California panel approves historic plan to require solar panels on new homes

[JacksinPA]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/c...-require-solar-panels-on-new-homes/ar-AAx1Pjh

New homes and low-rise apartment buildings across California would include solar panels under first-in-the-nation rules approved Wednesday by the California Energy Commission.

The rules now go to the state Building Standards Commission, where they were expected to easily win approval.
===================================
This is a great step but there are also a number of utilities around the country that fine you for going solar by charging you more because you're using less. Their rationale is that they paid $$$ to put in their distribution network & you have to help them write off their investment. Welcome to capitalism.

 

[itsforthekids]

More socialism that they can’t afford!

 

[Nap]

And they wonder why they have a housing problem.

 

[Phys251]

And they wonder why they have a housing problem.

Literally has nothing to do with solar power.

 

[Moon]

And they wonder why they have a housing problem.

That's the thing, this will increase the cost of new housing, and possibly increase the amount of time it takes to build, unless there's a huge stock of solar panels lying around somewhere, or it's possible to manufacture a lot more quickly. I get what they're trying to do, I just wonder if this is the smartest way to do it. Can't imagine too many developers will want to commit their funding to a project that costs more right out of the gate and takes longer to complete.

 

[Nap]

Literally has nothing to do with solar power.

When you require solar panels to be installed on new homes, What do you expect to happen to housing prices?

 

[Nap]

That's the thing, this will increase the cost of new housing, and possibly increase the amount of time it takes to build, unless there's a huge stock of solar panels lying around somewhere, or it's possible to manufacture a lot more quickly. I get what they're trying to do, I just wonder if this is the smartest way to do it. Can't imagine too many developers will want to commit their funding to a project that costs more right out of the gate and takes longer to complete.

Lol, the median home price in the state of California is over 500k. In places like San Francisco it is 1.3 million. For people that supposedly hate the 1%, those are the only people that can afford to live in their state.

 

[Moon]

Lol, the median home price in the state of California is over 500k. In places like San Francisco it is 1.3 million. For people that supposedly hate the 1%, those are the only people that can afford to live in their state.

I wasn't even considering the people who can afford $1 million+ homes. Since this would be a statewide requirement, it would hit every community in CA, not just where the rich people are.

 

[Phys251]

When you require solar panels to be installed on new homes, What do you expect to happen to housing prices?

Literally has nothing to do with how housing prices got so high in the first place.

 

[Fiddytree]

That's the thing, this will increase the cost of new housing, and possibly increase the amount of time it takes to build, unless there's a huge stock of solar panels lying around somewhere, or it's possible to manufacture a lot more quickly. I get what they're trying to do, I just wonder if this is the smartest way to do it. Can't imagine too many developers will want to commit their funding to a project that costs more right out of the gate and takes longer to complete.

State subsidies, tax credits may have been a more reasonable approach that could have accomplished a modest amount of their goal.

But then again, I'm less interested in pursuing climate goals than other ends.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

 

[Moon]

State subsidies, tax credits may have been a more reasonable approach that could have accomplished a modest amount of their goal.

But then again, I'm less interested in pursuing climate goals than other ends.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

I agree. I've looked at adding solar to my house as a cost saving measure, but at around $30K, it didn't make a lot of financial sense to do considering I live near Seattle.

 

[Harshaw]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/c...-require-solar-panels-on-new-homes/ar-AAx1Pjh

New homes and low-rise apartment buildings across California would include solar panels under first-in-the-nation rules approved Wednesday by the California Energy Commission.

The rules now go to the state Building Standards Commission, where they were expected to easily win approval.
===================================
This is a great step but there are also a number of utilities around the country that fine you for going solar by charging you more because you're using less. Their rationale is that they paid $$$ to put in their distribution network & you have to help them write off their investment. Welcome to capitalism.

Utilities aren't capitalism. They're government-sanctioned monopolies.

 

[Nap]

Literally has nothing to do with how housing prices got so high in the first place.

You don't think over regulation plays any part in California's housing crisis?

 

[Fiddytree]

I agree. I've looked at adding solar to my house as a cost saving measure, but at around $30K, it didn't make a lot of financial sense to do considering I live near Seattle.

Wind is good here, solar nah.

Irwin Stelzer has a good, reasonable approach with this stuff. Take the Pascals Wager with really scary sounding stuff, but take it back a few or several notches.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Literally has nothing to do with solar power.

Not solar power alone, but start adding all the requirements up, first with restrictive land use rules that substitute central planning for the market, to increasing home inspections, to excessive permitting requirements, to building standards that are well in excess of what is needed for a safe house, now politically motivated standards of outfitting equipment you may not even want on the house. It all adds up

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Literally has nothing to do with how housing prices got so high in the first place.

You can keep insisting the mantra, but man, it literally does, because the state didn’t just wake up one day and mandate solar panels, it’s a linear path of putting forward more and more requirements, so yes that most certainly has everything to do with prices

 

[EMNofSeattle]

You don't think over regulation plays any part in California's housing crisis?

No, liberals are never wrong, regulation is never wrong, and because the tiny sliver of the one percent who can afford all the mandates are making California such a huge economy, you can’t even criticize California policy. Is a basic summation of all the liberal talking points.

Housing prices would fall like a rock tommorow if zoning and building regulation was rolled back just to the level of 1980.

 

[OldFatGuy]

That's the thing, this will increase the cost of new housing, and possibly increase the amount of time it takes to build, unless there's a huge stock of solar panels lying around somewhere, or it's possible to manufacture a lot more quickly. I get what they're trying to do, I just wonder if this is the smartest way to do it. Can't imagine too many developers will want to commit their funding to a project that costs more right out of the gate and takes longer to complete.

Currently, the cost of a solar power system installation runs from $15k for a 4Kw system, to $25k for an 8Kw system. Between tax abatement programs in California and Federal permitted write offs, the installations are paid for within 3 years, not inclusive of reduced electric power costs from the grid, or sale of surplus power to the grid.

A reasonably intelligent homeowner understands the cost of house over a lifetime of ownership, even when trading up over time, must include the costs of operation, from insurance to maintenance, from improvements, landscaping to utilities, taxes, mortgage loan interest, depreciation and so forth. Fully amortizing all costs over that lifetime ownership creates a true understanding of the housing costs incurred. Failure to understand amortization of those costs leads to foreclosure for the unprepared.

 

[OldFatGuy]

When you require solar panels to be installed on new homes, What do you expect to happen to housing prices?

Experience teaches actual costs go down. Read my response to the post prior to your own.

 

[Oborosen]

And they wonder why they have a housing problem.

This will lead to a pollution issue as well with the chemicals used in those same solar panels. So they are pretty much doing this to themselves.

 

[Oborosen]

That's the thing, this will increase the cost of new housing, and possibly increase the amount of time it takes to build, unless there's a huge stock of solar panels lying around somewhere, or it's possible to manufacture a lot more quickly. I get what they're trying to do, I just wonder if this is the smartest way to do it. Can't imagine too many developers will want to commit their funding to a project that costs more right out of the gate and takes longer to complete.

I think China holds the market on panel sale and construction. So there is a good guess of who the middle man is.

 

[OldFatGuy]

Lol, the median home price in the state of California is over 500k. In places like San Francisco it is 1.3 million. For people that supposedly hate the 1%, those are the only people that can afford to live in their state.

The median home price in California is $440,000 as of 2016, 2017 is still being computed, and it appears to have gone down by 3%. The average homeowner annual income in California for homeowners is $77,861. Without context these numbers mean nothing. More than 55% of homes in California were purchased at prices below $225k and have been owner occupied for more than 12 years. 46% of homes in California have mortgage loan balances below 30% of the current market values of those homes.

Cherry picking regional anomalies proves nothing. An anomaly such as San Francisco, is not explained with mere median pricing, but must be inclusive of the regional earnings which drives the competition forcing those prices to inflate.

https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Median-income-soars-in-Bay-Area-but-some-are-12196055.php

 

[Oborosen]

State subsidies, tax credits may have been a more reasonable approach that could have accomplished a modest amount of their goal.

But then again, I'm less interested in pursuing climate goals than other ends.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

I agree, this looks like someone is too hard to make California look productive. I would rather they deal with their crime problem, or their high numbers of homeless. Then trying and appear like some sort of green state.

Given how toxic the PV chemicals in solar panels are however, this could be a serious step backwards.

 

[Nap]

Experience teaches actual costs go down. Read my response to the post prior to your own.

It may over time but that extra 15-25k is going to be thrown in on the top of already skyrocketing housing costs.

 

[Nap]

The median home price in California is $440,000 as of 2016, 2017 is still being computed, and it appears to have gone down by 3%. The average homeowner annual income in California for homeowners is $77,861. Without context these numbers mean nothing. More than 55% of homes in California were purchased at prices below $225k and have been owner occupied for more than 12 years. 46% of homes in California have mortgage loan balances below 30% of the current market values of those homes.

Cherry picking regional anomalies proves nothing. An anomaly such as San Francisco, is not explained with mere median pricing, but must be inclusive of the regional earnings which drives the competition forcing those prices to inflate.

https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Median-income-soars-in-Bay-Area-but-some-are-12196055.php

I was going by an article from Vox, I should have known better than to use them as a credible source.

As for the comments about the homeowners that have been in their homes for 12 years, that is beside the point. The issue is that they have not been building homes at a rate comparable to the amount of incoming people causing prices to inflate dramatically creating a housing bubble. They were building on average 300k homes a year but over the last decade it has dropped to 80k, they are reaching a point that if they don't loosen regulation and increase the amount of new homes that when they finally do it then it could potentially cause a huge real estate crash (if they aren't past that point already). They need to be building homes and making them cheaper not adding more costs to them.

Link for the 300k to 80k new homes stat.
California's housing crisis reaches from the homeless to the middle class ? but it's still almost impossible to fix