4 ms·
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 direct
by rwbt 8y ago
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.
- trimbo 8y agoWon't this new law actually disincentivize more affordable housing?
- Analemma_ 8y agoMy cynical side would say that the California housing market is already so completely fucked, with only millionaires and Chinese expats able to buy new houses, that if there's no chance of getting it fixed (and with SB827 dead, that seems to be the case) one might as well do this to get something useful from the situation. It's like a tax on the 1% that funds renewable energy programs. I'd rather have cheap housing, but if the NIMBY's are going to have their way, I can at least extract more money from them for useful purposes.
- slededit 8y agoCalifornia is not just LA and San Francisco. People wonder why rural voters vote differently.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- 15155 8y agoImagine if "winner takes all" weren't the strategy used to elect officials.
- nv-vn 8y agoDeath by a million paper cuts
- dragonwriter 8y ago> if there's no chance of getting it fixed (and with SB827 dead, that seems to be the case) The actual dynamics of the SB827 defeat don't really clearly support that. There is certainly an opportunity for a YIMBY/PHIMBY convergence on density policy.
- NickM 8y agoIf the cost of the PV is now baked into the mortgage, then depending on payback periods, interest rates, etc., the reductions in utility costs may meet or exceed the increase in your typical monthly home payment. This could effectively make housing more affordable via lower electrical bills. Without knowing the numbers, I'm really just speculating, though; my point is just that it's not a given that this will increase everyone's cost of living.
- lootsauce 8y agoIn the hearing someone cited the numbers of $40 increase in mortgage cost and $80 of savings per month
- ghouse 8y agoBut only if the current design of utility rates remains the same. But it won't, because utilities are regulated monopolies which are permitted to recoup the costs of their investments. So, they will lower the price of power during the day, and raise it during the night.
- brixon 8y agoResidential electricity is less than half of the electricity used in California. Solar may slow down the electrical generation growth needs, but I doubt it will shut down any generators. (Except for some peak usage gas generators). http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil.aspx http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil.aspx
- common_sense123 8y agoYour point is that regulation is needed for people to make decisions that will save them more money. Basic econ/finance will tell you this isn't how the world works.
- dragonwriter 8y agoWell, the simplified Econ 101 models (which might be described as “basic econ”) will tell you that, but actual studies of human behavior will tell you those models don't represent reality in broad swathes of real economic activity.
- jvm 8y ago> 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.
- dv_dt 8y agoThere is more than straight out energy efficiency. Nuclear power plants are very energy efficient, but because of their needed financial structure, end up not being very cost effective. Decentralized financing for energy is nice, it improves individual independence and freedom.
- bitexploder 8y agoThere are parasites in this industry. One of the largest home builders in the United States, Lennar, owns a subsidiary, SunStreet Solar. When you buy a Lennar home, SunStreet then offers to sell you these panels at a very, very above market price. Or they offer to lease you the panels where you indefinitely pay for ALL of the energy the panels produce, even if you don't actually use it, at some "discounted" rate. Meanwhile, you are opted into the lease if you buy a Lennar home. Or you can always pay above market rate for panels that are often under or oversized due to lazy workmanship and practices by SunStreet. Without even researching it, I feel pretty sure Lennar, very active in CA, lobbied for this. It is probably a net win for the environment, and our energy independence, but these guys have found a way to turn it into a recurring revenue stream that benefits them the most in the long run and not the consumer. I have consulted a lawyer and they advised me it quite likely violates consumer protection laws in my state. Other states have had similar difficulties with shady solar providers cashing in on this wave of relatively inexpensive panels.
- giarc 8y agoWhy not mandate that new homes need to have equivalent solar built somewhere. So I build a home with a 700sqft roof, an additional tax is added that goes towards building 700sqft of solar at a solar farm. In fact it would be cheaper since installation would be much cheaper on a large scale and solar farm can buy panels in bulk.