5 ms·

An increasing problem locally (Boulder) is the use of the permitting process to push high-cost climate goals on home owners, leading to them skipping permitting

An increasing problem locally (Boulder) is the use of the permitting process to push high-cost climate goals on home owners, leading to them skipping permitting and inspection entirely. Here, you’re required to choose at least three expensive improvements from a set of eight (iirc), ranging from relatively cheap (electric vehicle charger) to very expensive (rooftop solar). My home was built in the 1970s, the bathrooms had mold and had to be gutted, and the place was in desperate need of a remodel just to be livable. I already have rooftop solar and an electrical vehicle charger, but that’s not enough. I was expected to spend roughly an extra $40k — on top of a $120k remodel — adding additional features and replacing perfectly good portions of my home to meet Boulder’s climate goals. I can’t afford that, but my house isn’t livable as-is. As a result, I’m having a bunch of work done without permitting or inspection. I hate it, but that’s the Faustian bargain people choose when government tries to leverage safety regulations as a stick to enforce expensive, non-safety related ends.

nerpderp82 4y ago
We have the same problem in Telluride. I have to pay an extra 20k to get an upgraded circuit to charge my Rivian when I am already under the limit.
- kube-system 4y ago
  If it costs you 20k to upgrade a circuit, your story is missing some important details.
  - treis 4y ago
    This sort of thing can easily spiral to needing a new main power line due to the increased amp requirements.
    - kube-system 4y ago
      Yes. But the price of those combined should still be nearly an order of magnitude cheaper than $20k. $20k is "gut and rewire everything in an expensive metro area" kind of money.
      - treis 4y ago
        There's no way you're getting a new box, meter, and service wire for $2k anywhere in the US. Certainly not California. Plus, lots of places require these to be buried. So you've got trenching costs and that's a pain too. $20k is definitely within the ballpark of a cost.
        kube-system 4y ago
        Did mine last year for $1200... and I had new grounds installed for that price too. But yes, it was above ground. But my point is, if someone need to do all of these things, it's for a reason. And these tasks aren't "upgrade a circuit", they're, "upgrade my home's electrical service"
        treis 4y ago
        Like I said, it's a spiral. You have a moldy bathroom and they make you get a car charger, which is a new circuit, which changes the load calculation, which changes your service needs, which changes your box requirements. Strict adherence to code has a way of making costs explode.
      - jeffbee 4y ago
        Haha absolutely not. PG&E says that 5% of projects in California cost over $20k just for trenching in new underground service feeder. That doesn't even begin to mention the new main panel and all the branch wiring behind it. If you need to upgrade your panel it can easily cost $100k.
        kube-system 4y ago
        My point is that trenching your yard up because your electrical system legitimately can't handle the load is not "use of the permitting process to push high-cost climate goals on home owners". The necessity of a higher gauge service line is a legitimate safety regulation. If it costs someone $100k to replace their service panel, I suppose they can just borrow that out of their budget for yacht fuel for the month. Because they clearly have a property much different than average. https://www.bobvila.com/articles/cost-to-replace-electrical-panel/ https://www.bobvila.com/articles/cost-to-replace-electrical-...
preseinger 4y ago
"skipping permitting" is probably better described as "breaking the law" if you can't afford to meet construction requirements then you can't afford to construct, i guess
- catiopatio 4y ago
  It doesn’t matter what you call it, or whether you agree with the choice, the end result of overly burdensome requirements like these is a decrease in the safety of housing.
  - preseinger 4y ago
    "overly burdensome" isn't an objective measure, and certainly isn't whatever you judge to be beyond your own level of acceptability
    - catiopatio 4y ago
      Forty-two years ago, homes here didn’t have to be permitted at all. Building codes and related permitting regulations were established to ensure safety, and accepted by the public under those auspices. The addition of novel, non-safety related political requirements exceeds this original remit and undermines the entire telos of residential building codes. This inescapably leads to reduced compliance with the regulatory process, and thus, less-safe housing. So, yes, “overly burdensome”.
      - preseinger 4y ago
        You're asserting that there exists a set of "non-safety related political [building] requirements" which are significant enough to substantiate your conclusions. This is in no way self-evident.

nerpderp82 4y ago

We have the same problem in Telluride. I have to pay an extra 20k to get an upgraded circuit to charge my Rivian when I am already under the limit.

kube-system 4y ago
If it costs you 20k to upgrade a circuit, your story is missing some important details.
- treis 4y ago
  This sort of thing can easily spiral to needing a new main power line due to the increased amp requirements.
  - kube-system 4y ago
    Yes. But the price of those combined should still be nearly an order of magnitude cheaper than $20k. $20k is "gut and rewire everything in an expensive metro area" kind of money.
    - treis 4y ago
      There's no way you're getting a new box, meter, and service wire for $2k anywhere in the US. Certainly not California. Plus, lots of places require these to be buried. So you've got trenching costs and that's a pain too. $20k is definitely within the ballpark of a cost.
      - kube-system 4y ago
        Did mine last year for $1200... and I had new grounds installed for that price too. But yes, it was above ground. But my point is, if someone need to do all of these things, it's for a reason. And these tasks aren't "upgrade a circuit", they're, "upgrade my home's electrical service"
        treis 4y ago
        Like I said, it's a spiral. You have a moldy bathroom and they make you get a car charger, which is a new circuit, which changes the load calculation, which changes your service needs, which changes your box requirements. Strict adherence to code has a way of making costs explode.
    - jeffbee 4y ago
      Haha absolutely not. PG&E says that 5% of projects in California cost over $20k just for trenching in new underground service feeder. That doesn't even begin to mention the new main panel and all the branch wiring behind it. If you need to upgrade your panel it can easily cost $100k.
      - kube-system 4y ago
        My point is that trenching your yard up because your electrical system legitimately can't handle the load is not "use of the permitting process to push high-cost climate goals on home owners". The necessity of a higher gauge service line is a legitimate safety regulation. If it costs someone $100k to replace their service panel, I suppose they can just borrow that out of their budget for yacht fuel for the month. Because they clearly have a property much different than average. https://www.bobvila.com/articles/cost-to-replace-electrical-panel/ https://www.bobvila.com/articles/cost-to-replace-electrical-...

preseinger 4y ago

"skipping permitting" is probably better described as "breaking the law" if you can't afford to meet construction requirements then you can't afford to construct, i guess

catiopatio 4y ago
It doesn’t matter what you call it, or whether you agree with the choice, the end result of overly burdensome requirements like these is a decrease in the safety of housing.
- preseinger 4y ago
  "overly burdensome" isn't an objective measure, and certainly isn't whatever you judge to be beyond your own level of acceptability
  - catiopatio 4y ago
    Forty-two years ago, homes here didn’t have to be permitted at all. Building codes and related permitting regulations were established to ensure safety, and accepted by the public under those auspices. The addition of novel, non-safety related political requirements exceeds this original remit and undermines the entire telos of residential building codes. This inescapably leads to reduced compliance with the regulatory process, and thus, less-safe housing. So, yes, “overly burdensome”.
    - preseinger 4y ago
      You're asserting that there exists a set of "non-safety related political [building] requirements" which are significant enough to substantiate your conclusions. This is in no way self-evident.