5 ms·

It's likely that you would need to get planning permission to put solar panels on the roof of a building. This generally requires you to be the owner. Therefor

by lhnz 7y ago

It's likely that you would need to get planning permission to put solar panels on the roof of a building. This generally requires you to be the owner. Therefore it might not be best described as a market failure. It could be better described as a failure due to planning regulations that only give power to land-owners. This is big problem in Europe, since as you point out: many people rent.

icebraining 7y ago
When you own a condo, a similar problem arises: you need everyone in the building to agree, since the roof is shared. In my building, this would be a non-starter.
GarrisonPrime 7y ago
So...you think regulations should allow renters to modify someone else’s property, even if against the owners wishes? If a proposition for solar panels is actually realistic and a net positive, the owners should be easily convinced without resorting to force.
- AndrewDucker 7y ago
  The owners would have to pay for the panels. They do not pay for the electricity used in the property. Therefore there is no way for it to be in their economic interests.
  - 0xffff2 7y ago
    >Therefore there is no way for it to be in their economic interests. I would certainly pay a bit more in rent for a place where my energy use was subsidized by panels.
  - GarrisonPrime 7y ago
    In a way, they do pay for the electricity. The more energy costs their tennants, the less than can charge for rent.
benj111 7y ago
It is a market failure. The incentives of the owner need to be aligned with the incentives of the tenant, that is the failure. Either, as you point out, tenants need to be given powers to install solar panels, and given security of tenure to take advantage of the long term investment, (which seems to me would go further than mere planning regs). Or incentivise the owner to install solar panels, this seems more straight forward, although might not necessarily benefit the tenant.

by lhnz 7y ago

icebraining 7y ago

When you own a condo, a similar problem arises: you need everyone in the building to agree, since the roof is shared. In my building, this would be a non-starter.

GarrisonPrime 7y ago

So...you think regulations should allow renters to modify someone else’s property, even if against the owners wishes? If a proposition for solar panels is actually realistic and a net positive, the owners should be easily convinced without resorting to force.

AndrewDucker 7y ago
The owners would have to pay for the panels. They do not pay for the electricity used in the property. Therefore there is no way for it to be in their economic interests.
- 0xffff2 7y ago
  >Therefore there is no way for it to be in their economic interests. I would certainly pay a bit more in rent for a place where my energy use was subsidized by panels.
- GarrisonPrime 7y ago
  In a way, they do pay for the electricity. The more energy costs their tennants, the less than can charge for rent.

benj111 7y ago

It is a market failure. The incentives of the owner need to be aligned with the incentives of the tenant, that is the failure. Either, as you point out, tenants need to be given powers to install solar panels, and given security of tenure to take advantage of the long term investment, (which seems to me would go further than mere planning regs). Or incentivise the owner to install solar panels, this seems more straight forward, although might not necessarily benefit the tenant.