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
- Realtor, General Contractor, and Developer · Redding, CA · Member since 2009 · 7k+ posts · 4k+ votes7y
It's insane! CA already has the highest homeless populationin the nation. Part of the reason is the out of control environmental regulations that drive the cost of every material you buy for building a home or apartment up. We have winter and summer grades of fuel. We have forests burning due to poor land managment caused by regulations that stop clearing out brush and thinning trees. Permits and fees for building are constantly being increased. Now they're allowing PG&E to pass on the costs of lawsuits to customers rather than shareholders. Now drinking water is going to be taxed. So please, someone tell me how it makes any sense in one of the most expensive states in the nation for housing to add more costs. Batteries for solar are not large enough to make sense. Many of the homeowners that had homes burn in the fires didn't have enough insurance to rebuild, let alone add on an addition $20,000 or more to the costs. The utility companies won't buy excess if you can produce it. So how can anyone think it's a good idea?
- 7yZach CumminsPro MemberReal Estate Agent · Carlsbad, CA · Member since 2017 · 53 posts · 68 votes
@Steven Picker
California resident here.. Of course pros and cons here as always. But this will be a NET GAIN in the long run. For non CA residents that are unfamiliar with energy costs here and specifically in San Diego, message me your energy bill and I will reply with mine. Before and after solar. $savings! $10k for Solar is pennies for homes out here.
Originally posted by @Karen Margrave:
It's insane! CA already has the highest homeless populationin the nation. Part of the reason is the out of control environmental regulations that drive the cost of every material you buy for building a home or apartment up. We have winter and summer grades of fuel. We have forests burning due to poor land managment caused by regulations that stop clearing out brush and thinning trees. Permits and fees for building are constantly being increased. Now they're allowing PG&E to pass on the costs of lawsuits to customers rather than shareholders. Now drinking water is going to be taxed. So please, someone tell me how it makes any sense in one of the most expensive states in the nation for housing to add more costs. Batteries for solar are not large enough to make sense. Many of the homeowners that had homes burn in the fires didn't have enough insurance to rebuild, let alone add on an addition $20,000 or more to the costs. The utility companies won't buy excess if you can produce it. So how can anyone think it's a good idea?
The utility does buy the excess
Very few systems use batteries anymore (net metering is used instead)
Average system cost is under $10k, or $40/month if rolled in with the mortgage, while energy savings are $80/mo. avg.= $40/mo. avg. net benefit
CA Building Industry Association supported the mandate
The mandate will effect about 88,000 new homes annually, or less than 1% of the total housing stock, so will have minimal effect on the housing crisis.
Solar adds initial expense but reduces operating costs, forcing people to become investors and save money instead of wasting it each month paying an electric bill unnecessarily
- Rental Property Investor · North East US · Member since 2019 · 114 posts · 31 votes7y
so the panels and batteries as a whole should have some kind of government incentive in tax deduction or similar ✔️
@Mike M. Just because it's not already a perfect fit for your specific power needs doesn't mean it's a bad thing.
Regarding your concerns about the need for batteries, you can use the grid like a battery. Most houses use the bulk of their electricity during the day for AC so the solar panels will be performing at their peak when you need the most electricity. The grid is fine to run your TV at night, no?
- Investor · Valencia, CA · Member since 2017 · 171 posts · 130 votes7y
Originally posted by @Steve K.:
Originally posted by @Anthony Hunter:
Northern California here. Had solar installed last month, enough to conservatively offset 126% of estimated usage. After a 30% tax credit and financing (3.99%) we were able to get a 25 year Sunpower 7.1kw system installed with a monthly payment less than our average electric bill($196 pmt vs $197 non-solar)
With NEM we'll be able to bank the surplus and use it throughout the year, which will especially be important for the higher rate during time of use (TOU) of 3-8 pm that PG&E charges. Summer months will offset winter months, assuming it's during the same 3-8 window. Since it's a yearly true up bill it'll all be reconciled and balanced out every January in our case. Having your utility company act as your battery for surplus is huge. And speaking of the company, PG&E will undoubtedly continue 5%+ YoY rate increases, which will be protected by a system producing over 100% of usage.
Our breakeven point is almost exactly 6 years, after which the system will generate for another 18 years under the 25 year comprehensive warranty.
Technically the system will cash flow from day one, all with no money down. I had to run the numbers several times to believe it myself, because just a few years ago it was a very different story.
So yeah, not a big deal that by 2020 it'll be required, at least for California which is perhaps the best state for residential solar.
Not bad numbers especially since you bought the Rolls Royce of solar panels, going with SunPower. Simply the best in my opinion wise choice.
It's rare that we disagree, but this might be one of those times! :)
- Las Vegas, NV · Member since 2016 · 133 posts · 53 votes7y
i don't like the idea of the government forcing developers on solar but i think it would be beneficial to the environment by decreasing the reliance on fossil fuel
- Investor · Valencia, CA · Member since 2017 · 171 posts · 130 votes7y
Originally posted by:
It's insane! CA already has the highest homeless populationin the nation. Part of the reason is the out of control environmental regulations that drive the cost of every material you buy for building a home or apartment up. We have winter and summer grades of fuel. We have forests burning due to poor land managment caused by regulations that stop clearing out brush and thinning trees. Permits and fees for building are constantly being increased. Now they're allowing PG&E to pass on the costs of lawsuits to customers rather than shareholders. Now drinking water is going to be taxed. So please, someone tell me how it makes any sense in one of the most expensive states in the nation for housing to add more costs. Batteries for solar are not large enough to make sense. Many of the homeowners that had homes burn in the fires didn't have enough insurance to rebuild, let alone add on an addition $20,000 or more to the costs. The utility companies won't buy excess if you can produce it. So how can anyone think it's a good idea?
Hi @Karen Margrave,
First, the utilities do buy the excess. As others have said the net operating costs for homeowners will be less with solar than with utility so there will be long term savings. If you consider this to be similar to mandated features such as efficient windows/insulation etc then that's more accurate except homeowners actually can generate income from their solar systems whereas they do not from other mandated home improvement.
Everything you wrote about PGE (and others) should make homeowners seethe. It drives me every day to make homeowners aware that they can control their own power production and become free from these monopolies. As you rightly said PGE get to pass on billions of dollars that were generated by THEIR LIABILITY to all its consumers. They have liability in 17 of 18 recent wildfires yet the consumers are MANDATED to pay for that!! What other industry does that happen in? Also in what other industry do you pay more because you buy more?
Land and forest management is part of the equation as of course is climate change. However in the case of wildfires and subsequent extorting of money, that is between antiquated, inefficient utilities (monopolies) and legislators. While the CA plans to combat the effects of CO2 have created this mandate for solar, in truth and above all other benefits, it represents a huge move to power in the hands of people rather than the current monopolistic, destructive, exploitative status quo. - Investor · Valencia, CA · Member since 2017 · 171 posts · 130 votes7y
Originally posted by @Steve K.:
Care to clarify, you’re not a fan of SunPower? They’re pricey but sweet, some people just gotta have the top of the line gear and don’t mind paying for it. I’ve got Silfabs on my roof, North American made baby!
Plenty are North American made baby! My favourite for bang-for-the-buck are Hanwa, but also really like LG and Panasonic. No doubt Sunpower are a quality panel. Their problem is that all their eggs are in that basket and are much more sensitive to conditions in solar. That led to them hitting financial trouble and are now owned, ironically, by French oil company Total.
Hanwa, LG, Panasonic are all huge conglomerates. If LG have issues in one area it does not threaten the company as a whole to anything like the same degree as Sunpower.
The American made thing is interesting. Most people consider BMW/Honda/Toyota to be non-American companies yet they employ many thousands of Americans and contribute to the US economy more than say Ford assembling South of the Border. Which is really American made. Hanwa have set up to produce 1.6 GW of panels annually in Georgia!!
I don't like the price of Sunpower either but definitely recognize they're a great panel. Originally posted by @Steve Mason:
I'm generally against Government mandating things like this. Auto Insurance? OK, I get that but Government meddling usually creates problems. We're better off allowing the market to work. Why does everyone have Water heaters? People love to have hot water, right? Once something like solar, heck, even windmills on your property, once they're efficient and cost effective, people will demand them. I sympathize. I used to live in The Peoples Republic of California. LOL. Best of Luck.
Aside from the solar mandate part, what you're describing - allowing the market to work - is conceptually what we're doing here in the PROC. Through regulation, utilities are being forced to account for something closer to the true societal cost of the energy being used, and this gets reflected as higher electricity prices. From one of my last month bills:
For those who have the option and means to do so, there is every economic incentive needed to replace as much of their retail electricity purchases with self-produced (read: solar) generation. When something costs 22¢ at one vendor, and 14¢ (give/take) at another, the decision isn't so difficult. If you're a lower income renter who could most benefit from lower utility costs, this isn't available to you.
Of course there's important details - the difference between cost of electricity units and transmission of them, utility overhead costs, reliability, economies of centralized generation vs distributed, peak demand, energy storage, and a whole host of other things. Most people don't get that or care - they just think about cash flow every month.
In the big picture, it's really a question about the role of government. Should it mandate road construction standards? Should it force the installation of ramps at sidewalk corners and tactile paving? Should it require people wear seat belts? Should it promote technology that, objectively measured, improves the general health and economics of its residents? I'd say all those fall under the government's "promote the general welfare" responsibility. I get that some feel that responsibility should be more limited. That's cool. Honestly, I'm glad we have diversity amongst the States so we don't all have to agree on lifestyle decisions all the time.
Government is too entrenched in California business.
What if Joe home buyer does not want a solar panel - due to the extra maintainance costs or for other reasons?
I purchased high effeciency gas units only to find they are FAR more expensive to maintain than regular ones. I paid MORE for the high efficiency ones than regular gas units which were not that much less efficient.
Let the market decide - it never works well when government gets into business.
- Littlestown, PA · Member since 2019 · 16 posts · 4 votes7y
I haven't read all 6 pages of this post, so this may have already been addressed, but my biggest issue with solar is the environmental impact of disposal. My understanding is that solar panels only last about 10 years or so before they need to be replaced. Obviously technology is always improving. These panels are not biodegradable, so they are going to be dumped into our landfills along with all the other trash. Now I'm sure the trash collectors are going to charge extra to take away these "specialty" items. $$$. Perhaps there will be special solar panel only dump sites that all panels must go to? $$$. Once the market becomes flooded and solar panels become the norm, the tax credits will go away (Energy Star appliances anyone?), so your 10 or 20 year mandatory replacement will be full price. $$$. Batteries are only good for so long and will need replaced on a regular basis. $$$. Specialty disposal. $$$. Everyone talks about their electric bills being reduced, but there is a bigger picture that needs considered.
Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:
Originally posted by @Steve K.:
Care to clarify, you’re not a fan of SunPower? They’re pricey but sweet, some people just gotta have the top of the line gear and don’t mind paying for it. I’ve got Silfabs on my roof, North American made baby!
Plenty are North American made baby! My favourite for bang-for-the-buck are Hanwa, but also really like LG and Panasonic. No doubt Sunpower are a quality panel. Their problem is that all their eggs are in that basket and are much more sensitive to conditions in solar. That led to them hitting financial trouble and are now owned, ironically, by French oil company Total.
Hanwa, LG, Panasonic are all huge conglomerates. If LG have issues in one area it does not threaten the company as a whole to anything like the same degree as Sunpower.
The American made thing is interesting. Most people consider BMW/Honda/Toyota to be non-American companies yet they employ many thousands of Americans and contribute to the US economy more than say Ford assembling South of the Border. Which is really American made. Hanwa have set up to produce 1.6 GW of panels annually in Georgia!!
I don't like the price of Sunpower either but definitely recognize they're a great panel.I’m enjoying my Silfabs, paid off in less than a year (tagged 21 onto an order for 8 MW so less than wholesale pricing on the mods, spliced together some remnant racking, installed them with some solar bros on a Saturday and had our master wire them up for me to return a favor so total out of pocket was under $4k before ITC for a 6kW system). My last house had Evergreen panels: truly American owned/ American made. Loved that string ribbon technology, super tight power tolerance for the time and zero waste manufacturing the cells. I guess that was 70’s technology essentially, only 12% efficient but the fuel source was free so efficiency didn’t bother me one bit. It’s funny when folks get hung up on efficiancy withe something that doesn’t require fuel. My truck is only 20% efficient and I have to keep putting gas in it! But I still drive it. Simpler times back then, when American made meant 100% American and Fords weren’t made in Mexico.
- Investor · Valencia, CA · Member since 2017 · 171 posts · 130 votes7y
Originally posted by @Steve K.:
Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:
Originally posted by @Steve K.:
Care to clarify, you’re not a fan of SunPower? They’re pricey but sweet, some people just gotta have the top of the line gear and don’t mind paying for it. I’ve got Silfabs on my roof, North American made baby!
Plenty are North American made baby! My favourite for bang-for-the-buck are Hanwa, but also really like LG and Panasonic. No doubt Sunpower are a quality panel. Their problem is that all their eggs are in that basket and are much more sensitive to conditions in solar. That led to them hitting financial trouble and are now owned, ironically, by French oil company Total.
Hanwa, LG, Panasonic are all huge conglomerates. If LG have issues in one area it does not threaten the company as a whole to anything like the same degree as Sunpower.
The American made thing is interesting. Most people consider BMW/Honda/Toyota to be non-American companies yet they employ many thousands of Americans and contribute to the US economy more than say Ford assembling South of the Border. Which is really American made. Hanwa have set up to produce 1.6 GW of panels annually in Georgia!!
I don't like the price of Sunpower either but definitely recognize they're a great panel.I’m enjoying my Silfabs, paid off in less than a year (tagged 21 onto an order for 8 MW so less than wholesale pricing on the mods, spliced together some remnant racking, installed them with some solar bros on a Saturday and had our master wire them up for me to return a favor so total out of pocket was under $4k before ITC for a 6kW system). My last house had Evergreen panels: truly American owned/ American made. Loved that string ribbon technology, super tight power tolerance for the time and zero waste manufacturing the cells. I guess that was 70’s technology essentially, only 12% efficient but the fuel source was free so efficiency didn’t bother me one bit. It’s funny when folks get hung up on efficiancy withe something that doesn’t require fuel. My truck is only 20% efficient and I have to keep putting gas in it! But I still drive it. Simpler times back then, when American made meant 100% American and Fords weren’t made in Mexico.
I would certainly hate to be judged by my own efficiency! :)
- Rental Property Investor · Phoenix, AZ · Member since 2016 · 553 posts · 314 votes7y
Originally posted by @Steve K.:
Believe me, I hate having to deal with red tape as much as the next guy, and I agree with @Rhonda Wilson about the permitting process taking too long and slowing everything down, it's really frustrating, in fact I could complain about it all day. But in my experience navigating the green points program here in CO, solar is a quick way to go past go and collect $200. I suspect it's similar in CA, they're implementing a lot of changes in building codes and solar is the quickest way to get them where they want to be. Change is inevitable and those that embrace it and pivot will find the opportunity within while those that don't, won't.
I'm not looking at it from the perspective of a rentier that can find a way to benefit. I'm looking at it from the perspective of the typical citizen that can't afford to live here already, and this is just going to make that worse.
Also, the law here includes significant remodels, so it isn't just new construction. - Realtor, General Contractor, and Developer · Redding, CA · Member since 2009 · 7k+ posts · 4k+ votes7y
@Steve K. For my house it would cost 50,000 for solar. though it's a large house. I have 20 acres and can easily generate excess power; however, from what I've been told the CA utilities do not pay for excess energy.
As a builder and real estate agent, I can tell you that in certain high dollar areas solar makes sense and costs can be absorbed by buyers. However; in areas with extremely tight margins, due to outrageous fees for permits, etc. the added costs make a huge difference in pushing people out of being able to afford to buy. Regarding added market value to homes, I do not see it.
I don't think it should be mandatory, but voluntary.
- Investor · Valencia, CA · Member since 2017 · 171 posts · 130 votes7y
Originally posted by @Brian Kelch:
I haven't read all 6 pages of this post, so this may have already been addressed, but my biggest issue with solar is the environmental impact of disposal. My understanding is that solar panels only last about 10 years or so before they need to be replaced. Obviously technology is always improving. These panels are not biodegradable, so they are going to be dumped into our landfills along with all the other trash. Now I'm sure the trash collectors are going to charge extra to take away these "specialty" items. $$$. Perhaps there will be special solar panel only dump sites that all panels must go to? $$$. Once the market becomes flooded and solar panels become the norm, the tax credits will go away (Energy Star appliances anyone?), so your 10 or 20 year mandatory replacement will be full price. $$$. Batteries are only good for so long and will need replaced on a regular basis. $$$. Specialty disposal. $$$. Everyone talks about their electric bills being reduced, but there is a bigger picture that needs considered.
Solar panels have - for the most part - a 25 year production guarantee. That means they will produce for many years more as we can see now with panels made 40 years ago still producing.
Disposal of panels will for sure be an issue, but panels can be recycled. Right now, recycling is not economically viable as there are nowhere near enough degraded panels to offset the cost of recycling. That will change over the decades and recycling of panels will be the norm. Combine that with manufacturers and recyclers using power that they produce from their own systems, then its clear that solar and renewables are simply getting better and even more cost effective with time as they continue to reduce their price both in dollars and impact.
Solar tax credits are indeed on a schedule to decline starting at the end of this year. No one wants subsidies long-term, but unfortunately solar has to compete with the staggering subsidies given to fossil fuels. Without subsidies it is already way cheaper to produce KwH with solar than with fossil fuels. - Investor · Valencia, CA · Member since 2017 · 171 posts · 130 votes7y
Originally posted by @Karen Margrave:
@Steve K. For my house it would cost 50,000 for solar. though it's a large house. I have 20 acres and can easily generate excess power; however, from what I've been told the CA utilities do not pay for excess energy.
As a builder and real estate agent, I can tell you that in certain high dollar areas solar makes sense and costs can be absorbed by buyers. However; in areas with extremely tight margins, due to outrageous fees for permits, etc. the added costs make a huge difference in pushing people out of being able to afford to buy. Regarding added market value to homes, I do not see it.
I don't think it should be mandatory, but voluntary.
You have been told incorrectly regarding the CA utilities buying excess.
The NAR and CAR both show property value increase and Fannie Mae allows for system appraisal. The size of house doesn't matter as much as usage. A $50K system is large and produces a lot depending on things like roof orientation. I can tell you that our average CA customers save $40K plus over 20 years by going solar compared with what their utility cost would have been - with zero out of pocket.
I would recommend you get accurate numbers fro your home as I think you will be very surprised. Originally posted by @Adam Blachnio:
so the panels and batteries as a whole should have some kind of government incentive in tax deduction or similar ✔️
There has been a 30% tax credit on solar equipment since 2005. Batteries are no longer used 99% of the time.
Thank you @Andrew Smith and @Steve K. for being persistent in addressing the out-of-date and incorrect information ** on this and other similar threads. There are plenty of ways people can save a lot of money with solar (and make a lot over the long term), but thanks to the repetition of the abundant misinformation, they refuse to believe it.
Our house had solar in the 1970's, so I've known its benefits for a long time! In the 70's solar was mainly for tree-hugging hippies, but not at our house. My dad is an engineer and was all about the technology development as long as I can remember.
There was a great cartoon about adopting solar in the last couple of weeks- few folks were interested in saving the planet, but perked up when they saw the dollar signs. I wish I could find it.
** I'm a scientist and do this in my day job for the misinformation about GMOs and vaccines.
- Rental Property Investor · North East US · Member since 2019 · 114 posts · 31 votes7y
Originally posted by @Steve K.:
Originally posted by @Adam Blachnio:
so the panels and batteries as a whole should have some kind of government incentive in tax deduction or similar ✔️
There has been a 30% tax credit on solar equipment since 2005. Batteries are no longer used 99% of the time.
So how the exces of energy can be stored for more house-demand-time?
Originally posted by @Adam Blachnio:
Originally posted by @Steve K.:
Originally posted by @Adam Blachnio:
so the panels and batteries as a whole should have some kind of government incentive in tax deduction or similar ✔️
There has been a 30% tax credit on solar equipment since 2005. Batteries are no longer used 99% of the time.
So how the exces of energy can be stored for more house-demand-time?
Net metering: meter reverses during the day when surplus energy is being produced, credits those kilowatt hours to the account for later use when sun isn't shining.
Originally posted by @Seth Borman:
Seth good point about remodels, I had forgotten about that thanks for bringing that back to my attention. I definitely see your point. Any addition over 500ft2 in my area triggers the dreaded "site plan review" process aka a ton more hoops to jump through. I want to add a bedroom on my primary and the list of things they want me to do would add about $10k to the project (and I already have solar, now they want me to add sprinklers but I have vaulted ceilings so that's not practical, they don't care) so I feel your pain on regulations in general.
Of course it causes a knee jerk reaction whenever home prices are increased in a region that has a major housing crisis but I think the thought process being applied here is more long term (and I frame it this way because as I have said I have mixed feelings about the mandate, so I can only present what I think the policy makers intentions are). The way proponents of the mandate frame it is as it relates to home pricing is that initial costs will increase but total cost of home ownership actually decreases due to reduced monthly operating expenses. So it's basically forcing people to become investors in a power plant on their roof as opposed to being locked into buying electricity from the utility with no return on their end, ever. Homes with solar save their occupants money whereas homes without solar keep a debt to the utility on the books each month indefinitely. Reduced operating expenses also theoretically reduces the rate of mortgage default and makes home ownership MORE affordable in the grand scheme because the electric bill is eliminated, which in CA as you know can be a significant monthly expense. At least that's what I assume the policy makers would say based on what I've read. I'm still learning about how this experiment is expected to work.
Let's face it, a large part of homelessness is due to people making poor personal decisions (in addition to a very long list of other factors beyond people's control of course to be fair, but still, many homeless people made bad life decisions). A solar mandate forces people to save money and removes the option for them to divert money they should use for their bills to buy luxury items. Many of us have tenants with a fancy flat screen TV and a blinged-out BMW who are behind several months on their electric bills. They wouldn't be behind on their bills if they didn't have those bills, because the electricity they use was provided by the solar panels on the roof. That's the idea anyway, and it wasn't my idea but I'm trying to present what I believe is the intention behind the mandate, take it or leave it.
I think this mandate is looked at as a drastic measure even among the most ardent supporters of solar such as yours truly. Perhaps drastic measures are needed as we enter the new energy economy. It's not going to be easy to adjust as we move forward, big changes are coming to the way we produce and consume energy. I plan to profit from the changes, crucify me for it if you like.
- 7yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
Originally posted by @Steve K.:
Originally posted by @Seth Borman:
Seth good point about remodels, I had forgotten about that thanks for bringing that back to my attention. I definitely see your point. Any addition over 500ft2 in my area triggers the dreaded "site plan review" process aka a ton more hoops to jump through. I want to add a bedroom on my primary and the list of things they want me to do would add about $10k to the project (and I already have solar, now they want me to add sprinklers but I have vaulted ceilings so that's not practical, they don't care) so I feel your pain on regulations in general.
Of course it causes a knee jerk reaction whenever home prices are increased in a region that has a major housing crisis but I think the thought process being applied here is more long term (and I frame it this way because as I have said I have mixed feelings about the mandate, so I can only present what I think the policy makers intentions are). The way proponents of the mandate frame it is as it relates to home pricing is that initial costs will increase but total cost of home ownership actually decreases due to reduced monthly operating expenses. So it's basically forcing people to become investors in a power plant on their roof as opposed to being locked into buying electricity from the utility with no return on their end, ever. Homes with solar save their occupants money whereas homes without solar keep a debt to the utility on the books each month indefinitely. Reduced operating expenses also theoretically reduces the rate of mortgage default and makes home ownership MORE affordable in the grand scheme because the electric bill is eliminated, which in CA as you know can be a significant monthly expense. At least that's what I assume the policy makers would say based on what I've read. I'm still learning about how this experiment is expected to work.
Let's face it, a large part of homelessness is due to people making poor personal decisions (in addition to a very long list of other factors beyond people's control of course to be fair, but still, many homeless people made bad life decisions). A solar mandate forces people to save money and removes the option for them to divert money they should use for their bills to buy luxury items. Many of us have tenants with a fancy flat screen TV and a blinged-out BMW who are behind several months on their electric bills. They wouldn't be behind on their bills if they didn't have those bills, because the electricity they use was provided by the solar panels on the roof. That's the idea anyway, and it wasn't my idea but I'm trying to present what I believe is the intention behind the mandate, take it or leave it.
I think this mandate is looked at as a drastic measure even among the most ardent supporters of solar such as yours truly. Perhaps drastic measures are needed as we enter the new energy economy. It's not going to be easy to adjust as we move forward, big changes are coming to the way we produce and consume energy. I plan to profit from the changes, crucify me for it if you like.
homeless is far more complicated than soaring building costs.. just walk through a homeless camp.. a vast majority have other issues
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.