4 ms·

The article references energy efficiency regulations specifically. Is the energy code in California significantly stricter than the IECC? There are nice aspect

The article references energy efficiency regulations specifically. Is the energy code in California significantly stricter than the IECC? There are nice aspects of energy codes. For one thing, potential renters and buyers have little insight into how efficient a house or apartment really is. Since landlords and builders aren't paying the utility bills they are incentivized to reduce upfront construction costs at the cost of higher utility bills (and environmental damage) going forward. If these codes are effective then they might be worth the increased construction costs. I'm not necessarily saying that they are (I don't know, maybe California's code is filled with frivolous, ineffective details; the article doesn't really give any examples) but I think just the fact that they increase upfront costs doesn't actually mean they aren't a good idea.

realityman 7y ago
California requires solar power on every new house. It's a huge cost. Most local governments also require off-street parking, which is a huge cost. The regulatory burden isn't just in planning and permitting.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > California requires solar power on every new house. No, it doesn't, though it will soon. > It's a huge cost. The estimates of $10-30k are under (to far under) 5% of the median home price (for all sales, not just new homes, which would drive the median much higher). It's obviously not a significant current cost driver, and it also won't be a big cost driver when the mandate actually applies next year.
  - lacker 7y ago
    Mandatory solar panels might be a small fraction of housing costs but the cost of regulations isn’t from one big regulation. It’s from adding regulations over and over until the cost is twice what it needs to be. $30,000 here, $30,000 there, pretty soon you’re talking real money.
  - hackeraccount 7y ago
    They're going to require solar power on all new houses? That's insane.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > They're going to require solar power on all new houses? Yes, as of Jan 1, 2020. > That's insane. It's $10-30k of upfront cost for $19-$60k of 30 years savings (and the same sources estimating the higher cost figure estimate the higher savings figure), and it greatly advances California's renewable share of generation, and solar output peaks correlate well with aggregate demand peaks in CA. As public policy solutions go, it is eminently sensible.

realityman 7y ago

California requires solar power on every new house. It's a huge cost. Most local governments also require off-street parking, which is a huge cost. The regulatory burden isn't just in planning and permitting.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> California requires solar power on every new house. No, it doesn't, though it will soon. > It's a huge cost. The estimates of $10-30k are under (to far under) 5% of the median home price (for all sales, not just new homes, which would drive the median much higher). It's obviously not a significant current cost driver, and it also won't be a big cost driver when the mandate actually applies next year.
- lacker 7y ago
  Mandatory solar panels might be a small fraction of housing costs but the cost of regulations isn’t from one big regulation. It’s from adding regulations over and over until the cost is twice what it needs to be. $30,000 here, $30,000 there, pretty soon you’re talking real money.
- hackeraccount 7y ago
  They're going to require solar power on all new houses? That's insane.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > They're going to require solar power on all new houses? Yes, as of Jan 1, 2020. > That's insane. It's $10-30k of upfront cost for $19-$60k of 30 years savings (and the same sources estimating the higher cost figure estimate the higher savings figure), and it greatly advances California's renewable share of generation, and solar output peaks correlate well with aggregate demand peaks in CA. As public policy solutions go, it is eminently sensible.