This is a really dumb idea, shockingly dumb. The truth is that even in sunny California not all homes are suited to solar panels, mine isn't for instance. And adding 12,000 to the cost of wildly overpriced housing for solar is misplaced. It's too bad CA didn't decide to add that fee to pay for more for schools, that is the really desperate need, not solar panels.
4
Now if only they would also require a brand new Tesla in every new garage added to that mortgage payment.
I'm for it!
5
Now if they'd only lead the way with two simple, relatively low tech, things that would dramatically help with water issues...
1) Require all new buildings to have cisterns and water collection systems. Though much of the state receives limited rain fall - often during limited months - collecting water, as is done in many areas of the world, would drastically reduce water demand... even if its only used for watering the lawn, washing the car, flushing the toilet.
2) Require new driveways, commercial parking lots, etc. be made with permeable materials... most rain falling on these surfaces now get flushed into the ocean... Aquifers are not being replenished adequately! And water that does make it into the ground can take years to make its way into an aquifer, some estimates are in the decades.
Again, two relatively low tech - no new tech methods to address a serious issue in the state.
14
Heard some negative talk about the leasing of the solar panels. The current home owner may be responsible for the 20 year solar panel bill, even if he sells the house prior to 20 years..
admirable, but too little, too late
too little: only on new homes; no mandate regarding existing homes
too late: this is the kind of action that might have made a difference thirty years ago, but thanks to Republican mockery of concern for the environment beginning with Reagan ("tree-huggers"), climate catastrophe is upon us. If you doubt that, look at the amount of money we spent on hurricanes alone last year. Now look at California essentially on fire year-round without the resources to prevent enormous damage. Look at the hugely depleted coral reefs, which are essential components of the ecosystem we all inhabit. Those trends is continuing upward.
8
When is our culture going to catch up with the real world? Your headline reports that it will cost $thousands more. Other news sources are reporting that it will save the homeowner $20k over the life of the home! Not to mention reductions in carbon and other pollutants that benefits the entire world, not just the individual.
You are exhibiting the "Walmart" mentality wherein the ONLY measure of value is cost: and it has to be cheap. That is how we destroyed thousands of manufacturing jobs and the middle class. Your reporters just don't get it do they?
7
New science has created 24/7 solar with technology other than solar panels. It will be cost competitive.
Ambient heat is a huge untapped reservoir of solar energy.
The background temperature of space is -455 degrees F. (close to Absolute Zero). When the temperature is 50 degrees F. any place on earth, there is more than 500 degrees F. of previously untapped stored SOLAR heat available to be utilized. Power generating technologies can at last be designed to run 24/7 on ambient heat.
Thin laminates will be Ambient Heat Solid-State Generators. Initially, to keep phones charged. Then any electronic device. Large panels can be placed under solar panels. A group of vertical panels can also be placed in a small shed to power buildings.
See Cheap Green 24/7 at aesopinstitute.org to learn more.
Engines have been designed to run on ambient heat. They can scale from small emergency gen-sets to huge units capable of powering the largest ships. Cars and aircraft will feature them in the future.
See Fuel-Free turbines on the same site for future units to power hybrid-electric aircraft. Micro-turbines will provide electric cars with unlimited range.
Vehicles will become power plants when suitably parked. Selling electricity or powering buildings.
The science is hard-to-believe. Trolls attack it as fraud. A bit of additional support can speed it to market.
Enterprise, rather than coercion, is the fast way to retire fossil fuels. A few bold individuals are all that is lacking.
3
Really people shouldn't be complaining about an additional 8-12k on a home that is 500k+ and will ultimate give back that amount in energy savings. However, put the burden on the people who can really afford the expense and are some of the biggest energy consumers.
Why aren't corporations being made to do this? Why isn't every large box store parking lot covered in solar panels? Yes, put them on the new constructions, but what about walmart, target, etc., etc.? Why aren't these giant corporations who won't even feel the price being made to do it?
For those of you who are complaining that they don't want the government telling them what to do, well since you decided not to take it upon yourselves the government has to before the environment we live in becomes inhospitable. "Oh well we should let the market drive an increase in renewable energy." Sorry folks, we don't have time for that. We twiddled our thumbs for the last 40 years and now we don't have time to dilly dally anymore. It's like your parents making you do things you didn't want to as a kid because it was for your own good. You'll thank them later.
6
I do not believe the answer to storing solar generated electricity lies with developing more efficient batteries (at least not for now). If excess solar power could be used to pump seawater to higher ground during the daytime, ample hydroelectric power could be generated after dark. It's not rocket science.
1
Another reason to love California. Thank you all. Would that the South, proudly and staunchly holding the line against adopting such socialist measures, see the beauty and benefit in this policy. Alas, we're last in pretty much every measure of human ingenuity and dignity.
6
I find this topic and this discussion fascinating. 100% of the commenters appear to be wildly enthusiastic about this idea of *requiring* solar for new homes.
Me, not so much.
You should know that I already have rooftop solar, and generate 90% of my overall annual electricity consumption. I like it. If I had it do do over, I would do exactly the same thing again. Oh, and btw I truly hate PG&E. And, my next car will be electric. Etc. etc. etc. I'm all for it.
I'm just not for the government, in its infinite wisdom, telling me I *have* to do it.
We already have considerable subsidies to incentivize the industry, and they are working. Why do I have to be *compelled* to do this?
Also, because solar supply does not match electricity demand timing during the day, for solar to make the next leap what we really need is major improvement in ENERGY STORAGE. That problem is not solved. Until it is, I think this *requirement* is premature.
I am all for forward thinking such as requiring a 240V 30A circuit in every new garage, and doing the wiring to support a second electricity meter (for electric car charging). These are things that are cheap at time of initial construction and expensive as a retrofit. Rooftop solar is a different beast. The additional costs because of retrofit are minor.
I think this *requirement* is overreaching a bit.
8
Rufus, you are exactly right. 14 years ago when I got solar, PG&E needed my mid-afternoon production. They would buy back the excess (almost all of it) at a good rate. It's 2018; the utilities don't want any more 2pm excess electricity, so they're going to pay squat for it. Peak demand is weekdays 5-7pm, when homeowners are getting home and turning on their AC. Adding another million panels doesn't address this; what homeowners (and the grid) needs is the ability to store that electricity for 5 hours.
5
Rufus,
The government tries to act in the public interest (which is the opposite of what businesses do, and is why government should not be run like a business). If government decides it is in the public interest to generate more electricity by solar, then it should do that. Just like all the other government mandates we have to follow-seat belts, speed limits, building codes, earthquake-proofing, etc.
9
Aren't batteries for the most part an environmental hazard unto themselves? Something perhaps being improved upon?
Living in CA I often feel like I'm in a completely different country: particularly in the last year or so. And that's a very good thing!
12
And heck, when all those touchy-feely types say “eww, global warming -blah blah blah blah blathering blather” one can just turn on the air-conditioning and be environmentally sound, EVEN!
Look out your window. Is there a bituminous roadway in sight? What's the roadkill count? Or maybe there's no wildlife in the area to plow down?
California, you are blowing me away! Way to go. Too bad you're connected to the rest of this antediluvian country.
8
But what about water?
2
How do these politicos get so crazy? Many new homes are not suited for solar. An analysis of my home says not good for solar.
2
Foolish.
I have solar. Deep-cycle batteries and photovotalic panels wear out with use; much more quickly than, say, a roof.
The extra "$8,000 to 12,000" is NOT a one-time cost. Especially if you don't know how/aren't inclined to maintain the system.
Solar costs are ongoing, and quite expensive when you have to replace a whole battery bank or do system maintenance. This regulation will have serious financial impact down the line.
2
The ONLY sensible way to do solar!
Not sterilizing vast tracts of land with solar “farms”.
4
More socialism imposed on us peons by our elite overlords who answer to no one. I'm sick of it.
3
Really? California is going to mandate solar panels?
Hmm... lets run the numbers. Average life of Solar Panels is 20 years, even less if earthquake, fire, hail or mudslide takes them out.
That $10,000 dollar additional cost for the Solar panels will be added to the average 30 year mortgage, which would add an additional $50 dollars to the monthly house payment - which means that the 10k solar panels will end up costing $18,000 dollars at the end of thirty years. (This doesn't include the additional property tax costs.)
Since I own solar panels, I know that inverters and other items for the Solar panels wear out and need replacing. Which means the home owner will have additional costs to deal with long before their home is paid for. This means that the home owner will still be making payments on items that were long replaced for years!
The stupidity of California Lawmakers is mind blowing!
The fact that NYT can't even do a decent news report is also disappointing!
(I have no doubt that in the future, California will start taxing people for each solar panels... just as some states are already doing... which will add even more costs to the home owner!)
4
I understand the estimates are $40/month more in mortgage payment but saving $80/month on electric bill, so after initial outlay, gaining $40 per month. plus benefits to environment is additional $ gain
4
It's better than building more power plants.
4
All power should be banned.
3
Directly heating water with the rooftop solar collector [glass enclosed copper), is the best way to go… I miss my industrial sized collector with 1 inch water fittings on it; left it on the roof on my last res. down south in a town affectionately named Bradtucky!
Good job. And add voluntary wind power.
2
Ya gotta love California . . . without them, nothing good would ever happen. They've led the way on modernizing cars, and now this. Bless you, Cal! I'm taking a lesson from you. Even here, in Michigan where the sun doesn't shine nearly as much, I have installed solar on my roof. And it's beautiful!
4
The Coke Brothers must be rolling in their graves. What? Wait they’re not dead yet. Go California!!
1
I love the NYT, but this is a fluff-piece that shouldn't have made it past the editors.
1. "along with a choice of electricity retailers in many places." Do you mean organizations like Marin Clean Energy and Sonoma Clean Energy? They are fake competition, since as soon as they appeared PG&E changed its rates, slashing the price of the PG&E electricity component, and jacking-up the price to use PG&E's power lines. MCE and SCE don't really care; they play along, with their management getting paid very well to do... not much.
2. Elsewhere you quote a utility complaining about how solar installations are unfair to families who can't afford solar. Does that mean that my Prius is similarly unfair to someone who owns an Impala?
3. And there was a quote from a panel manufacturer, about how gosh-darned Californian it was to require solar panels on roofs. Seriously?
There's a story or two, but this article misses them.
lifespan of inverter.... 10 years. lifespan of panels... 20 years.....typical mortgage 30 years. You will have to replace parts before you pay it off initially.
Get set for Donald “Clean Coal” Trump to put a stop to this.
One topic missing from the discussion of rooftop solar in California is the impact on disaster recovery planning, for instance after a major earthquake. Will distributed power production, electric vehicles, cellular communications, and similar technologies provide California with greater resilience, allow speedier recovery, and permit the state government to concentrate resources on other recovery tasks? If so, this measure, which forces a significant amount of private investment, should be evaluated on that basis as well.
2
This article was not what it could have been. Where's the fact that PG&E, the largest utility in California, and perhaps the US, gouges us. California residential rates are the highest in the continental US, other than perhaps NY and CT. That's what makes solar particularly attractive.
I saw a sentence in the article about competition. Hopefully the author wasn't talking about Marin Clean Energy and Sonoma Clean Energy, which are laughing stocks here in the Bay Area.
Where's the detail about the utilities' new time-of-day rates which will make midday solar production near worthless.
I look forward to a better write-up on California residential solar; your readers deserve it.
The bottom line: the more power we generate from solar, the better. It really is clean energy.
But there are major issues. It's hard to store energy, though battery costs are coming down. We need to have a very smart electrical grid, that can move energy from one place to another, store energy from day to night, and provide energy from other sources when the sun doesn't shine. Alternating current (AC) must be synchronized, which is not easy when the power is coming from a million independent rooftops. There are many gotcha's which cannot be neglected, or the system will fail. And we need to be sure the costs of solving the gotchas are equitably shared, and not transferred from those who can afford solar panels (the well off), to those who cannot (the poor) - a reverse Robin Hood.
As I said, this is likely a good idea. But the gotchas are far from trivial, and will have to be managed.
2
Solar power is good in many cases, but it certainly not a panacea and should not be forcefully imposed upon citizens.
3
Indeed! And imagine the savings if we quit requiring sewage hookups…
3
Hardly useful to add another comment. First, my electric bill is $25-40/month. Yes, that's all. This is because no air conditioning is needed, with heating (minimal too), hot water, and clothes dryer all gas and with conscious conservation. In any case, too many trees shade the roof to allow a solar installation. Redwoods and oaks so not going to be cut down.
The other hidden green issue is that solar panels require LOTS of energy to manufacture. If the panels are coming from China, they already have a heavy carbon footprint. A Chinese manufactured panel starts something like 8-10 years in carbon deficit. Meaning, it will take that many years before you are at carbon neutral. We all seem to think that everything is on the positive day-one after installation.
If I could install panels I would have, we should all think about the carbon cost of manufacturing and shipping them before we count (and congratulate ourselves) on our carbon-saved ROI. No free lunch, as they say.
5
Of course there's a carbon cost to the panels. The relevant calculation is the differential.
Simply requiring PV shouldn't be the end of this discussion ― but it certainly should be the starting point, from which refinements are made...
1
But the best question is -- how do solar panels compare to new power plants, or upgrades at existing ones? Was that part of your analysis?
1
You correctly point out that solar panels require energy to make. True. They'd also require recycling at the end of the expected 20+ year lifetime. But a gas plant requires energy to build, energy to build pipelines feeding it, energy to keep drilling more and more holes to find gas.
So yes, solar panels and wind turbines aren't magically zero-carbon. But they DO become carbon neutral during their lifetime - something no fossil-fuel plant will be able to claim without expensive capture and sequestration technology.
And as manufacturing processes derive more and more of their own power from renewable-sourced electricity, the panels and turbines made become neutral far sooner.
Regarding your home, that's one reason the law permits shared generation - not every house will be plopped into a sunny field and oriented to maximize panel exposures.
This is an energy transition, not magic, but renewables/storage/efficiency are where we need to go.
2
Beyond the opposition of the building industry, there are the counterintuitive actions by the advocates of clean air, lower energy expense, and less dependence on fossil fuels -- foreign or produced by American transnational oil companies.
One example, Miguel Santiago in California. When he started his career on the Los Angeles Community College Board of Trustees, he refused to install solar panels to power the colleges 100% -- and therefore lock in the energy savings for the colleges into the future. He presented himself as an environmentalist, yet defeated the efforts of clean energy advocates. He opposed the expense of solar power.
However, he did not hesitate to gather hundreds of thousands of dollars of campaign contributions from the corporations renovating the colleges with publicly-financed bonds.
He then took that amassed funding to finance his campaign for California State Assembly. He distributed the wealth to the other Assembly members to gain stature in the Assembly.
And an irony. The Sierra Club endorsed him and continues to endorse him despite his continuing work against solar energy innovation.
His pro forma environmentalism wins Sierra Club endorsement. And his opposition to net-zero homeowner solar energy wins contributions from the unions controlling the installation of solar energy for public projects.
Will he ever support the full utilization of solar power?
Can the votes of homeowners every equal the votes-by-check of the unions?
6
Small solar power is an illusion. So is large solar. Politicials are just so crazy today.
The writer misstates the name of the Assemblyman and omits a detail on solar powering of the colleges.
His name is Miguel Santiago, of Assembly District 53.
And he did approve 10% solar power.
"Hundreds of thousands of dollars ...." The true amount is obscured by the paper-only records kept in the offices at Norwalk.
Anyone questioning the sponsors and environmental record of Miguel Santiago must drive an hour south of Los Angeles to search through paper archives.
Miguel Santiago set the example for many of the Trustees following him. The people of Los Angeles voted billions of dollars of bond debt to build new college facilities -- and the political climbers exploited their position as yes/no authority on contracts to extract campaign contributions to fund their careers.
The most recent, Sydney Kamlager, financed her election with donations received for her brief public service on the Board of Trustees.
And now, Scott Svonkin, finances his race for the California Board of Equalization with contributions received for his years approving building contracts.
There is big money in education for would-be politicians. But to learn the true amounts requires a long drive on the freeway and hours at a desk flipping through hundreds of pages of photocopies.
1
We wanted to put solar panels on our roof, but found we had too many trees, so it couldn't be done. This story doesn't address the issue. Totally in favor of solar panel, but curious as to how the 50 percent requirement by 2030 will deal with the tree/shade factor. Cutting down trees isn't the way I want to be energy-efficient.
7
While trees, nearby buildings and even cloud cover will reduce the amount of solar energy absorbed by the panels on a roof, they won't eliminate it altogether.
And remember that the placement of panels on the roof is just one of solar energy's many applications. Solar IS the future and it will provide a vastly safer, less toxic, more efficient, and ultimately much cheaper form of energy, for ALL power consumers, despite the fact it can't always be uniformly applied to every single structure on the plane. (Remember, there will still be a vast, interconnected grid that will allow all homes to tap into it.)
2
Yes. And also consider homes in California’s fog belt - hardly prime candidates for solar power. Ditto for the rainy season for homes in Northern California. Mandatory solar power may have its place, but one size does not fit all.
2
Kathleen, the story addresses it that issue: "Under the new requirements, builders must take one of two steps: make individual homes available with solar panels, or build a shared solar-power system serving a group of homes."
And it applies to new construction, not existing homes.
An important thing to note, especially regarding the reply by Intuitus about fog, is that panels can produce power under a range of lighting conditions - the diffuse light in fog doesn't mean the panels simply stop, and storage would help smooth things on a day-to-day basis. But other supplies (like the hydro power sent down from the Columbia River already) and a grid connection would still make the most sense to people who don't consciously decide to go completely off-grid.
1
California’s problem is homelessness and yet the legislature found a way to make housing more expensive. The genius is the electric bill isn’t taxable, but the added value of the solar panels are subject to property taxes every single year. It’s a giant moneymaker for state government disguised as a green initiative.
3
If the initial cost lowers one's electric bills, solar can turn out to be cheaper over the life of the house, or even after so many years of occupancy.
Deciding these things by initial cost is not the right way to do it. Engineers use something called life cycle cost analysis. That is what is needed here.
1
I guess it's good that housing in California is really affordable otherwise and everyone there is so wealthy they don't mind dropping an extra $10k when they buy a house...
I'm all for clean energy, but it's pretty comical that California chooses to exacerbate one of the biggest problems in the state
(housing affordability) in order to be "progressive".
4
Homelessness is reflective of the economy which is reflective of the 5 billion and counting too many people to sustain life on Earth.
In reply to comments about cost:
It already requires a 6 figure income to buy a home in California — you need to be earning at least $120,000 on average, and much much more in many locations. People making that kind of money are likely not going to be all that effected by an extra $8,000 on their price tag. Those making less than 6 figures are, generally speaking, going to be renters. The huge barrier to entry for home-ownership here is a problem that absolutely needs to be addressed, but criticizing this measure isn’t going to accomplish that.
The planet needs this. If we’re really concerned about the extra $8-12,000, maybe we should be talking about something like a carbon tax, which would make solar panels more competitive in the energy industry.
10
Despite Trump's tariff on panels, if one were to shop carefully and purchase their own system, costs are in the $2.25 - 2.75/watt range (net after tax incentive). Return on investment (ROI) is not less than 12% per year for 25 years plus - projected life of the panels, but likely longer will be found; 12% double tax free!
What rational, modestly educated homeowner would not take advantage of a 12% ROI? (I write from experience of several years with no electricity bill.)
3
The catch of course being there should be no more real estate expansion, or have we not yet learned from the fires?
Adding to the cost of a home isn't going to help people who can barely afford a place to live whether it's in California or any other state in the country. Why isn't our president, the leader of the country and someone who is supposed to be concerned for the welfare of all citizens, not just those who voted for him, ordering the relevant cabinet members to look at this and come up with something that won't penalize people who do not have a 6 figure income? Or is this oversight part of the GOP plan to continue supporting dirty fuel?
2
Westchester, NY, is also far from a 'low rent district' and the City is even higher.
The home prices are driven by supply & demand. The highest prices, those that make the news, are along the coastal strips in regions of jobs requiring high educational standards. Land in these regions is mostly occupied, so in accord with supply & demand economics, prices are dear.
2
Jim, that's not my point. If we need to prepare for a future without fossil fuels, and we do, why isn't our illustrious leader directing his cabinet to look at ways to deal with it that won't leave working Americans struggling to find affordable housing? Unaffordable housing is not exclusive to LA, the NYC area, Chicago or any other metropolitan area in the country. Salaries have not kept pace with the actual costs of living in America. Therefore, no matter where a person resides, if he is not earning a decent salary housing is a problem.
1
Quick definition of the difference between liberals and conservatives.
Liberals want everyone to have solar panels so they can generate electricity for their own homes.
Conservatives want everyone to have solar panels so they harvest the electricity generated by your personal solar panel and sell it back to the general public for a profit.
Hope this clarifies the differences between the two political parties...
4
I invested in solar panels on the roof of my townhouse in 2007. It was one of the wisest investments I have ever made. While my neighbors get electric bills of as much as $400 dollars per month, mine is never more than $128.00 per month, and sometimes quite a bit less. My only regret is that my roof is not large enough to accommodate more panels. I welcome California's new rule, and hope it spreads widely and quickly. And no, I have not had any roof leaks.
10
In California, solar output is greatest BEFORE the peak demand period of the day. In the summer, peak state energy demand is a couple of hours AFTER solar power is totally gone. Once the sun has set, the state depends on some flaky wind power, imported power, and natural gas fueled power.
One potentially serious concern: as solar takes a larger and larger share of the day time power supply, the state's natural gas plants will become merely standby and night time power. Will independent natural gas power plant operators continue under these conditions or will they shut down?
2
Well, with any luck, the Luddites will destroy the cotton gins so the hand-picked cotton workers won't lose their jobs.
That IS your argument, right...?
3
We put a 9.5 kW array on our garage 4 years ago and haven't had any electrical bills to speak of since then. One terrific benefit is that the solar array produces peak power on summer afternoons when our AC needs are greatest. Cost for CA residents? "...the standards will add about $40 to an average monthly payment, but save consumers $80 on monthly heating, cooling and lighting bills." The net $40/mo savings translates into ~$5K/yr, or $150K over a 30 year mortgage term. Every homeowner deserves this benefit.
4
Does it affect apartment houses, condos, rentals, pre-existing houses?
1
The big question mark I see in this whole picture isn't necessarily that solar is a bad idea, but where the existing electric capacity will be going? In my province of Ontario, electrical capacity far outstrips demand, particularly as the government and the grid operator have incentivized homeowners to be more energy efficient.
It's possible that communities may be able to be entirely self-sufficient in the future, but until that time, we are going to need to come up with strategies that better model and match electrical supply with demand.
Increased up front cost, AND lower monthly bills. Sounds like an investment.
3
In a state where homes already cost well above the national average this is not a great expense and the benefits will outweigh the up front costs.
Distributed Generation with everyone having on site solar or wind can be vastly more efficient than the current system. Transmission Loss varies based upon location, but runs from 8-15%- otherwise up to 15% of the power generated by burning fuels or boiling water in a Nuclear plant is wasted as it transits long transmission lines to get to your home.
Next- much of California is a great candidate for Solar Energy and most often the hottest weather will be during sunny weather when you get peak output from your rooftop panels. This is also often true in the coldest weather- clear and cold will mean sunny days.
The investment part will be adapting the grid to the new power and net metering.
California leads while Washington, the grip of the GOP, embraces dirty fossil fuels and Nuclear.
5
How about building affordable housing with solar panels? California, and other states such as New York with a growing homeless population could be leaders in constructing multi-unit buildings that are energy efficient at a price the average worker could potentially afford. Since rents are so high, renters would be happy to at least have some of the cost of their electricity offset buy solar panels. Each apartment in the building, depending on the size and number rooms would receive a monthly energy allotment. Those who were very conservative may have no electricity bill.
I personally would welcome the opportunity to have solar panels installed on my home. In the past year the cost of our energy supply has increased by over 30%. This is an unsustainable rate of increase. I have noticed more and more people getting solar panels. So are we being charged more for energy to make up for less profit?
6
"I personally would welcome the opportunity to have solar panels installed on my home." Of course you would! We'd all like to have 401Ks with a million dollars in them too. But someone has to PAY for it, and, as the article points it, this action will further push housing costs out of reach for the average CA resident. Liberalism is expensive, and eventually you run out of other people's money.
2
I pay for everything I have. So I don't really understand the purpose of your response. I don't use other people's money for what I need or want.
As a homeowner, the mortgage is only the beginning. Utilities, taxes, regular maintenance, replacing appliances, repairs, all add up to make home ownership increasingly difficult to finance on most average incomes. With or without solar panels. If an extra 40 or $80 per month on your mortgage is the difference between your ability to afford a home or not afford a home, you can't afford that home.
My mortgage is the same it was last year, but I'm getting electric bills in the winter that are more similar to the bills in the summertime when we are using air conditioning. In a truly free market system, we should not be charged extra money to make up for lost Revenue/profit because there's a competitive alternative.
Economy of scale will kick in, making these features a bargain.
In the event of a blackout, I hope the inverters used are of the type that can make use of batteries, and also supply the house with electricity, as long as the sun is shining.
The panels can charge electric vehicles. You can be mobile instead of waiting in long lines for gasoline that can't be pumped out of the ground due to power failures.
In NJ, during the outages from Hurricane Sandy, my solar panel had to be automatically disabled. 7000 watts "useless" due to manipulations. The explanation for this was that my system had to be shut down so workers, on the grid, would be safe and not be shocked. The right way would have been to have my system "automatically disconnect" from the grid, instead of "automatically shut down". Be wary of the power companies and crony politicians, they seem to do everything to make solar as difficult, and rube Goldberg as possible. I found that out with PSE&G and Gov Chris Christie. The R. Gov., who circa 2010 ended all the state incentives for homeowners to obtain affordable solar. PSE&G put a bracket and a solar panel on every power pole in my neighborhood, and many others. This robbed folks of SREC's (Solar Renewable Energy Credits) and helped make solar un-afordable for many.
4
To Getreal: Of course it would be ideal if all solar systems were built with inverters that in a grid failure would automatically disconnect from the grid and begin charging a substantial battery system installed with the solar system. However, that type of inverter is a lot more technically complicated and therefore a lot more expensive than the current type that solves the "don't shock the line repair workers" problem by simply shutting down in a power failure. And a system with that fancier, more complex inverter and a battery system large enough to run your whole house for a couple days is at least twice as expensive as the simpler type with no battery and the simpler inverter. It's regrettable but not a racket or a conspiracy, that the Mercedes costs a lot more than the Ford EconoBox.
3
Lizzy:
A simple solenoid that disconnects power from the panels to the grid when power is shut off from the grid.
This is much better than.
A simple solenoid that shuts down the entire inverter in the event of a grid failure. Letting all the solar power go to waste.
Volkswagen you can use, or Volkswagen you can't.
The conspiracy is to not let the neighbors see how beneficial your panels are. Plus, you can cook with electric, keep food cold, ride, and can go the doctor or shop in your electric vehicle.
But of course, if you can't do any of these, because of the way the solenoid was wired up, that would be regrettable.
Batteries? The Tesla's will be very affordable when, and if, you want to include them.
One more thing Elizabeth. With a system consisting of only solar panels and an inverter. An "SMA America Secure Power Supply" controller, for about $150 dollars will enable the panels, in the sun, to supply a chosen electrical outlet in the house with up to 2000 watts of power. If you overwhelm the panels with electrical appliances, the power will shut off. No brown out.
When the electrical load is lessened or the sky clears up, the power comes back on.
If you want all outlets available for power from the Secure Power supply, it would cost approx 1500 dollars to wire it into a special panel.
No batteries needed.
Oh, and you may want to ask why automatic standby generators are used in the event of a blackout. A solar panel array is a generator when the sun shines.
No issue of shocking a repair man with the gasoline or propane generator. Why regulate the solar generator so it is useless?
Not a terrible idea, especially for SoCal. If the economics of a solar panel work, and they seem to, then this may actual lower the total cost of home ownership. Furthermore, even renters would benefit since the panels lower utility costs.
The thing California will have to watch out for are cut-rate builders installing extremely low quality panels systems just to check the box.
3
How about requirements for businesses? Anyone who has flown into LAX can see acres of roofs on commercial buildings that could easily accomodate solar panels.
9
CA is progressive. Some of us understand the problems we face in a warming climate, but some still don't understand what happens thousands of miles away from them does affect their lives locally. In other words, what India, China, and the rest of the world does affects my life here in the American Southwest. We can complain about how hot it is or how dry it is or how another torrential rainfall flooded the house again or we can face the future. That is how CA is different from TX or OK or NM or FL or LA or AZ or..........
5
Very good point, but New Mexico isn't the same as the other states you mention.
California's (and soon other states') utilities will have to change the way they make their money. They provide a grid and guaranteed power to a given area. When a home produces net 0 power (sometimes providing to the grid, sometimes taking from it) it does not cost the utility 0. In the future, a large part (probably half or more) of your electricity bill will be a flat fee for access to the grid and load balancing. The rest will be for the kilowatt hours consumed, which will be variably priced to try to manage that demand. Because this is new for utilities, and because they will have to invest to handle this new role, that flat fee for access to the grid will be a large one. Don't assume electricity bills are going to go down even though your electricity consumption goes down. Everyone switching to solar will create enormous costs for the utility which the utility will have to make back by charging for access to the grid. The day when a large part of your electricity bill will be fixed, not variable, is coming soon.
5
Our electric bill is split into two parts. One is for the cost of generating electricity, the second , is for the cost of delivery (i.e. the grid). Each is regulated accordingly. The grid has always been a national responsibility going back to the Rural Electrification Act with the realization that most of America (geographically) would not have electric power since the cost of delivering the power would far outweigh the revenues that could be generated from regions with sparse populations. Ultimately, power availability, reliability, and renewability will have to be balanced, as it has been, by cost and pricing policies.
4
Stop parroting the complaints of the utility companies. Yes, the days of centralized power production and transmission are becoming obsolete. Change is inevitable unless you think our current state of energy production is the epitome of human potential!
Read your comment again, substituting horse drawn taxis or supermarkets.
It's silly to try to change progress by screaming about pennies. It will be OK, Tom.
4
They idea for this is good but solar panels on roofs cause more leaks from rain damage. The panels should be put in their yards instead.
1
Small government, big government. This Ayn Rand fundamental is at the heart of our polarization. Everyone wants less rules, regulations, taxes and everyone wants roads and schools, social security and romaine lettuce inspectors. When the extended family lived on one farm, the elderly were looked after by their family, but by the 1930's many had moved to the cities as the country fell on hard times. No one was looking after grandma or grandpa so we got social security. When the country had too much garbage, we got mandatory recycling. When the country got too much carbon-dioxide, we get mandatory solar. We may not like big government, but social security, lettuce inspectors and houses that prevent flooded coastlines, are necessary.
8
Making solar panels obligatory and considering the additional costs, can create problems for the bulk of buyers. Nonetheless, California has the right idea and with a working Federal Government, nationwide solar power could be accomplished.
I just heard out a presentation by a solar provider here in Maryland and it made a lot of sense. The panels I was offered have a life of at least 20 years and require little maintenance.
Solar power is just the beginning. Better fire proofing and improved utilities are in the near future. At least in some areas, things are looking up.
4
The lengths humans go to to avoid the obvious: the problem is that the cost of using fossil fuels is artificially low, because the price of using them does not include the cost of disposing of the waste--particularly CO2.
That is: people are not paying for what they get. Always a problem in a supposed free-market.
The solution is obvious and simple: carbon tax at the point of extraction. There is no other real solution, and it has the benefit of being market-based: people can CHOOSE to use whatever source of fuel they wish, instead of being forced to add features to a house they may not wish to have.
5
I hope future articles will focus more attention on the batteries here mentioned only in passing. Like with electric vehicles, all manner of rare minerals goes into those batters, and mass producing them for cars and homes isn't remotely like the tiny batteries that fit in a cell phone or computer. We're creating mining burdens on the scale of coal's mountain top removal for electric batteries. This is not really a solution.
Also, what happens when we trade out the costs of energy consumption for producing it through solar? It's great to have it renewable, but I can see people leaving their air conditioning permanently on through the summer, up to whatever amount of energy they produce from the panels. This is going to generate much less energy for the grid than expected because "free" anything changes consumption habits immediately.
3
What about mandated grey water systems for new homes?
(Years ago my water bill [I don't live in CA] - was negligible and the electric bill high. These days, with lower electric rates, it's now flipped: water is the big expense).
2
If this is such as great idea, why aren’t people doing it voluntarily?
5
You could ask the same thing about all the industries that receive government subsidies, and you would end up with nothing. The real answer to our energy and emissions problem is energy conservation. Cut out all the waste due to poor insulation, energy in-efficient homes, gas guzzling cars etc etc etc and you could eliminate half of the energy consumption in this country.
2
So....mandatory solar panels add to the construction cost of the home. That makes sense. But how about the increased costs associated with maintenance and repair? Where is that tabulated?
Keep in mind that what works for CA does not work for everyone. I looked into panels for my home in the Finger Lakes of NY State. At NYSEG prices to keep my home livable it would have taken 35 years for the panels to pay for themselves. That is with a near-perfect location for panels and based on fixed NYSEG costs into the future.
Here in NY our panels get covered with snow in winter, pollen in spring, leaves in autumn, and bird droppings all year long (on the shore of a lake). This reduces the effectiveness of the panels from 40-100%.
Specialized tools are needed to get the coverings off, and it is dangerous work. I would have had to buy, store and maintain a power washer, professional leaf blower, two sets of heavy-duty ladders, a scaffold system, and specialized roof-snow removal systems that would not damage the panels, specialized squeegee systems to remove droppings from birds.
That would mean building another building on the property just to hold equipment that I did not need before.
Also...in the year it took for me to consider solar panels, the company I was going to use went out of business. There would have been no local rep for repair or replacement of parts. Glad I had to sense to take my time.
10
Right, CA is different from upstate NY. But community solar systems and wind power are carbon-free alternatives. Nonetheless, I see an increasing number of rooftop installations in this area.
1
Alternative energy resources like solar power are essential for the future of the modern economy and our way of life. Most of the west and southwest of the USA are target areas for solar and wind project installation. Sustainable energy resources without a carbon residue should be welcomed. California has decided to lead the way in the USA by promoting a technology which benefits everyone. China, Germany and Denmark are 10 years ahead of the USA when it comes to fostering this kind of energy technology use. The article states that there is an increase in the price of a home because of the addition of solar panels. The article fails to note that because of the energy generated by the panels after a period of about five years the investment is recovered and the energy generated is then a direct benefit to the homeowner.
3
Finally, policy that makes sense. California, always the leader. Thanks for showing the rest of the country what is possible.
10
You can’t walk through most CA cities without tripping over homeless people, day laborers and migrants, so CA decides to concentrate it’s efforts on mandating solar power panels for homes. And at the same time when CA wastes the most water than any other state with their millions of swimming pools, large number of golf courses, and farms in an otherwise desert. As the saying goes - fiddle while it burns.
5
Poppycock. Every large city in this country has homeless. It is an epidemic. Fly over my city, and you will see swimming pools everywhere, and I don't live in California. California and New York have always shown the rest of the country how to govern successfully. The so-called fiddling you speak of is in Washington.
1
Your statement loses all credibility with your first false claim, “you can’t walk through most CA cities......” then you completely sink it with “millions of swimming pools” when in fact it was just over a million and dropping. https://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/30/california-drought-swimming-pool-industr...
I’ll join your ire about golf courses, but in their defense they are making the right moves goaded by a mandatory 25% reduction in water use enacted in ‘15.
http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-california-golf-courses-are-res...
Farms are kinda essential, ya think? If not, stop buying all produce from CA, including our wines.
What changes have you or Minnesota made to mitigate climate change? As the saying goes, “those who live in glass houses.....”
1
So, the nation's most expensive housing market is going to get even more expensive because progressive elites are imposing costly, ill thought out regulations that solidify there economic status - all at the expense of the working class who are already priced out of the housing market.
How is this making America great again?
3
We recently installed solar panels and they are generating more electricity than we use for our house and our electric car. It feels great to be driving on sunshine instead of gasoline. The panels were expensive but will pay for themselves in savings on our electric bill in 12 years and then will continue to produce electricity for free. Adding $10,000 in cost to a home is not much, considering the overall cost of a new home, and the solar panels will pay for themselves in energy savings. The relationship of home generated electricity and the grid will evolve over time as needed. We all need to be working to reduce global warming and this is a good step in that direction. Thank you, California, for leading the way into the future.
12
Adding 10k to every home price is insane. It will price out so many more people. While this idea is a step in the right direction it needs to be tested first with higher priced homes and slowly include lower priced homes over time as to not majorly disrupt the market. Adding 10k to a 2 million dollar is relatively small but adding 10k to 200-300k (if CA even has homes priced this low...) home is a big ask.
3
Read the article. Almost everyone buys a house with a mortgage, so it the monthly payment that's the issue. Solar panels add $40 to the mortgage payment, but cut the utility bill by $80.
How is saving $40 per month pricing people out?
Considering the price of the CA homes, 10K extra may not be excessive, especially when you can fold that in to the mortgage.
However, if it is an integral part of the house, for goodness sake, make the solar panels look like part of the house and not an afterthought.
5
If having houses solar-panel equipped is a valid selling point then the market would have ‘mandated’ them long ago and not 5 members of a government board. Washer-dryers, refrigerators, air-conditioning, hot water, etc. were all ‘mandated’ by the house-buying public and not by government.
6
The greatest decision in the history of saving our planet.California has shown the way.Congratulations Governor Jerry Brown for this great decision.
Every rooftop,bare hill,desert,malls,empty space should sport the solar panels.
Why is that good sense comes to Californians,FIRST.
Every State in the US should emulate this wise decision.
15
Wise Decision?
You don't own a solar system... I DO!
100% of power for one of my buildings comes from the solar system that I installed myself!
Do you even know how solar panels are made? The environmental damage caused by their production? The cost of ownership after 20 years?
Want to store the power? That's just going to add even more costs and cause even more damage to the environment!
You want to cover hills and desert with solar panels?
You have no idea as to what you're talking about!
You don't have a clue!
2
California is the best nation in the country.
2
"Every rooftop,bare hill,desert,malls,empty space should sport the solar panels."
But who is going to pay for and maintain all those panels? And if you build panels on all the open land, how to you expect cities to expand as populations increase?
Have you been watching the CA wildfires? CA mudslides? CA earthquakes? Those tend destroy things made of glass....like solar panels.
4
This is a good idea. I just wished there were more incentives for those of us already owning homes to install solar panels. Or that prices would drop. Whenever I run the numbers I find that we still need a decade or more out to account for the costs of installation and maintenance.
2
When I started in the residential solar business in CA 10 years ago the payback period was 20-25 years in most cases. 10 years or so to recoup the investment sounds awesome and worth the wait. The ironic fact is the more electricity your home consumes the faster the payback period if your system is sized right. I'm no longer in that business but happy to see the costs of a system have gone down considerably and the payback period has shortened. There are also power purchase/lease agreements where you have little or no upfront costs and just pay for the energy you use that is generated from your solar system at a lower rate than you would pay your utility company. Check it out.
1
"...the Energy Commission estimates that the [requirements] will add about $40 to an average monthly payment [for a 30-year residential mortgage loan], but save consumers $80 on monthly heating, cooling and lighting bills."
“Our druthers would have been to have this delayed another two or three years,” said Mr. Raymer
why delay? if using solar panels is more profitable not using them, surely this could be advertised and the profit could be deducted from the purchase price to determine a net monthly or annual cost. lenders and consumers should already account for other expenses and savings like taxes, insurance and tax deductions on an annual or monthly basis.
also, i believe that subsidies could already be available from the CA state government for the installation of solar power to defray the installation costs. the article mentions the requirements, but does not mention the subsidies (assuming they continue to exist).
of course, there could be wide variation from the average savings, perhaps due to weather and temperature and personal habits, so some communities or individuals might not welcome the requirements.
California has been selling its excess solar electric output to other states. Or worse. Like this.
http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-electricity-solar/
"California invested heavily in solar power. Now there's so much that other states are sometimes paid to take it."
http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-electricity-capacity/
"Californians are paying billions for power they don't need."
Et cetera.
Now, the same state with the sky high GDP, but that can not repair its roads, and whose public schools rank near the bottom nationally, wants to force everyone buying a new home to add $10M+ to the cost, for no good reason at all, and yet another major expense when their roof wears out and needs repair.
4
FINALLY. I have been waiting to see this for a long time. Now if we can do the same for commercial building...
9
Excellent point. Why just homes? Why not big business?
2
The payback period for your upfront solar installation investment gets repaid every month with reduced or no electric bills. Factor in the increase in value when you go to sell your home, and it's pretty much a win-win for the homeowner, and the environment.
11
Impressive move by California.
Arizona, still living in the dark ages with an over-abundance of sun, will never follow suit.
Conservatives simply don't get that just as standard building code requires up-front investments for long-term problem avoidance, up-front investments in solar a bonus to everyone in the form of cleaner air and less dependence on the vagaries of oil prices and international politics.
13
There's no upside to making housing here more expensive. It's bad enough as it is. State, county, & municipal legislators have made it impossible for new housing to be built.This is a Democratic controlled state from top to bottom. Affordable housing has always been one of the cornerstones of our party. This state should be a showcase on how well we can execute this policy. Instead, it's yet another example of our complete intellectually bankruptcy. It's symptomatic of a much bigger problem. The growing divide between some Democrats who want to practice what they preach & fanatical progressives who want to strangle everything. Environmentalists will go to the barricades to stop any housing projects from being built here. Mind you we are talking about affordable housing for working class families. Thanks to their efforts the gateway to middle-class security, has been pushed beyond their reach. The ease with which environmentalists can stop housing developments is a direct result of the numerous local & state laws that favor environmental concerns over affordable homes. The result: millions of people are without access to high-quality low cost homes. Do we really need people in the party who are subverting core American values? If we can't fix affordable housing here then we are a joke. All of us have a stake in solving California’s (and soon, the nation’s) housing-affordability crisis. Adding $12,000 to the cost of a house isn't the way to do it.
5
Nonsensical argument.
It isn't 'more expensive' to require solar. It is quite a bit cheaper in the long-run.
Adding $12,000 to a 30-year mortgage makes almost no difference when considering the historical trends of housing prices.
14
OK. Let's say you add $10,000 to the cost of a home that has a solar system that will save the homeowner $150/month. The cost of adding $12,000 to your 30-year fixed rate mortgage of 4%, is a whopping $49. Not only does the homeowner benefit to the tune of $1200/year, his home has already increased in value due to the monthly savings a new buyer would enjoy.
13
Answering all comments. People please get the facts. Housing in California is already unaffordable for the the lower & middle class....making it more expensive is insane. Of the ten most expensive places to buy a home in the US five of them are in the Golden State. This is a state where the median price of a single-family home is nearly $565,000. That's unacceptable. While we are talking about costs lets don't forget politicians are notorious for under estimating expenses. The Energy Commission estimates the solar panel requirement will add $12,000 to the cost of a new house. But home builders say a solar panel requirement will add up to $30,000. Those predicted savings will take time. The Energy Commission estimates Californians will save $9,500, on average, over 30-years. If you’re a renter you may end up paying higher rent to offset the additional cost of the solar panels. The state’s biggest climate challenge is the fact that Californians drive so much. Transportation emissions are 40% of the total – twice as much as electricity generation. The requirement to put solar panels on every new house could make it harder to increase housing density in cities & near public transit, which would have a much bigger effect on emissions reductions. Because of the lack of density, people are forced to drive everywhere. You need a car. There're no other options. Until we tackle that problem, doing things like requiring solar panels for new construction is a flimsy band aid at best.
5
In reality no new homes should be build in most of California because there is not enough water to support additional population. The Lake Mead watershed was overbuilt a decade ago. If you have no water, power is irrelevant.
9
Curious where the $8,000 - $12,000 cost number came from? According to the article, regulation is requiring 2 or 3 kilowatt systems which are a little over $2 per Watt. So that seems like $4,000 - $6,000 cost (half of what’s reported).
1
Fantastic. This sort of legislation is needed on a national scale because so many states with so much sun are so conservative and anti-solar. For example, you can climb the hills around Phoenix and look down to see a sea of roofs without a single solar panel. Crazy.
13
Stupid is what stupid Americans do (as stupid Americans do). Hardheaded, or “proud” as they might say, they’d rather pay for every kilowatt And scoff at anything that is economically efficient
Given the cost of a new home in CA the cost isn't going to make a huge impact and the cost will probably be recovered within 5-10 years.
8
I've had solar on my home for something like 14 years. So don't think I'm anti-solar.
That said, this is bad legislation. California has all sorts of rules that are great: roofs need to have a certain fire resistance; windows near a neighboring structure need to have a certain fire resistance, remodels of 50+ % need to be sprinklered, floors need to be bolted to the foundation every xx, using zz; insulation needs to be yy - the list goes on and on. All of these are great ideas, but the end result is that homes are unaffordable.
Meanwhile we have a resurgence of rent control legislation that will make any investor think twice about building apartments.
As a result we have an incredible housing shortage, with workers driving a hundred or more miles each way, to get to where the jobs are.
The solution is not to further jack-up the price of a home; the solution is to do the opposite: allow the construction of homes that meet a simpler set of rules.
18
There has also been legislation to streamline the development process. It’s a complicated issue, it the primary blocker now is NIMBYism.
The article says that the average increase in the cost of a home will be $12,000. When your house costs maybe $600K, that's negligible. And the reduction in the cost of electricity, a not insignificant amount in an increasingly hot climate, is a major plus.
Keeping housing costs down is a complicated subject, and does need to be addressed. But rescinding this initiative wouldn't solve it.
1
Cynthia, I sense that you're missing my point. There are scores of great requirements for home construction. But the end-result is that homes are unaffordable for too many people. And apartment construction is unprofitable, since most of these construction requirements apply, BUT the builder/investor is at risk of getting his ROI capped. So California has a serious shortage of homes. Given the current housing crisis, adding to construction costs is the opposite of what we need to do.
PS - In most counties in California, the average new home is a fraction of the $600k you reference, so that $12k bump does make a difference.
"State officials and clean-energy advocates say the extra cost to home buyers will be more than made up in lower energy bills. That prospect has won over even the construction industry, which has embraced solar capability as a selling point."
Something else important, which is resale value, meaning that a homeowner need not stay in the house long enough to have the solar panel premium repaid in lower energy bills because they can sell it for a higher price with the solar panels. It was the same with my hybrid car - higher initial price against savings in gas and also higher resale value (until the battery warranty ran out).
That said, many care more about the environmental effect more than personal economics.
3
I haven't paid for electricity in over two years, including the power for my electric car. In another three or four years my investment will be fully recouped. I couldn't be happier.
33
In 1978 I was a member of a group of student engineers at the University of Illinois in Chicago who worked on a “Solar Lab” demonstration project. It was fashioned out of a brand new semi-trailer donated by Allied Van Lines. We were modestly funded by a small grant from the US Department of Energy. I remember when Reagan was elected, eventually gutting government investment into alternate energy research. His team even went so far as to have Jimmy Carter’s solar panels ripped off of the White House roof. That experience reminds me how fortunate America has been to have an economic powerhouse like California consistently pressing for energy innovation over the past thirty years. Now that republicans control Washington and are stymying energy and environmental progress once again, it’s most gratifying to know that California is still leading and innovating.
38
Houses are already 500,000 to millions so an additional 8-12 thousand cost is pocket change to wealthy people who buy these house.
This isn’t working in Hawaii. California has not addressed its disintegrating grid, and this makes it worse.
3
In the near future, you will scarcely need a grid. Homes will have battery packs. Tesla already makes them.
4
Full disclosure, it's more sunny here in California than other parts of the country, solar works well here and pays back more quickly.
I challenge all the solar installation companies to offer good-paying jobs to all coal miners, let's get them out of the coal mines and back into the fresh air and sunshine, earning a good living installing solar, breathing clean air with a safer job and a brighter future. The coal miners have supplied our energy needs in the past and they can do so again, in a better, cleaner, safer way.
11
I have no care for the coal miners. They wrought the disaster which is trump. Ca, solar -- we are the future.
5
How honorable sir, to take care of one’s enemies… But I doubt they would like your help and simple altruistic thinking… They probably spit in your eye!
Since you are forcing the homeowner to do something they may not want too, and making housing more expensive in an already difficult housing marking, and deciding what is good for people in generalities, how about a tax deduction for new solar homes?
2
You're ignoring the lower energy bill and higher resale value.
7
Sorry there are many standards in a house the buyer might not consider necessary but are required by law.
6
Thirty percent of the money spent on a solar electrical system on either a new home or as add-on to an existing home can be taken as a Federal tax credit.
4
I anticipate a recap of the German experience: a back-up network of polluting power plants which must be kept running, increased carbon emissions, sharply rising costs of electricity from those traditional power sources, and much hue and cry when the inevitable gap between demand and supply makes itself felt.
2
Why not mandate the utilites source from renewables or pay a penalty if they do not, which they can very rightly pass on to the consumer. Leave the choice of solar to the homeowner.
2
Because the beauty of distributed generation (solar panels on individual homes rather than solar farms) is that the energy is consumed close to where it is produced. There's less concern about congestion in the transmission system and higher total efficiency since the conductor losses in the transmission and distribution system aren't a concern
4
It's about time. This is long overdue. New builds should also have to be well-insulated: floor, attic, and walls, plus energy efficient windows and doors.
8
One of the larger concerns by utility companies and no doubt the administration... is that factor that suns energy is ...
F . R . E . E . Can't sell much coal when sunshines.
6
President Donald Trump must be fuming. But who knows, the fuming might create more heat which in turn will create more electricity. Win win!!!
4
Tell you where you can get a good alternate energy source: my concoction of black beans and dried granulated garlic (heavy on the pour)
1
"a new rate structure coming next year will charge California customers based on the time of day they use electricity. " How 2019 of California, we had system back on the farm in Iowa in the 1970's.
3
Well... that's true in CA as well (we've had it longer than I can remember), so I'm not sure what the article is referring to. Maybe they mean all metering will be REQUIRED to be TOU, which I don't believe is true now.
1
I am all for making the building codes better. But I would start with better insulated homes including better windows.
Energy you don't need to use, is the best "saved" energy.
8
Those double paned windows that are required in California as of now, work pretty well but work best in very intense weather i.e. it’s always about right here in Californica, so for the most part the best noticeable thing is the noise reduction P you can’t hear your neighbors gardener is blowing and mowing all day every day of the week (because for some reason each house pics a gardener that choose an alternate day to come instead of all at once)
Put the solar panels in orbit above the planet. Get thinking!
3
California couldn’t tax them if they were in orbit.
2
Awesome!!!! Also please propose/make a ruling to solar power all the existing homes too!!! Only Cali can clean Cali out!!!!
2
I don't think that's fair to current home owners. Why? Imagine yourself retired or elderly. Your house is paid off. You are surviving on your pension(s). Your house, if you sell, will most certainly be torn down and replaced with a smart new house. Suddenly, you must put in solar panels to the tune of $10,000 and up. And what about the cost of the removal of the old heaters et al? And if you don't comply, do you lose your home? Will there be fines?
1
The cost of a new home in CA will go up roughly 2%. The decrease in our high power bills will more than offset that cost. I work hard to save electricity bu my electric bull runs an average of about $1200 per year for my modest 900 square foot home.
5
Does the $1200 include air conditioner?
This is good for the future of the planet and for business, and for jobs. Thank you, California
4
Good, we can cover the deserts of California with new homes with solar panels, along with all the huge AC units to go with them. Maybe it’s a wash. But with all the latest electrical gadgets inside turned on, I doubt it. California is great on symbolism.
3
WORTH EVERY PENNY! Whoo-hoo!
2
Predicted GOP response: "Trump Will Require Coal Power for New Homes"
16
I'll bet Solyndra gets a good chuck of this new business. Oh wait..
2
It seems like the cost of the solar panels will be built into the overall cost of the house, and the electric savings from the panels will offset some of the mortgage costs. Seems to me like a win-win solution. Less global warming, and the solar costs get amortized with the loan, rather than being a large lump-sum hit to add on, or being charged at higher 'home improvement' or 'personal credit line' interest rates. Plus, mortgage interest is somewhat tax deductible, where later loans for a later solar upgrade wouldn't afford any tax deduction. So buying it later as an add-on would either be a big upfront cost, or a higher non-deductible interest rate cost... where this requirement avoids both impacts. I don't see any downside here, except on Fox "News" where it will no doubt be clucked over as 'another burdensome government over-reach regulation' for Trump to repeal...
8
Unfortunately, this regulation and most comments miss the major point. Through this rule, the cost of creating a renewable energy system is being shifted from the state-sanctioned utility company to individual homeowners. This is unwise, inefficient and unfair for multiple reasons.
First, while distributed solar power make work well for some people who have good sun and the checkbook to afford it, it is far less effective compared to large scale solar facilities located in areas where the sun is steady and unimpeded by trees or the kind of fog and cloud cover shown in the picture chosen to illustrate this article.
Second, driving up the cost of new homes just guarantees more homelessness and less affordability. The idea that banks will pick up the financing by qualifying people for larger loans is hopelessly naive. And who is going to pay the tab for the homeless - $12,000 is already too high, and that is a highly misleading number. No "net zero" system could possibly be so inexpensive.
Third, PG&E and other energy companies have enjoyed guaranteed profits and a captive market for over a century. Now, when their coal and gas-burning plants are going to be put out of commission, they want to skip out on their obligations and get out of the energy production business to avoid making investments in the future. Totally unfair to all the citizens of California, their customers, who have paid their bills for generations.
23
People are entitled to choice not government mandates. This is great for people who already cannot afford to purchase a home. They will just continue to pay rent.
4
They would save even more energy if they required residents to paint their roofs white. Commercial businesses already do that but they don't have to deal with home owners associations.
2
You are a genius.
Might want to qualify that with "if they live in an area that need Ac"
Where I live (in California), we don't have, or need Ac.
BTW, our roof is as dark brown as I could get. We appreciate the extra heating effect.
2
Right. Nobody in California has an air conditioner. Sure. I believe that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_California
To Aristotle: I grew up in California and we never had an air conditioner in our home. Just regular fans. In the house we live in now, we still don't use it even though we have one. Ceiling fans work just fine. I learned to open up all the windows at night and close them in the morning on the hot days. It's a dry heat, not a damp heat... makes it easier.
With the Federal Government having abandoned the role of stewardship, it falls to the states to lead.
Bravo, California! Now, all the sunshine states should follow...
33
While photovoltaic panels have become more efficient and less expensive, battery storage has lagged. Because batteries are expensive, solar has generally been employed in warmer areas like Southern California to drive a home’s electric cost down to the price of the first tier of the local utility at off-peak hours. Batteries are key to making rooftop or local co-op generation truly practical. Without them homes must remain in the grid, but, more importantly, fossil fuels will need to be burned to supply juice at night and through bad weather. Affordable, long-lasting batteries may be become a needed byproduct of California’s mandate. Let’s hope!
46
I wonder how the economics of every home being a tiny power plant works out. Solar works during the day when most homes are empty. That means installing batteries which are not very good for low cost low impact energy storage. One day soon, we will be looking for a way to decontaminate all these toxic batteries.
3
Uh... well... solar (like ours and all of these required systems) is back-fed to the grid during the day - no batteries. Especially in the summer when AC use is high, that supply comes at a good time for peak demand also.
2
The idea is that the sunshine is free. Plants use it all the time, The ground warms and seeds with water and heat sprout. But we humans have been fighting these systems for so long we forgot that there was an easier way. Native Peoples the world over could teach the city folk a thing or two. If the city folk would listen.
I grew up with parents that had been poor country folk that in the 1930's grew up with outhouses.
My mom's voice is in my head right now saying. Thank God we have an Inside bathroom, I don't want an outhouse again.
She grew up and it wasn't until she was twenty that she had indoor running water. She was a short person but could walk miles and miles. My dad a head taller than her walked miles and miles too, he grew up with running water, but also an outhouse. So here we are living with these ideas that our lives are hard.
California is a large economy. 5th in the world. And my mom spent some time there in her youth. I have been there, my brother lived on a boat in Longbeach marina for a year. I like the place it is a large state. Lots of sun, and Lots of water issues, and we Will grow as a Human Race and get out into the stars.
Look at star trek and then think star wars and then top all that with other great stories of the future where have gone on to living other places. we will be learning how to take care of our birthright down here.
Have fun Earthling the universe is waiting.
3
An all-electric new home in California, like my own, will be lower cost to build (no gas plumbing needed) and lower cost to operate even without solar. 1 in 4 homes are built all-electric in the US today, and almost 1 in 2 in the South because they're less expensive. But I also have solar panels because buying electricity wholesale from the installer, and then selling it retail to the grid is good business. I should get a 7 year payback, but I have a 20 year mortgage and a 25 year warrantee. Just good business.
42
I hope you plumb your home for natural gas, even if you personally choose to not utilize it. The next occupant will want it.
1 Therm of energy (29.3 kW*hr) in natural gas form currently costs $1.27 (Tier 1 rates) here in N. Cal. The same amount of energy in electrical form at its cheapest (Tier 1 off-peak) costs $5.38 (29.3 kW*hr at $0.1835 per kW*hr), or 4.23 times as much.
Heating your home, or heating your hot water, or drying your clothes is not economically viable. If it is a luxury you choose to afford, then you are certainly entitled to do so.
Many people prefer gas cooking for non-economic reasons. Saving a little money is just a bonus.
I am all for solar power (and wind, and other renewables...) but economics and thermodynamics do deserve a little consideration. Back in the 50's, there was talk that nuclear-generated electricity would be so cheap that it would be unnecessary to meter it. How did that one work out?
1
Most of the comments seem to miss one of the major points, which is that solar on houses will provide business opportunities and jobs for people who live in CA, instead of paying to import electricity generated in some other state. My view is that this requirement is very much about keeping the CA economy humming along. The CA economy had the 5th best percentage growth rate of all states in 2017 and this will only help...
66
I wonder who gets the tax rebates? Currently, the homeowners (i.e. the payers) get the federal tax rebate, which is 30% tax credit which can be carried forward if your tax is insufficient to use up the tax credit in one year. And California has a separate rebate for batteries. One strange aspect of solar where we are is that we have to use or exceed all of the solar power generated, or be penalized, and battery storage doesn't count.
10K for solar is a deal breaker? Priorities for americans are unbelievably ignorant. If I lived anywhere in the southwest with never ending sunshine you bet your bottom I would have solar. All new homes should be built with extreme thermal efficiency, 2X4 constructions should be outlawed. I know people who spend $400 a month average for utilities, but an extra $40 on your mortgage is too much??
38
Typical California thinking, that yet another mandate will be good for consumers. If that’s the case, then why not let these consumers choose to equip their new homes with panels? Are they too dumb to know what’s in their best interests? Does the state of California know better than the people? If that’s what you believe, say it, but stop pretending otherwise.
5
Consumers do not choose the better stuff. Sometimes state has t o do it. If the states did not ban smoking in public places and restaurants, bars, nothing would have changed.
14
In some cases consumers might not have the option due to cheap builders and HOAs. Of course the state could have handled that issue instead, but I think this might actually be an attack on single family homes and urban sprawl in general since new apartment buildings don't have the same requirement, which isn't necessarily bad considering single family homes are generally less efficient overall than apartments.
1
They're not too dumb, they're just too self-centered. Environmental issues need policy solutions, like any other public works. No one will pay extra $ now to help their neighbors or future generations if given the choice.
3
The encroachment of Government is seen as a bane. But that is not always the case, we have to be careful not to kill ourselves with less government, when new rules by that government help us. Trump et al think that Government regulations are bad, because they want to harm people, and get away with scamming people out of their freedoms.
Fight Trump. More solar. Is better than Oil which is just old solar stored. Stop wasting our savings accounts, start using the solar arriving today use Oil for the other stuff it does, not the energy it is, or learn to get better energy than all the wastefulness we have been doing all these years.
@BioWebScape design Project is my thoughts on the subjects at hand. We are not a dying species, We have so much more of the universe to explore yet ahead of us, but we need to inform people that The old dudes like trump are yesterdays waste.
1
With the severe housing crisis in California, making new homes MORE expensive to build is exactly the right plan. If we could also discourage the development of additional rental inventory with stronger rent control laws that would be great too. Liberalism, smdh.
2
Single family homes are not going to do much to address the housing shortage regardless. Density is what is needed to solve that problem.
8
Really? In this state, with home as expensive as they are, you think an additional $10K is a deal breaker? If this would drive a home price up $100K more, I might nod in your direction and not roll my eyes at headlines in local papers about this leading to unsettling increases in home prices. $10K is not even half of what you'd spend on new windows in an old house.
That said, I'd still rather see BIG incentives for solar rather than mandates. And see a plan that offers system upgrades and *better* batteries with meaningful rebates and discounts the moment they are available. OTOH, if you don't mandate, this shift will never happen. We have seen for decades how this all works and doesn't.
4
$8,000 - $12,000 is chump change? Really? Send me a check for $8K then. Limousine liberalism at it's finest. Another graduate of the Nancy Pelosi "Crumbs" School of Economics.
It won't help when the state runs out of water.
3
To avoid the state running out of water you need solar powered desalinization plants.
3
Which wouldn't be happening if the rest of the U.S. had bothered to clean up its mess. Even my toddler knows to clean up her mess, but people in the South and Midwest, apparently that's too much.
2
Watering almond trees to grow almonds to turn into almond milk or covering the desert floors with green pastures. There’s no shortage we just don’t know how to use it.
3
California is really the leader in the US for battling climate change and it is willfully ignorant and dangerous that Trump and his administration deny known climate science starting with pulling out of the Paris climate agreement. I hope other states follow California's lead including southern states like NM, AZ, TX, FL, etc.
11
The money we save in energy costs we can now use to pay the health insurance and education expenses for California's 7 million undocumented immigrant workers! It's a Win Win for everybody! #Proud2BCalifornian
2
It's actually 2 million out of our 40 million, and they contribute a lot more to the economy than a lot of native born, frankly.
9
Bravo California. Great article by Ivan Penn.
I just put 17 solar panels on my house this February, adding to the 24 panels I put up 3 years ago. Now the roof will generate 7 Kilowatt hours of energy in a year. I can start to convert the gas and gasoline systems of my property over to electric, starting, soon, with a new electric heat pump hot water heater.
David Lindsay Jr. is the author of "The Tay Son Rebellion, Historical Fiction of Eighteenth-century Vietnam," and blogs at TheTaySonRebellion.com and InconvenientNews.wordpress.com
4
A glimmer of hope in a misguided nation. I only hope the smog from coal-rolling in Kentucky doesn't block out the California sun.
6
What a contrast: blue state CA in the forefront of solar power; red state FL "The Sunshine State" actively falling behind under subversionary Gov. Rick Scott.
12
If solar power made sense economically, we would see solar panels covering the roofs of nearly every government building in California. If solar power made sense economically, that’s all the power companies would produce. The fact is solar power is expensive. I know this, because I own an RV and had solar panels mounted on the roof for years. They got ripped off a few weeks ago in heavy winds while driving through the Texas panhandle. Ironically, that's where the wind turbines are. When faced with the decision to replace them, I opted not too, because they’re very expensive for the amount of current they put out. With some simple math, I determined that 6 minutes running my 5500 watt RV generator returned roughly the same power to my deep-cycle batteries as my 2-panel solar array produced in A WEEK under the hot Arizona sun. I was only getting 7 amps from those solar panels, at most. But, new solar panels would cost me over $300. Forget it.
5
Solar panel efficiency is improving. Eventually it will be cheaper. Things don't stay the same forever.
2
That is exactly the problem. The ability to spew carbon into the air at no cost makes generators cheaper for the user but not for society.
5
It's cheaper now. Today.
94% of net new electricity generation in the US was renewable in 2017. That's kind of telling of which way energy is going, i'd think.
A good fit for Californians, creating your own electricity is an innovation. Mandating solar panels for new home buyers is nothing short of a miracle. Just another reason why so many people want to live work and play in this great state.
8
At some point California will have to reckon with the contradiction in their net metering policy. Under current policy households with solar avoid paying the fixed costs of their connection to the energy grid, passing these costs on to others.
1
Wrong. In my utility (PG&E), we pay a flat fee for the grid cost.
4
It's being phased out in a few years. NEM will be getting a lot less favorable when NEM 3.0 rolls out toward the early part of the next decade.
Of course, it's worth pointing out that the big remote generators get their fixed costs of interconnection passed on to rate payers also. in California, it's only the local energy on the distribution grid that pays their own way.
1
Gas customers don't pay for their many additional costs to the system--ask any Republican in Salt Lake City or any Democrat in Los Angeles what it means to their children to become asthmatic from air pollution. Solar power needs every subsidy until there is no more fossil fuels being burnt.
1
It is absurd to call adding solar panels a significant factor in the cost of home purchasing when tear-downs cost a million dollars. It's moot. What matters is the location: people want to live in California because of the weather and the economy and the pluralistic values.
12
Some areas are too shady for solar. It would be a waste of money to build solar capacity into a house in such an area. Hopefully the new regulations takes this into account.
2
I read a previous article about this law before it was passed, and in that article it mentioned there would be reasonable exceptions for things like shade.
2
The solution is "community solar", which CA has in place; the concept is applied to the new rules. Read the article.
4
Apparently many in the cloudy Pacific Northwest haven't heard that it is too shady here. Solar panels are still popular. Increasingly efficient panels may mean that less light is needed to generate energy.
2
Re: Cost estimates.
Re: "For residential homeowners, based on a 30-year mortgage, the Energy Commission estimates that the standards will add about $40 to an average monthly payment, but save consumers $80 on monthly heating, cooling and lighting bills."
You arrive at such estimates only leaving out the distributive costs of solar energy. Chiefly changes in the power grid. Germany estimates that the upgrade to accommodate intermittent renewable energy will cost Euro 40 billion. Someone will to pay for it. The Court de Compte in France recently included the distributive costs and found that public expenses, by 2030 will subsidize PV at the tune of 480 € par MWh.
http://huet.blog.lemonde.fr/2018/04/19/la-cour-des-comptes-alerte-sur-le...
On the impact on utilities, see The Economist.
https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21717365-wind-and-solar-energy-a...
2
Totally irrelevant. This is about solar on people houses.
Only distribution cost is the wire from the roof!
5
Interesting. Might be good for Tesla as well. Houses seem very expensive in California, so an extra $8000 on new houses may not be as much as it seems in that particular state.
$8K to $10K added to the price of an "average" home here in the Bay Area, which is now upwards of $800K, is, frankly, NOTHING. If the finding was that this adds $100K to the cost of a house, there'd be something to ponder.
It’s not fair to mandate that new homeowners pick up the tab for solar power. The state could have just mandated that the power companies produce a larger percentage of their power from renewable sources. And the state could install solar panels atop all of their government buildings. It’s this kind of stuff that gives California a bad name.
1
According to the CA Energy Commission, which approved the mandate, the cost savings on heating, cooling and lighting is double the initial solar cost. Some homeowners would think this is more than fair.
5
"The state could have just mandated that the power companies produce a larger percentage of their power from renewable sources."
They, like many other states, have a mandate. Read the article.
5
The infrastructure costs of what you suggest would be greater, and ratepayers would be stuck with the additional cost. One of the great advantages of rooftop solar is that the site and support already exists; there aren't extra costs for land and supporting structures, and much of the elec generated is consumed onsite, limiting the upgrade costs to the grid for distributing the power compared to the utility-produced option.
1
This is smart and makes sense, especially for sunny California, but not only for California. I think it’s good to tell the anticipated cost factor, but should be put in a context: how many people are putting in hot tubs, swimming pools, huge TVs & rooms for them, 3-cars and garages for them, DOGS and all their expense. This is money spent on what seems to me to be a good thing.
11
It's the right thing to do, and I'm glad about it. California will never recover what it lost after Jarvis's Prop 13, but it can get back to doing things the right way simply because there IS a right way. We'll all be better off for it.
14
... putting housing even more out of reach for ordinary Americans.
If you pass legislation further increasing the ever increasing cost of housing in CA, scale it according to income.
2
Nope. The savings in utility costs will help the home owner. We also need to eliminate power lines to as a fire prevention measure. The materials for solar are becoming less expensive and more innovative. The push for better solar will help drive our economy.
The problem with housing in California goes beyond cost. We keep adding people who want to live here instead of third world states like Kansas and OK. There are very affordable homes in smaller cities where business could locate. Also, rethinking house size and building up instead of out would help. And seriously anyone from New York shouldn’t be complaining about housing costs in any other state.
10
Energy self-sufficiency is not economic, far from it. Try to build an off-grid cabin (with modest electric needs compared to someone who can afford a new-built in California), and you’ll see what solar actually costs. It is only economic for the consumer when they get subsidies, or when they can net their consumption (what you pay in a month = what you consume minus what you produce). But as the article says, netting your consumption is a form of subsidy, because you benefit from the grid without paying the full price for it: you get the same cables going to your home as anyone else, and the utility company builds power plants that are big enough for your consumption when your panels don’t cover it. So the question is how much California pays for these panels on home, and is that the cheapest option to get more renewable energy (it is not: utility-scale solar farms are much cheaper).
And having each house having solar panels creates a significant issue: they obstruct construction rights, because when everyone has solar panels you cannot build a tall building without obstructing someone’s panels. Being able to build denser housing is the only solution to California’s housing crisis, and the housing crisis is a much higher priority than California getting more urban solar panels. Unless you’re already a home-owner and you’re either selfish or completely disconnected from realities.
4
"Community solar", which CA has in place, solves your (ill-conceived) problem.
1
Study after study has found overall benefit of distributed solar generation to the grid and other ratepayers, when all factors are taken into account; solar homeowners are typically paying their fair share, as there are grid-use charges already built into many utilities' rate structures. See a Brookings meta-study of solar cost-benefit here: https://www.brookings.edu/research/rooftop-solar-net-metering-is-a-net-b...
Our power rates have increased almost 40% recently. Ouch.
The power company says that since there are more solar power customers that there is less need for electricity overall so that they must make increases to off set this loss. The only people I know who have solar panels are wealthier, single home owners. So poor people, renters and apartment dwellers now have to pay more to the greedy power company. And indirectly subsidize the solar power users.
This is excellent news happening in the great Republic of California. I could only wish that people were as en'light'ened here on the east coast. My landlord would NEVER install solar panels, ever. He wouldn't replace a light bulb.
4
I agree that the poor will be paying more to appease greedy power companies, but it is a bridge too far to call that a subsidy for solar power users. The systems are expensive. A real subsidy would help people get them installed.
Queue the word 'indirect'. The power companies excuse for raising rates.
Climate change needs to be addressed, but this is not the way to do it. This requirement leads to many inefficiencies since not all homes (such as houses surrounded by trees) are suitable for solar power. In addition, solar power may be more cost effectively produced in large farms rather than on small individual arrays. If California wants a simple and efficient way to address climate change, they should just implement a carbon tax.
1
The vast majority of new homes being built are not likely impaired by large trees and siting would need to be considered. As the article states, the power can be from a shared location as well, so atop a garage, a solar farm somewhere nearby, or other structure likely works too. They’ll build in flexibility to the regs hopefully and this will be effective. I also disagree that this is a major burden on homebuyers since there are built-in benefits over time and houses in CA are extremely expensive. So how much burden is $10,000 when the house costs $500k to over $1million overall?
14
Well, no. First, the aggregate cost effectiveness of distributed residential is far greater than the large farm model. Second, the individual ownership of the arrays puts the power in the hands of the people who use it. Third, the tech is an asset to the value of the house. Fourth, since it applies to new homes, the surrounding greenery can be planned with the house. Fifth, yes, climate change does need to be addressed, but when climate change is the driver for regulatory reform, such reform it is routinely blocked by skeptics who say it isn't happening. What this measure will do is change the very model for what a house is and for how it ought to operate at a time when that paradigm shift is necessary and possible. Most of the houses in America today are closer to the 19th century in their operating efficiency than they are to what we can and need to do in the 21st. When solar-equipped new houses drive the future market, the retrofit market will be dramatically improved, the owners will gain, the tech will evolve, and once more California's example will be followed by the rest of the sunshine-rich states.
10
I agree it's not a major burden, but why create a burden at all when a carbon tax is a much better alternative?
This is smart, forward thinking that requires a little sacrifice up front to reap much larger benefits later.
And that is exactly why it will run into resistance from politicians and voters in other areas who are addicted to quick sugar-high policies that will ultimately fail on someone else's watch. Not to mention more organized resistance from entrenched fossil-fuel interests desperate to maintain their dominance and profits.
But someone has to take the first step into the future, so good on California.
21
Implementing a solar power program that essentially cost German homeowners nothing, Germany has been eliminating its nuclear plants. I believe they are down to one plant out of 19 or 20 that they had 20 years ago, when they started the program.
Diversified, power for the benefit of the people. Not monopolized power for the benefit of the one percent, the "investor class," the few thousand who own over 80 percent of the stock market.
15
It hardly cost homeowners nothing. German electricity rates have gone up significantly to subsidize solar and wind. Nuclear plants are being eliminated out of fear of a Fukushima-type disaster (unlikely in Germany) and this electricity is being replaced by coal power plants when the wind and sun don't provide enough power.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/what-german-households-pay-power
5
Glad to hear all the greenhouse gas emissions from German nuclear plants are a thing of the past. Between this absurd decision and the emissions cheating hopefully the rest of the world has realized the German system is a warning and not a roadmap.
2
I support a move towards solar panels for residential properties, but I think the Energy Commission numbers are misleading, as they don't compare putting the $40/month in a Roth IRA invested in a low cost index fund over 30 years.
1
You mean the $40 saved using solar panels ($80 savings in electricity costs for a $40 increase in mortgage)? Doesn't that tilt more in favor the commissions' plans?
9
As new homes produce more renewable electricity, California's utilities should go in to the business of energy storage which is more efficient, when scaled. They can buy excess solar energy during the day and make a profit selling when the sun don't shine. There will be a lot of cars to recharge and sea water to desalinate as California transitions away from fossil fuel.
11
This upfront spend will reduce costs in the long run. California is leading the way, this will drive improvements in the technology with clear environmental benefit.
In fact, there are national security benefits as well. It is widely reported that attacks (foreign, terrorists...) on US electrical grid systems is accelerating. Smart governments will be increasing local electrical generation with individual generation as part of our defense solution.
8
California - NO WATER - Perpetual drought - BUT we keep building NEW Homes.. So do we have a drought or not? If we are "Out of water" then why do we continue to build new homes? Good idea about solar -should have done this 20 years ago.
8
Actually there are solar powered condensers that can take water vapour out of the air making drinkable water that can offset any potential issues with population density. This also should be mandated as a requirement for NEW homes being
built. We have the technology lets use it.
@Bill
Then apply that technology in 3rd world countries - People in Africa walk over a mile for potable water. This is just ridiculous - we have systems to save the planet but we never implement them.
This law was a long time in coming, but good for CA in leading the way. I've thought for years that all new houses and businesses should be required to have solar power. Builders could choose to add solar power voluntarily and not wait for laws to make them, and extra insulation (which helps in hot states as well as cold states) should be a requirement too.
8
Thank goodness for some common sense in the face of a dying planet. It's hard to grasp why some folks hang on to the idea that we can continue to destroy our planet with old school fossil fuels and survive. Is it a result of habit, fear of change, and oil company propaganda?
44
The planet is not dying. The human race is.
This inane solar panel rule by CA is just delaying that inevitability of humanities demise by 6 months and 8 days - a figure I arrived at by using a very accurate climate change model.
We put up solar panels last year and expect to break even with electricity savings in year 7; the panels are expected to last 20 years. For the naysayers who fear housing will become unaffordable, nobody said the builders could not decrease house sizes to keep sales prices the same.
29
People don’t want smaller houses. Either way you are punishing people with what amounts to another tax.
2
NO! As the article (eventually) stated, homeowners will SAVE $40/month because their power costs will be $80/month less, while their increased mortgage payments will be only $40/month. If that's a tax, I want to volunteer to participate.
1
Your panels will last much longer than 20 years.
1
Photovoltaic roofs should be a requirement in all the wealthiest countries (EU, US, etc.). Particularly those with plenty of sun (Australia). Notice that Germany, which is as north as Canada, regularly reaches electricity of Photovoltaic origin up to 50% of total electric production.
Those who are paid by Putin, and, or, the fossil fuel industry (it boils down to the same thing), will pontificate that the global warming is only one degree Centigrade, so far. However, it's more like 4-5 degrees at the poles. Even more importantly, the global warming is exponential: the more it warms, the faster it does. Thus the first degree took a century, but the next four will come quickly (as even predicted by the present US administration...)
Photovoltaics will improve quickly (advanced prototypes are in labs) and the prices will collapse (from completely new materials: perovskites). What could go wrong? Letting the CO2 catastrophe run amok guarantees huge refugee crises, as already observed, and all sorts of wars, with probably hundreds of millions killed.
PV procure cheap, clean electricity: unsubsidized costs are already lowest for PV and wind. (Yes, lower than natural gas!) This will enable to build a clean sustainable economy (with hydrogen, produced by photovoltaics as bridge fuel, to store and transport energy when batteries can't do it).
A new world, and it's indeed the task of government to launch it, just as when China launched a prodigious canal system, 3,800 years ago!
15
I do hope there are exceptions to this new requirement. I grew up in SoCal where this makes total sense because there is lots of available sun. When you start going north of San Francisco along the coast all the way up to Humboldt and Del Norte County full access to the sun becomes a little more difficult.
I used to live in Humboldt County in three different homes which were mostly in the shade. In Maryland, there are plentiful programs intended to help you purchase a solar system for the home but first, they make a home visit to check to see that your home is viable for such a solution. I did not read about there being any exceptions.
6
The article notes "Under the new requirements, builders must take one of two steps: make individual homes available with solar panels, or build a shared solar-power system serving a group of homes." So the latter could be an option for shaded homes.
13
Fantastic. Makes me so proud!!
31
Forcing people to put these things on their homes regardless of whether they want them makes you proud? In what way?
2
Why would ANYONE not want Solar PV on their roof if it would slash their electricity bills to such an extent , the amount of savings would quickly pay for the original cost of installation and provide large ongoing savings and benefits afterwards. Additionally, whilst saving from lower electricity bills, homeowners would actually be helping the environment which can be considered a bonus but in reality collectively will make big differences to the future.
Anyone who thinks they are being forced to use solar who doesn't want it is someone who wants to pay more for their electricity and pay larger bills for years to come...why would anyone be that stupid?
9
What's $10-12k when the homes are already 500k and above?
91
Exactly. People spend more than $12k on a fancy kitchen.
12
I wish Texas did this, not only for homes, but apartment complexes and commercial properties. The state has an abundance of sun all year around.
As a buyer, I would be much happier with solar roof tiles rather than panels mounted atop asphalt shingles (or other materials). That is a much more attractive option. Hopefully this mandate will encourage additional investment in those products.
My home in Texas was a poor candidate for Solar, with the largest footprint facing north and west. Large trees, and a complex roof design, ruin the southern and eastern facing surfaces. Still, our local cooperative had a 100% renewable option, of which we took advantage.
47
This is one environmental regulation/requirement that would seem not only to to be beneficial in reducing carbon emissions but could also be a long term economic benefit to the homeowner with lower energy costs - a win win situation. If you can afford to live in California, you should be able be able to handle the extra it adds to your monthly mortgage payment which hopefully will be offset in part by reduced electric bills.
29
As the article indicated, the savings in electric bills will be DOUBLE the increased mortgage payment. The homeowner benefits immediately (and long-term, too).
2
It's a pity that authoritarian minded politicians continue to foist blanket regulations on all of us without any regard for individual circumstances. Why not add to the current incentives to induce higher solar adoption rates? (Conversely, raise taxes on fossil fuel use to effectively make renewables more attractive).
What if one's house isn't suitable for installation of an ugly array of panels on the roof? What if you're super frugal and only use a tiny amount of electricity? What if you have a property shaded by a thick forest of trees - will we be required to cut down a certain number to allow adequate sunlight to reach the panels?
Advancing technology continues to provide better and more efficient solutions every year. Allow us as individuals to decide what and when it's right for us to add technologies based on market forces.
7
Please read an article before commenting. It says, "Under the new requirements, builders must take one of two steps: make individual homes available with solar panels, or build a shared solar-power system serving a group of homes." So the latter is an option for a house that is poorly suitable for solar installation.
39
I live in Seattle and when I was once homeless, I used a solar powered battery to recharge my laptop/phone. It worked all winter long in the biggest tree-covered park in town.
As I look out my window, I see quite a few rooftops with solar including an apartment building. If solar works in Seattle, it will work anywhere on earth:)
98
That you call the arrays "ugly" only shows your bias. And yes, people are concerned about the look. But, with _new construction_ (which is what the article discusses), the houses can be designed so that the panels are hidden from view. That also applies to shaded property -- with most new construction, the land is cleared completely before the houses go in. That forest of trees won't be there. (Although I do know a family that installed solar panels on a cabin in the middle of the New Mexico forest near Silver City, and they work well. OK, except when covered with snow.)
10
Just who is expected to buy these new houses? The outflow migration from CA to lower taxing states by the middle and upper middle classes will leave few in the state to buy these new homes. More state regulation, just another reason to not live in CA.
12
There is a reason house prices keep increasing in the Bay Area. There is way more demand for buying houses than there are houses available.
6
Not sure if you are aware but there's a housing crisis right now in CA because so many people want to BUY houses in the state but can't due to lack of supply.
As far net migration goes, CA has actually GAINED among those with higher incomes (over $110k) and higher education (graduate degrees).
10
The so-called "California Exodus" is not based on verifiable data. Yes, people leave, but people also move in, so far the latter greatly exceeds the former. Don't take my word for it, take the recent news that California has moved from 9th to 6th largest economy _in the world_.
California has so many homeless now that I suppose that some thousands more won’t be noticed, right?
4
How did you reach that conclusion? There are no requirements for people with existing homes to add solar...
2
Left wing authoritarians will rejoice, but this will be a monumental waste of resources and money that is actually environmentally counterproductive.
Home size solar systems are the least efficient type of solar. It costs about twice as much (uses twice the resources) to generate each kwh by a home size solar system versus a utility scale solar system. The most efficient use of resources with the most environmental benefit would have the utilities build large scale solar systems and wind systems instead of wasteful, inefficient home solar systems.
12
the new requirements, builders must take one of two steps: make individual homes available with solar panels, or build a shared solar-power system serving a group of homes. In the case of rooftop panels, they can either be owned outright and rolled into the home price, or made available for lease on a monthly basis.
10
The "wasteful, inefficient" solar panel system on the roof of my house supplies enough power for everything, including the air conditioning.
Yes, of course, there are economies of scale that make utility-wide generation more economical, but consider that with rooftop, the problem of power transmission (from the generation station to the load) goes away. Local/neighborhood-scale generation would seem to be a no-brainer, but for existing neighborhoods, where does one put the generator?
1
Perhaps. But the utility scale solar installations are quite damaging to the environment because they consume huge tracts of land that disrupts the natural flora and fauna. The solar installation in Carizzo Plain is an example. Rooftops that are exposed to sunlight are a ready "space" for solar panels.
3
Would gladly pay it. Our new home was designed and built to LEED standards and with our geothermal system, we use 60% less energy than a standard stick built home. The good news is it added less than 6% of the cost of the build and further, will pay back within 6 years.
109
Nice - very nice.
3
Awesome! Pay a little extra up front for a utility you’ll need over the lifetime of the home. If you don’t pay it up front, you’ll be paying for fossil fuel electricity in small sums for the rest of the life of the home, which will undoubtedly add up to way more than $8-12K.
How has it take us this long to get here? Thank you California for leading the way.
160
Another advantage - the price of electricity is bound to go up over time and if it goes up faster than overall inflation, which is likely as other power sources become more expensive, you'll save even more by buying all that power up front now.
37
This is such simple minded thinking. It’s not just this one feel good regulation, it’s the hundreds of unnecessary building and zoning regulations that were passed before, that have contributed mightily to the current housing crisis, and hundreds that are sure to follow that will ensure housing in CA remains unaffordable. Oh well, thank god for Federalism..
2
I saw a statistic the other day showing that California is now experiencing a negative net migration rate -- in other words, more people are leaving the state than coming into it. The most frequently cited reason for leaving is housing affordability. This won't help matters. Also, I'm generally not all that enthusiastic about California's seemingly head-long drive to become a Swedish-style nanny state.
But I'll make a qualified exception on this new solar power requirement. The southern portion of the state is uniquely positioned because of its climate and weather patterns to enjoy the advantages that solar power can provide. Requiring solar panels on new homes should ultimately make a big difference in keeping the state's soaring energy costs low. However, the rainy northern sections of the state should have been made exempt from the requirement -- I'm guessing the costs will outweigh the benefits in these areas.
5
Just curious, have you ever spent a meaningful amount of time in Sweden?
California's housing problem, as is common in other locations, should really be handled at the state level. The problem stems from much to much focus of economic activity in very small geographic areas, namely the Bay Area and L.A.
Large parts of the state are economically neglected. If the state would institute policies that encouraged business and development in "second tier" cities like Fresno, Bakersfield and Modesto, they could reduce the influx of people into S.F. and L.A., which would reduce the housing demand and the cost. It would also help to "spread the wealth" of California around the state.
The whole I5 corridor could be better utilized economically.
16
Humboldt county is in northern California and is famous for growing cannabis which requires lots of sunshine.
As I look out my patio, I see quite a few panels on top of Seattle buildings including apartment buildings. I spent a year once living outside here in Seattle using a solar powered battery and had no problem keeping my laptop/phone charged all during the winter.
7
North Carolina's migration rate is 7.9% meaning that a higher percentage of North Carolinian are leaving than California. What is North Carolininains reasons for leaving the state?
5
Interesting! What about how buyers and builders respond to this requirement? More specifically, for example as houses will get more expensive might they also get smaller?
After all, holding a home buyer's budget constant, if you are putting money into solar panels at least some of that value needs to come out of the other attributes of the house, right? And, if we compare the average house size of today to those of say 30 years ago, perhaps we could all be just as happy is a slightly smaller house!
7
The value comes from the immediate savings in monthly utility bills, which will exceed the extra cost of the solar panels.
1
Yes, an accurate cost-benefit analysis would indicate a nice net gain, but I imagine home-buyers weighting the cost of house more than future energy savings. Also, I am guessing that banks are not going to consider this energy savings in a way that is meaningful in terms of making loans...but we will see!
California has VAST roof spaces ideally situated for solar power ... the roofs of suburban shopping malls. Is the state government doing anything to encourage use of that resource?
I happened to be driving past the Sun Valley Mall in Concord, on the elevated freeway section that gives a good view of its roof, when I had the flash. I did the calculations. If 80% of its roof were used, and if shade structures were built in the parking lot around it using PV, that one installation could supply 100% of power to 3000 homes in the neighborhood.
If I owned a shopping mall I'd be looking for a utility company to lease my roof to. I could be getting rent for a space that's currently unused.
81
There are a lot of industrial and commercial buildings that would probably work as well. What about all those self-storage buildings? They usually have flat, easily accessible roofs.
23
The two companies with the most installed solar capacity in the US are Target and Wal-Mart, so this is already happening to an extent. GGP, a company whose primary trade is malls and large shopping centers, is #7 on that list.
https://www.seia.org/solar-means-business-report
Building out solar on commercial buildings is an easy sell here due to the high output potential, high overall cost of electric, and time-of-use billing. Only SF seems to have a mandate in place, however.
http://www.govtech.com/fs/infrastructure/San-Francisco-Require-Solar-Pan...
11
I live right by the huge VA complex in West LA and occasionally drive through it (to avoid traffic jams). For the past 10 years at least, they have had large arrays of solar panels on top of the many outside parking lots. So, some parts of the government are already using them. Also, many street lights, electric road signs and freeway call boxes now have a small solar panel or two on them. Things are quietly changing and this new law is a brilliant win-win addition to the change.
13
And yet the same legislators feel perfectly justified in closing down significant zero-GHG power sources like nuclear power plants that provide baseload generation while making up the variation in GHG-generating sources like natural gas. Dumb.
5
Could solar energy be used to pump water up to reservoirs during the day - and then run turbines when the sun is not shining? I know there would be a huge losss - but the energy was "free." As an analogy, I understand it takes a LOT of energy to get 1 gallon of gasoline to me at the gas pump - maybe this is similar.
Nuclear power plants are great for generating electricity - without releasing carbon - but there's that pesky problem of dealing with the waste - and understandably, no one wants to pay for or have it buried near them.
4
If you are willing to have nuclear waste (which lasts tens of thousands of years) located in your backyard then we can have nuclear power plants. Last I heard no state wants to have a longterm nuclear waste depository. Congress has provided no funding for Yucca Mountain (in Nevada) since 2011 due to opposition.
5
Not dumb at all...the San Ofreo nuclear plant was similar to Japan's Fukishima...and just as likely to implode in coastal, earthquake prone Ca.
Thank God it's gone!
Would you like us to ship it to NC?
14
About time
19
Hopefully whoever wrote this bill included language requiring lenders to subtract the monthly savings on electricity when determining the mortgage payment. Housing is so unaffordable now in CA that even a $40 increase in mortgage cost could prevent tens of thousands of people from qualifying with their lenders.
37
If $40/month is the difference between getting a home loan or not, you probably shouldn’t get that loan.
13
The key to this mandate is story energy produced in the daytime, producing and paying for power when solar is not produced for consecutive days (back up) and paying for distribution and maintaining the grid. Those details are left out. New reports from Europe this week surprisingly show increased carbon output when solar is heavily promoted and installed.
2
This is the internet. A post here without a link is often a lie.
Carbon output INCREASES with the heavy use of solar? Really?
37
Donna
California is an ideal candidate for solar power because its periods of peak electricity use happen during the middle of the day in Summer, the time when PV systems are at their highest productivity.
The peak use is due to the combination of office demands (computers and lighting mostly) and air conditioning.
Can you provide a reference for the reports you mention about Europe?
An article about California energy loads:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=19111
10
@Donna Gray
"... Europe this week surprisingly show increased carbon output when solar is heavily promoted and installed. ..."
Well, in that case we should require installation of perpetual motion machines. Just think, free energy day or night in perpetuity !!!!
1