3 ms·

> A former residential solar company CEO blames American red tape I'm sure there's an army who would call that red tape "important safety protection regulation

by gok 9y ago

> A former residential solar company CEO blames American red tape I'm sure there's an army who would call that red tape "important safety protection regulation." It's telling that the bureaucrats who put this NREL report together to reduce costs look at market maturation, business model integration, product innovation and economies of scale, but--shockingly!--not reducing regulatory overhead. Inventing new forms of photovoltaics is considered more realistic than addressing rent seeking.

philipkglass 9y ago
I think that Germany and Australia are pretty safe too. "The cost of safety" is a legitimate thing to consider vs. developing nations, but not vs. other developed nations that seem to get more bang for the buck.
- gok 9y ago
  To be clear I meant that to be sarcastic :) Obviously the regulations around US solar deployments are excessive at best and very likely the result of rent seeking.
djrogers 9y ago
> not reducing regulatory overhead. Actually, they do address this - it's one of their baked in assumptions about 'integrated roofing' (they refer to those costs as PII): "The roof replacement visionary pathway also benefits from savings in other cost categories. For example, the PII cost is reduced because we assume the PV permit cost declines to a standard $200 per system." Given the huge complexity of various city, county, and state regulations, I think it's highly unlikely that permitting costs would go down for a system that is integrated into the roofing material. And if I'm wrong, I can't see them going down significantly - permitting and inspection fees are an income stream for cities and counties, and they do't just reduce them because of a PDF from the NREL...
- gok 9y ago
  They could do something similar to the FCC's OTARD rules, which make it generally hard for local governments and HOAs to impose limits or red tape around installing satellite dishes and antennae. This was hugely successful in making satellite TV competitive.
specialist 9y ago
"...not reducing regulatory overhead." AKA "incumbency protection."

by gok 9y ago

philipkglass 9y ago

I think that Germany and Australia are pretty safe too. "The cost of safety" is a legitimate thing to consider vs. developing nations, but not vs. other developed nations that seem to get more bang for the buck.

gok 9y ago
To be clear I meant that to be sarcastic :) Obviously the regulations around US solar deployments are excessive at best and very likely the result of rent seeking.

djrogers 9y ago

> not reducing regulatory overhead. Actually, they do address this - it's one of their baked in assumptions about 'integrated roofing' (they refer to those costs as PII): "The roof replacement visionary pathway also benefits from savings in other cost categories. For example, the PII cost is reduced because we assume the PV permit cost declines to a standard $200 per system." Given the huge complexity of various city, county, and state regulations, I think it's highly unlikely that permitting costs would go down for a system that is integrated into the roofing material. And if I'm wrong, I can't see them going down significantly - permitting and inspection fees are an income stream for cities and counties, and they do't just reduce them because of a PDF from the NREL...

gok 9y ago
They could do something similar to the FCC's OTARD rules, which make it generally hard for local governments and HOAs to impose limits or red tape around installing satellite dishes and antennae. This was hugely successful in making satellite TV competitive.

specialist 9y ago

"...not reducing regulatory overhead." AKA "incumbency protection."