All Forum Posts by: Steve K.

 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.

@Account Closed okay well generators aren’t clean and green, you’re absolutely correct, not sure why anyone would assume they were, just trying to help you find a solution for backup power, jeez.

@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.  

@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. 

@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.

@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. 

@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, the fact that solar is pretty much standard on most new construction there anyway, the fact that there is flexibility in the mandate to account for situations where rooftop solar isn't appropriate, etc., the more it makes sense to me, although I'd still prefer if it weren't a "mandate", just has a terrible ring to it. 

In an ideal world market forces would be left alone to determine technological winners and losers but the reality is that energy is the farthest thing from a free market one could imagine so some of these policies are reactionary by necessity in order to create solutions to real problems. 

@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. 

@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.  

@Andrew Smith Haha we're stepping on each other's toes again. I need to refresh my screen more often. You got this buddy, I need to go shovel snow now anyway lol.