CA to require solar on all new homes starting 2020

[Gil Bang 26021]

I think it's a good idea.   It's expected to add 40 bucks or so to the average mortgage payment, but the savings will be 80 bucks per month on average electric bill.  

No doubt that demand will  bring new players into the solar arena.  

 

 

 

[EastTexan 662]

Maybe all the  people that have moved will move back.

[NameAlreadyInUse 5126]

I bought my last house from a builder who puts solar on all their houses.  I fucking love it! 

[markstanco 12612]

20 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

I think it's a good idea.   It's expected to add 40 bucks or so to the average mortgage payment, but the savings will be 80 bucks per month on average electric bill.  

No doubt that demand will  bring new players into the solar arena.  

 

 

 

Because government projections are typically spot on.  

[Gil Bang 26021]

Those projections are from the Building Industry Assn.  

[bschoolprof 6272]

27 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

I think it's a good idea.   It's expected to add 40 bucks or so to the average mortgage payment, but the savings will be 80 bucks per month on average electric bill.  

No doubt that demand will  bring new players into the solar arena.  

 

 

 

This is such a great savings that the government is mandating that people do it!

[ChickenSandwich 9853]

2 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

Those projections are from the Building Industry Assn.  

I'd get those projections and assumed price caps in writing.....was this the same group writing up the high speed rail estimates?

[SquishMitten 10435]

Isn't one of the financial benefits of solar that you often sell power back into the grid? If everybody has solar, that benefit goes out the window. I may just be talking out of my ass here.

[Gil Bang 26021]

5 minutes ago, bschoolprof said:

This is such a great savings that the government is mandating that people do it!

The consumer hasn't been adequately educated as to the benefits:

 

Here's a snip from an  interview with an executive at Meritage Homes (8th largest in the country)

Q: Why don’t more people buy solar and net-zero homes?

A: The challenge is two-fold. One, buyer sophistication to understand zero energy and whether it’s a cost or a benefit to them.

Buyers are not aware that solar costs less than the benefit that it provides. So when they’re faced with the decision, they know they want to spend extra money on granite or stainless steel or flooring upgrades, (but) they don’t understand that in choosing renewable energy that it pays them every month more than the cost of renewable energy.

The second is that, even if the buyer knew that renewable energy and energy efficiency was smart, it’s difficult for them to separate a home’s performance because there’s no requirement for a builder or a reseller to be transparent on the cost of operating a home. California has looked several times at having a home energy score like the HERS (Home Energy Rating System) score available as a requirement, but it has never initiated that and never required resellers to transmit to potential buyers.

And then, there are transactional challenges that are evolving to support high-performance homes.

Zero energy is the most cost-effective way to build a house, period. If you spent less to build it, your total operating costs are more than if you would have built it right in the first place.

The conventional appraisal process doesn’t value the significant (improvements) — better windows, better appliances, better lighting, better heating and cooling system and renewable energy systems — in a consistent way.

And then the last piece is (mortgage) underwriting. You want to spend $10 to save $30, which is kind of what you do when you build a zero-energy home. The underwriting doesn’t give you the credit to spend the initial, upfront money to reduce the total cost of the home. So buyers can often be prohibited by just their availability of funds.

They have to choose between square footage and total performance of a home. And sometimes pragmatically, they’re forced down the path of square footage because the appraisal and the underwriting standards don’t give them that proper valuation for these higher performance homes.

[Gil Bang 26021]

2 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

Isn't one of the financial benefits of solar that you often sell power back into the grid? If everybody has solar, that benefit goes out the window. I may just be talking out of my ass here.

not "everybody" will have solar.  New homes only.  There are plenty of other consumers of power that are hooked to the grid that don't have solar. 

[Neonmoon 38130]

I think this could force the electric companies to finally take a stand against home solar. It won't be pretty or cheap, but it will involve two little dirty words...transfer price

[Dr Fear 1268]

Can't say that I agree with this being mandatory, but at least it actually addresses in a real way the problem they are trying to solve. They could of also provided solar panels to 10 million homes with the money they are going to spend on the bullet train.

[Post Oak 20275]

Ive never understood while cities dont require these sorts of things when these homebuilders want to put in new subdivisions.  

Live in Texas gotta figure out a way to use your water more efficiently  Maybe a greywater system.  

Energy efficient windows.

Have to plant drought tolerant plants.

Have to plant a real trees. Not a fucking bradford pear.

 

[Guest]

some of y'all love the fuck outta liberty.

 

On a tangent, isn't it a little presumptive to assume CA will still be there in 2020?

[Flg8rfan 201]

While I’m not against the idea, I’m highly skeptical of the numbers. I’m sure they are using the lower cost of installation ranges and putting that up against the higher expected amount of savings ranges. I’m sure they aren’t quite including maintenance and repair costs over the life of the solar system either (panel replacement/repairs, battery replacements if batteries are part of the system). Additional costs associated with having the panels removed/replaced when it’s time for a new roof, etc.

If I believed I could get $80/mo savings by investing 10k (or even more) by putting in solar, I’d be looking into it. I just think the numbers won’t be quite as impressive in the real world that they are providing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gil Bang 26021]

5 minutes ago, slorch said:

some of y'all love the fuck outta liberty.

 

On a tangent, isn't it a little presumptive to assume CA will still be there in 2020?

CA's doing just fine dude.  5th largest economy in the world.

And I'm curious just how this impedes "liberty".   Do other building standards impede liberty?  Mandatory fire sprinklers?  Engineering standards?  Or, are you just being your usual dumbshit self, taking pride in being a simpleton?

[Gil Bang 26021]

1 minute ago, Flg8rfan said:

While I’m not against the idea, I’m highly skeptical of the numbers. I’m sure they are using the lower cost of installation ranges and putting that up against the higher expected amount of savings ranges. I’m sure they aren’t quite including maintenance and repair costs over the life of the solar system either (panel replacement/repairs, battery replacements if batteries are part of the system). Additional costs associated with having the panels removed/replaced when it’s time for a new roof, etc.

If I believed I could get $80/mo savings by investing 10k (or even more) by putting in solar, I’d be looking into it. I just think the numbers won’t be quite as impressive in the real world that they are providing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Would you agree that including solar in the original design of the home, and doing the installation during construction, rather than doing a retrofit,  will be more economical?

Also, we don't have hail here (not like Texas anyway).  New roofs last 30-50 years.  By the time a 2020 home needs a new roof, it will be 2050, and who knows where technology will be at that time?

[Neonmoon 38130]

Again, this all starts with the premise of people "selling energy back to the grid" 

Why would any any company buy the excess energy?  The home owners did not pay for any of the infrastructure to transport the energy. I know companies do it now as a courtesy because it's a small fraction of their consumers, but if you up that fraction to something that seriously erodes their market share. They're not going to let Johnny California send his electricity across the grid because he didn't pay to install the grid. Therefore, he's going to have to pay a "transfer price" which might erode these projected "selling energy back to the grid" profits

[ButtFumble 5183]

1 minute ago, Flg8rfan said:

While I’m not against the idea, I’m highly skeptical of the numbers. I’m sure they are using the lower cost of installation ranges and putting that up against the higher expected amount of savings ranges. I’m sure they aren’t quite including maintenance and repair costs over the life of the solar system either (panel replacement/repairs, battery replacements if batteries are part of the system). Additional costs associated with having the panels removed/replaced when it’s time for a new roof, etc.

If I believed I could get $80/mo savings by investing 10k (or even more) by putting in solar, I’d be looking into it. I just think the numbers won’t be quite as impressive in the real world that they are providing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

in addition to that there is the fact that many people are simply not going to maintain the system at all unless that maintenance is included in the price and for the expected life of the system

 

so while they government is counting on X reduction in needed power from other methods of generation in 5 years or so when Y percent of the people have leaves and dust and shit covering their panels or they have let them get busted by hail or tree limbs or rodents have chewed on wires and those panels are only generating some fraction of their expected power there will still be a power demand from other methods and like good government there will be no plans to provide that power and prices will just go up and up while you drive around looking at fucked up half ass solar panels on house after house

[RPM 26354]

1 minute ago, Gil Bang said:

CA's doing just fine dude.  5th largest economy in the world.

And I'm curious just how this impedes "liberty". 

It goes against Jesus' teachings. "Jesus said let there be light. Light powered by coal fired electric generators!" 

I believe it's either in the book of Genesis or Steely Dan.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

CA's doing just fine dude.  5th largest economy in the world.

And I'm curious just how this impedes "liberty".   Do other building standards impede liberty?  Mandatory fire sprinklers?  Engineering standards?  Or, are you just being your usual dumbshit self, taking pride in being a simpleton?

Fuck off.

 

When there is an obvious alternative, and the gov't mandates one over the other it might be bullshit.  i'm not even necessarily anti-solar at all.  If you want traditional 'lectric, then live with the possibility of brown outs.

I just prefer to let circumstances( the market) correct behavior.

 

yeah CA is so great economically...and broke.  Fuck that place.

Edited May 9, 2018 by slorch

[Gil Bang 26021]

3 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Again, this all starts with the premise of people "selling energy back to the grid" 

Why would any any company buy the excess energy?  The home owners did not pay for any of the infrastructure to transport the energy. I know companies do it now as a courtesy because it's a small fraction of their consumers, but if you up that fraction to something that seriously erodes their market share. They're not going to let Johnny California send his electricity across the grid because he didn't pay to install the grid. Therefore, he's going to have to pay a "transfer price" which might erode these projected "selling energy back to the grid" profits

No it doesn't.  Forget the grid. Homes with solar panels use less "grid" electricity than homes without solar panels.  

And you are quite mistaken. I paid for the fucking grid. On my electric bill. So did everybody else.  Fuck, I'm paying to de-commission San Onofre on my electric bill.  

[ButtFumble 5183]

7 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Again, this all starts with the premise of people "selling energy back to the grid" 

Why would any any company buy the excess energy?  The home owners did not pay for any of the infrastructure to transport the energy. I know companies do it now as a courtesy because it's a small fraction of their consumers, but if you up that fraction to something that seriously erodes their market share. They're not going to let Johnny California send his electricity across the grid because he didn't pay to install the grid. Therefore, he's going to have to pay a "transfer price" which might erode these projected "selling energy back to the grid" profits

 

this is actually incorrect the consumer pays for the grid in their bill every month

even in unregulated markets like Austin the actual cost of the grid itself is still regulated and reflected in the bill it is the generated power that you pay for in the unregulated aspect of things

every power generator out there with the exception of a few that do not participate in their "power pool" has some portion of their business that is regulated and that reflected the cost of connecting to the grid

only those that choose to not participate in the power pool and that are thus free to sell at any price to meet demand do not get to also have part of their grid cost covered with regulated rates

plus at some point when the government tells you that you cannot build more power plants and in the case of california as they try and cut their grid away from coal plants in AZ, NM and NV well shit the power company has to get their power from somewhere....and that will be from the "consumer" selling back to the grid at some reduced cost and then that power sold to others at the higher cost all while the regulated portion of that energy provider has their grid cost still covered and fixed through regulation

Edited May 9, 2018 by ButtFumble

[Gil Bang 26021]

4 minutes ago, slorch said:

Fuck off.

 

When there is an obvious alternative, and the gov't mandates one over the other it might be bullshit.

 

yeah CA is so great economically...and broke.  Fuck that place.

You're quite uninformed.  By "broke", are you referring to CAs 6.1 BILLION DOLLAR SURPLUS?

And I'm sure you'd rather be shitting outdoors, but THE GOVERNMENT (evil motherfuckers) MANDATED indoor plumbing in your house.  Is that OK with you?  Or are you only in opposition to GOVERNMENT MANDATES that originate in Sacramento?

Edited May 9, 2018 by Gil Bang

[NameAlreadyInUse 5126]

16 minutes ago, Flg8rfan said:

While I’m not against the idea, I’m highly skeptical of the numbers. I’m sure they are using the lower cost of installation ranges and putting that up against the higher expected amount of savings ranges. I’m sure they aren’t quite including maintenance and repair costs over the life of the solar system either (panel replacement/repairs, battery replacements if batteries are part of the system). Additional costs associated with having the panels removed/replaced when it’s time for a new roof, etc.

If I believed I could get $80/mo savings by investing 10k (or even more) by putting in solar, I’d be looking into it. I just think the numbers won’t be quite as impressive in the real world that they are providing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My solar system cost me $7500 in my house as it was being built.  I pay ~$100/month less in this house than I was paying in my previous house, and I have been since we moved in in January 2015.  That's a payback period of a little more than 6 years.  Granted, this house is more energy efficient in general, but its also bigger. The old house was about 10 years old when we moved out. 

[Neonmoon 38130]

13 minutes ago, ButtFumble said:

 

this is actually incorrect the consumer pays for the grid in their bill every month

even in unregulated markets like Austin the actual cost of the grid itself is still regulated and reflected in the bill it is the generated power that you pay for in the unregulated aspect of things

every power generator out there with the exception of a few that do not participate in their "power pool" has some portion of their business that is regulated and that reflected the cost of connecting to the grid

only those that choose to not participate in the power pool and that are thus free to sell at any price to meet demand do not get to also have part of their grid cost covered with regulated rates

plus at some point when the government tells you that you cannot build more power plants and in the case of california as they try and cut their grid away from coal plants in AZ, NM and NV well shit the power company has to get their power from somewhere....and that will be from the "consumer" selling back to the grid at some reduced cost and then that power sold to others at the higher cost all while the regulated portion of that energy provider has their grid cost still covered and fixed through regulation

http://www.eei.org/issuesandpolicy/generation/NetMetering/Documents/Straight Talk About Net Metering.pdf

That is correct. It is built into the price. The seller aka the home solar owner currently gets full retail price for their solar sold back to the grid. Why should they get full retail price? They didn't pay for the grid?

Quote

While net metering policies vary by state, customers with rooftop solar or other DG systems usually are credited at the full retail electricity rate for any electricity they sell to electric utilities via the grid. The full retail electricity rate includes not only the cost of the power but also all of the fixed costs of the poles, wires, meters, advanced technologies, and other infrastructure that make the electric grid safe, reliable, and able to accommodate solar panels or other DG systems. Through the credit or payment they receive, net-metered customers effectively avoid paying these costs for the grid

Quote

That means that when rooftop solar or other DG customers generate electricity, they avoid paying for the utility’s power, which is fair because they did not use it. But, they also avoid paying for all of the fixed costs of the grid that delivers power when they need it and/or takes the excess power they sell back to the utility. As a result, these grid costs are shifted to those customers without rooftop solar or other DG systems through higher utility bills, which is not fair.

And of course the non-solar panel owning customer pays for it. 

Edited May 9, 2018 by Neonmoon

[Bernard 879]

Already touched on above, but any new house, even in Texas, has to comply with lots and lots of regulations. Buildings cores. Double pane windows. Minimum SEER AC units. Etc. 

I read somewhere that solar water heating was the best bang for your buck. If true, it should be required on all new houses. 

The biggest issue for me is asthetics. Solar panels can be quite ugly. Of course this new law allows developers to put in a common solar array for the neighborhood. They don’t have to be on every roof. 

My sister has a large house in SoCal. Her roof top panels cut her electricity bill to almost nothing, which is nice. 

Bernard

[clapclapclap 9000]

1 hour ago, SquishMitten said:

Isn't one of the financial benefits of solar that you often sell power back into the grid? If everybody has solar, that benefit goes out the window. I may just be talking out of my ass here.

Surprised homeowners might view that as a gut punch.  I may just be talking out of my solar plexus here.

[ButtFumble 5183]

29 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

http://www.eei.org/issuesandpolicy/generation/NetMetering/Documents/Straight Talk About Net Metering.pdf

That is correct. It is built into the price. The seller aka the home solar owner currently gets full retail price for their solar sold back to the grid. Why should they get full retail price? They didn't pay for the grid?

And of course the non-solar panel owning customer pays for it. 

from the same link you posted

How Are States Dealing With The Cost Shift Created By Net Metering? Almost every state is looking at different solutions to reform net metering to address the high costs and cost  shift caused by outdated net metering policies. These solutions  range from legislative action to policy  changes directed by or at state utility regulatory commissions.  In December 2015, the Nevada Public Utilities Commission found  that net metering resulted in  a $623 cost  shift per rooftop solar customer in southern Nevada. The commission took action and  updated the state’s net  metering policy to change the rate  paid for net - metered power  to  the same rate the utility paid for other  sources of power . The commission also added a small energy charge and created a separate customer class  for  residential  rooftop solar  producers because their impact on the system is different from that of other  residential customers .  The Nevada PUC Chairman Paul Thomsen said, "The new rate is intended to ensure  that the 98 percent of residential utility ratepayers who are non - solar customers do not subsidize those with  solar systems." http://www.foxreno.com/news/features/top - stories/stories/controversial - solar - rate - changes - stay - effect - 9167.shtml#.VpsAbU3luok In Hawaii, t he  Hawaii Utilities  Commission recently reformed  the state’s  net metering policies to pay  residential solar  producers the same price as paid to larger, competitive solar producers.  These policies now assure that all solar producers receive comparable prices, have incentives to promote efficiency, and avoid  imposing additional excessive costs on utility customers who do not or cannot install rooftop solar systems.

[NameAlreadyInUse 5126]

City of Austin is definitely not paying me retail for the energy I sell back, and I don't have enough panels to cover my entire energy consumption anyway.  If they weren't paying me anything at all, I'd likely go ahead and upgrade the number of panels and get a battery to store excess so that I just wouldn't be buying energy at all except in rare circumstances.

[Neonmoon 38130]

Well as long as everyone is paying their share, I’m all for it 

[ABSR 5324]

2 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

I think it's a good idea.   It's expected to add 40 bucks or so to the average mortgage payment, but the savings will be 80 bucks per month on average electric bill.  

No doubt that demand will  bring new players into the solar arena.  

 

 

 

My guess is the cost projections take into account federal and state incentives/subsidies.   Not that I don't like the idea of alternative energy, but solar energy is still not cost effective without you and I (tax payers) subsidizing it. 

[Bernard 879]

20 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

 I just wouldn't be buying energy at all except in rare circumstances.

The $64,000 question is how much would that standby power cost if everyone did the same. Right now, the grid costs get spread out over a vast number of users, based on usage. The cost to maintain the grid though, includes a shit ton of non-variable costs. If everyone has solar, how do we pay to maintain the grid?

Bernard

[NameAlreadyInUse 5126]

Smarter people than me ought to be able to see that this is going to be an issue in a decade or 5, and should start working now to figure out how to reorganize the grid to account for it.

[Bevo 13601]

Is California building new homes? I thought the legal resident population was declining. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

It's the right move in regions where good sun is prevalent.  Solar is getting better, and when, and if Tesla makes the home battery storage system work it becomes a game changer.  

If the savings are accurate, what's a reasonable  pay back on the initial cost ?

[markstanco 12612]

I cant quote for some reason.

You're quite uninformed.  By "broke", are you referring to CAs 6.1 BILLION DOLLAR SURPLUS?

Nice job.  What is the current debt? 

[whatup 0]

Just now, markstanco said:

I cant quote for some reason.

 

 

Nice job.  What is the current debt? 

High, very high. But its a tall order subsidizing all the Trump states. 

[Gil Bang 26021]

44 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Is California building new homes? I thought the legal resident population was declining. 

We are building the shit out of new homes. 

Detached single family residential construction trends in California:

• 30,500 SFR starts took place in the six-month period ending March 2018. This is up 24% from the same period one year earlier, amounting to an increase of 6,000 starts.
• 58,000 SFR starts took place in 2017. This is up 17%, or 8,600 starts, from 2016.
• A similar pace of increase is expected to occur in 2018.
• For perspective, this cycle’s peak year in SFR starts was 2005 with 155,000 starts. The lowest year was 2009 with 25,000 starts.
• Final reports issued for new subdivisions by the California Bureau of Real Estate (CalBRE) have remained constant for several years, roughly level during the past 12 months.

Detached SFR forecast:

• first tuesday‘s forecast for total SFR starts in 2018 is approximately 66,700. This is 15% higher than 2017.
• SFR starts will begin to rise more significantly in 2019, once builders have adjusted to the new paradigm of rising interest rates.
• Subdivision final reports will continue strong as developers continue to sense a return of home buyers is on the horizon.
• The next peak in SFR starts will likely occur during the boomlet period of 2020-2021.

Multi-family housing construction trends:

• 27,800 multi-family housing starts took place in the six-month period ending March 2018. This is an increase of 3,900 starts, up 16% from the same period one year earlier.
• 53,800 multi-family housing starts took place in 2017. This was up 6% from 2016 and roughly level with 2015.
• For perspective, this cycle’s peak year in multi-family housing starts was 2004 with 61,500 starts. The lowest year was 2009 with 11,000 multi-family housing starts.

Multi-family housing forecast:

• first tuesday‘s forecast for total multi-family housing starts in 2018 is approximately 56,400. This is a small 5% increase over 2017.
• Multi-family housing starts will gain more strength in 2019 and 2020, once several legislative changes aimed at increasing multi-family construction start rolling.
• The next peak year for multi-family housing starts is likely to be 2020.

Statistics related to California housing:

• 6,943,000 owner-occupied housing units existed in California in 2016, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. This is an increase of 1% over the prior year.
• California population growth is increasing at a rate of just below 1% per year, having bottomed at the height of the Millennium Boom and trending upward slightly since then.
• 17.1 million people were employed in California at the end of 2017. This is about 1.4 million jobs above the pre-recession peak month of December 2007, according to the California Employment Development Department (EDD), still yet to catch up with the 1.6 million increase in working-aged population.
• The trough month in employment was January 2010, with 13,686,400 people employed state-wide.
• The rental vacancy rate at the end of 2017 was 4.3%.

[markstanco 12612]

High, very high. But its a tall order subsidizing all the Trump states. 

I take it you live in California. What part of state taxes go to subsidizing the rest of the nation?

My point is, don't be a retard and confuse surplus with debt and everything is fine because the television told you so. You know, like Gil did. He thinks California is in the black.

[whatup 0]

8 minutes ago, markstanco said:

I take it you live in California. What part of state taxes go to subsidizing the rest of the nation?

My point is, don't be a retard and confuse surplus with debt and everything is fine because the television told you so. You know, like Gil did. He thinks California is in the black.

I don't live in CA, but I'm well aware that its the federal taxes paid by the Californians that subsidize freeloaders in flyover states such as the one you live in. If all states kept their funds to themselves, CA would be just fine whereas welfare states like the one you live in would be under water. 

Don't be an intentional retard. 

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, whatup said:

I don't live in CA, but I'm well aware that its the federal taxes paid by the Californians that subsidize freeloaders in flyover states such as the one you live in. If all states kept their funds to themselves, CA would be just fine whereas welfare states like the one you live in would be under water. 

Don't be an intentional retard. 

Are you fucking high?

[whatup 0]

2 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Are you fucking high?

Oh boy, Rex is in. No one gives a shit about your opinion. Get lost.

[Guest]

Gladly. Keep being retarded; it suits you. 

[whatup 0]

43 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Gladly. Keep being retarded; it suits you. 

LOL, riiight. 

[Gil Bang 26021]

1 hour ago, markstanco said:

I take it you live in California. What part of state taxes go to subsidizing the rest of the nation?

My point is, don't be a retard and confuse surplus with debt and everything is fine because the television told you so. You know, like Gil did. He thinks California is in the black.

We're paying our bills, and putting money in the bank.  That's not "broke" unless you're a dipshit like Slorch.  Get back to me when CA files bankruptcy. 

[Gil Bang 26021]

timely

 

Edited May 10, 2018 by Gil Bang

[Jhawk 1075]

I think it’s a great idea. It has to start somewhere. That being said, I hope the feds repeal the solar tax credit (it’s really a deduction). Otherwise CA just made a law that says all taxpayers have to pay for a portion of the cost of solar on all new CA homes. 

Edited May 10, 2018 by Jhawk

[Gil Bang 26021]

yeah, it would be a shame if one state was burdened with paying for another state's dipshittery.  

[elfenix 34332]

6 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Well as long as everyone is paying their share, I’m all for it 

we haven't for the last several hundred years of electric generation, why start now?