California Takes Big Step to Require Solar on New Homes
California took a major step Wednesday toward becoming the first U.S. state to require solar panels on nearly all new homes.
The California Energy Commission voted 5-0 to approve a requirement that residential buildings up to three stories high, including single-family homes and condos, be built with solar installations starting in 2020.
The commission estimates that the mandate, along with other energy-efficiency measures being incorporated, would add $9,500 to the average cost of building a home in California. The state is already one of the most expensive housing markets in the country, with a median price of nearly $565,000 for a single-family home, according the California Association of Realtors.
Still, the change appears to have broad support from home builders as well as state leaders and solar advocates. Part of an update of the state’s energy efficiency building codes, it needs final approval from the California Building Standards Commission. But that panel has traditionally adopted California Energy Commission recommendations, officials said.
The policy would provide a big boost to California’s residential solar industry, which saw a slowdown last year.
An Energy Commission study forecasts that overall solar demand in California would rise by as much as 15%, given that California’s low-rise residential housing stock increases by about 2% annually.
Representatives for solar installers including Sunrun Inc. and Tesla Inc. spoke Wednesday in strong support of the rule.
Francesca Wahl, a senior policy associate at Tesla, said the company sees the adopted revisions as “a good pathway for the industry to drive down costs,” as well as help increase efficiency and provide savings to customers.
Wind and solar combined accounted for about 8% of U.S. power generation in 2017, up from less than 1% a decade ago. Natural gas is now the top fuel for electricity , accounting for 32% of generation compared with 22% a decade earlier. Coal’s share has fallen to about 30%, from 49% in the same time span.
California is pursuing aggressive policies to reduce air pollution and combat climate change—including a mandate to slash greenhouse-gas emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030—that are helping drive renewable energy in the state. Solar accounted for nearly 10% of California’s electricity generation in 2016, Energy Commission data shows.
The state already requires home builders to construct residences that can immediately accommodate solar power arrays, while several cities, including San Francisco and Santa Monica, have instituted solar requirements for newly built homes and buildings.
“To get to a decarbonized economy in California we need massive expansion of solar and other renewable energies,” said State Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat who proposed legislation last year to mandate solar on rooftops, but backed off in light of the Energy Commission’s efforts.
Currently, about 20% of new single-family homes in the state are built with solar, said Mr. Raymer of the California Building Industry Association, which represents thousands of home builders, contractors, architects and others. Making solar mandatory on homes is expected to add $8,000 to $10,000 to construction costs, he said.
Builders would have the option to install solar in a communal area if it doesn’t make sense on individual rooftops. By installing batteries that help homeowners save energy for later use , builders can also gain some flexibility in meeting efficiency standards.
Whether other states follow California will depend on factors including weather, access to energy resources and local politics. But California has been influential on energy-efficiency standards, said Haresh Kamath, senior program manager for distributed energy resources at the Electric Power Research Institute, a nonprofit.
“If you look at what has happened historically, many of the others have taken cues from California in terms of things like this,” he said.
The California Housing Partnership, a nonprofit group that advocates for affordable housing, hasn’t taken a position on the solar rule. Stephanie Wang, the group’s policy director, urged state leaders to invest in programs that “make energy more affordable for the Californians who are most vulnerable in our housing crisis.”
California has more solar power installed than any other state, with about 21 gigawatts of generation capacity , according to the Solar Energy Industries Association. That is far more than the second-largest solar-producing state, North Carolina, which has 4.3 gigawatts.
Energy Commissioner Andrew McAllister said the solar rule was just the latest step in California’s decadeslong effort to increase energy efficiency and renewable energy use.
The commission expects the cost of adding solar, when combined with other revised efficiency standards, to add about $40 to an average monthly payment on a 30-year mortgage. However it estimates the investment would more than pay for itself, with consumers on average saving $80 a month on heating, cooling and lighting bills.
“The buyer of that home absolutely gets their money back,” Mr. McAllister said. “Out-of-pocket, they are actually better off.”
Abigail Ross Hopper, chief executive of the Solar Energy Industries Association, said California’s action would demonstrate to policy makers in other states that promoting home solar makes sense.
“The impact it could have in California and the impact it could have around the country will be significant,” she said. “It’s going to be a really big deal.”
https://www.metalsedge.com/News/california-takes-big-step-to-require-solar-on-new-homes
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
236 visitors
We used to be on a $300.00 per month budget with TXU. 3 years ago we added 63 solar panels through Solar City. We lease the panels for $138.00 per month total
6 months on average we pay about $10 for the electric we use in excess of what we "make".
the other 6 months average $91.00 so as far as my experience goes it works. It saves us $$ every month
Requiring it for new construction makes sense - it just gets amortized with the home and homeowners insurance covers the panels.
It's a nonsensical move that will only increase the price of homes by several thousand dollars and shut out the less well off. What with thousands people leaving California every month. this will depress new home construction and not make all that much difference in the real world. Just another feel good measure for the Democrats to crow about.
According to the article, it will add approximately 40$ a month to a mortgage payment, while at the same time lowering the home's electric bill $80.00 a month.
As far as I know this will affect all new construction equally in a non partisan fashion.
And they support the solar panel tariff, buy American, MAGA.
Ducks to be the home owner then. Great victory for the solar lobby though.
What happens when your car 'breaks?' You fix it. Besides, there are warranties.
And the Fridge, A/C, Oven, water heater??????????
You call somebody in the SERVICE industry...Duh...
Is your car made of glass? I'd get a different model.
How many low income families actually have the cash to buy a newly constructed home?
If they do buy a newly constructed home, the cost of the panels will pay for themselves in lower heating and electricity bills.
Think long term, Greg
I got my panels from Solar City too. The were installed for free, and will be maintained for free - even though there is literally nothing to maintain. They sit there and generate more electricity than we use. They just sent us a prepaid visa card for $160 out of the blue because we pump so much back into the grid. In fact, if we need to re-shingle the house, they will come out and remove and reinstall the panels for a tiny fee. One of the best deals I've ever made - the whole process didn't cost me a cent.
Ditto.
Awesome! And you live in the frigid Northeast?
There is nothing to break unless they are damaged in a storm. If that happens your homeowner's policy pays for the repairs. The only parts of the system that might have a problem are the batteries and the converters.
I like this idea, with possibly some tax subsidy for the lowest income homeowners(under $150K). Skip the imported marble countertops and tile and high-end appliances for the kitchen and bath and these panels don't add much to the budget, plus they lower your energy costs.
When I was working in architecture before the 2008 crash we supported the idea of adding solar to homes. The panels are much more efficient now, so you'd be stupid not to do it, especially in a climate as sunny as California.
Solar power doesn't really care how cold it is. Solar-wise, a sunny day in the middle of winter is about the same as a sunny day on the hottest day of summer. There's a phone app to check the production in real time too.
I know it doesn't care about ambient air temp, but I don't remember a lot of sunny days in the winter when I was a kid. Don't remember a lot of them in the summer, either
Actually, they can produce on a cloudy day too - just not as much. We lucked out because of the way our house is situated, which meant only the rear of the house has panels. Admittedly, they are unattractive, but it's only my least favorite neighbor who gets to see them.
That was coal dust from the west of you and Pittsburgh steel smoke from the east blocking the sun
lol
The worse that can happen by raising home costs is you will put more people on the street homeless. Thank god California knows how to manage that.
Sure because $40 a month on a $$500, 000 home is going to create homelessness.
Do I really need a /SARC TAG??
And solar contractors will be hiring.......
It's a win-win but since it's liberal CA, the good conservatives of NT can't find anything good to say about it.
"OO! OO! It's another tax! Poor people won't be able to build!"
Poor people rarely build homes.
Are you glad that you are contributing to the pollution of the world with how much of the waste from solar panel creation is extremely toxic and deadly? If you really want clean energy, you should be opposed to solar and wind, and support hydro-electric. Both solar and wind hurt the environment, despite being touted as clean energy.
Hydro-electric is not without its dangers to the environment, also
All of the possible hydro sites have been utilized long ago. Many states are tearing down small dams because of the environmental problems that they have created.
Solar and wind are the future. California has some geothermal sites but they arent what they were was expected to be.
You shouldn't own a TV, computer, monitor or Automobile for all the same reasons,
but don't worry TC, some entrepreneur chemist or scientist will figure out how best to recycle both the production waste and the damaged or expired solar panels.
Capitalism usually finds a solution.
I'm also contributing to Texas Power plants burning less and less coal every year, so there's that as well
Geothermal is trash! Some young lieutenant long ago was trying to get that medal he needed for promotion so he convinced the brass that they needed to drill geothermal wells for every house on base.
Made a huge mess and didn't heat houses or the water tanks.
In this area (zone 6A) geothermal doesn't work well enough so that even if you have 4 wells on a well-insulated house you still need either electric or natural gas backup heat when the temperature drops below 0°F.
Yes, but it doesn't destroy the environment nearly enough for the republicans to support it.
Considering what the nation spends on war, tax breaks for billionaires, safe havens for US dollars, coal and oil subsidies-----one would think America would institute a solar program for the whole nation.
Then again, what would the Pruitt crowd do and those politicians that depend upon oil and coal campaign donations?
Good for Cali. Phase it in and have homeowners insurance cover them, I don't see a problem at all.
People complaining of cost is ridiculous. I have seen people pay more than that for counter tops. Twice as much for kitchen cabinets.
My concern was longevity but it seems that most panels would long outlast asphalt shingles.
Exactly.
and when & if replacement is necessitated by hazard or old age, one expects more efficiency and future affordability from the replacements.
The weird thing about this is that not all houses are good candidates for solar. You couldn't do this in Maryland or Pennsylvania, because they treat "specimen trees" (trees larger than 30" dia.) better than they treat their citizens. Even the arborists find that funny, since a tree that big isn't going to live very much longer anyways. We can clear away 20" dia. trees with plenty of life left in them, but the ones that are circling the drain cause developers to lose a ton of potentially developable land. Drive down the street of a new subdivision here and you will see a string of homes, then a gap with a single large diameter tree, then a another string of homes. That tree, plus the large swaths of forest that we are required to conserve, could make the neighboring houses bad candidates for solar.
I have a live oak in the back but it was just far enough from the house to only affect a few panels at sunrise. My front trees aren't near any panels.
My neighbor has electric bills in the $350 per month range but his home is surrounded by 6 live oaks and a massive pin oak.
Solar City would not even consider doing a quote unless/until he removes 5 of the trees - which runs up against city regulations about tree removal
" The commission estimates that the mandate, along with other energy-efficiency measures being incorporated, would add $9,500 to the average cost of building a home in California. The state is already one of the most expensive housing markets in the country, with a median price of nearly $565,000 for a single-family home, according the California Association of Realtors."
Just let's ya know, California only cares about the "Wealthy".
Like Home Prices there aren't high enough.
I think it's a great idea to expand the solar industry and further advance renewables. On the flip side they better watch the utility companies. The ones in Arizona keep harping about needing to raise rates and fees because the power grid needs to be maintained and expanded as growth occurs. The increases continue to cut into any savings you might see from this.
My local service agreement and construction permits limited me to a best case scenario of having no more panels than could provide a maximum of 80% of our own power.
We can add a few more panels but chose to have large rectangles with no "staircase effect" for the sections that can be seen from the street.
As long as we are on the power grid we have to contribute to the upkeep through transmission fees.
Someday we may add the extra panels, but for now, we're waiting for the 23 year old HVAC system to fail so we can replace it with something 3 or 4 times more efficient.
North side of the garage. The opposite side of the house is identical . No crazy patterns.
South side of the garage
nice straight lines.
I like the way that looks
That's a great job! My house is solar too and I love it. I had minimal panels put on, but it's been the best thing ever! I remember telling the solar guy I didn't want my house to look like a battery. He placed them so they aren't even noticeable from the street. I love it. Love, love, love it.
Caveat emptor. Or, in this case, learn about leasing solar panels ...
California doing it's best to exterminate the middle class.
No wonder California families with children under 18 years of age moved out in droves to states like Texas, Arizona, Nevada, per the San Diego Tribune.
What is the approximate pay back time? and cost of a standard size panel?
Another option for some people is a wind electricity generator. I am know very little about electricity but, for $1,500.00....
I think this is ok for farms and such but it would be against my towns zoning for sure - it' taller than most flag poles.
and it doesn't come with an inverter, needs a separate fuse panel - both of which require a licensed electrician - so who knows what the final cost would actually total if permitted?
And you'd probably need to rent quite a lift to get the windmill to the top of that 22 foot pole?
You could use the little booms that lift bundles of drywall to the second floor of a house or install signs for businesses. That is probably $300 tops. You might even be able to get away with a cherry-picker.
Where there's a will, there's a cheaper way, lol.
You could use a small hydraulic crane but why bother when it isn't necessary?
If a cherry picker is good enough for line crews and tree trimmers, why not use it when it's 1/3 of the cost?
Depending on the terrain you might be able to get away with a telehandler. Just don't tell OSHA.
LoL !
I've seen it done many times to save costs over a proper crane but it most certainly isn't OSHA approved, even when they are standing on a solid floor pallet and wearing a fall protection harness.
The usual response by workers is.........."If they didn't see it, you didn't do it."
Locked for Margaritas & dinner & entertainment.
and unlocked. Everyone have a happy weekend.
and locked again, many thanks to all who participated...
And unlocked, lol