Hi @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
@Steve K. Good reply. I am still against it. I believe in market forces. If solar really reduces costs, then consumers, landlords and homeowners will add it. There is an environmental / moral dimension to this, however, I can't understate the housing crisis in California.
California subsides to affordable housing will not make a dent. They need the relaxing of zoning and entitlement requirements that block density housing. I grew up in the Los Angeles area, and it is a sea of low density neighborhoods all the way out to San Bernadino. Density developers often spend a decade getting approvals for projects. 30 years of past behavior results in chronic housing shortage and a disappearing of affordable housing stock that continually gets renovated to supply wealthier residents.
As for clean energy, California built suburban style cities that rely on automobiles. I'd focus on their transportation first and ease every restriction so more housing stock can be built.
Maybe the three story requirement will force developers in CA to build up rather than out which could increase density and reduce costs?
A three story apartment with 12 units, one stairwell and surface parking is probably the cheapest apartment product you can build and you can hit densities of 50 DU/AC with it if you have the right set backs and very little parking.
When you step up to four stories you need an elevator are often (but not always) stepping up to tuck under or garage parking.
anytime the government makes something mandatory, you can be assured it is a horrible idea. if it were an economically sensible thing to do people would do it already.
@Rhonda Wilson Loved your post. You articulated my viewpoint for California. And why I oppose a "good" thing like solar panels. Normalizing the housing stock should be the priority.
I agree that California has a housing crisis but I think the effect this policy will have on the housing market overall is minimal. The mandate applies to about 80,000 new homes being built annually, so far less than 1% of CA housing stock.
[...]
I think in general increased access to green energy benefits poorer communities, who are impacted more by dirty energy sources because they live in more polluted neighborhoods and closer to industrial sites like coal power plants, causing cancer rates to be a lot higher and life expectancy to be shorter in those communities.
Steve, The point is that California does not build enough homes and has not for years creating homelessness and problems with affordability. There are many reasons for this but government interference is the primary problem. See the article below for a good summary
My point continues to be that another significant addition to the cost of housing is yet another step in the wrong direction for the low income residents of California. It's not the upper middle class and wealthy that will suffer. They have plenty of equity in their million dollar homes. As I said before, California has the highest rate of homelessness. Furthermore, when you include the cost of housing, it has the highest rate of poverty. This mandate will make that worse. This mandate will increase the misery of the poor citizens of California. As well intentioned as it is, it causes more harm than it does good.
I can't accept your point about the poor living near coal plants. It's an extremely broad generalization and there is only one coal power plant left in operation in California.
California should be looking for ways to reduce the requirements for building new homes allowing builders to create micro-apartments, tiny homes and minimalist homes for those who want them. The creativity of entrepreneurs will solve the problem faster than politicians ever will given an environment in which they can innovate. Furthermore they should stream-line the approval process for building new housing.
Rhonda thanks for taking the time to provide me with some additional context. I definitely see both sides of the issue. Just to clarify: I didn't mean coal plants exclusively. Poor communities surround places like refineries as well (Chevron in North Richmond, Wilmington in East LA are prime examples). During the civil rights movement they called it environmental racism, because poor people of color always get stuck living near pollution sources where nobody else wants to live.
Ultimately I think the policy makers feel they have to do something, or people accuse them of sitting on their hands not being effective at their job/lame duck. Then when they do something everyone wishes they had done something closer in line with their own agenda. Once CA committed to being carbon free by 2045 they knew they had to make some brash moves so the current big push is for renewables.
Another component I think may have played a major factor is job creation. The only thing politicians love more than kissing babies is jobs, and solar is one of the fastest job creators right now, so incentivizing the solar industry plays well politically. Of course, building more houses would create more jobs too. Maybe some of us solar guys will end up using our windfall of cash money to build some new houses, and bring it all full circle!
anytime the government makes something mandatory, you can be assured it is a horrible idea. if it were an economically sensible thing to do people would do it already.
None sense. Not all properties are able to get good energy from solar panels to make it efficient.
Believe it or not they considered that. The panels don't have to be on the roof, they don't even have to be on the property. Offsite large scale solar arrays shared by whole communities called "community solar" can provide the power if the developer chooses, similar to buying power from any power plant, except less expensive.
@S E Huffaker I’m definitely going into the solar repair business lol. Have they even taken that into account or the fact that this rapid influx of demand will drive likely drive up solar panel prices and maintenance prices? How are large scale mixed use developments going to operate?
It’s unfortunate that any American is forced to do something like have health insurance(even though it may be smart) solar power etc.
If they’re going to enforce a mandated extra expense there should be tax credits etc for the builder as they are bearing the burden of the upfront costs while the homeowner reaps the backend savings. It’s just going to slow building and home sales slightly. However it’s California home of the Prius so who knows.
I want to build a house off the grid, but it’s MY decision to make.
Yeah, in Texas/southwest and agriculture fields there are a lot of windmills to pump water from the ground, you got the idea, go ahead and post pictures as well.
Perhaps if they make everyone in California to comply with the solar panel at the beginning of the project, the cost of solar panel industry will be reduced enough that they will become more affordable for the rest of the US...
Thanks for sharing your insights into the TPO model and for providing context to the article.
Final follow up. With net metering is the rate that you sell your excess electricity back to the grid the consumer rate or the wholesale rate? Is there national regulation on this issue or is handled a the state level?
Thanks for sharing your insights into the TPO model and for providing context to the article.
Final follow up. With net metering is the rate that you sell your excess electricity back to the grid the consumer rate or the wholesale rate? Is there national regulation on this issue or is handled a the state level?
Its on a state level and the energy companies set the rates(state approval) and constantly try to change it NV energy tried to eliminate net metering a few years back and crimped the solar companies for awhile
Thanks for sharing your insights into the TPO model and for providing context to the article.
Final follow up. With net metering is the rate that you sell your excess electricity back to the grid the consumer rate or the wholesale rate? Is there national regulation on this issue or is handled a the state level?
It varies by utility, generally set by the PUC for investor owned utilities (IOU’s, love the acronym) while smaller municipal utilities are left to set their own policies. Idaho was the first state to have net metering in 1980, then AZ in 1981 and by the mid nineties about half the states had it, currently 43 states have it. It’s always been a bit of a patchwork, for example here in CO we have 52 utilities and while the net metering rules are set by the PUC for the IOU’s like Xcel, all the munis have their own, some paying wholesale others more or less. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is the federal governmental body that has jurisdiction over the rates, terms & conditions of wholesale electric sales by public utilities. FERC has purposefully stayed out of the fight over net metering nationwide, though although both the industry reps and IOU’s could use some clear guidance to avoid situations like in Nevada where the net metering policy changes drastically every time somebody new gets elected. A nationwide standard would end complex state rules and effectively make the whole country good for solar, from a financial perspective.
It can also change as quotas are hit. The next negotiation in CA with utilities is at 10% adoption. We're at about 7-8% currently. It's one reason that the utilities are building massive solar farms. As was mentioned in NV it's all about control. I don't really understand the argument that mandatory is bad. After all how does someone choose their current utility? What happens if you stop paying that utility?
Utilities are fighting solar to varying degrees. Some are recognizing its in their interest as they maintain control if they pipe in "fresh clean solar" from their solar farms while complaining about duck curves.
The mandatory action in CA forces adaptation. It's very healthy in that regard. Fossil fuel utility is in no way as able to respond to market change as say taxis are to Uber/Lyft. Power stations are generational commitments. Solar takes around 30-60 days for a homeowner to control their own power. If it forces private investment in and development of residential and utility scale storage it will be a huge win for everyone and - if you're a tree hugger like me - for the Planet.
Now I’m no expert but this is what I gathered so if I’m wrong in any area, constructive feed back is most definitely welcome
Pros
1. You get to feel really good about yourself without every having to understand economics or how the business works(same with socialism)
2. During very very hot days, people will have enough energy to meet their electricity uses(heat AC use)
3. China is producing a lot for cheap so replacing them isn’t that expensive.
Cons
1. At night time you’ll need batteries and those will be expensive. Also batteries don’t last and they create toxic waste(real green lol)
2. Excess/surplus energy will be sent back to the company, reversing your meter and then the company either sells it back to you at night so basically the utility company makes no money or they just have a bunch of excess they can’t sell. How will they survive(by charging fees!!!)? Energy will be needed on days solar won’t come through or be as effective. You need direct sunlight! (Full time perfect orientation will not be achieved) Don’t let an idiot tell you otherwise
3. Your energy needs are met by the sun while others operate 24/7.
4. Utilities charge a fee to maintain or just to have And can cost more then your normal electric bill(if you don’t believe this you need to talk to more people who have it, could be different in different areas)
The utility companies would go bankrupt otherwise.
5. Maybe it’s changed with technology but for the most part solar degrades by about 5 percent a year lasting about 20 years. So half way through the life is solar you are not getting nearly what you use to.
6. It goes on your roof. Any future roof work will need to consider this and could require extra material and maintenance.
Pro and con
6. Technology in solar only collects 1/3 of what it possibly could from all that light. If technology improves solar panels you have now will be outdated and need to be replaced.
Common sense
7. You’ll have to make sure trees are out of the way. Trees are pretty freakin green and great for shade/blocking the sun.
8. They can be expensive and a lot of people lease. Can make selling the house more of a headache as you an buyer have to discuss either removing it, taking it over or whatever you two want to roll with.