3 ms·
The answer is no, they shouldn't. But LA Times needs to sell clicks, and politicians need to get re-elected. There's a lot of reasons. First, harm to low incom
by exabrial 6y ago
The answer is no, they shouldn't. But LA Times needs to sell clicks, and politicians need to get re-elected.
There's a lot of reasons. First, harm to low income families. For instance, _requiring_ that new homes have electric vehicle chargers in the garage does nothing to help immigrant families purchasing their first home is a similar proposal that doesn't nothing but increase harm to the environment and low income families. This is another one of those stupid laws that are designed to move ownernship out of the hands of the poor and keep it centralized to the rich.
Second, This sounds like way to funnel money to political donors.
Third, didn't PG&E just set half the state on fire? Is this really a good idea to load them up even more?
Finally, politicians need to focus on results, not specifying the means. Let the free market, actual scientists and engineers figure it out.
- giancarlostoro 6y ago> For instance, _requiring_ that new homes have electric vehicle chargers in the garage does nothing to help immigrant families purchasing their first home. Solar panels is something I'm surprised isn't required more, but I guess depending where you live they could go flying off, like in Florida it is a concern to some. However, if it is built-in to how the roof is designed, I can't imagine it'd go flying off if properly secured on your roof. Maybe once the technology matures to the ones Tesla has and sells.
- philipkglass 6y agoCalifornia has started requiring rooftop solar on new home builds (with a few exceptions): https://news.energysage.com/an-overview-of-the-california-solar-mandate/ https://news.energysage.com/an-overview-of-the-california-so... I'm not sure it is a great idea. Utility scale solar farms are more cost effective and California has plenty of room for more solar farms, even though the farm approach requires more transmission investments. It might prove beneficial if PG&E continues to respond to high fire risk conditions by shutting off power delivery.
- MrKristopher 6y agoNot sure what you mean by free market in this case? Right now households can use electric and gas, and there is no ceiling to how much they can use of each. How would politicians reduce the carbon footprint of homes without changing that? Even adding taxes would disrupt the free market.
- tzs 6y ago> First, harm to low income families. For instance, _requiring_ that new homes have electric vehicle chargers in the garage does nothing to help immigrant families purchasing their first home is a similar proposal that doesn't nothing but increase harm to the environment and low income families. Adding a level 2 charger to an existing home ranges from a few hundred dollars up to around $2k, depending on where you are in the US and whether or not you need a new 240 V circuit installed. For a new home, where you can put in a 240 V circuit for it while you are doing all the rest of the wiring, with very little additional material or labor. It's only going to raise the cost of the house by a little more than the cost of the charger itself, which will be a few hundred dollars.
- exabrial 6y agoA few hundred dollars is a _lot_ of money to some people. The problem is elitists are so disconnected from the reality of others they don't see this as an issue.
- tzs 6y agoYes, a few hundred dollars is a _lot_ of money to many people. And those people aren't buying newly constructed houses. Someone buying a newly constructed house for whom an additional few hundred on the mortgage (which will add about $2/month to their mortgage payment) is a big deal is someone who is not anywhere near ready financially to be buying a house.