It may surprise you to find out that California, in many heavily populated areas like the Bay Area, where most people are living, actually has worse smog than that in Shanghai [3].
Let's try a simple model and do a back-of-the-envelope calculation of what this means for Americans:
Let's say that in the bay area, the smog is (ass-pulled in direct contradiction to my above source, so we're being conservative) half as bad as in China's urban areas, and therefore longterm exposure to smog reduces life expectancy by 3 years. Let's say that long term, solar panel usage allows California to reduce natural gas burning for power generation, which ultimately reduces smog in a way such that it halves the impact on life expectancy to 1.5 years.
There are 7 million people in the Bay area. If you're willing to buy the above model, you are saving 10.5 million years of human life just in the Bay Area by making the change, before we even begin to discuss external positive environmental impacts and subjective quality of life benefits of smog reduction.
Last thought? The average human lifespan in America is 79 years[4]. If the above model is correct, such a change is equivalent to saving 132,000 lives. You don't notice that all this life is being lost because the effects are so diffuse.
There are times to leap to your pitchforks about the harms of the state, but environmentalism definitely isn't one of them.
Good night. Once upon a time in 1983, my grandparents bought a mobile home and put it out on rural property. They paid $300 for the water company to install a water meter and about $1500 for a septic tank install.
Now I'm trying to do the same thing (and on the same property). The water meter is $5,000 (cash only in full), and the septic tank is $15,000. If I was also required to have solar, I'd really be screwed...
Starting to think that working in Tech isn't even worth it anymore. We don't have big government lobbyists making rules to make software more complicated 'just because' every year and thus driving cost up (and making me more money). If my math is right, I'm pretty sure per my sad story above, I'm estimating that the septic people I am trying to work with are pulling in $3k-$5k+ (profit) a week in septic installs (its only a husband and wife outfit and in an area where rent is less than $1k a month....)
If I was also required to have solar, I'd really be screwed...
So, what do you do for electricity then? Most people developing rural property near where I live love solar, they can't get enough, as it lets them go off-grid and avoid paying electricity hookup fees.
they probably have a lot of overhead for the following things:
office rental,
increasing cost of septic tank hardware itself
increased environmental regulations
increase cost of permitting (money and time) with local government
impact fees maybe
increased insurance costs
people are making money on this, I just doubt its your tank installer
Everyone who’s long CA real estate can bank it because the government is doing its best to ensure that no new housing gets built.
Gg “environmentalist” Sierra Club.
FTA specifically larger housing developers have been preparing for this for years—along with the solar lobby. So dumb, CA deserves to go bankrupt and be overrun by homelessness.
So you can't mandate that neighbourhoods build taller buildings to curb the astronomical rise in real estate prices but making new buildings (and by association old buildings) more expensive is easy.
California, what are you doing? Fix your housing problem!
I'm a homeowner in southern California. I've looked into it and a solar system would cost me about $15k and it would pay itself off after about 8 years.
However that assumes constant price conditions. If there's a glut of solar installations, prices for daytime generation may fall to where it no longer offsets all evening/night consumption. Once that happens you're forced to either invest in extremely expensive battery storage, or the breakeven date gets radically extended out into the future.
Overall, it seems like a pretty "meh" investment. The people doing it are the environmental True Believers(tm). I'd rather put the money into a new bathroom at this point.
So I guess putting up shade trees to reduce cooling costs isn't a thing any more? Is it net positive to use solar panels? Trees and houses just won't go together any more?
I'm having a hard time finding a news article with links to the actual standard, and secondary sources like this Bloomberg article are omitting important details. Does this represent the standard that was adopted:
In particular, I wonder what the minimum system size is, in kilowatts. Reporting household system size in "dollars" is a poor metric because PV dollars-per-watt is changing rapidly.
The source that I linked above says "Minimum PV sizing by code will rely on results from the energy consultant’s Title 24 compliance calculations." Can anyone explain what's required to comply with Title 24? I'm looking for answers in physical units rather than currency units.
FWIW, Germany and Australia have fully-installed residential rooftop solar costs-per-watt less than half of that in the US. I'm not sure where the big cost gap comes from -- Germany and Australia have decent wages for labor and safety codes too. The hardware is commoditized and globalized. If California could match Australian costs-per-watt then this proposal would add significantly less to the initial cost of a new house and significantly increase lifetime cost savings vs. using only power from the grid.
EDIT: it looks like the final adopted proposal is 17-BSTD-02, rather than the earlier 17-BSTD-01 that I linked above. Here's the final one:
An energy economist on why it's a bad idea: http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/borenste/cecweisenmiller180.... Basically, rooftop solar is less capital-efficient than large solar or wind farms, so we can save more carbon/$ by doing grid-scale generation.
I feel like the real motivation behind this is that far too many people believe that the hard part of getting solar panels adopted is in finding places to put them. So this law "solves" the problem. But that's never been the real problem. It's arguing about the color of the bike shed when the real mover of solar panels is price and output. Price isn't addressed here and you should expect installing it everywhere will lower the average output of installed panels (since it'll be put on non-optimal shady locations too).
Giving the price of a house in the Bay Area $10K is a rounding error.
I am all in favor of this. Scale will only drive the cost of the tech down. TX should follow this as should AZ, NM and every other state that is mostly "sunshine".
I am schedule to get a Tesla Solar roof. Almost seems like I should wait another year or 2.
As somebody who has installed rooftop solar in California in two houses I owned, I think this is a bad idea. Mandating solar solution means the one you get with the new house would be the cheapest (and therefore crappiest) money could buy and an inspection could pass. Most consumers have no idea how to evaluate solar panels, and most would not walk out of a good deal because of solar panels. Which means huge incentive for homebuilders to cut costs. And once you've got it, you are stuck with it - replacing is would have huge costs. And, of course, I have pre-pay it with my mortgage.
Instead, I'd very much like to choose a provider by myself, with a good reputation, and choose what kind of deal I can get on it, what are payment options, etc. There are a lot of options on the market. Pre-packaging the deal cuts off these options and takes the decision from me - unless I build the house by myself, I will no longer have an option of negotiating and choosing these things independently from the house itself.
Solar panels on new homes seems like a relatively low priority - considering they can always be added at any time, and it's not even necessarily the best strategy for all home/living situations. Not to mention CA has plenty of desert land to cover with PV panels.
California should instead be focusing on things like requiring rentals to provide EV charging for all tenants.
Nearly half of CA residents don't own their homes. Until some initiative forces their landlords to install EV infrastructure, the majority of these people won't even consider buying an EV at their next car purchase.
It strikes me as an urgent priority to remove all barriers to people owning EVs en masse, especially considering how long automobiles last. A major selling point of EVs is always finding your vehicle at 100% in the morning. Tenants who have to find places away from home to charge their vehicles for 1+ hours will rarely buy one.
So, a non-economic, burdensome measure instead of a carbon tax, which directly addresses the problem. With SB827 failing, I'm feeling good about leaving California.
Sounds like a taking for everyone that has a lot on the north side of a hill or nieghbors with tall trees that block the sun. I think a growth industry is going to be California solar lawyers that fight for rights to open paths to sunshine.
How will this change the discussions around net metering? Part of the offset of costs for solar were supposed to be the ability to sell excess back into the grid. And what happens when the grid no longer benefits from new electricity generation? If the new requirement is just for panels without storage it seems like a long-term transfer of risk and cost from energy companies to home owners.
Here are the problems with individuals having solar panels:
1) It's not enough power. Yet. So you'll need to draw from the grid.
2) Sometimes it's cloudy and you need to draw from the grid.
Given you need to still draw from the grid, but aren't paying as much... what does that do to the quality or maintenance cost per use for the grid? Do people who aren't on solar gets charged more per kW/h? A move to push them to get solar? Do people with solar get hit with a "grid maintenance" fee for not paying their fair share of grid maintenance (previously built in to their electric bill)? Do we raise taxes? Do we let infrastructure crumble?
I think solar is great, no question. But better if capacity is built through solar plants, that use the existing grid, rather than mandated as part of individual home construction.
Plus... and this is the part that bugs me... does this mean we can't build houses in the shade? Will we have to tear down old trees, or build taller houses than our neighbors have, in order to meet some quota for energy production... what if I want to have a roof-top patio? What if a new technology comes along... let's call it "Solar 2"... and it's better. Are we forbidden to use it until the laws are changed? What if it's just better in my opinion for my life... can I still use it, or am I locked in to whatever standards the State of California deems is best for everyone?
[+] [-] alkonaut|7 years ago|reply
Having one solution required means you can’t innovate to find a cheaper or better solution to the same problem.
The answer in this context would be to require a total net power draw for the home. Adding a production unit just gives more room in the calculation and not having one might mean more expensive insulation or smaller windows are needed instead.
[+] [-] litany|7 years ago|reply
This solar requirement has been a long time coming. I haven’t looked at the new standard, it’s called Title 24 2019 because it’s still under development but they might just pushing the energy budget low enough that solar is effectively required. Otherwise it may be required for prescriptive title 24 compliance. The article talks about square footage and 2kW minimum systems which to me sounds like the prescriptive requirement.
Personally I’ve never been able to use prescriptive for design reasons but some contractors for sure do, and they don’t understand the concept of modeling.
So yeah, you can innovate all you want and CA set it up that way for years now.
[+] [-] forapurpose|7 years ago|reply
While I instinctively agree, does anyone know of any research in this area?
I can speculate about possible downsides to legislating a performance specification rather than a solution: Giving people every possible option could result in people gaming the system, it could hamper investment because it creates uncertainty about what the future solution will be, or it could simply reduce transparency because the specification may be written to favor one solution anyway. That's just speculation, however; we need data and expertise.
[+] [-] elihu|7 years ago|reply
Perhaps we should discourage people from building in shady places, but that would have a side effect of encouraging people to build where they need more AC.
A more market-based approach might be to just tax electrical use higher. Unfortunately, that would be a very regressive tax. (I don't live in California, but I understand you have or used to have a sort of sliding scale, where if you use more energy than average you pay a higher rate per kwh.)
Another option would be to require new power generation to be built along with new construction, but allow builders to decide how to do that and allow them to share power generation. For instance, a developer building a hundred houses might put solar on each house or they might build (or buy a partial stake in) a solar farm or wind turbine being built outside of town where land is cheap. The tricky part there is to ensure that any new power generation is actually being built specifically for the new construction, and builders aren't just piggybacking on power generation that would have been built anyways.
[+] [-] ams6110|7 years ago|reply
Not good either. Just let people pay for what they use. Each person can decide how to optimize for his or her needs.
[+] [-] tlb|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ajross|7 years ago|reply
Your point isn't incorrect, but it's at best misplaced and mistimed. You should have been yelling about this when the law was being written, not now that it's passed. To those of us who care about the subject, your pedantry is harmful, not helpful.
[+] [-] deelowe|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RandomNameName|7 years ago|reply
The decision to implement California car emissions standards was not a heavy handed or half baked idea. The Rand corporation was called in to help figure out a solution other than catalytic converter and the ultimate decision was signed off by Ronald "not a fan of regulation" Reagan. Not only have there been improvements in the catalytic converter but also there's this company called Tesla that has innovated and provided an alternative. Your suggestion of goals was implemented in the last administration and is in the process of being removed. Lobbyists kill goals/limits.
A total net power draw is regulating the users behavior. Is that what you want?
Smaller windows or better insulation...? While home A/C is a factor, this is not about the user. This is about clean power for California (whether it's effective at producing the power is a different conversation). Users can still get better insulation or smaller windows or innovate as they see fit. California had two nuclear reactors. It has shut them down. This legislation (which I didn't know about till today) is one in a long string of movements toward cleaner air starting back in 1967.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/about/history
An unrelated note, I hear all this talk about money As others have said, this is an economic non-starter for a home in California. One thing that has not been mentioned is that currently home appraisers do not consider solar panels in the value of a home.
[+] [-] DeepYogurt|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thinkcontext|7 years ago|reply
I also think there should be a progressive component to the requirement. The standards could be looser for a $100K house vs a $1M house or perhaps a progressive tax credit of some kind.
One exciting thing about this is that the costs of solar will be much lower for solar than otherwise. All homebuilders will have to make their designs solar ready, soft costs such as customer acquisition will be lower for solar companies, economies of scale, etc.
[+] [-] trey-jones|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] foundart|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grawprog|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] TheCondor|7 years ago|reply
How do you rectify the free market innovation that was the VW/Audi/Porsche diesel scandal? There are mandated emissions requiments and the businesses are free to innovate solutions to meet them. Result: they just lied and cheated, in support of a specific technology that simply can’t meet the requirements but that they had made a century long commitment to. And became the largest car company in the world while doing it. How do you prevent net power draw regs from a) not resulting in just shitty home construction b) not encouraging cheating, many materials might not even be sourced from the US (like Canadian lumber) if you have to factor net energy into construction and c) not resulting in homes that require aftermarket additions like air conditioners which would in turn require new regulations? Or worse, really jacking up home prices when you simply can’t build new homes. what if you buy a house but then operate it differently than expected? Energy star numbers on TVs are this way, there are some really efficient TVs but nobody hardly ever operates their tv at those most efficient brightness settings, the viewing sucks.
It seems like you might want to reevaluate the rules in 10 years, it’s part of a big energy initiative they are taking on though. There is also room for a ton of grid innovation to make this work out reasonably. This law seems pretty simple in terms of the bigger goals the state has.
[+] [-] Karishma1234|7 years ago|reply
Say it costs $100 to install the solar roof. What if I were to invest the same $100 in a company that is building solar farms in Nevada and providing that electricity to California ? Wouldn't that give additional benefit to the planet ?
What if you expand from solar to all renewable including R&D labs ?
When you build a house in bay area you already more efficient because of relatively moderate temperature than the farmer's home in Fresno or Lake Shasta.
I think the politicians who get voted in power because of bay area yuppies have forgotten that their state is also an agricultural state with many hardworking people.
[+] [-] koube|7 years ago|reply
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/05/ro...
>I just became aware in the last few days of the proposal in the new building energy efficiency standards rule making to mandate rooftop solar on all new residential buildings. I want to urge you not to adopt the standard. I, along with the vast majority of energy economist, believe that residential rooftop solar is a much more expensive way to move towards renewable energy than larger solar and wind installations. The savings calculated for the households are based on residential electricity rates that are far above the actual cost of providing incremental energy, so embody a large cross subsidy from other ratepayers. This would be a very expensive way to expand renewables and would not be a cost-effective practice that other states and countries could adopt to reduce their own greenhouse gas footprints.
>I agree and would add that allowing more building near transit and other hubs as with California’s rejected SB827 would not only lower housing prices, rather than raise them as with this proposal, it would also be a much better way of reducing carbon emissions and saving energy.
[+] [-] rwbt|7 years ago|reply
In an ideal world SB827 makes sense, but it was rejected. So I'm glad CA is trying something more pragmatic instead of waiting for a 'perfect' solution. Even if something similar to SB827 is passed in the future - worse case, we'll end up a bunch of rooftop solar installations. That's not so terrible.
[+] [-] jpao79|7 years ago|reply
The great thing about the requirement is not that it is the absolutely most carbon friendly solution but that it creates a viable alternative to the PG&E monopoly on energy in California. They pretty much can effectively hike prices at will under the current setup. We need to reduce the amount of pricing power of all monopolies via credible competition.
[+] [-] gascan|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Retric|7 years ago|reply
That said, currently it's usually cheaper to stay grid connected vs 100% solar. But, the economics of that can shift around as solar becomes more common.
[+] [-] grellas|7 years ago|reply
This decree, of course, does not do all that but instead covers a narrow class consisting of one product (new homes) with one requirement (solar roofs). It does not affect existing homes. It does not affect homes in Nevada, Arizona, or anywhere else in America. It does not affect homes in any other part of the world. It therefore can be guaranteed, in itself, to have the most trivial of all impacts on the real world global environment. But it will have a very real impact on people living in the affected jurisdiction, not the least of which will be severely limiting their choices concerning new homes and also adding to the price they pay for such homes. On top of all that, it empowers politicians and bureaucrats who will be further incentivized to find new ways to limit choices in the future in the name of symbolic gestures done in the name of environmental concerns. Today, new homes. Tomorrow, existing ones. Next week, cars. After that, whatever experts and technocrats decree should be the subject of new coercive restrictions. Perhaps this is justified because of some ideal that it promotes or perhaps it is just a sell out to the solar lobby. But, justified or not, it certainly curtails freedom and choice and for what? A symbolic gesture at best or some hidden less-than-noble purpose at worst.
One could argue that there are definite limits to a state potentially abusing its authority in extending such powers. After all, there is a transcending principle behind it having to do with the environment. Yet, that is a very elastic principle that can be bent and shaped in ways that cannot readily be contained.
And so we are left with less choice, more expense, and prospects for a more restrictive future. It may or may not be good, but the animating principle, unless it is subject to clear limits (which do not appear here) is one that poses self-evident risks for a free society.
[+] [-] skybrian|7 years ago|reply
If the question is whether a developer, local community (via zoning), or the state of California gets to make the decision about what houses in a particular area look like, I don't think I have a strong opinion, since it looks to me like collective, political decision-making either way.
[+] [-] fardo|7 years ago|reply
I don't agree that such an authority is inherently dangerous, this kind of legislation is specifically an example where danger is explicitly reduced.
The below is an attempt to show this isn't just a noble gesture, but that environmental legislation has huge positive impacts, and is exactly the kind of thing we want a state doing.
California generates most of its power through natural gas [1], which the burning of creates smog, which has measureable impacts on life expectancy. Early numbers from China indicate that the difference between highly urbanized areas and less urbanized areas amount to at least 5.5 years of reduced lifespan. [2]
It may surprise you to find out that California, in many heavily populated areas like the Bay Area, where most people are living, actually has worse smog than that in Shanghai [3].
Let's try a simple model and do a back-of-the-envelope calculation of what this means for Americans:
Let's say that in the bay area, the smog is (ass-pulled in direct contradiction to my above source, so we're being conservative) half as bad as in China's urban areas, and therefore longterm exposure to smog reduces life expectancy by 3 years. Let's say that long term, solar panel usage allows California to reduce natural gas burning for power generation, which ultimately reduces smog in a way such that it halves the impact on life expectancy to 1.5 years.
There are 7 million people in the Bay area. If you're willing to buy the above model, you are saving 10.5 million years of human life just in the Bay Area by making the change, before we even begin to discuss external positive environmental impacts and subjective quality of life benefits of smog reduction.
Last thought? The average human lifespan in America is 79 years[4]. If the above model is correct, such a change is equivalent to saving 132,000 lives. You don't notice that all this life is being lost because the effects are so diffuse.
There are times to leap to your pitchforks about the harms of the state, but environmentalism definitely isn't one of them.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_California
[2] https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fu...
[3] https://www.ozy.com/acumen/think-chinas-pollution-is-bad-try...
[4]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expe...
[+] [-] esaym|7 years ago|reply
Now I'm trying to do the same thing (and on the same property). The water meter is $5,000 (cash only in full), and the septic tank is $15,000. If I was also required to have solar, I'd really be screwed...
Starting to think that working in Tech isn't even worth it anymore. We don't have big government lobbyists making rules to make software more complicated 'just because' every year and thus driving cost up (and making me more money). If my math is right, I'm pretty sure per my sad story above, I'm estimating that the septic people I am trying to work with are pulling in $3k-$5k+ (profit) a week in septic installs (its only a husband and wife outfit and in an area where rent is less than $1k a month....)
[+] [-] blang|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dragonwriter|7 years ago|reply
Yes, we do, they just focus on specific large software markets (in the last couple decades, health IT has been a huge area for this.)
[+] [-] gascan|7 years ago|reply
So, what do you do for electricity then? Most people developing rural property near where I live love solar, they can't get enough, as it lets them go off-grid and avoid paying electricity hookup fees.
[+] [-] tmh79|7 years ago|reply
office rental, increasing cost of septic tank hardware itself increased environmental regulations increase cost of permitting (money and time) with local government impact fees maybe increased insurance costs
people are making money on this, I just doubt its your tank installer
[+] [-] supercanuck|7 years ago|reply
Did you factor in healthcare?
[+] [-] hkmurakami|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fjsolwmv|7 years ago|reply
Why do you need a new water meter?
[+] [-] justherefortart|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mslate|7 years ago|reply
Gg “environmentalist” Sierra Club.
FTA specifically larger housing developers have been preparing for this for years—along with the solar lobby. So dumb, CA deserves to go bankrupt and be overrun by homelessness.
[+] [-] ppeetteerr|7 years ago|reply
California, what are you doing? Fix your housing problem!
[+] [-] cahomeown456|7 years ago|reply
However that assumes constant price conditions. If there's a glut of solar installations, prices for daytime generation may fall to where it no longer offsets all evening/night consumption. Once that happens you're forced to either invest in extremely expensive battery storage, or the breakeven date gets radically extended out into the future.
Overall, it seems like a pretty "meh" investment. The people doing it are the environmental True Believers(tm). I'd rather put the money into a new bathroom at this point.
[+] [-] darkstar999|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AndyMcConachie|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] philipkglass|7 years ago|reply
http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/17-BSTD-01...
?
In particular, I wonder what the minimum system size is, in kilowatts. Reporting household system size in "dollars" is a poor metric because PV dollars-per-watt is changing rapidly.
The source that I linked above says "Minimum PV sizing by code will rely on results from the energy consultant’s Title 24 compliance calculations." Can anyone explain what's required to comply with Title 24? I'm looking for answers in physical units rather than currency units.
FWIW, Germany and Australia have fully-installed residential rooftop solar costs-per-watt less than half of that in the US. I'm not sure where the big cost gap comes from -- Germany and Australia have decent wages for labor and safety codes too. The hardware is commoditized and globalized. If California could match Australian costs-per-watt then this proposal would add significantly less to the initial cost of a new house and significantly increase lifetime cost savings vs. using only power from the grid.
EDIT: it looks like the final adopted proposal is 17-BSTD-02, rather than the earlier 17-BSTD-01 that I linked above. Here's the final one:
http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/17-BSTD-02...
The final version says even less about minimum system size. I suppose that detail is hidden in one of the 14 documents it incorporates by reference.
[+] [-] tlb|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tgb|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] myrandomcomment|7 years ago|reply
I am all in favor of this. Scale will only drive the cost of the tech down. TX should follow this as should AZ, NM and every other state that is mostly "sunshine".
I am schedule to get a Tesla Solar roof. Almost seems like I should wait another year or 2.
[+] [-] smsm42|7 years ago|reply
Instead, I'd very much like to choose a provider by myself, with a good reputation, and choose what kind of deal I can get on it, what are payment options, etc. There are a lot of options on the market. Pre-packaging the deal cuts off these options and takes the decision from me - unless I build the house by myself, I will no longer have an option of negotiating and choosing these things independently from the house itself.
[+] [-] newnewpdro|7 years ago|reply
California should instead be focusing on things like requiring rentals to provide EV charging for all tenants.
Nearly half of CA residents don't own their homes. Until some initiative forces their landlords to install EV infrastructure, the majority of these people won't even consider buying an EV at their next car purchase.
It strikes me as an urgent priority to remove all barriers to people owning EVs en masse, especially considering how long automobiles last. A major selling point of EVs is always finding your vehicle at 100% in the morning. Tenants who have to find places away from home to charge their vehicles for 1+ hours will rarely buy one.
[+] [-] neural_thing|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jtlienwis|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] subculture|7 years ago|reply
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/solar-has-transformed-into-...
[+] [-] dbg31415|7 years ago|reply
1) It's not enough power. Yet. So you'll need to draw from the grid.
2) Sometimes it's cloudy and you need to draw from the grid.
Given you need to still draw from the grid, but aren't paying as much... what does that do to the quality or maintenance cost per use for the grid? Do people who aren't on solar gets charged more per kW/h? A move to push them to get solar? Do people with solar get hit with a "grid maintenance" fee for not paying their fair share of grid maintenance (previously built in to their electric bill)? Do we raise taxes? Do we let infrastructure crumble?
I think solar is great, no question. But better if capacity is built through solar plants, that use the existing grid, rather than mandated as part of individual home construction.
Plus... and this is the part that bugs me... does this mean we can't build houses in the shade? Will we have to tear down old trees, or build taller houses than our neighbors have, in order to meet some quota for energy production... what if I want to have a roof-top patio? What if a new technology comes along... let's call it "Solar 2"... and it's better. Are we forbidden to use it until the laws are changed? What if it's just better in my opinion for my life... can I still use it, or am I locked in to whatever standards the State of California deems is best for everyone?
Yeah this law is going to suck.
[+] [-] sctb|7 years ago|reply