‘Historic undertaking’ expected to boost number of rooftop solar panels across the Golden State.
From The Orange County Register
By Jeff Collins | JeffCollins@scng.com | Orange County Register
PUBLISHED: December 5, 2018 at 11:28 am | UPDATED: December 5, 2018 at 3:58 pm
California officially became the first state in the nation on Wednesday, Dec. 5 to require homes built in 2020 and later be solar powered.
To a smattering of applause, the California Building Standards Commission voted unanimously to add energy standards approved last May by another panel to the state building code.
Two commissioners and several public speakers lauded the new code as “a historic undertaking” and a model for the nation.
“These provisions really are historic and will be a beacon of light for the rest of the country,” said Kent Sasaki, a structural engineer and 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 the Golden State. Last year, builders took out permits for more than 115,000 new homes — almost half of them for single-family homes.
Wednesday’s action upholds a May 9 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 Building Standards Commission.
The Building Standards Commission was limited to reviewing the energy panel’s rulemaking process, not the content of the standards, said commission Chairwoman Marybel Batjer. 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.
One commission member worried the mandate would make it harder for California wildfire victims to rebuild, but supporters assured him that won’t be a problem.
Homeowners will have two options that eliminate the upfront costs of adding solar: Leasing the solar panels or signing a “power purchase agreement” that pays for the electricity without buying the panels, said Drew Bohan, executive director of the California Energy Commission.
One solar-industry representative said the net savings from adding solar power will be around $40 a month or nearly $500 a year.
“These standards won’t necessarily make homes more expensive to buy. What they will do is save money on utility costs,” said Pierre Delforge, a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “This is not only the right thing to do for the climate, it is financially smart.”
Meanwhile, the changes won endorsements both from environmentalists and the California Building Industry Association.
“Six years ago, I was very fearful of this,” said Bob Raymer, technical director for the state building association. “But the very open arrangement that we have with the (energy commission) … brought us to the point where we can support this.”
Homebuilders have been preparing for years to meet a proposed requirement that all new homes be “net-zero,” meaning they would produce enough solar power to offset all electricity and natural gas consumed over the course of a year.
Provisions adopted Wednesday relaxed that goal a bit, requiring new homes only offset electricity used but not natural gas.
To meet net-zero energy goals, a typical house would need the capacity to produce 7 or 8 kilowatts of electricity, which wouldn’t be cost-effective, Raymer told the commission. But a modest amount of solar — producing about 3 kilowatts of power — would be cost-effective in all of California’s 16 climate zones.
In addition to the solar mandate, the new provisions tighten green homebuilding standards, with such requirements as thicker attic and wall insulation, more efficient windows and doors and improved ventilation systems. They also encourage developers to add battery storage and heat-pump water heaters to new homes.
But the heart of the update is the solar power requirement, which applies to all new residential buildings up to three stories high, including apartments. The code allows some exceptions, such as when the structures are in shady areas or when electricity rates already are lower than the cost of generating solar power.
The rules also allow for offsite solar production, so developments can build solar arrays feeding multiple homes or contract with utility-owned solar farms.
HT/The ever industrious Marcus
Yay we’re going to make it colder outside with solar panals mandated by big bro!! This is awesome man, pass the doobie!
A law that indiscriminately requires ALL new homes to have solar power has the following unintended consequences:
— ensures that building contractors will install the cheapest possible solar panels and associated electrical control and inverter components, thereby saddling future home buyers with poor quality, less reliable technology; that is, it’s no skin off the builder’s nose if the solar installation completely degrades and fails after 7 years if the builder only has to offer a 5-year warranty
— ensures that certain homes will be even more solar-PV inefficient due to shading from nearby trees and/or nearby buildings, and for PV installations on flat roof surfaces that are oriented north-south (less inefficient over a year) versus east-west (more efficient over a year)
— ensures that trees that shade significant portions of residential solar panels during any portion of a year will be greatly pruned, or totally removed . . . thereby adding to urban “blight”
— ensures that certain homeowners will have additional maintenance hours/costs (e.g., in semi-arid areas with blowing dust or in areas with large leaf falls in autumn, homeowners will need to periodically clean the solar PV panels) . . . and what about the mountain areas of California that have many months of snowfall during the year?
— ensures that neighbors will occasionally have unwelcome sun glinting into their widows from reflections off the solar roof panels on adjacent/nearby buildings
— ensures that the homeowner’s insurance rates will increase above that of an equivalent house without rooftop PV solar (due to extra liability for roof antenna installers, roof/chimney repairmen, house painters, additional danger of electrical fire, etc.)
— possibly increase the probability of lighting strike(s) due to running a conductive metal path to rooftop height . . . that is, solar panels may prove to be effective lightning rods
— ensures that certain homeowners, those who do a life cycle cost estimate for their specific solar PV installation and site location and find they’ll only continue to lose more money over time, will act accordingly and have said solar installation stripped off their home as soon as possible (that assuming the same police state doesn’t pass another law that would make that a felony offense).
Please reread the article. It appears that there are many exceptions, possibly enough to drive the proverbial truck through. But I fear for trees.
Uhhhh . . . there is a journalist write-up of what the new law says and doesn’t say, and then there are the ACTUAL legal requirements (“standards”) of the law.
Do you really mean to imply you trust what one newspaper publishes??? If so, I pity you.
Knowing how California government works (or doesn’t), I expect a new annual tax soon to be levied on all homes with solar power.
What about houses whose position or orientation mean that PV output would be too low to justify the outlay?
This could have serious negative environmental effects, for example resulting in the felling of all trees which put shadow across the house at any time of day that the mandated panels would give significant output.
I think the Bullet Train showed be required to have solar panels.
Meanwhile, I expect that some people will ‘remodel’ older homes down to the foundations to escape this madness while building a new home.
Historic?? More like political hysterics…
So when I’m getting ready to sell my house, it will increase in price by $10,000 since people won’t have to spend that much money adding solar panels to it.
No, they’ll have to spend $2,000 getting rid of them.
Did the California government give any thought to those countries and their Utopian environmental conditions for the mining and manufacturing? Did they give any thought to child labor. Maybe the government could be sued for aiding poor environmental conditions and child labor. I am sure the UN will get right on it.
Baby its Cold outside.
Could you please explain how any of this contributes to child labor?
Just do a search for “Rare Earth Metals Child Labor”
For example: https://blog.ucsusa.org/josh-goldman/electric-vehicles-batteries-cobalt-and-rare-earth-metals
There are hundreds of articles about this issue.
California, more specifically soon to be ex Governor Brown, is obsessed with “leading the world” in virtue signaling and doesn’t care what it costs or who it hurts. Housing shortage? No problem, we’ll put roadblocks to building new homes. Influx of people needing welfare assistance to survive? No problem, we’ll tax the corporations and people more while encouraging more indigents to come. Budget problems? Again no problem because there will be an unlimited source of new funds by taxing CO2 producers until there’s a surplus. One party rule for the state government? What’s the problem? And we can keep it that way indefinitely.
This will be big business for China and environmentalist arbitrage with good perceptions on a forward-looking basis. That said, the geography and risk profile may actually justify this application. Health care and other high availability applications (perhaps the Internet) will, of course, connect to an energy producer/converter that can be reasonably isolated (i.e. reliable, sustainable) from the environment, without the addition of toxic battery buffers.
China recently cut back its subsidies for solar generation and, as a result, the domestic market for panels has collapsed. China is now dumping its excess panel production on the rest of the world.
Built our house prior to all the code madness a few years back. If this had been law then, it would have required cutting down of mature trees that now provide shade to much of the house on hot summer days, thus requiring the installation of air conditioning (we have none, it’s not necessary with good insulation and shade). So the power generated by the solar panels would have more than been used up by the air conditioning unit during the time when the trees provide cooling naturally. I would estimate the added cost (solar + A/C) to be something on the order of $30,000 in reality, something which our state legislators apparently have no connection to. $30K for two systems to counter each other. I guess that makes perfect sense in CA.
My 4kW solar panel array, installed in February, 2016, cost just north of £5,000 sterling. Here in the cloudy North West of England, it generates approximately 3mWh per annum. We have had no trouble with the panels, and they can easily be protected against nesting birds if necessary. I find the principle of individual microgeneration entirely logical, and would like to see solar water heating, solar PV or ground source heat pumps mandated on most new buildings in the UK. A particularly obvious application would be installation of large arrays on the roofs of NHS hospitals, all of which have tall buildings with large surface areas, and all of which consume large amounts of electricity throughout the daylight hours for obvious reasons. I don’t really understand the hostility to the concept expressed here. If residents of a sunny state can use solar power to run AC units or charge electric vehicles or plug-in hybrids, why on earth not?
Cost. If it made sense, then the government would not have to use the police powers of the State to motivate people to do something.
Furthermore, £5,000 in solar panels is also £5,000 at risk and £5,000 lost in opportunity costs.
In California, by requiring an additional $10,000, and I believe that they grossly understate the real costs for marketing reasons, that is added to a mortgage so roughly double will be paid for the panels, plus that also adds $10,000+ in annual taxable value to the property.
Again, if it makes so much fiscal sense, why require it by the power of the gun?
If you find it odd that people object to the government ordering them to waste money on things they don’t want, then there really is no hope for you.
PS: How long ago were you assimilated?
I wouldn’t be so sure about that. Do you mean things like seat belts in cars, crash helmets for motorcyclists and ear defenders for workers exposed to ambient noise levels over 90 dBA? Careful how you answer. I was a surgeon and I have seen the adverse effects of MVA’s and the like.
I ‘m afraid I don’t understand the question you ask at the end. You’ll have to put it in meaningful English. For your information, however, I am politically right of centre in UK terms, and unconvinced by the DAGW narrative. Nonetheless, I recognise that fossil fuels are a finite resource which will one day be exhausted, that they cause pollution, that they distort international politics, and that they will have to be replaced one day, in one generation or another. I therefore support the use of renewable energy and have invested my own money in microgeneration, just as I understand Anthony has. You may not be aware of the stringent targets which have been set for UK emissions. If UK governments, which have set them, intend to meet them, then in my view they should mandate the use of renewables at least in those environments which they control.
I thought this website was about analysis of the nature and cause of climate changes, not the promotion of fossil fuels on principle. I think CTM is right, and that more rationality and less knee-jerk reactions from contributors would be a step forward.
It’s a left coast thing.
“B.C. has unveiled its long-awaited plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The plan, called Clean B.C., requires all new buildings to be net-zero energy by 2032, and all new cars sold to be zero-emission by 2040.”
“It said every building built in B.C. will have to be “net-zero-energy ready” by 2032, meaning efficient enough that their total energy needs could be met with renewable energy sources like solar panels.”
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-clean-climate-plan-2018-1.4933083
Dec 05, 2018
There were two stories from Germany a few years ago.
The first was that they had to stop adding the solar-voltaic panels because the power grid was getting confused by the many inputs.
The second story was that it was only in the best case that Germany with solar panels was using the same electricity producing fuel as without the panels. Best case situations rarely happen so this means they almost always burn more fuel with the solar panels as without them.
Do they really think that cool and mellow California is going to have a more flexible and controlled system than the, you will be orderly and efficient Germany?
Gotta love the academics “wont necessarily make homes more expensive ” I guess the panels will fall from the sky on the backs of unicorns and be installed by the panel fairies. A small sprinkling of magical utility dust and they will be grid connected.
Can you say “Rent Seeking” ?
Get out while the market is up and now there is this other advantage selling an existing home in a market with jacked up prices for new homes.
Thou shalt be a tax credit token and vote to keep the tax credits flowing.
I wonder how this will work in a new housing development, it would trend toward the area going way over voltage as all the systems export. I am guessing they just want to herd people toward the pay for someone elses solar farm option?
Apparently, and quite to my amazement, the sun shines 24/7/365 on California rooftops.
Who knew?
What is the story behind the “California Building Standards Commission”? Is this a commission that is publicly elected, or are the members appointed by elected officials?
The solar panel industry stands to gain a substantial customer base, that would not choose to be customers if given the choice. So did the industry provide politcal contributions? Was there bribes involved? Does anyone even care anymore?
I am a firm believer that consumers do what is in their own best interests, and only need coercion to do what is in the best interests of someone else. This seem more likely to benefit someone other than the homeowner.
Leftists’ eco-wacko policies have already made California’s housing market the most expensive and least available in the US.
I’m sure forcing all new homes to be solar powered will really help lower housing costs and increase supply…
I have wondered for some time why we see LESS solar panels than more. If it were really a cheaper and more viable energy source it would have taken off on it’s own merits. It did not and does not today.
What do they think will happen when they put black solar panels on roofs in the Mojave Desert. 110 deg F July temperatures outside AND a giant heat absorber sitting on your roof!