California to make "Solar "mandatory for new Homes!!!!!!
Real Estate Agent · Las Vegas, NV · Member since 2015 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes
California to make "Solar "mandatory for new Homes!!!!!!
Most Popular Reply
Investor · Valencia, CA · Member since 2017 · 171 posts · 130 votes
7yHi @Account Closed I'm happy to run numbers with you in AZ, because what you have posted is certainly no reflection of the reality I work with there. My latest customer, for example in Prescott Valley had a utility bill averaging $183. We eliminated that bill with a solar system that costs him $149/month for 20 years with no increase. If you factor in inflation on the utility at 4% annually then he will save tens of thousands over 20 years. He did not come out of pocket one cent to do that with the zero down loan.
For sure batteries are the next massive step that is and will happen in solar and renewable, but for now the utility is the "battery" through net metering. The over-production from solar is purchased by the utility. At night power is purchased back from the utility. The goal to offset that overall bill to zero - depending on the roof space etc.
There are some small utilities in AZ that have punitive conditions for solar, but for the overwhelming majority, the numbers for solar in AZ are excellent. Batteries are already economically viable in CA because of the cost of utility power. It will be around 24 months before that's the case in AZ
222 Replies
- Investor · La Jolla, CA · Member since 2016 · 66 posts · 169 votes7y
Originally posted by @Steve K.:
@Danny Grey I design and sell solar for a living, and I can tell you, you'd be surprised how many of my customers are conservatives (some as far right as it gets). Originally solar got it's start as a solution for unmanned remote oil extraction facilities, it's not as black and white politically as you might think. Janet Brewer (R-AZ) and Chris Christie (R-NJ) support solar in their states, Georgia as well. Conservatives like having the freedom to make the best choice.
The bolded is key there. The FREEDOM to make a choice. NOT the mandate to be forced to pay thousands to prop up technology which in spite of (or because of) massive subsidization simply can't seem to become more affordable on it's own. Indeed, when you force people to buy something, it removes the incentive to make that thing more affordable.
As you said, you design and sell solar for a living; that's cool, and I'm all for the development and spread of solar energy tech. I just wish that people in your industry would DESIGN something more affordable, efficient, and reliable and SELL it to us voluntarily, instead of relying on big government to force us to buy.
- Investor · Valencia, CA · Member since 2017 · 171 posts · 130 votes7y
Originally posted by @Danny Grey:
Originally posted by @Steve K.:
@Danny Grey I design and sell solar for a living, and I can tell you, you'd be surprised how many of my customers are conservatives (some as far right as it gets). Originally solar got it's start as a solution for unmanned remote oil extraction facilities, it's not as black and white politically as you might think. Janet Brewer (R-AZ) and Chris Christie (R-NJ) support solar in their states, Georgia as well. Conservatives like having the freedom to make the best choice.
The bolded is key there. The FREEDOM to make a choice. NOT the mandate to be forced to pay thousands to prop up technology which in spite of (or because of) massive subsidization simply can't seem to become more affordable on it's own. Indeed, when you force people to buy something, it removes the incentive to make that thing more affordable.
As you said, you design and sell solar for a living; that's cool, and I'm all for the development and spread of solar energy tech. I just wish that people in your industry would DESIGN something more affordable, efficient, and reliable and SELL it to us voluntarily, instead of relying on big government to force us to buy.
I promise you that everyone involved in solar would welcome removal of all subsidies as long as that applied to fossil fuels too. Fossil fuels receive on the low end $1.5 trillion to on the high end $5 trillion in annual subsidies depending on the source of data. That doesn't factor in the human cost of American men and women being in harms way across the globe in the defense of fossil fuel supply lines.
If all subsidies were removed solar would hand fossil fuels its arse economically. - 7yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
@Steve K. the other issue i would see is getting it past CCRs in upscale neighborhoods and very firm and rigerous HOAs you have the state mandating it and you have an HOA saying we dont like the way it looks.. :)
- Investor · Valencia, CA · Member since 2017 · 171 posts · 130 votes7y
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
@Steve K. the other issue i would see is getting it past CCRs in upscale neighborhoods and very firm and rigerous HOAs you have the state mandating it and you have an HOA saying we dont like the way it looks.. :)
HOAs cannot legally prevent a homeowner going solar.
@Danny Grey Yes in this context I mostly agree with you, as the mandate itself is certainly not a conservative policy or one that promotes freedom of choice. However any new housing development will be hooked into a grid where whoever purchases the home will be required to buy energy from somewhere, so there's not much freedom of choice either way. Solar in general provides a lot more freedom than buying energy from a monopolistic corporation which is what my conservative customers like about it.
- 7yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
@Steve K. the other issue i would see is getting it past CCRs in upscale neighborhoods and very firm and rigerous HOAs you have the state mandating it and you have an HOA saying we dont like the way it looks.. :)
HOAs cannot legally prevent a homeowner going solar.
really is there case law on that one. ???
- Specialist · Paradise Valley, AZ · Member since 2018 · 3k+ posts · 2k+ votes7y
Originally posted by @Steve K.:
@Account Closed Backup power is a luxury item for those that desire or require it, mostly unrelated to the CA mandate that this thread is about, as the mandate doesn't require battery backup so we're getting off topic. Just buy yourself a cheap generator and install a critical loads panel with manual transfer switch if you want the cheapest option for backup power. Problem solved and you don't have to go solar if you don't want to. If you want it to be silent, seamless and not require fuel, you can pay more for solar with battery backup and auto transfer switch, but like I said it's a luxury item and uncommon, just a tiny percentage of most solar installations.
Your Comment: "Just buy yourself a cheap generator" is pretty funny when talking abut "clean & green" solutions ;-O
@Account Closed no batteries are not clean and green, nobody said they were. Not sure why you’re still talking about batteries now that we’ve already established numerous times for you that 99% of solar installs do not include batteries nor does the CA mandate that this thread is about require batteries. Solar panels are one thing, batteries are a whole other thing.
- Investor · La Jolla, CA · Member since 2016 · 66 posts · 169 votes7y
Originally posted by @Steve K.:
@Danny Grey Yes in this context I mostly agree with you, as the mandate itself is certainly not a conservative policy or one that promotes freedom of choice. However any new housing development will be hooked into a grid where whoever purchases the home will be required to buy energy from somewhere, so there's not much freedom of choice either way. Solar in general provides a lot more freedom than buying energy from a monopolistic corporation which is what my conservative customers like about it.
Lol I've lived in hyper-liberal Boulder and frankly doubt you (or anyone) have many truly conservative customers there. "Conservative" in Boulder means someone who listens to NPR while driving their Subaru to Starbucks for their daily latte instead of listening to Pod Save America while riding their recumbent bike to Parkway for their daily organic free trade non-GMO cruelty-free vegan kombucha.
To your broader point, "freedom' is not a word I would use for mandatory purchases required for those who want to enjoy the basic need of housing, especially when the battery storage systems aren't being required (like in CA). Quite the contrary; it seems like we're still slaves to said power grid, just with a massive new expense added.
Anyways, state and local government across the country are forcing this on people, and the tide isn't likely to turn, so you might as well make money; I just won't pretend this new law in California is anything other than the usual overreach by a totalitarian state government.
P.S.- if you do get a chance to speak with the engineers in charge of improving solar tech, please let them know that the rest of us would surely appreciate if they could work on solar efficiency and cost a bit.
@Steve K. and @Andrew Smith thanks for adding industry insight to the discussion.
I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on how this mandate will impact the TPO vs direct purchase ? Which model do you see getting the bulk of the new business come 2020?
Also, Andrew, you mentioned:
in an an earlier post. Where does that number come from? I read this Bloomberg article yesterday that says:
I'd also be curious to get your feedback on the story, which wasn't super pro TPO.
Thanks
@Danny Grey you’d be surprised there are actually a lot of closet conservatives in Boulder these days, not just the hippy town it once was. Also I could say the same thing about you being in CA, except I’m not into making sweeping generalizations that dump entire populations into one bucket. Not sure what you’re talking about regarding efficiency or cost of solar either. The solar panels on my roof are 22% efficient, paid for themselves in less than a year, and the utility pays me whereas if I didn’t have solar I’d still be paying a couple hundred bucks for electricity each month. If that’s not good enough for you you’re welcome to keep paying your electric bill as long as you want. Sure a coal power plant is slightly more efficient, but you have to keep mining coal and putting coal in it for it to make electricity whereas the fuel source for solar is free and unlimited. Plus the fact the coal power plant belches emissions that directly cause shorter life expectancy and higher risk of lung cancer, so there’s that, but yes they are a few percentage points more efficient so if that’s your only metric you win.
@Bill F. the overall trend has been away from TPO last few years. I would imagine since the mandate deals with new construction the systems will be included in the price of the homes, and rolled into the mortgage (average increase in mortgage payment is estimated at $40/mo. Whereas energy savings are estimated at $80/mo so net benefit for the homeowner). I’ll have to read that article later and get back to you with my thoughts tonight, still shoveling lol.
- Specialist · Paradise Valley, AZ · Member since 2018 · 3k+ posts · 2k+ votes7y
Originally posted by @Steve K.:
@Account Closed no batteries are not clean and green, nobody said they were. Not sure why you’re still talking about batteries now that we’ve already established numerous times for you that 99% of solar installs do not include batteries nor does the CA mandate that this thread is about require batteries. Solar panels are one thing, batteries are a whole other thing.
Who said anything about batteries?
I was just quoting you on Cheap Generators.
Your Comment: "Just buy yourself a cheap generator" is pretty funny when talking abut "clean & green" solutions ;-O
- Investor · Valencia, CA · Member since 2017 · 171 posts · 130 votes7y
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
@Steve K. the other issue i would see is getting it past CCRs in upscale neighborhoods and very firm and rigerous HOAs you have the state mandating it and you have an HOA saying we dont like the way it looks.. :)
HOAs cannot legally prevent a homeowner going solar.
really is there case law on that one. ???
I cannot give you a specific case study, but the legislation that is most relevant is H.R. 1598 from the 112th Congress. It's called the Solar Opportunity and Local Access Rights (SOLAR) Act:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/1598 - Investor · Valencia, CA · Member since 2017 · 171 posts · 130 votes7y
Originally posted by @Bill F.:
@Steve K. and @Andrew Smith thanks for adding industry insight to the discussion.
I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on how this mandate will impact the TPO vs direct purchase ? Which model do you see getting the bulk of the new business come 2020?
Also, Andrew, you mentioned:
in an an earlier post. Where does that number come from? I read this Bloomberg article yesterday that says:
I'd also be curious to get your feedback on the story, which wasn't super pro TPO.
Thanks
It depends on how price/KwH is being measured. Often the "delivery charge" - that cost for the trucks coming to your door with your electricity :) is not often included but shows significant increases. Also, utilities can simply withdraw tiers. That resulted in a 38% annual hike in Ventura CA overnight but is not considered underlying inflation.
4% is an industry standard number. The reality for many parts such as CA is way higher. When we track through a few decades of history we can see a doubling of utility cost every 8 years.
Even if it never increased at all, it is surely still preferable to lock in a lower rate which most can and invest in their own roof rather than renting from a utility?
Third Party Ownership comes with significant downsides. Fannie Mae specifically disallow the appraisal of a solar system if it is not owned or financed ownership. Typically liens are placed on a home with leases, owned systems are covered by UCC1 filing rather than property lien. My team has been responsible for around 600 installations over three years of which 95% are owned rather than TPO and I don't see that ratio changing for us at least. Get a generator that runs on propane for clean.
I got one that runs on propane or gasoline. I have only run it on propane with the theory I don't have to worry about old gas clogging the carb while it sits. I bought it mainly for power outages. Of course since I got it there have not been any. But in an emergency I could run it on gas if that's all I could get.
- 7yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
@Steve K. the other issue i would see is getting it past CCRs in upscale neighborhoods and very firm and rigerous HOAs you have the state mandating it and you have an HOA saying we dont like the way it looks.. :)
HOAs cannot legally prevent a homeowner going solar.
really is there case law on that one. ???
I cannot give you a specific case study, but the legislation that is most relevant is H.R. 1598 from the 112th Congress. It's called the Solar Opportunity and Local Access Rights (SOLAR) Act:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/1598that's good to know I just bought a townhouse in an HOA in Summerlin 18 months ago.. and every time I walk through Costco they ask me about solar and I say sorry HOA.. and they never say anything else.. I know this one is pretty strict but will enquire. Up in gloomy gus Oregon I see some installed..
- Real Estate Agent · Washington, D.C. · Member since 2012 · 17k+ posts · 30k+ votes7y
Originally posted by @Steve K.:
@Jim D. I agree with you fundamentally regarding solar being a mandate. Initially at first glance I was opposed to the CA solar mandate in fear of blowback (nobody likes having anything rammed down their throat). However the more I learn about the context of how it came about, the fact that the building association supports it,
As someone who is involved with lobbying....I wouldnt necessarily read into a group supporting something to actually believe they support it. That may sound counter intuitive, but just to give a brief explanation.
All the time we work with legislatures to try to restrict the damage we see that the government will do on a certain topic. So we support a bill, that was less worse than the alternative measures. Often also we need to support and endorse politicians simply because they will win, and we have to work with them for the next 2, 4, 6 years, even though we hate their guts and every thing they stand for.
So it is entirely possible they actually support it.....but having worked on this same exact issue here in Maryland with both the Realtor lobby, Home Builders lobby, and some other groups....my inclination to believe is the support for this was because of much worse legislation that was arising. Getting their voices in there and moving the bill more towards what they wanted was likely better than just opposing and having no voice and it going worse.
District Invest Group545 Reviews - Investor · Valencia, CA · Member since 2017 · 171 posts · 130 votes7y
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
@Steve K. the other issue i would see is getting it past CCRs in upscale neighborhoods and very firm and rigerous HOAs you have the state mandating it and you have an HOA saying we dont like the way it looks.. :)
HOAs cannot legally prevent a homeowner going solar.
really is there case law on that one. ???
I cannot give you a specific case study, but the legislation that is most relevant is H.R. 1598 from the 112th Congress. It's called the Solar Opportunity and Local Access Rights (SOLAR) Act:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/1598that's good to know I just bought a townhouse in an HOA in Summerlin 18 months ago.. and every time I walk through Costco they ask me about solar and I say sorry HOA.. and they never say anything else.. I know this one is pretty strict but will enquire. Up in gloomy gus Oregon I see some installed..
Well the caveat to a townhouse is whether it is a common roof and who owns it. If the HOA owns the roof it's up to them whether they will allow solar. If you own your roof footprint then they cannot stop you. In further "keeping it real" Oregon is challenging for solar, not because of clouds but because of low underlying utility costs. It's doable but will be better if the SRECs get reinstated. From memory that fight is coming up in Oregon Congress.
- 7yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
@Steve K. the other issue i would see is getting it past CCRs in upscale neighborhoods and very firm and rigerous HOAs you have the state mandating it and you have an HOA saying we dont like the way it looks.. :)
HOAs cannot legally prevent a homeowner going solar.
really is there case law on that one. ???
I cannot give you a specific case study, but the legislation that is most relevant is H.R. 1598 from the 112th Congress. It's called the Solar Opportunity and Local Access Rights (SOLAR) Act:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/1598that's good to know I just bought a townhouse in an HOA in Summerlin 18 months ago.. and every time I walk through Costco they ask me about solar and I say sorry HOA.. and they never say anything else.. I know this one is pretty strict but will enquire. Up in gloomy gus Oregon I see some installed..
Well the caveat to a townhouse is whether it is a common roof and who owns it. If the HOA owns the roof it's up to them whether they will allow solar. If you own your roof footprint then they cannot stop you. In further "keeping it real" Oregon is challenging for solar, not because of clouds but because of low underlying utility costs. It's doable but will be better if the SRECs get reinstated. From memory that fight is coming up in Oregon Congress.
we don't own the roof or exterior only the interior..
One of my long time business partners does big solar deals in Hawaii for condos and high rises.. and man the Hawaiian tax credits are insane.. his close friend is an attorney that puts them together and he is a CPA... the most I get out of it is to play golf at the Honolulu CC lol.. wind water sun. we have options.. I know Oregon is low simply because of the Columbia basin and all the hydro.. that's why there used to be so many aluminum manufactures and my daughter works at Intel and its one reason they built their 10 b fab plant and looks like they are going to start another 10 b one.. that company almost single handedly keeps Oregon viable.
- Flipper/Rehabber · Mississippi Gulf Coast · Member since 2017 · 7 posts · 2 votes7y
@Mike M. Hi Mike! Most solar power theory is not to fully replace the current grid but to augment current production systems. This will refuse fossil fuel use and ease stress as the grid is restructured.
The necessary battery technology is not mature or affordable currently. I believe that will be the next major evolution in the technology.
The is international code in place restricting the placement of panels within the peak and edges of the roof. This is specifically to support firefighter access and venting.
Fun factoid: The Chinese have technology which not only uses solar but friction from rain to produce power. Doesn’t help much in AZ!
- Contractor · santa maria, CA · Member since 2017 · 26 posts · 14 votes7y
@Steven Picker I like it. Moving towards sustainability.
Originally posted by @Russell Brazil:
Originally posted by @Steve K.:
@Jim D. I agree with you fundamentally regarding solar being a mandate. Initially at first glance I was opposed to the CA solar mandate in fear of blowback (nobody likes having anything rammed down their throat). However the more I learn about the context of how it came about, the fact that the building association supports it,
As someone who is involved with lobbying....I wouldnt necessarily read into a group supporting something to actually believe they support it. That may sound counter intuitive, but just to give a brief explanation.
All the time we work with legislatures to try to restrict the damage we see that the government will do on a certain topic. So we support a bill, that was less worse than the alternative measures. Often also we need to support and endorse politicians simply because they will win, and we have to work with them for the next 2, 4, 6 years, even though we hate their guts and every thing they stand for.
So it is entirely possible they actually support it.....but having worked on this same exact issue here in Maryland with both the Realtor lobby, Home Builders lobby, and some other groups....my inclination to believe is the support for this was because of much worse legislation that was arising. Getting their voices in there and moving the bill more towards what they wanted was likely better than just opposing and having no voice and it going worse.
Sure Russell, I think there was definitely a “better the devil you know than the devil you don’t” approach to it from the CBIA perspective. Their spokespeople have said as much. As soon as CA committed to go carbon free builders knew big changes were coming and since solar is practically standard on new builds there anyway they figured this was a concession they could swallow compared to possible alternatives. In my experience over the last 15 years builders have mostly been warm to the idea of solar, but extremely cold to new regulation of course. CA builders are certainly familiar with the solar installation process by now, most are partnered with an installer they work with regularly, so it’s easy to implement. “Supporting” this over some unknown requirement being concocted behind the scenes made shrewd business sense.
- Specialist · Paradise Valley, AZ · Member since 2018 · 3k+ posts · 2k+ votes7y
Originally posted by @Don Gurganus:
@Mike M. Hi Mike! Most solar power theory is not to fully replace the current grid but to augment current production systems. This will refuse fossil fuel use and ease stress as the grid is restructured.
The necessary battery technology is not mature or affordable currently. I believe that will be the next major evolution in the technology.
The is international code in place restricting the placement of panels within the peak and edges of the roof. This is specifically to support firefighter access and venting.
Fun factoid: The Chinese have technology which not only uses solar but friction from rain to produce power. Doesn’t help much in AZ!
Tesla was supposed to build a battery plant which I think would have pushed the technology further, but it looks like that is on hold now. When I was a kid we used potatoes to demonstrate electrical charge by placing a electrode into each end and running a wire to light up a bulb. Problem is I can't find a potato big enough to hold a charge overnight and light the house.
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.