Posts
1455
Joined
5/31/2017
Location
Grass Valley, CA, USA
Edited Date/Time
8/12/2018 5:17pm
The California Energy Commission passed the new building standards yesterday. I like solar, but it seems like regulatory overreach. Adds about $9000 to the cost of an average mortgage but they said it saves more than that, along with some other new energy efficiency standards. So if you're building a new house (which is tough in this state anyhow), you're going solar.
Energy Commission Adopts Standards Requiring Solar Systems for New Homes, First in Nation
SACRAMENTO - Moving to cut energy use in new homes by more than 50 percent, the California Energy Commission today adopted building standards that require solar photovoltaic systems starting in 2020. The building energy efficiency standards, which are the first in the nation to require solar, will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an amount equivalent to taking 115,000 fossil fuel cars off the road.
The cost-effective 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which take effect on Jan. 1, 2020, focus on four key areas: smart residential photovoltaic systems, updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to exterior and vice versa), residential and nonresidential ventilation requirements, and nonresidential lighting requirements. The ventilation measures improve indoor air quality, protecting homeowners from air pollution originating from outdoor and indoor sources. For the first time, the standards also establish requirements for newly constructed healthcare facilities.
“Under these new standards, buildings will perform better than ever, at the same time they contribute to a reliable grid,” said Commissioner Andrew McAllister, who is the Energy Commission’s lead on energy efficiency. “The buildings that Californians buy and live in will operate very efficiently while generating their own clean energy. They will cost less to operate, have healthy indoor air and provide a platform for ‘smart’ technologies that will propel the state even further down the road to a low emissions future.”
Under the new standards, nonresidential buildings will use about 30 percent less energy due mainly to lighting upgrades. For residential homeowners, based on a 30-year mortgage, the Energy Commission estimates that the standards will add about $40 to an average monthly payment, but save consumers $80 on monthly heating, cooling and lighting bills.
“With this adoption, the California Energy Commission has struck a fair balance between reducing greenhouse gas emissions while simultaneously limiting increased construction costs,” said California Building Industry Association CEO and President Dan Dunmoyer. “We thank the Commissioners and their staff for working with the building industry during the past 18 months and adopting a set of cost-effective standards that ensures homebuyers will recoup their money over the life of the dwelling.”
For more information about the 2019 standards, view the frequently asked questions, blog post, and infographics for residential and nonresidential buildings.
The Energy Commission also approved the 2018-2019 Investment Plan Update for the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program (ARFVTP), which invests in alternative and renewable fuel and advanced vehicle technologies. Now in its 10th year, the program has invested more than $750 million in 615 projects covering a broad spectrum of alternative fuels and technologies.
More details are available in the business meeting agenda.
Energy Commission Adopts Standards Requiring Solar Systems for New Homes, First in Nation
SACRAMENTO - Moving to cut energy use in new homes by more than 50 percent, the California Energy Commission today adopted building standards that require solar photovoltaic systems starting in 2020. The building energy efficiency standards, which are the first in the nation to require solar, will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an amount equivalent to taking 115,000 fossil fuel cars off the road.
The cost-effective 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which take effect on Jan. 1, 2020, focus on four key areas: smart residential photovoltaic systems, updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to exterior and vice versa), residential and nonresidential ventilation requirements, and nonresidential lighting requirements. The ventilation measures improve indoor air quality, protecting homeowners from air pollution originating from outdoor and indoor sources. For the first time, the standards also establish requirements for newly constructed healthcare facilities.
“Under these new standards, buildings will perform better than ever, at the same time they contribute to a reliable grid,” said Commissioner Andrew McAllister, who is the Energy Commission’s lead on energy efficiency. “The buildings that Californians buy and live in will operate very efficiently while generating their own clean energy. They will cost less to operate, have healthy indoor air and provide a platform for ‘smart’ technologies that will propel the state even further down the road to a low emissions future.”
Under the new standards, nonresidential buildings will use about 30 percent less energy due mainly to lighting upgrades. For residential homeowners, based on a 30-year mortgage, the Energy Commission estimates that the standards will add about $40 to an average monthly payment, but save consumers $80 on monthly heating, cooling and lighting bills.
“With this adoption, the California Energy Commission has struck a fair balance between reducing greenhouse gas emissions while simultaneously limiting increased construction costs,” said California Building Industry Association CEO and President Dan Dunmoyer. “We thank the Commissioners and their staff for working with the building industry during the past 18 months and adopting a set of cost-effective standards that ensures homebuyers will recoup their money over the life of the dwelling.”
For more information about the 2019 standards, view the frequently asked questions, blog post, and infographics for residential and nonresidential buildings.
The Energy Commission also approved the 2018-2019 Investment Plan Update for the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program (ARFVTP), which invests in alternative and renewable fuel and advanced vehicle technologies. Now in its 10th year, the program has invested more than $750 million in 615 projects covering a broad spectrum of alternative fuels and technologies.
More details are available in the business meeting agenda.
We hope to be ready to build in a year. Our property is close to Temecula. But man are those permits and inspections going to be expensive.
I haven't confirmed it yet, but I heard that the owner of the property next to us is going to pull the plug on his home building plans because he ended up having to pay an excavator $40k to put this 15 foot wide paved driveway in.
The Shop
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
Also I've heard Jerry Brown is working on subsidising the solar panels. So a check coming from tax payers will go to a business of his choosing to provide this great service for us. Billions of dollars changing hands, but hey our electric bill will go down just enough so that they will have to raise taxes on it to make up the difference.
Gas was up to $4.09 today
There are some major reliability concerns due to gas supply issues, especially with Aliso Canyon on limited withdrawal. With more community choice aggregators popping up, electricity planning is getting more fractured and decentralized. Let's hope it all works out. A lot of the price spikes are from natural gas delivery constraints. That's why they are expanding the Cal-ISO market to access more out of state generation to deal with the solar. You will see gas imports down in SoCal spiking to 10 times normal levels when gas is short.
Never mind the embodied energy in creating panels...
I’m all for renewables/alternatives, but am also a realist
However I do not like the government demanding everyone has to buy it on new home purchases. They are not running out of electricity and it should not be a added expense to already astronomical fees/permits for new home buyers/builders. I also see these massive roof panels being obsolete in the next decade and they will be filling landfills once they start getting the same results with systems the size of a small satellite dish. Then everyone will have roofs that need repair after the removal.
This is so typical of California government. It is more corrupt than a 3rd world nation. Somebodies palms were heavily greased with this move
The system I was quoted was approx $22,703..there are some tax incentives and such so I haven't determined my final cost. This was for a ground mount system (our roof has too many hips and valley to accomodate a single section of panels).
Right now I am undecided for two reasons...1) We run a fairly efficient household, my total electric bill for all of 2017 was $1,067.38, so our "pay back" time would be very long. 2) We are not sure how long we plan on living in the house. If we were confident we would be living there for 15-20 year then I think we would pull the trigger.
Anyways, I don't like the government mandating these type of things- reminds me of the ethanol mandate in gas. Its just another way of using tax payer money to fund politicians.
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/08/15/efficient-will-solar-pv-future-10-…
This article predicts a 20% increase in efficiency (to about 25% total efficiency) in the next 10 years.
Pit Row
My bill averaged $170 per month over the previous 2 years before going with solar.
I paid zero out of pocket to get the system along with a new electrical panel and all new breakers. 20 year lease at around $90 per month. My average electrical bill on top of that last year was approx $40 per month along with my lease payment. So I’m saving a minimal amount but I would rather pay Solar city than SDGE. I imagine by the time these panels are paid off they will be worthless so I will not use the “option to buy” and will probably be heading down to Costco with $299 and buy a whole house system the size of a credit card.
We also live 7 miles inland from the ocean, very little fog or rain where we are and sunny weather probably 330 days a year. On rainy days/weeks the production takes a huge hit so your climate should be a important factor on if it’s wise to spend the $$
There's so much fuckery going on here. The fact that they are suggesting subsidization is the icing on the cake. California economics at it's worst.
And to top it off, if you're selling your excess electricity back to the grid, it's pennies on the dollar and you have no negotiating power. OK, fine. But now it's illegal to have a solar system and NOT be tied into the grid right?
I just cannot get over the principles on this one. As with most of the policies in California.
I know WE Energies is required to produce "X%" (not sure the exact percentage) of electricity from "green" sources, in fact one of my close customers is running two large industrial gas engines with 1MW generators on bio-gas (digester from food scraps) and they are selling all the power back to WE Energies- the price WE Energies is paying for that "green electricity" is much higher than they are selling is back for..
Us little guys should be given the same opportunity.
$1068 on a 22703 investment is about 4.5% annual return. So you could consider where else you could put that $22,703 that would return 4.5% annually? Vs. just considering it in 'payback' terms. You could also try to factor in depreciation of capital - how well do these systems hold up over a long period of time?
I have thought about this too, and just noticed this winter that our utility has some decent looking buy back terms for extra production. They used to have none. So it's in my mind more these days. Then if you start thinking more about what that extra production could replace from other areas - example, if you got an electric car & the gas bills stopped - things might get looking pretty good.
The low-income people in California are getting screwed in some ways. You won't see somebody in the ghetto with an EV, solar panels and a battery to make money off the grid. Remaining utility customers are left with all kinds of stranded costs. The CPUC is working on some programs in that regard.
The utilities signed hundreds of millions of dollars in state-mandated renewable contracts that were signed when renewable power was much more expensive. Now the bills are coming due with a shrinking ratebase. They are talking about 85% customer migration from the big utilities in the next 10 years. And PG&E might be looking at bankruptcy from the 2017 wildfires.
If you're into this stuff, the California Public Utilities Commission just issued a new report with all kinds of warnings about returning to the energy crisis of the early 2000s. This is the main regulatory body in CA sounding the alarm over disaggregated energy planning and disintegration of utility ratebase:
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUC_Public_Website/Content/Utilit…
Bottom line is 18 cents a KWH.
California is the 5th largest economy in the world...we must be doing something right....as opposed to the experiment that Missouri tried years ago.
Next is the gas taxes, car registration and on and on. I won’t aaste any more of my time on you if you’re that blind/ignorant
Post a reply to: California requires solar panels on all new homes