Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 57

Thread: California to require solar panels on all new homes

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Tampa, FL, USA
    Posts
    1,622

    California to require solar panels on all new homes


  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,287
    And they complain about a lack of "affordable" housing.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    The Motor City, Michigan USA
    Posts
    765
    What's unaffordable about a negative electric bill?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Springfield, MA, USA
    Posts
    3,204
    If the net result is a negative electric bill, then this mandate might actually be worth it to the people buying these new houses. But the numbers are really not clear.

    1) The solar install may add value to the property, and so raises the property taxes.
    2) The calculations of installed cost and benefit depend heavily on subsidies, both actual cash subsidy and 'net metering'; these subsidies could change
    3) Especially with respect to the net metering subsidy, energy costs will be increased for other consumers; IMHO lowering costs for rich folk who can afford new houses and raising them for poor folk who don't get the benefits of the solar install.

    On the plus side, like computers and other electronics, solar power is essentially carefully organized sand. A huge portion of the expense is capital investment in the production facilities. The more users the less expensive it becomes.

    -Jon

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX, USA
    Posts
    9,810
    Quote Originally Posted by winnie View Post
    If the net result is a negative electric bill, then this mandate might actually be worth it to the people buying these new houses. But the numbers are really not clear.

    1) The solar install may add value to the property, and so raises the property taxes.
    Not necessarily. Some places have legislation in place that forbids the inclusion of a PV system in a property assessment. I do not know about California, though.
    Quote Originally Posted by winnie View Post
    2) The calculations of installed cost and benefit depend heavily on subsidies, both actual cash subsidy and 'net metering'; these subsidies could change
    True enough, but installed subsidies are up front so changes after the fact don't affect ROI. Most places have locked in net metering contracts which protect customers from later tariff changes.
    Quote Originally Posted by winnie View Post
    3) Especially with respect to the net metering subsidy, energy costs will be increased for other consumers; IMHO lowering costs for rich folk who can afford new houses and raising them for poor folk who don't get the benefits of the solar install.
    Again, not necessarily. If PV systems relieve or ameliorate the utility having to go to the spot market for power during peak periods, that reduces costs for everyone. Also, here in Austin for example, The Value Of Solar method of calculating the financial returns on a PV system (solar kWh's pay everyone the same irrespective of what usage tier the customer is on) does a lot to level the playing field. For another thing, community solar projects are popping up all over the place where anyone can buy into a system and have their portion of its production figured into their electric bill through virtual metering.
    Quote Originally Posted by winnie View Post
    On the plus side, like computers and other electronics, solar power is essentially carefully organized sand. A huge portion of the expense is capital investment in the production facilities. The more users the less expensive it becomes.
    True dat.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Ocala, Florida, USA
    Posts
    2,644
    Quote Originally Posted by drcampbell View Post
    What's unaffordable about a negative electric bill?
    Might I remind you or educate you that California is the state that put car pool lanes in and free bridge tolls for people in car pools. Then once they got enough participation that claimed they were losing too much money and started charging tolls for car pools. Encourages high MPG cars and then raises gas taxes because people are using less gas. Good luck with that negative energy cost. And FYI I was a Californian for 25 years so I am not just a Floridian speaking out my butt.


    I know what I don't know, and I know where to go to find it!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX, USA
    Posts
    9,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Strathead View Post
    Might I remind you or educate you that California is the state that put car pool lanes in and free bridge tolls for people in car pools. Then once they got enough participation that claimed they were losing too much money and started charging tolls for car pools. Encourages high MPG cars and then raises gas taxes because people are using less gas. Good luck with that negative energy cost. And FYI I was a Californian for 25 years so I am not just a Floridian speaking out my butt.
    California doesn't have a monopoly on that kind of thing. Here in Texas we needed some new highways, so we built them as toll roads and then sold them to a Spanish company. Our toll fees go overseas. Remember when tolls were collected to pay for roadways and stopped when the roads were paid for? Those days are long gone.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Iowegia
    Posts
    17,948
    I'm curious, though. Will the new homes that have all these solar panels actually be able to use the power they produce, or will they be like Florida and not be allowed to? IE, when the grid goes down, you still have no power.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    The Motor City, Michigan USA
    Posts
    765
    In my native Chicago, mayor Rahm Emanuel wants to sell the El to a public-private partnership. Loosely translated, that means the public pays the bill and the private partners collect the profit.

    Infrastructure requires materials, labor & expertise, and the people providing it need to be paid a fair wage. Privatization is a short-term solution to a public that doesn't wanna pay for public investments. Naturally, it costs more in the long run, but Americans are notoriously bad at long-term thinking. Remember the mechanic on TV with the oil filters? "You can pay me now, or you can pay me later." Same thing. Unfortunately, a lot of people are opting for "Pay me later." and the capitalists are more than happy to oblige.

    Quote Originally Posted by ggunn View Post
    ... Remember when tolls were collected to pay for roadways and stopped when the roads were paid for? ...
    Remember when "Pssst ... want to buy a bridge?" did not mean that you could actually buy a bridge?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    25,624
    Putting a gun to someones head and forcing them to install systems that they have to pay for and may not want is un-American. I'm not surprised that they came up with this scam in California.
    Rob

    Moderator

    All responses based on the 2014 NEC unless otherwise noted

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •