
California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes - JumpCrisscross
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-09/california-votes-to-require-rooftop-solar-power-on-new-homes
======
alkonaut
Requiring specific technical solutions is rarely a good idea. For example
mandating that all new cars have catalytic converters is a common but not very
good requirement. The requirement should be formulated as a goal/limit, not a
solution.

Having one solution required means you can’t innovate to find a cheaper or
better solution to the same problem.

The answer in this context would be to require a total net power draw for the
home. Adding a production unit just gives more room in the calculation and not
having one might mean more expensive insulation or smaller windows are needed
instead.

~~~
ams6110
> require a total net power draw for the home

Not good either. Just let people pay for what they use. Each person can decide
how to optimize for his or her needs.

~~~
jpk
That's basically what we do now, but the trouble is cheap power sources with
undesirable externalities win the energy market because consumers want more
energy for less money.

~~~
jriot
Who wants less energy for more money?

~~~
awalton
> Who wants less energy for more money?

There are a _lot_ of nutjobs running around saying they want Coal back, the
President of the United States, for example, despite Coal being more expensive
than Solar now.

So, to answer your question in earnest, Fossil Fuel Energy Companies and their
bought-and-paid elected officials.

~~~
dragonwriter
Those aren't people thst want less energy for more money, those are people
that want to sell less energy for more money.

The people that want less energy for more (immediate) money are the people
that want external costs priced into retail energy prices, but that's just
because they don't want environmental damage to be treated as a non-cost.

------
koube
Saw this in my rss this morning:

[https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/05/ro...](https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/05/rooftop-
solar-expensive-inefficient.html)

> _I just became aware in the last few days of the proposal in the new
> building energy efficiency standards rule making to mandate rooftop solar on
> all new residential buildings. I want to urge you not to adopt the standard.
> I, along with the vast majority of energy economist, believe that
> residential rooftop solar is a much more expensive way to move towards
> renewable energy than larger solar and wind installations. The savings
> calculated for the households are based on residential electricity rates
> that are far above the actual cost of providing incremental energy, so
> embody a large cross subsidy from other ratepayers. This would be a very
> expensive way to expand renewables and would not be a cost-effective
> practice that other states and countries could adopt to reduce their own
> greenhouse gas footprints._

> _I agree and would add that allowing more building near transit and other
> hubs as with California’s rejected SB827 would not only lower housing
> prices, rather than raise them as with this proposal, it would also be a
> much better way of reducing carbon emissions and saving energy._

~~~
rwbt
Even though rooftop solar might not be the most economical solution to reduce
greenhouse gas footprints, I would argue it's very effective. The costs are
directly baked into the real estate mortgage and requires zero changes with
regards to zoning and planning.

In an ideal world SB827 makes sense, but it was rejected. So I'm glad CA is
trying something more pragmatic instead of waiting for a 'perfect' solution.
Even if something similar to SB827 is passed in the future - worse case, we'll
end up a bunch of rooftop solar installations. That's not so terrible.

~~~
jvm
> Even though rooftop solar might not be the most economical solution to
> reduce greenhouse gas footprints, I would argue it's very effective.

Inefficient and expensive systems can do harm, regardless of the good
intention behind this law. Rooftop solar has substantial embedded carbon and
impacts on the grid that could easily outweigh the small benefits. We need a
solution that provides the right incentives to use it when it makes sense, and
not use it when it doesn't make sense, rather than a hamfisted blanket
mandate.

~~~
Faaak
The LCA of PV solar is a net positive. The footprint is thus good.

------
grellas
The principle that a central authority gets to decree how we live, eat,
breath, and think is inherently dangerous, especially when it comes with no
evident limits.

This decree, of course, does not do all that but instead covers a narrow class
consisting of one product (new homes) with one requirement (solar roofs). It
does not affect existing homes. It does not affect homes in Nevada, Arizona,
or anywhere else in America. It does not affect homes in any other part of the
world. It therefore can be guaranteed, in itself, to have the most trivial of
all impacts on the real world global environment. But it will have a very real
impact on people living in the affected jurisdiction, not the least of which
will be severely limiting their choices concerning new homes and also adding
to the price they pay for such homes. On top of all that, it empowers
politicians and bureaucrats who will be further incentivized to find new ways
to limit choices in the future in the name of symbolic gestures done in the
name of environmental concerns. Today, new homes. Tomorrow, existing ones.
Next week, cars. After that, whatever experts and technocrats decree should be
the subject of new coercive restrictions. Perhaps this is justified because of
some ideal that it promotes or perhaps it is just a sell out to the solar
lobby. But, justified or not, it certainly curtails freedom and choice and for
what? A symbolic gesture at best or some hidden less-than-noble purpose at
worst.

One could argue that there are definite limits to a state potentially abusing
its authority in extending such powers. After all, there is a transcending
principle behind it having to do with the environment. Yet, that is a very
elastic principle that can be bent and shaped in ways that cannot readily be
contained.

And so we are left with less choice, more expense, and prospects for a more
restrictive future. It may or may not be good, but the animating principle,
unless it is subject to clear limits (which do not appear here) is one that
poses self-evident risks for a free society.

~~~
skybrian
It would be interesting to know how many houses are built by developers versus
their first occupants. If this is all about what developers do, new home
buyers aren't making the decisions anyway. The house is already built.

If the question is whether a developer, local community (via zoning), or the
state of California gets to make the decision about what houses in a
particular area look like, I don't think I have a strong opinion, since it
looks to me like collective, political decision-making either way.

------
esaym
Good night. Once upon a time in 1983, my grandparents bought a mobile home and
put it out on rural property. They paid $300 for the water company to install
a water meter and about $1500 for a septic tank install.

Now I'm trying to do the same thing (and on the same property). The water
meter is $5,000 (cash only in full), and the septic tank is $15,000. If I was
also required to have solar, I'd really be screwed...

Starting to think that working in Tech isn't even worth it anymore. We don't
have big government lobbyists making rules to make software more complicated
'just because' every year and thus driving cost up (and making me more money).
If my math is right, I'm pretty sure per my sad story above, I'm estimating
that the septic people I am trying to work with are pulling in $3k-$5k+
(profit) a week in septic installs (its only a husband and wife outfit and in
an area where rent is less than $1k a month....)

~~~
dragonwriter
> We don't have big government lobbyists making rules to make software more
> complicated 'just because' every year

Yes, we do, they just focus on specific large software markets (in the last
couple decades, health IT has been a _huge_ area for this.)

~~~
mywittyname
Also, Turbotax.

------
mslate
Everyone who’s long CA real estate can bank it because the government is doing
its best to ensure that no new housing gets built.

Gg “environmentalist” Sierra Club.

FTA specifically larger housing developers have been preparing for this for
years—along with the solar lobby. So dumb, CA deserves to go bankrupt and be
overrun by homelessness.

~~~
prostoalex
It's perpetual employment for Sacramento though.

Step 1: Lobby for legislation that slaps an extra $30-40k on top of every
newly constructed unit.

Step 2: Lament about the lack of affordable housing, conduct exhaustive
studies to pin down the reasons.

~~~
alacombe
_Government 's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases:
If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving,
subsidize it._

\-- Ronald Reagan

------
ppeetteerr
So you can't mandate that neighbourhoods build taller buildings to curb the
astronomical rise in real estate prices but making new buildings (and by
association old buildings) more expensive is easy.

California, what are you doing? Fix your housing problem!

~~~
nv-vn
SF actually limits building height in most areas I believe. Every time we put
another one of these laws on the books, it's another obstacle blocking the way
for affordable housing that probably won't ever get reversed

~~~
ppeetteerr
San Fran should look like Hong Kong with the demand that it currently has.

------
cahomeown456
I'm a homeowner in southern California. I've looked into it and a solar system
would cost me about $15k and it would pay itself off after about 8 years.

However that assumes constant price conditions. If there's a glut of solar
installations, prices for daytime generation may fall to where it no longer
offsets all evening/night consumption. Once that happens you're forced to
either invest in extremely expensive battery storage, or the breakeven date
gets radically extended out into the future.

Overall, it seems like a pretty "meh" investment. The people doing it are the
environmental True Believers(tm). I'd rather put the money into a new bathroom
at this point.

~~~
grizzles
Though prices can drop and even go negative sometimes it's never a long term
thing. There is kind of a price floor in the market, if prices get too low
energy intensive businesses will move into the state, eg. aluminum smelters,
bitcoin miners, and so on.

I posted in the other thread about why I think this policy is a really good
idea:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17008950](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17008950)

Also it's only for new homes. You can still get that new bathroom.

~~~
cahomeown456
What this does is force new homeowners to make an iffy investment that they
probably wouldn't otherwise make given a choice in the free market, but
cleverly hides it in the price of new construction.

If it was such a slam-dunk great idea, everyone would be installing solar
systems right now but they aren't because it isn't clear that it makes any
financial sense.

~~~
mercutio2
Solar panels, themselves, are incredibly cheap, partly because China is
dumping their overproduction on the market, partly because we’ve just gotten
really good at making them.

Most of the price of installing solar is the labor for getting the roofers and
electrician to come out, plus in some jurisdictions an architectural study.

All of those costs come down dramatically if you’re already bringing in
roofers and electricians for the normal process of building a home.

Additionally, PV panels themselves have near zero maintenance costs, and
dramatically reduce maintenance/replacement costs of the underlying roof.

As a result, it is just a gargantuan failure of the market that all new homes
aren’t, today, built with PV panels.

This seems like a great correction to that market failure.

~~~
cahomeown456
For anyone stumbling across this thread, the above is wrong (possibly
intentionally so). The cost of the panels and related hardware are roughly
30-50% of the total installed job cost (for me, roughly $6-8k of the $15k
total). The rest is standard labor cost for installation, electrical, etc.
None of that is unreasonable. If I was doing 100% of the labor myself (which
is impossible because I'm not a licensed electrician), it would still cost me
nearly $10k.

mercutio2 is indirectly making the claim that PV installers are inflating the
prices. He does this in an attempt to frame the investment as being better
than it is, by claiming it's much cheaper than it really is. This is
disingenuous.

He then makes the claim that economies of scale will magically make it even
cheaper, because the roofers and electricians will already be there to build
the home. This is absurd. Just because they are already building the house
does not mean the craftsman will do the PV work for free. It will take them X
additional hours to do it and that costs money, just about as much as it would
cost for a house that has already been built.

Lastly he makes the totally false claim that PV reduces roof
maintenance/repair costs. Nothing could be further from the truth! PV actually
_increases_ replacement costs, dramatically! For example:

1\. [https://www.quora.com/How-do-solar-panels-affect-roof-
shingl...](https://www.quora.com/How-do-solar-panels-affect-roof-shingles-
Does-it-extend-the-life-of-the-shingles-Does-it-make-it-hard-to-replace-the-
shingles-Should-they-be-replaced-before-installing-solar)

2\. [https://www.buildings.com/article-
details/articleid/19851/ti...](https://www.buildings.com/article-
details/articleid/19851/title/solar-panels-could-ruin-your-roof)

This California regulation is a boondoggle that is being done for
social/political reasons, pushed by the environmentalist lobby. It is a way of
forcing consumers to purchase something they wouldn't otherwise do under the
free market. Whenever you hear someone say "market failure", chances are they
want the government to force you to buy something they like.

~~~
mercutio2
Wow, you really think I’m speaking in bad faith. I assure you I am not. I am
certainly not making any of the indirect claims you accuse me of.

Certainly it’s true that a poorly architected solar panel system can be bad
for your roof. If you know you have to design the roof for solar panels,
that’s much less expensive to do in advance than to try to mitigate bad
roofing materials after the fact.

For reference, I just installed solar panels on my roof. The raw cost of the
panels was 25% of the full installation cost. The architect study was another
5%. Hardware to fasten the panels to my theoretically solar ready roof was
another 8% of the cost.

The rest was labor.

I am shocked you think it’s controversial that dramatically less labor is
required to do something at construction time than as a retrofit.

This doesn’t require any economies of scale (although I think those will also
appear with this bill). It just requires that coordination costs that are
already being paid at construction time not increase dramatically when adding
solar panels to the list of things planned for.

Shading and cooling dark roofs is, in fact, a good way to reduce the
weathering of a roof. They don’t do much for metal roofs, and they are
signally inappropriate on several types of shingle roofs, but torch down
roofs, which are very common in California, are in fact likely to be improved
by panels, not degraded.

The contention that talking about market failures implies someone trying to
sell you something doesn’t seem like it lines up well with the economists I’m
familiar with, but you know, at the end of the day, we’re going to have to see
how much actual builders in California charge once this bill is in full
effect.

I’m perfectly willing to admit I was wrong if, in fact, the TCO of solar
panels ends up being enough to make this other than an extremely good bit of
legislation.

------
darkstar999
So I guess putting up shade trees to reduce cooling costs isn't a thing any
more? Is it net positive to use solar panels? Trees and houses just won't go
together any more?

~~~
esaym
That's a good point... and pretty sad actually...

Edit: And I can't help but think of the driven up cost of roof repairs. So
10-15 years down the road when you get a leak in your roof.. now you got to
pay labor to pull the panels before you can even repair the roof...

~~~
toomuchtodo
Solar panels increase roof structural strength through the racking used for
mounting and increase roof material longevity by directly shielding the roof
from solar irradiation.

~~~
esaym
The problem is still there though. Roofs can and do leak.

~~~
toomuchtodo
And your panels disconnect and pop off relatively easily for patching or
shingle replacement.

Let’s not argue against taking bold action when bold actions are required
because it’s inconvenient, especially when this is a net financial win for
homeowners (you’re just trading a high utility bill for a slightly higher
mortgage payment). It’s a better ROI than the S&P500.

~~~
nickodell
Is this a net financial win?

Presumably, homeowners have been doing the math and adding solar panels if it
is a net financial win. Now, homeowners are required to do it whether or not
it's a net financial win.

ie. the new solar installations either don't make economic sense, or it made
sense all along, but homeowners were too stupid to do the math.

~~~
philipkglass
It didn't make sense all along. 10 years ago this would have been crazy
because PV hardware was so much more expensive then.

A lot of people _do_ fail to do the math. Many people are not quantitatively
analytical, even in situations where such analysis is in their material self-
interest.

A few years ago I encountered an engineer who was really angry about lightbulb
minimum efficiency standards. "I already switched to LED bulbs where it made
economic sense. Anyone with a brain did! Now the government is forcing me to
buy these expensive bulbs for places where they run for less than 10 hours a
year, like my attic. It's worse for the environment too when you consider the
additional embodied energy in LED manufacturing."

His technical analysis was perfectly sound. His social analysis wasn't. A huge
number of people _won 't_ do the smart thing as soon as it becomes the smart
thing. (Or maybe ever. My mom stockpiled incandescent bulbs in anticipation of
efficiency standard upgrades. She also complains about how high her electric
bill is, after running 8 incandescent bulbs for several hours a day in the
kitchen ceiling lighting...)

Much to the annoyance of people who are perfectly able and willing to do their
own analysis, it can take too much effort to judge who's rationally avoiding
higher up-front costs because they won't pay off in the long run and who's
just being myopic. A one-size-fits-all rule forces smarties to do something
worse as the price of forcing fools to do something better. There's an
aggregate benefit because the fools outnumber the smarties several times over.

~~~
nickodell
>It didn't make sense all along.

Let me rephrase.

What I mean is, "or it would make sense to do it, but homeowners will be too
stupid to do the math." My hypothetical is about people who 1) would not
install panels but 2) installing panels would be in their individual interest.

I agree that PV technology has improved in price/efficiency.

>Many people are not quantitatively analytical, even in situations where such
analysis is in their material self-interest.

That's a fair point. You're entirely right - some people will not think about
it. Some people will think about it but be wrong.

My intuition is that people are still better at making the the decision
themselves than if the decision is made legislatively. Let me explain why.

Firstly, I'm skeptical of residential solar. Why? Installation costs (on
average) 59 cents/watt. [1] This would be cheaper if it were on the ground
rather than on a roof. There is lots of cheap land (assuming that you don't
care that it's out in the boonies.) You could put solar panels there instead.
However, there is an incentive to put solar panels on a roof: net metering.
The utility must buy the residential solar, even if it's useless to them. I
think that this is a misaligned incentive, and it might be more efficient to
have huge fields of solar panels than to have solar panels on each house.

Second, this seems like something with limited political accountability. It
seems like they could have created an alternate way of complying: pay the
government enough money to build an equivalent amount of solar somewhere else.
Then, you can remove the exception for shaded houses/tall buildings, because
they have a non-stupid way of complying. This seems like it's better for
everyone involved. However, it would then be clear how much money the policy
costs, rather than "homes have gotten more expensive, but it's hard to pin
down how much of that is caused by the policy and how much is other factors."

[1]: [http://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/german-us-pv-price-
ppt.pd...](http://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/german-us-pv-price-ppt.pdf)

~~~
philipkglass
Good points. I'm ambivalent about this requirement myself. From a technical
perspective, I wonder what they're going to do in new subdivisions where every
house is overproducing at certain times of the day/year. From a financial
perspective I wonder how net metering rates are going to be pushed down when a
lot more houses are participating. And I also agree that large-scale solar
farms are going to be more cost-effective.

But I'm not _totally_ against this change for a couple of reasons. One is that
one of my ecologist friends is really alarmed at California's use of
heretofore undeveloped desert land for solar farms when rooftop capacity is so
underutilized. "Just because it's not full of trees doesn't mean it's a
disposable ecosystem." Now personally I think the tradeoffs are worth it to
get more solar built faster and cheaper, but it's not a universal perspective.
A second related reason is that I've seen large solar farms in other regions
prompt community pushback from people who dislike their appearance -- similar
to, if less severe than, people objecting to visible wind farms. Those
objections don't come up with distributed rooftop systems.

Right now the annual energy production per dollar of upfront cost is much
lower from rooftop PV systems than from large-scale utility PV systems. If
California installation costs can get down to German or Australian level, the
cost effectiveness will be closer to (though still less than) large solar
farms. There are reasons to believe that making rooftop systems mandatory will
drive American costs down closer to German/Australian costs. For example,
according to the presentation you linked, German rooftop PV installers spend
$0.07/watt on customer acquisition. American installers spend $0.69/watt. If
every new house is _required_ to have PV, I expect acquisition costs to go
down significantly; installers can court builders instead of trying to
persuade one homeowner at a time. And investment into producing a design and a
bid won't ultimately be rejected with "we decided not to add solar after all."
(Though it could be rejected with "the other installer made a better offer.")
Having every rooftop designed to support solar from the outset also makes
installation less complicated, which should lower labor costs over retrofit-
installs on 20th century housing stock.

------
AndyMcConachie
California loves requiring anything that will reduce the number of homes they
actually build.

~~~
mmanfrin
Limiting the amount of single family homes? Sure, and we should be.

Rooftop solar is a drop in the bucket for multi-family buildings.

------
philipkglass
I'm having a hard time finding a news article with links to the actual
standard, and secondary sources like this Bloomberg article are omitting
important details. Does this represent the standard that was adopted:

[http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/17-BSTD-01...](http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/17-BSTD-01/TN221366_20171002T104342_Rooftop_Solar_PV_Stystem_Report.pdf)

?

In particular, I wonder what the minimum system size is, in kilowatts.
Reporting household system size in "dollars" is a poor metric because PV
dollars-per-watt is changing rapidly.

The source that I linked above says "Minimum PV sizing by code will rely on
results from the energy consultant’s Title 24 compliance calculations." Can
anyone explain what's required to comply with Title 24? I'm looking for
answers in _physical_ units rather than currency units.

FWIW, Germany and Australia have fully-installed residential rooftop solar
costs-per-watt less than half of that in the US. I'm not sure where the big
cost gap comes from -- Germany and Australia have decent wages for labor and
safety codes too. The hardware is commoditized and globalized. If California
could match Australian costs-per-watt then this proposal would add
significantly less to the initial cost of a new house and significantly
increase lifetime cost savings vs. using only power from the grid.

EDIT: it looks like the final adopted proposal is 17-BSTD-02, rather than the
earlier 17-BSTD-01 that I linked above. Here's the final one:

[http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/17-BSTD-02...](http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/17-BSTD-02/TN222224_20180118T161546_2019_Standards_Notice_of_Proposed_Action.pdf)

The final version says even less about minimum system size. I suppose that
detail is hidden in one of the 14 documents it incorporates by reference.

~~~
_rpd
I believe section 150.1(c)14 of ...

[http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/17-BSTD-02...](http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/17-BSTD-02/TN223257-3_20180423T083004_2019_Standards_Part_6_Chapter_8_Section_1501_Revised_Express_Te.pdf)

... actually specifies the requirements.

~~~
philipkglass
Thank you. Quoting the relevant section below:

14\. Photovoltaic Requirements. All low-rise residential buildings shall have
a photovoltaic (PV) system meeting the minimum qualification requirements as
specified in Joint Appendix JA11, with annual electrical output equal to or
greater than the dwelling’s annual electrical usage as determined by Equation
150.1-C:

kWPV = (CFA * A) / 1000 + (NDwell * B)

Where:

kWPV = kWdc size of the PV system

CFA = Conditioned floor area

NDwell = Number of dwelling units

A = Adjustment factor from Table 150.1-C

B = Dwelling adjustment factor from Table 150.1-C

(I'm not going to try to copy the table into this comment.)

I also found this document digging around recent additions to the public
docket site:

[http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/18-BSTD-01...](http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/18-BSTD-01/TN222679_20180222T142828_Initial_Study_and_Proposed_Negative_Declaration_for_the_2019_En.pdf)

It says "The specific minimum size of the system is based on the size of the
building and number of dwellings and can vary between 2 and 7 kilowatts output
per dwelling..."

Which is less specific, but it's nice to see upper and lower minimum capacity
requirements without having to consult a table.

------
tlb
An energy economist on why it's a bad idea:
[http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/borenste/cecweisenmiller180...](http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/borenste/cecweisenmiller180509.pdf).
Basically, rooftop solar is less capital-efficient than large solar or wind
farms, so we can save more carbon/$ by doing grid-scale generation.

~~~
slg
I don't know enough about the energy market to weigh in on this proposal, but
that response is the epitome of the perfect is the enemy of the good. It is
presenting a false choice. Getting something like this approved is much easier
politically than large solar and wind farms. Sometimes the politically
expedient solution is the proper choice over the ideal but politically
unrealistic solution.

~~~
Matticus_Rex
Politically expedient but dramatically inefficient and less effective is...
still dramatically inefficient and less effective. The idea that it's clear
that this is "good" relies on a bunch of assumptions about carbon costs that
haven't been made. It's not sufficient to say "fossil fuels are bad, solar is
good," because then you make stupidly inefficient decisions that limit your
overall capacity to tackle the big problem.

~~~
slg
The problem is that "dramatically inefficient and less effective" is relative.
People are comparing it to some scenario that is simply not going to happen
like the state funding large solar and wind farms. Once again, I don't know
whether this proposal is good or not. I just think it is a mistake to to
oppose proposals that move us in the right direction solely because they don't
move us in that direction quick enough or far enough.

~~~
Matticus_Rex
I'm thankful that state funding for large solar and wind farms is not going to
happen, because there's little that could guarantee a worse or less efficient
long-term result.

As long as carbon costs can't be priced into the market, the solutions are
going to be short-sighted, politically motivated/maintained, and inefficient.

------
tgb
I feel like the real motivation behind this is that far too many people
believe that the hard part of getting solar panels adopted is in finding
places to put them. So this law "solves" the problem. But that's never been
the real problem. It's arguing about the color of the bike shed when the real
mover of solar panels is price and output. Price isn't addressed here and you
should expect installing it everywhere will lower the average output of
installed panels (since it'll be put on non-optimal shady locations too).

~~~
_rpd
I think this just falls under 'practical politics.' It's a revenue-neutral tax
on a relatively wealthy demographic. Politicians get to be associated with
something perceived as good by their voters.

I don't think a deeper analysis is required. Anything that meets those
requirements will also be passed.

------
myrandomcomment
Giving the price of a house in the Bay Area $10K is a rounding error.

I am all in favor of this. Scale will only drive the cost of the tech down. TX
should follow this as should AZ, NM and every other state that is mostly
"sunshine".

I am schedule to get a Tesla Solar roof. Almost seems like I should wait
another year or 2.

~~~
conanbatt
Everyone should be mandated to use facebook. This will drive the cost of data-
mining down, including cost of elections, marketing and use of police force.
This is required for all people born after 1990, older do not need to comply.

------
smsm42
As somebody who has installed rooftop solar in California in two houses I
owned, I think this is a bad idea. Mandating solar solution means the one you
get with the new house would be the cheapest (and therefore crappiest) money
could buy and an inspection could pass. Most consumers have no idea how to
evaluate solar panels, and most would not walk out of a good deal because of
solar panels. Which means huge incentive for homebuilders to cut costs. And
once you've got it, you are stuck with it - replacing is would have huge
costs. And, of course, I have pre-pay it with my mortgage.

Instead, I'd very much like to choose a provider by myself, with a good
reputation, and choose what kind of deal I can get on it, what are payment
options, etc. There are a lot of options on the market. Pre-packaging the deal
cuts off these options and takes the decision from me - unless I build the
house by myself, I will no longer have an option of negotiating and choosing
these things independently from the house itself.

------
newnewpdro
Solar panels on new homes seems like a relatively low priority - considering
they can always be added at any time, and it's not even necessarily the best
strategy for all home/living situations. Not to mention CA has plenty of
desert land to cover with PV panels.

California should instead be focusing on things like requiring rentals to
provide EV charging for all tenants.

Nearly half of CA residents don't own their homes. Until some initiative
forces their landlords to install EV infrastructure, the majority of these
people won't even consider buying an EV at their next car purchase.

It strikes me as an _urgent_ priority to remove all barriers to people owning
EVs en masse, especially considering how long automobiles last. A major
selling point of EVs is always finding your vehicle at 100% in the morning.
Tenants who have to find places away from home to charge their vehicles for 1+
hours will rarely buy one.

------
neural_thing
So, a non-economic, burdensome measure instead of a carbon tax, which directly
addresses the problem. With SB827 failing, I'm feeling good about leaving
California.

------
jtlienwis
Sounds like a taking for everyone that has a lot on the north side of a hill
or nieghbors with tall trees that block the sun. I think a growth industry is
going to be California solar lawyers that fight for rights to open paths to
sunshine.

------
subculture
How will this change the discussions around net metering? Part of the offset
of costs for solar were supposed to be the ability to sell excess back into
the grid. And what happens when the grid no longer benefits from new
electricity generation? If the new requirement is just for panels without
storage it seems like a long-term transfer of risk and cost from energy
companies to home owners.

[https://www.utilitydive.com/news/solar-has-transformed-
into-...](https://www.utilitydive.com/news/solar-has-transformed-into-solar-
plus-storage-what-will-net-metering-becom/522893/)

~~~
_rpd
Net metering isn't compatible with this mandate.

------
dbg31415
Here are the problems with individuals having solar panels:

1) It's not enough power. Yet. So you'll need to draw from the grid.

2) Sometimes it's cloudy and you need to draw from the grid.

Given you need to still draw from the grid, but aren't paying as much... what
does that do to the quality or maintenance cost per use for the grid? Do
people who aren't on solar gets charged more per kW/h? A move to push them to
get solar? Do people with solar get hit with a "grid maintenance" fee for not
paying their fair share of grid maintenance (previously built in to their
electric bill)? Do we raise taxes? Do we let infrastructure crumble?

I think solar is great, no question. But better if capacity is built through
solar plants, that use the existing grid, rather than mandated as part of
individual home construction.

Plus... and this is the part that bugs me... does this mean we can't build
houses in the shade? Will we have to tear down old trees, or build taller
houses than our neighbors have, in order to meet some quota for energy
production... what if I want to have a roof-top patio? What if a new
technology comes along... let's call it "Solar 2"... and it's better. Are we
forbidden to use it until the laws are changed? What if it's just better in my
opinion for my life... can I still use it, or am I locked in to whatever
standards the State of California deems is best for everyone?

Yeah this law is going to suck.

~~~
aphextron
It's all about grid capacity and efficiency, not personal cost savings. Think
about rooftop solar from the utility perspective. On peak load days in the
summer, they will have a more stable grid when AC units are being offset in
real time by the very sunlight that is causing them to be needed. Even a cheap
1kW system with no batteries on every house would make a massive difference.

------
sctb
Related discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17007630](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17007630).

------
jedberg
This is interesting to me, because I've been advocating for a similar law for
a while now, with a few crucial differences:

I propose we make a law that says any home that sells for greater than the
Freddie Mac super conforming loan limit (currently $679,650) must be
retrofitted to have a net energy draw of zero or less from the grid (with
rules about exceptions for shade and roof angles and whatnot).

This would solve a lot of problems with this bill: It would exempt all the
folks who are selling cheap homes throughout the state, it would apply to both
old and new homes, and it allows for new technologies that don't exist yet or
are cost prohibitive, instead of require solar panels.

It wouldn't really affect prices much, because there is already a flattening
at the Freddie Mac limits, and when you get to the super conforming level, a
solar install only represents 5% or less today (but I imagine the prices would
fall with economies of scale).

~~~
djrogers
> must be retrofitted to have a net energy draw of zero or less from the grid

How would you do this, when a huge percentage of that engergy draw comes from
appliances that don't get sold with the house?

What you're proposing would likely result in home sellers 'installing' tiny
cheap refrigerators and washer/dryer combos that would immediately be thrown
out by the home buyers and replaced with the ones they actually want.

~~~
jedberg
You could base it off of the size of the house or median usage of surrounding
homes per square foot, or something similar.

~~~
djrogers
That wouldn't change anything unless you require those tiny cheap appliances
to be retained and used by the home buyer. You can't reduce all energy
consumption with insulation and shade trees...

~~~
jedberg
No what I'm saying is that the requirements would not account for appliances.
It would say "for this size house you must be able to produce this much
energy". It won't specify _how_ you produce the energy, just that you must.

Your appliances would be your choice, and your shade, etc. But it would be
based on local medians, so that for most people it would be in line.

------
tomohawk
At what point do tweaks to building codes cross the line from being "minimal
acceptable" and into the realm of virtue signalling?

The newer model codes now require fire suppression sprinkler systems to be
installed in detached residential structures, which is pretty ludicrous. For
homes on a well or without sufficient pressure from municipal source, a water
tank in the attic is required!

People don't realize that they may need to purchase special riders on their
home insurance as water damage caused by the sprinkler systems may not be
covered, while the fire would be. A friend of mine in the fire department
reports that these systems get activated more from false alarms than by actual
fires, and that many people lose most of what they own. The home owner is not
allowed to turn off the sprinklers, so the fire department has to go out and
do it.

~~~
giarc
Look at Vancouver which banned the door knob [0] as it is hard to manipulate
for a disabled person. New homes need to install lever style handles. I would
argue they should have just provided subsidies for disabled persons to
retrofit a home they move into. Instead all new homes need lever style
handles, most unnecessarily.

0 - [https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/no-doorknobs-allowed-in-new-
va...](https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/no-doorknobs-allowed-in-new-vancouver-
homes-after-city-passes-bylaw-1.1554665)

------
fapjacks
It's not only going to drive home prices up. The shitty electricity monopolies
run by Wall Street which have the California Public Utilities Commission
completely in their pockets -- monopolies exactly like SDG&E -- will continue
their assault on solar and owners of solar through regulatory capture by
ratcheting up prices for "low-use tier" customers. Doesn't matter if every
house on the block has solar: Local monopolies like SDG&E will scumfuck their
way into giving everyone an egregious electricity bill. And they'll do it
using blatant regulatory capture through the one organization that's supposed
to protect consumers, the inestimably corrupt California Public Utilities
Commission.

------
11thEarlOfMar
I live in a planned community of about 100 homes. There is a homeowner's
association that is responsible for, among other things, maintaining unused
land on the development. There are probably 10-20 acres of unused and unusable
space.

About 20% of the homes have rooftop solar. It's ugly. So I've been considering
contacting a solar firm or two and asking about installing a full up solar
plant with battery system so the whole development can go off-grid, and not
have those ugly panels, plus the installation and potential roof damage,
maintenance, etc.

------
dsfyu404ed
This is dumb. They should have required a certain energy usage per area and
slapped on incentives to make rooftop solar the obvious way to meet it for new
houses. Leave the technology up to the industry rather than tie the industry
to a specific technology.

When you say you want housing policy to be controlled by the $CURRENT_LEVEL +1
government this is what you risk getting. The entrenched interests just dig
themselves in at the next level up as well.

------
exabrial
Read as: California ensures that poor cannot exit the poverty cycle, by
needlessly raising the minimum price of one of the best investments in the
USA.

------
sgustard
PG&E customers can already purchase 100% of their electricity from solar
sources. What's the rationale to force people to generate their own solar?

[1] [https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/solar-and-
vehicles/opt...](https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/solar-and-
vehicles/options/solar/solar-choice/solar-choice.page)

------
Endama
VOX just released a video on the "Duck Curve" phenomenon that arises as a
result of renewables[1]. Does anyone here have any insight on what the state
is trying to do to mitigate negative downstream affects of the duck curve?

[1][https://youtu.be/YYLzss58CLs](https://youtu.be/YYLzss58CLs)

~~~
ridgeguy
In 2013, the CPUC mandated installing about 1.3GWhr of grid energy storage by
2020. Installation of de facto additional capacity appears to be underway.
Brief summary: [1] Absent base load or other dispatchable, non-renewable
generation, energy storage is the only way to deal with the duck curve.

[1] [https://www.utilitydive.com/news/california-puc-finalizes-
ne...](https://www.utilitydive.com/news/california-puc-finalizes-new-500-mw-
btm-battery-storage-mandate/441901/)

------
noonespecial
I can see it now. Years after every house in the world has a Mr Fusion in the
garage powering everything from a banana peel , those odd houses in California
will still be being built with those funny black panels on top. No one will be
sure quite why.

------
docker_up
The less people who use electricity, the more electricity prices will go up.
So at some point, it will only be the poor people and apartment dwellers who
will be paying exorbitant prices for electricity while the wealthier people
pay almost nothing.

~~~
mywittyname
Probably not. Large buildings will never be able to supply their own power, so
every major city is going to still need gobs of the stuff.

Most power plants have a linear scaling cost. They can add and remove
generators as needed.

------
thekingofh
Some people's roofs are close enough that solar panels will create intense
reflections.

------
albertop
This will do wonders for already affordable California housing /s.

------
eulers__number
why can't it just be a free market

~~~
aphextron
Because the free market gave us a ~2°C increase in average global
temperatures.

~~~
nv-vn
And changing over only the new houses in one single state is going to fix
that? Most of the world's pollution is coming out of developing countries
anyways. This move is at best virtue signaling and at worst a step towards
destroying California's economy.

~~~
UncleMeat
Not completely, but neither will hoping that the free market changes it's
behavior suddenly.

Climate change demands aggressive action all over the place. This is one
component.

Also this is the literal opposite of virtue signalling. They passed a law.
Virtue signalling is when you do nothing except express opinions.

~~~
repsilat
If they cared about climate change they would have put tariffs on CO_2
emitting electricity generators. Then q combination of things would happen:

1\. Industrial-scale renewable generation would become more competitive and a
larger fraction of grid power would come from solar/wind/hydro,

2\. Prices could go up, and less electricity would be used,

3\. It might become efficient for users to put rooftop solar on their houses.
(If the initial capital outlay is a problem, that's what loans are for.)

This law, by comparison, is just a bad idea all around. It enforces one
(pretty bad) solution in a nasty way.

------
LinuxBender
Which states have the least regulations such as these?

I would like to build an underground home that uses solar and inductive
heating, but I would rather not have the technical details mandated.

~~~
JasonFruit
Some states have no statewide building code at all --- Missouri is one example
--- and some counties have not implemented one. You might also look into some
of the more liberty-minded western states: Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, _et
cetera_ , where a lot of things like that are barely regulated.

~~~
LinuxBender
Thankyou! In fact, Idaho and Montana were at the top of my list. I have been
researching internet speeds in those states as well.

~~~
JasonFruit
If I could convince my wife, I'd be right there, too.

------
txsh
Does the law require the homeowner to keep it? Duct tape a few solar panels on
the roof after you build it and then buy them back as soon as the deal closes.

------
matheusmoreira
Do people get paid for energy injected into the grid? If one consumes X
kW/month but generates 1.5X, what happens to the 0.5X difference?

~~~
RandomNameName
Each state has a utility commission that dictates the retail rate paid to
solar customers. In California, it's cost i.e if I pay 8 cents a kilowatt-hour
and I have a kilowatt hour excess, I get 8 cents. In addition to state, Tesla
Powerwall confounds the equation.

------
Karishma1234
Can I get a $500 scaffold that resembles a solar roof so the moronic
government overlords can be pleased yet I dont have to spend money ?

------
toss1
This is also an excellent idea for system security and civil defense.

Having every home at capable of maintaining at least basic energy requirements
to keep water pumps, some lights, refrigeration and comms would change a full-
scale grid outage (e.g., from a Carrington event or deliberate attack) from a
major disaster to a mere (major) inconvenience.

------
some_random
"California votes to further increase cost of low-income housing"

------
logfromblammo
Implementation details as requirements? This project is doomed.

------
kolbe
I'm thinking about all the homes in the Sierras that are covered by snow 6
months out of the year. I used to live in a place that gets 500 inches of snow
per year. I can't imagine which other edge cases this fails to consider.

------
gibsonf1
This will certainly help the housing cost crisis in the State!

------
SQL2219
This should make the Cali housing shortage worse.

------
AdamM12
this will only exacerbate the cost of legacy utility infrastructure onto the
poor.

------
TearsInTheRain
Land of the Free...

------
djrogers
Not only is residential solar just about the most expensive (and thus
innefficient) form of solar power available, but this is coming at a time when
new construction of affordable housing is most needed. The only reason this is
considered a 'cost effective' measure, is because the entire cost is forced on
the shoulders of homebuyers.

Saddling all new residential construction with this burden serves 2 priary
purposes - virtue signalling, and lining the pockets of solar manufacturers.
Crony capitalism at it's best!

~~~
tzs
The article says it will add $10k to the home. On a 30 year fixed rate
mortgage at current rates that's $50/month. Subtract out the savings on the
electric bill, and it probably won't be reducing affordability much, or even
at all.

~~~
sxates
Right - Solar really just front-loads the energy costs of the building. You
pay for ~5-10 years of energy up front, and then recoup that investment over
the next 30+ years, coming out ahead in the end. You could argue that this
sort of policy is a win-win in that it both reduces the longer term cost of
housing (both for the first and subsequent owners) and also reduces the amount
of net energy required (saves on new power plants, carbon).

~~~
shortstuffsushi
Serious question -- isn't the lifetime of solar panels (or ancillary
equipment) significantly less than 30 years? A quick Google looks like 15
years ish? I have never owned a home (or lived in one with solar), so I'm not
sure of the actual typical mileage.

~~~
sxates
The panels on my house are warrantied for 25 years, and expected to last years
beyond that. There are no moving parts, not much to degrade, so the useful
life is quite long. Though I expect in 30 years the newer panels will be more
efficient and super cheap.

------
inputcoffee
If the government had mandated that everyone had to buy an ENIAC, would that
have made computers smaller and faster?

Rather, the government should invest in research so solar + storage (let's
call it green energy) becomes cheap enough that people want to use it.

This is not because its better that people want to do it, or because
capitalism is glorious.

This is because you want the incentives in the right place. If green power
were cheap enough, that would mean you solve the latency problem, the
efficiency problem, the distribution problem and the waste problem.

Simply mandating rooftop solar might make some of these problems worse.

~~~
toomuchtodo
The research has already been done. Generation and consumption of renewables
still requires regulation to align incentives.

~~~
inputcoffee
Well, storage is still too expensive.

There is a role for regulation but a carbon tax is the way to go.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Expensive compared to what? CO2 emissions? You already get a 30% federal tax
credit as well as CA state and local utility incentives, what more is
necessary? A free system?

I agree a carbon tax would be ideal. It seems politically impossible though,
so you achieve what you can.

~~~
inputcoffee
That was a response to your statement that the relevant research has been
done.

I don't think it has. We still have to figure out ways to lower the cost of
storage.

You're saying it is cheap enough that we can now mandate it?

It should be cheap enough when purely green energy is superior to any other
source. Solar alone is cheap, but not solar + storage.

~~~
metabagel
"Cheap enough" should take into account the expected future costs of climate
change. That's the major reason for subsidies and regulations to encourage
renewable energy usage. There is a huge externality to account for.

------
pishpash
This is even more heavy-handed than just increasing electricity rates across
the board.

------
xntrk
What happens if the house doesn't get a lot of sunlight because of trees or
other obstructions?

------
ben_w
Given how little PV costs compared to an average new build, I’m surprised it
took this long to be a requirement anywhere. The cells themselves are, what,
US$920 for 4kW? And most of the rest is installation cost which is much lower
if it is an alternative to rather than a bolt-on to a normal roof?

Sure, it’s more for batteries and inverters, but PV or thermal should’ve been
standard even a decade ago.

~~~
sp332
On average, it might even save a homeowner money after about 10 years. But I'd
much rather leave the decision up to the relevant people instead of mandating
this at the state level. If it makes sense to build it, I trust they already
would have (as many do), and there will always be exceptions (e.g. shade)
where the mandate will be perverse.

~~~
ben_w
At that price it should save money after one year. But you’re right to care
about perverse incentives; it’s hard for governments to get that right for the
same reason it’s hard to make an AI that doesn’t reward hack.

~~~
sp332
One year? Someone up the page said theirs would take 8 years to pay for
itself, and the article says:

 _Installing a solar system and complying with other energy-efficiency
measures required will add about $9,500 to the cost of a new home, according
the the California Energy Commission. That would be offset by about $19,000 in
expected energy and maintenance savings over 30 years, the commission
estimates._

~~~
ben_w
That sounds like the cost of installing a system on top of an existing roof.
I’m talking about _instead of_ — PV panels are US$0.23 per watt, which is
about a tenth of what you just quoted for a 4kW system. That said, I know
almost nothing of the soft costs, only that soft costs in the USA are vastly
greater than soft costs in the UK, which isn’t very helpful in a discussion
about California.

~~~
sp332
Yeah, maybe. It also works if you finance the panels into the mortgage (one
estimate I saw was $40/month) and start saving on electricity costs right away
(same estimate said $80/month).

