California Renewable Energy Legislation / Progress

[McRat]

A little reading comprehension goes a long way, no eco-erection required :

"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."

RT

Obviously, in such terrain, it's going to be far cheaper just to put up pointless panels, rather than try to acquire land on the more desirable south side of the mountains or areas that are cleared of trees legally. Not all areas are good candidates for solar.

Here's how building permits work. When you pull one, you have obey the codes, even ex-post-facto provisions. So if you want a new gate that requires a permit, and your windows that face the property line aren't fire windows, you must retrofit the windows (2011?) and coat the eaves with fireproof material on the underside. And soon you will have to add some solar panels, effective or not.

Solar works for me. But I do not feel the need to boss other folk around. I live in California, born in California, but I refuse to Be A Californian. Or join a HOA. Or burn books. Or ban free speech. Or tell you can't have a religion.

That's probably because I was here before Californians became deities.

Mostly the reason for the new law is that it will make housing prices climb. This is good for real estate speculators. Follow the money.

 

[EinSV]

New rules mandate solar panels on all new homes in California starting in 2020:

California Will Require Solar Power for New Homes

"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." <snip>

RT

This is awesome -- clearly a win-win.

Clean energy that reduces the overall cost of homeownership by $40/month on average. Last I checked, dollars spent on utility bills are no different than dollars spent on mortgage payments, so the homeowner pays less per month for total cost of owning a home. AND, has a house that is more valuable when it comes time to sell (something people often forget when they look at the cost of rooftop solar). Plus for less expensive homes the additional mortgage payment to cover solar will be tax deductible, unlike utility bills.

 

[McRat]

This is awesome -- clearly a win-win.

Clean energy that reduces the overall cost of homeownership by $40/month on average. Last I checked, dollars spent on utility bills are no different than dollars spent on mortgage payments, so the homeowner pays less per month for total cost of owning a home. AND, has a house that is more valuable when it comes time to sell (something people often forget when they look at the cost of rooftop solar). Plus for less expensive homes the additional mortgage payment to cover solar will be tax deductible, unlike utility bills.

From the folk who gave you the Train To Nowhere, now a Solar Lease System for your Timeshare Condo. All sold through multi-level marketing of course!

Don't believe the State when it comes to managing the utilities. Don't you wonder why we pay so much more than other states?
They even hyped a PR release today that we are going to run out of power this summer. Seriously. Not a chance in hell. We have surplus capacity now. We built too many powerplants.

 

[EinSV]

From the folk who gave you the Train To Nowhere, now a Solar Lease System for your Timeshare Condo. All sold through multi-level marketing of course!

Don't believe the State when it comes to managing the utilities. Don't you wonder why we pay so much more than other states?
They even hyped a PR release today that we are going to run out of power this summer. Seriously. Not a chance in hell. We have surplus capacity now. We built too many powerplants.

Nah, it's a Train to the Future McR. Cleaner, cheaper and just better. Less asthma, less lung cancer, less climate change.

And for the tightwads (and who isn't deep down), you save money on a monthly basis and have more to show for it at the end (solar is an investment; sending $ to the utility is pissing it away).

You ought to jump aboard McR -- beats standing on the tracks any day.

 

[rays427]

I'm not against the idea but many homes in our subdivision cannot justify solar panels because there is too much shading from the trees. I guess you could also require all trees to be cut down but the trees lower the thermal load during the summer so that may not be the best choice. Seems like economics should also be considered. In addition I like the trees and don't want live in a place void of them.

 

[McRat]

I'm not against the idea but many homes in our subdivision cannot justify solar panels because there is too much shading from the trees. I guess you could also require all trees to be cut down but the trees lower the thermal load during the summer so that may not be the best choice. Seems like economics should also be considered. In addition I like the trees and don't want live in a place void of them.

Solar is like any other tool. It's not all purpose (well, except duct tape).
A solar system like I built will pay for itself in under 3 years including cost of capital at 10%.
It won't fit on a normal house, and if it did, it wouldn't produce as much power. That's 1636 sqft of southern unshaded exposure.

That makes sense. A 7 year payback ... that's where the break point is. Folk are getting 10-15-20 year paybacks including the cost of capital. This does not count possible re-roofing, that dirty little secret about residential solar.

 

[ohmman]

It's great news overall. As with anything, it's not perfect, but it's good. The size of the market here ought to push some efficiency and competition, driving install prices down. I worry about affordable housing, but most of our local affordable units have been installing them anyway, and as has been pointed out above, it's a net savings. In my county, new installs qualify for interest free loans that offset utility rates immediately.

It also saves me some work with one of my environmental advocacy groups. We were trying to get this passed locally just in case it didn't work out for the state.

 

[McRat]

It's great news overall. As with anything, it's not perfect, but it's good. The size of the market here ought to push some efficiency and competition, driving install prices down. I worry about affordable housing, but most of our local affordable units have been installing them anyway, and as has been pointed out above, it's a net savings. In my county, new installs qualify for interest free loans that offset utility rates immediately.

It also saves me some work with one of my environmental advocacy groups. We were trying to get this passed locally just in case it didn't work out for the state.

You could be right. Sacramento could do something correctly with the intention of benefiting the lower and middle classes.

And that was me yelling at the sky. Not clouds though. The Flying Pigs who crap on everything!

Temporarily, it will be real estate speculators that will see a market uptick. If new houses far from town see a price hike so do all the houses. Most of our politicians and upper class donors made their money in real estate. But the long game will be at the power company.

I've been following our electric tariffs for about 5 years now. The best way for the utilities to quickly nullify residential solar is to enforce TOU stretched out to 8-10pm which strips off much of your solar production (already happened in some areas), then migrate to Demand meters. With Demand metering, electricity costs you practically nothing. 0.075/kWh. Cool, right? Not exactly. That's how much your solar panels can defray costs. Since residential peak is 5-8 pm, when solar production is very low, this is where they collect. Your bill is based on 3 things: a rental for the meter + peak kW demand fee + power in kWh used. While solar can reduce kW use during strong sunlight, it will have little effect on peak demand at 6pm. This is charged by the kW at a very high rate.

Example of Demand metering.

You use 40 kWh a day.
You produce 20 kWh a day.
You come home at 5pm, turn on the AC, lights, TV, cook dinner. Normally this spikes at 10kW max at about 6 pm.

So you pay $1 for the meter that day + 20kWh x .075 = $1.50 for power + (15.89 * 10)/30 = $5.30 for demand. Total of $7.80, or $234 a month.

Wait. Power is only .075 a kWh, dist+production! How can my bill be 0.39 a kWh???? That is demand. Use all the power you want, just keep your peak amps down for the panel. Hard to do.

Then you make a mistake the next month. You plug in your 10kW EVSE at 6pm while the A/C and oven are going. 20kW.

Your power use won't change that much since it's only a brief time during the month. Your bill will climb $158.90 MORE that month for that brief mistake.

OK, I'll just add panels so I don't use power!
I use 40kWh
I produce 40kWh

That $234 normal bill becomes $189. Wait! I doubled production, I used no power! kWh's and kW peak are two different animals.

This is already forced on large, medium, now small businesses, and if solar hurts the CPUC's providers too much, it will come to residential customers. Adding solar panels won't help. A Battery can help IF it can figure out when peak demand happens that month, and you make no dumb mistakes charging your car.

But how will they get you to fall for it? Easy. Cheap power.

If I offer you power at $0.075/kWh maximum rate, 24/7/365, and all you have to do is change out your meter, would you decline?

Oddly enough, the plans that charge you the highest $/kWh at 12 Noon, are the plans you normally want if you are on solar or have an EV. The low cost Demand tariffs is how they can make money whether you have solar or not. And how they can get rich off EV charging at the same time.

 

[AceSkywalker]

Nah, it's a Train to the Future McR. Cleaner, cheaper and just better. Less asthma, less lung cancer, less climate change.

And for the tightwads (and who isn't deep down), you save money on a monthly basis and have more to show for it at the end (solar is an investment; sending $ to the utility is pissing it away).

You ought to jump aboard McR -- beats standing on the tracks any day.

If you're referring to the CAHSR boondoggle of a project, no rational person is holding their breath. The full stage 1 from LA to SF won't be opening until well into the 2030s, thanks to delays from 2030. There's constant doubt about getting the cash needed to finish the project, since the Federal government has proven to be unreliable, with the shifting tides in DC from R <-> D.

 

[EinSV]

If you're referring to the CAHSR boondoggle of a project, no rational person is holding their breath. The full stage 1 from LA to SF won't be opening until well into the 2030s, thanks to delays from 2030. There's constant doubt about getting the cash needed to finish the project, since the Federal government has proven to be unreliable, with the shifting tides in DC from R <-> D.

"Train to the Future" was just a metaphor for the new rooftop solar mandate.

 

[SageBrush]

This is awesome -- clearly a win-win.

Clean energy that reduces the overall cost of homeownership by $40/month on average. Last I checked, dollars spent on utility bills are no different than dollars spent on mortgage payments, so the homeowner pays less per month for total cost of owning a home. AND, has a house that is more valuable when it comes time to sell (something people often forget when they look at the cost of rooftop solar). Plus for less expensive homes the additional mortgage payment to cover solar will be tax deductible, unlike utility bills.

Some of your advantages are offset by the higher amount owed on the house. People buy by monthly payment -- that is the bottom line, and paying $40 more in the mortgage payment to save $80 in utility charges is a GOOD DEAL (tm) if it works out that way. After the sewer is cleaned in DC and CA regains its property tax deduction for federal taxes the financials will improve even more.

Perhaps the most attractive part of this legislation in terms of widespread PV is folding the cost of the PV into the mortgage. It completely undercuts the PV leasing business but that is IMHO a good thing. And being able to finance PV at home mortgage rates is a boon.

 

[bkp_duke]

After the sewer is cleaned in DC and CA regains its property tax deduction for federal taxes the financials will improve even more.

The property tax deduction is never coming back. The rest of the country is done subsidizing the high cost of living for coastal states. The Dems don't have the votes to bring it back.

 

[SageBrush]

I'm not against the idea but many homes in our subdivision cannot justify solar panels because there is too much shading from the trees. I guess you could also require all trees to be cut down but the trees lower the thermal load during the summer so that may not be the best choice. Seems like economics should also be considered. In addition I like the trees and don't want live in a place void of them.

I wondered about this too. Since the law is meant for new construction there will be opportunity to plan tree sitings to not interfere with the PV. More generally, homes will be sited, designed and oriented with both shading and PV in mind. This is a VERY good thing.

A few months ago I chatted with a fellow who was moving in soon to his custom home. When I asked him why his southern face had so few minutes he looked at me funny and asked which way was south.

The CA law not only requires PV, it requires energy auditing and HERS performance. Shading (done right) is just as integral to energy performance as PV and this has been recognized and incorporated into the law. Better building practices that incorporate PassivHaus tenets will become a lot more common.

Good for them !!

 

[SageBrush]

PV at the time of home building is also the cheapest approach. There is just no reason for it to cost over $1 a watt installed when done cookie cutter style.

 

[EinSV]

I'm not against the idea but many homes in our subdivision cannot justify solar panels because there is too much shading from the trees. I guess you could also require all trees to be cut down but the trees lower the thermal load during the summer so that may not be the best choice. Seems like economics should also be considered. In addition I like the trees and don't want live in a place void of them.

According to the Bloomberg article posted by @RubberToe, there are exceptions for homes that are too shady. California Becomes First State to Order Solar on New Homes

 

[gene]

The property tax deduction is never coming back. The rest of the country is done subsidizing the high cost of living for coastal states. The Dems don't have the votes to bring it back.

Actually, the high federal income taxes the wealthier coastal blue states pay heavily subsidizes the red states.

 

[SageBrush]

According to the Bloomberg article posted by @RubberToe, there are exceptions for homes that are too shady. California Becomes First State to Order Solar on New Homes

Google has been working on PV maps that take local shading into account in calculating yield. Rather forward thinking of them ;-)

And by the way, the proposed legislation allows a group of homes to collectively meet the mandate.

Interested people really should read the law. They have thought it through.

 

[gene]

A good article covering the new law by PV Magazine: How much of Tesla’s Solar Gigafactory did California just vote to buy?

 

[gene]

And another: California’s solar mandate: Questions and answers

 

[EinSV]

Here is another helpful article. It’s Official. All New California Homes Must Incorporate Solar

Since impact on affordable housing is a potential concern, it is notable that the article cites a Habitat for Humanity representative favoring the rule because it reduces the overall cost of home ownership:

“Low mortgage payments alone don’t make for affordable housing,” said George Koertzen, construction superintendent at Habitat for Humanity in San Joaquin County, in a statement. “It’s also important to make sure families can afford to pay the energy bills that keep the lights on, the temperature comfortable, and the hot water flowing.”

“That’s why Title 24 is so important,” he continued. “Strong energy-efficiency codes for housing help keep utility bills down, and help families stay in their homes.”
​