Article in PVMag about the "soft costs" for PV and ESS

[holeydonut]

A no-brainer for U.S. job creation: Update solar permitting and inspections

The writer basically implies that the red tape of the myriad AHJ's is a drag on this industry; and harmonizing codes and processes can help Biden's administration better put green energy investment to use.

With local governments facing an unprecedented need to cut their costs while restarting local economic activity, there’s never been a better time to harmonize codes, and bring permitting and inspection steps into the modern era. Such a step would be fast and non-partisan. More importantly, it would tap a huge, ready-made constituency that’s already behind it. All the Biden team needs to do is to put a ribbon on this idea and provide the leadership for a critical mass of local officials to get on board.

I guess the part that the magazine is ignoring is that governments create jobs through red tape. All the inspectors employed by the county have lots of extra work. And all the designers who have to submit for twenty permits also have lots of work.

But yes, the amount of red tape in this industry is stupid. My own install has literally taken two days to complete. But has taken over 180 days of design, red tape, permitting, BS, and other outright idiocy.

I hope that some federal department takes over the solar and ESS definitions away from individual AHJ's. This patchwork of wacky local rules can stymie this industry.

When I buy a car, all the rules governing that vehicle's manufacture, operation, and safety are defined by the DOT. I don't have to deal with Contra Costa County not liking the strength of the A-pillar or size of the headlight. Same goes for this fancy COVID vaccine. I don't have to worry about California disagreeing with the FDA and demanding further research on DDI and pharmacokinetic performance of some liver enzyme.

Edit: California does have rules defined by the California Air Resource Board (CARB) which have also been adopted by other states. But CARB rules are defined well in advance are and are clearly based on improving guidance from the EPA. CARB rules don't change every year and are not subject to city-by-city or county-by-county interpretation each year.

 

[Rockster]

I don’t think all locations have that level of bureaucracy for a solar install. My city rubber stamped the design in about 72 hours. The city inspector showed up just as the installers were finishing up and approved the installation in about ten minutes. My power company came out the following day and swapped out the meter for a smarter one that could accommodate energy production.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Permitting is only a problem in areas where corruption already limits solar in other far worse ways like irrational grid payback schemes and production caps.

The real soft cost problem has always been and remains sales cost. Upwards of $1/Watt with some large installers. We must end the 1-to-1 sales process in order to scale solar nationwide. Tesla is doing a great job starting the process by eliminating all door-to-door sales and creating set pricing.

 

[wjgjr]

I think the article makes some good points, though I don't really see a federally-imposed solution as the best approach. But I do think getting states and localities to harmonize their regulations, or, at the very least, to clearly document their rules, would help. It seems like a lot of the delays that are reported are due to confusion over what actually is required (which sometimes even seems to depend on the inspector,) in addition to lengthy re-review and approval processes. Technology can help, but it also requires government to actually use it, and use it properly.

 

[wjgjr]

Permitting is only a problem in areas where corruption already limits solar in other far worse ways like irrational grid payback schemes and production caps.

The real soft cost problem has always been and remains sales cost. Upwards of $1/Watt with some large installers. We must end the 1-to-1 sales process in order to scale solar nationwide. Tesla is doing a great job starting the process by eliminating all door-to-door sales and creating set pricing.

I disagree on the permitting statement. While there may be overlap, they are not necessarily the same issue. MD, as an example, has what I would consider pretty good solar rules - full net metering up to 100% of use, and the option to oversize up to 200% (excess would be sold back at wholesale.) However, the permitting can be very slow, and it seems like our utility tends to drag its feet on a lot of steps - waiting until the last day to approve.

I do agree on the issue of sales costs. Tesla is doing a great job of selling direct to consumers, and other companies are going to have to adapt quickly or get out of the game. Tesla still faces a challenge of properly scoping more complex installs (and some folks posting here have experienced some of the issues when Tesla misses things in its initial quotes) but I think that will improve over time. Coupled with superior technology with the backup and solar gateways, and they have a clear advantage right now.

 

[holeydonut]

I don’t think all locations have that level of bureaucracy for a solar install. My city rubber stamped the design in about 72 hours. The city inspector showed up just as the installers were finishing up and approved the installation in about ten minutes. My power company came out the following day and swapped out the meter for a smarter one that could accommodate energy production.

You know it's funny how much PG&E folks talk trash about Texas' Utilities.

I've had way too many conversations with PG&E about my project, and one common thread is they always defend themselves by saying PG&E is an "investor owned utility" and "PG&E doesn't make money off of distribution or generation for individual customers."

Whatever Kool-aid they're pushing over there... it's very effective at brainwashing PG&E's workforce. They genuinely believe that the rates paid by homeowners in California is "fair" and provides no extra incentive for PG&E beyond the joy of getting energy into homes. Basically they believe Texas is "evil" since they believe Texas utilities make money off homeowners and want homeowners to be wasteful energy consumers to drive utility profits. While PG&E is somehow agnostic to the profit motive and only wants the best for homeowners to conserve as much as possible.

When I bring up why my monthly energy rate cost when using 1,200 kWh is about $0.35 per kWh while a similar bill in Texas would be $0.15 per kWh they just tell me it's because Texas uses more dirty energy sources, and I have to pay $0.35 for the cleanest energy around. They think PG&E's dividends and excess profit is zero. When I bring up how all the peaker plants are natural gas they just say at least California isn't using coal.

Regardless, I was surprised how hard they stuck it to me on my project. I know they want me to tell everyone how much of a PITA this is and discourage me from recommending to my neighbors to go Green. I don't see Texas doing that.

 

[charlesj]

I don’t think all locations have that level of bureaucracy for a solar install. My city rubber stamped the design in about 72 hours. The city inspector showed up just as the installers were finishing up and approved the installation in about ten minutes. My power company came out the following day and swapped out the meter for a smarter one that could accommodate energy production.

Curious if your previous meter was smart but not bi-directional or the really old rotary meter.

 

[charlesj]

I...MD, as an example, has what I would consider pretty good solar rules - full net metering up to 100% of use, and the option to oversize up to 200% (excess would be sold back at wholesale.) ....

Oh, I like that a lot. Our community power pays well above wholesale, perhaps around $.07kW.

 

[Rockster]

Curious if your previous meter was smart but not bi-directional or the really old rotary meter.

It was smart, just not bidirectional.