Posted on 12/06/2018 10:27:49 AM PST by ProtectOurFreedom
California became the first state in the nation on Dec. 5 to require homes built in 2020 and later be solar powered.
...the California Building Standards Commission (BSC) voted unanimously to add energy standards approved last May by another panel to the state building code.
“These provisions really are historic and will be a beacon of light for the rest of the country,” said Kent Sasaki, one of six commissioners voting for the new energy code. “(It’s) the beginning of substantial improvement in how we produce energy and reduce the consumption of fossil fuels.”
The new provisions are expected to dramatically boost the number of rooftop solar panels in CA. ...builders took out permits for 115,000 new homes in 2017, half for single-family homes.
Wednesday’s action upholds a vote by another body, the California Energy Commission, seeking to fulfill a decade-old goal to make the state reliant on cleaner, alternative energy. The energy panel’s vote was subject to final approval by the BSC.
The BSC was limited to reviewing the energy panel’s rulemaking process, not the content of the standards. Commissioners said the process was more than sufficient, with 35 meetings, hearings and webinars held over a 15-month period. The energy panel received more than 3,000 comments from over 100 stakeholders, officials said.
While nobody spoke Wednesday in opposition to the new provisions, the commission received more than 300 letters from around the state opposing the solar mandate because of the added cost.
Energy officials estimated the provisions will add $10,000 to the cost of building a single-family home, about $8,400 from adding solar and about $1,500 for making homes more energy-efficient. But those costs would be offset by lower utility bills over the 30-year lifespan of the solar panels.
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
It makes more sense in California than in Washington state. Southern California is sunny for over three hundred days per year. Northern California less so. Oregon even less and Washington, well forget it.
Will work until firefighters start running into solar power systems that aren’t in any book or readily available reference. Only totally safe thing for firefighters to do will be to just let the structure burn. Even putting water on the ashes may cause electrical shocks. I’m sure insurance companies are right on this and won’t raise rates. /sarcasm
Of course, it is now completely impossible to buy ANY product in California without a Prop 65 warning label. They all all over your cookware, plates, forks, knives, glasses, and napkins.
I should have created an ETF for Prop 65 warning label printers. I could have retired at 40.
...and politicians
My roof was damaged by hail a couple years ago. Insurance replaced it for about $20K. If I had solar the cost would have doubled. I expect my insurance would be higher for this reason if I had solar.
“But those costs would be offset by lower utility bills over the 30-year lifespan of the solar panels”
BWAHAHAHAHahahahaha.
Typical: GOVT = (Fascist) Twilight Zone
With no program in place to recycle old
panels, there’s going to be an
environmental crisis in California.
Panels will be as hard to get rid of as
a Tesla car battery.
I’m in Sacramento. It gets hot...and it’s sunny.
Perfect for solar.
https://www.currentresults.com/Weather-Extremes/US/sunniest-cities.php
There are people here who reduce their summer electric bill from $300+ per month in the summer to around $20-$50.
And the utilities are required by law to buy any excess you produce.
But Jose the Border Sneak can ignore this along with everything else the crooked commie governors concoct.
But what happens when the “scientists” put chemicals in the air to block the sunshine to stop global warming? Won’t that negate the solar cells from working?
Like home prices aren’t already through the Roof in Calipornia:-)
“And the utilities are required by law to buy any excess you produce”
That is the problem. IF the state utility commission changes the rate they buy electricity from you then all these solar panel payback calculations do not work. I believe this happened in Nevada. The amount of electricity being generated on residential homes got so large that the utility got the government to lower the rate/KWT they had to buy it back from the home owner.
Getting your bill from $300 to $50 per month is due to tax subsidies. There is NO technology that can reduce costs 83% with honest economics. If those economics were true, then everybody would have solar.
Those cost reduces are also due to cross-subsidization from coal, gas and nuclear plants. Where do you think the power comes from to power those homes when the sun isn’t shining? If we were going to do TRUE economic analysis, you would have to factor in some energy storage system and it would have to have the same capacity as the solar cells. So you would be paying TWICE for power plants - once for the solar panels and once for the backup system. The costs of the backup system are conveniently ignored when people claim those sort of cost savings.
You need to be very skeptical about the cost savings pitched by solar promoters. They are usually dishonest at best and outright lies at worst. I have no doubt that people are paying those prices, but it’s only because the rest of us pay taxes that are doled out to them and we are paying for the generating system and the transmission & distribution system to power those neighbors at night and on cloudy days.
If you continuously subsidize something, you get more of it. Stop the subsidy, and the market collapses.
The Wall Street Journal exposed part of this scam this summer. See "The Phony Numbers Behind California’s Solar Mandate," WSJ, August 12, 2018.
“Getting your bill from $300 to $50 per month is due to tax subsidies. There is NO technology that can reduce costs 83% with honest economics. If those economics were true, then everybody would have solar.”
I live in Sacramento which has NEARLY 300 (288 is average) sunny days per year. On the days of lower energy use in the Summer, the utility is buying power from the solar system. That purchase is credited to the power bill.
Yes, there is a tax credit associated with the purchase of a solar system, but the power bill is independent of that.
I’ve seen my neighbor’s bills. The change is that drastic. And it has me considering the purchase of a system.
His winter rates go from about $70 to about $40. He does not have a battery back-up as he prefers that any excess power reduce his bill rather than charge the batteries, as he is still connected to the grid.
Now, if you live someplace that has less than 200 sunny days per year...forgetaboutit. And that could be someplace very warm and temperate...Texas...Florida...Mississippi etc.
Here, June, July, August and September offer over 100 sunny days from dawn to dusk. 120 is not unusual.
presumably people living under bridges in cardboard boxes or their cars are exempt from the solar requirement ... which is a good thing since this mandate guarantees that the already non-existent affordable housing in California goes completely extinct ...
The Demonrats are looting the state from top to bottom, while distracting people with “bread and circuses”..
Stupid kalifornians. Nothing they could ever do would ever qualify as a beacon of light. The only things they lead in are drug addicts and fags. What a legacy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.