California to require solar panels on most new homes

[jpak]

https://www.engadget.com/2018/05/06/california-to-require-solar-panels-on-most-new-homes/

There's no question that solar power is entering the mainstream, but California is about to give it a giant boost. The state's Energy Commission is expected to approve new energy standards that would require solar panels on the roofs of nearly all new homes, condos and apartment buildings from 2020 onward. There will be exemptions for homes that either can't fit solar panels or would be blocked by taller buildings or trees, but you'll otherwise have to go green if your property is brand new.

The plan doesn't require that a home reach net-zero status (where the solar power completely offsets the energy consumed in a year). However, it does provide "compliance credits" for homebuilders who install storage batteries like Tesla's Powerwall, letting them build smaller panel arrays knowing that excess energy will be available to use off-hours.

The new standards are poised to hike construction costs by $25,000 to $30,000 (about half of which is directly due to solar), but the self-produced energy is estimated to save owners $50,000 to $60,000 in operating costs over the solar technology's expected 25-year lifespan.

Short of a surprise rejection at the Energy Commission's May 9th vote, this will make California the first state to have a solar panel requirement. It's relatively easy to do this in the region given California's abundance of warm, sunny days and high real estate prices -- it's hard to see this happening in the American Midwest, where winter and lower home prices could make solar decidedly less practical. Critics have complained that this could make California's housing shortage worse by pricing people out of those homes that are available, and note that most people in the state only really draw on non-renewable energy when they come home from work and strain the electrical grid.

<more>

[Cicada]

1. A bank should be willing to raise loan amount due to lower utility bills

A home purchaser with lower expected utility bills should be more credit worthy than others so banks should be willing to finance most of the additional home cost.

[wasupaloopa]

2. Here is the problem with that at least as it stands with us. I have a new house.

The builder contracted with a solar company to provide solar to who ever wanted it on the roof. The solar company promises a reduced cost in utilities because you don't use the local electric company when you can use solar. But you do need the electric company when solar does not provide enough electricity.

You don't need to buy the solar equipment but you do have to pay the solar company monthly and sign up for a 20 yr contract.

Then the local utility charges you more for the electricity you do buy from them because you are not paying your share to maintain the grid since you are only a part time user of it.

[The River]

3. They Are Just

leasing your roof for 20-25 years. You have to keep 'em clean and still pay the solar company but at a slightly more reasonable rate. If it comes with the mortgage you are saving more money in the long haul.

[mountain grammy]

4. I have friends with panels on the roof

Paying monthly to solar company. Saving approx. $1000/year on electric.. we’re gonna do it.

[wasupaloopa]

5. I didn't want to sign up for a 20 yr contract. If I sold the house the buyer would by the contract

[UnFettered]

6. Needs to be more affordable

I wish there was a bigger push to make solar panels cheaper and improve the technology. I love the idea of being able to produce your own electricity, but the cost is outrageous.

I looked into it for my own home and love the idea especially since my area is prone to power outages. The almost 30k price tag I was quoted makes it a hard pill to swallow given my monthly electric bill is normally not much above a 100 dollers. It would be a well over a decade before I broke even. It would be much more viable option for more Americans if it was cheaper.