California to require solar panels on most new homes

[longview]

Case in point - mine does too. Thank you...

I am still not sure why you cannot relate the two events, your utility cannot raise rates without raising what they pay for surplus,
yet still need to cover cost of operations. One of the few options was to increase the grid connect fees.
They likely raised them for the non solar customers as well.

 

[jonny5]

https://www.engadget.com/2018/05/06/california-to-require-solar-panels-on-most-new-homes/
I saw this and was wondering if they had made any attempt to fix the very real net metering issue,
and found they have netmetering 2.0, that might work.
https://www.solarpowerrocks.com/affordable-solar/save-big-californias-net-metering-2-0/
So it looks like additional grid connection fees, (it is unclear if those are one time or reoccurring),
and the credit a homeowner receives is retail less 2 cents/kWh.
This might work, because the peaks in supply usually occur during peak demand, but it remains to be seen if 2 cents/kWh
is sufficient to keep the grid stable, without increasing the retail rate.

How do they square this with their affordable housing mandate? Or does it just apply to houses over X dollars? Personally Id route extra power into a battery so the grid got nothing unless they want to pay my price.

 

[longview]

How do they square this with their affordable housing mandate? Or does it just apply to houses over X dollars?

If they do it right the actual monthly costs of a home could be less.
Also since the costs of the Solar system is in the sales price of the home, it would be part of the mortgage tax deduction.
Let's say the panels add $16K to the home price, but reduce the electrical usage by $100 per month.
The increase on the mortgage payment would be between $75 and $80 a month, a $20 a month savings.

 

[jonny5]

If they do it right the actual monthly costs of a home could be less.
Also since the costs of the Solar system is in the sales price of the home, it would be part of the mortgage tax deduction.
Let's say the panels add $16K to the home price, but reduce the electrical usage by $100 per month.
The increase on the mortgage payment would be between $75 and $80 a month, a $20 a month savings.

The cost of purchasing the house will be more, which makes it more unaffordable.

 

[Hawkeye10]

If they do it right the actual monthly costs of a home could be less.
Also since the costs of the Solar system is in the sales price of the home, it would be part of the mortgage tax deduction.
Let's say the panels add $16K to the home price, but reduce the electrical usage by $100 per month.
The increase on the mortgage payment would be between $75 and $80 a month, a $20 a month savings.

Dont forget the annual $300-500 for upkeep.

 

[longview]

The cost of purchasing the house will be more, which makes it more unaffordable.

Most people I know do not pay for a home with a single payment, but rather with a 15 or 30 year mortgage.
The cost of a home for people paying a mortgage is expressed in monthly payments.
The total cost of home ownership, is not just the mortgage though, there are also the utilities, that add to the monthly obligations.
Reducing any of the obligations per month, can offset the higher mortgage payment.
If the reduction exceeds the increase, then it is a net benefit to the homeowner.
In the case of California and an $.18 per Kwh rate, solar panels could well be a net savings.

 

[longview]

Dont forget the annual $300-500 for upkeep.

But also consider that the savings in CA would also be greater because of their higher electrical rates 18 cents per Kwh, (Ouch!!)

 

[jonny5]

Most people I know do not pay for a home with a single payment, but rather with a 15 or 30 year mortgage.
The cost of a home for people paying a mortgage is expressed in monthly payments.
The total cost of home ownership, is not just the mortgage though, there are also the utilities, that add to the monthly obligations.
Reducing any of the obligations per month, can offset the higher mortgage payment.
If the reduction exceeds the increase, then it is a net benefit to the homeowner.
In the case of California and an $.18 per Kwh rate, solar panels could well be a net savings.

The sale price is still the sale price. A bank will not loan you more than you can afford. If all houses in CA are suddenly 30k more, then thats 30k more people have to borrow. However, CA doesnt really care about affordability or solar, just winning elections by using the law to force things which sound good.

 

[Hawkeye10]

But also consider that the savings in CA would also be greater because of their higher electrical rates 18 cents per Kwh, (Ouch!!)

And going up likely 25% in the next few years because these folks dont know how to deal with fires, and the utilities tend to be negligent in preventing forest fires.

Also because of their "green energy" dreams.

YAWZA!

 

[Media_Truth]

Dont forget the annual $300-500 for upkeep.

I've had solar panels installed since 2011. Never have spent one penny for maintenance or upkeep. There are systems in my area that have been in service for 20+ years, and they still produce at (or a very unnoticable reduction) original design rating.

 

[Hawkeye10]

I've had solar panels installed since 2011. Never have spent one penny for maintenance or upkeep. There are systems in my area that have been in service for 20+ years, and they still produce at (or a very unnoticable reduction) original design rating.

I think that California requires an annual inspection.....and that with as little rain as they get these things need to be cleaned.

Maybe we have some wise guy here who knows better IDK....

 

[Media_Truth]

I think that California requires an annual inspection.....and that with as little rain as they get these things need to be cleaned.

Maybe we have some wise guy here who knows better IDK....

"I think" is not an adequate claim. As a matter-of-fact, I sincerely doubt your "annual inspection" claim. Secondly, I live in the mountain west, where it is very dry, windy, and dusty. I never clean my panels, and they operate perfectly well. You are obviously not a PV owner.

 

[Hawkeye10]

"I think" is not an adequate claim. As a matter-of-fact, I sincerely doubt your "annual inspection" claim. Secondly, I live in the mountain west, where it is very dry, windy, and dusty. I never clean my panels, and they operate perfectly well. You are obviously not a PV owner.

Look I am not swearing on a Bible here....Your tone is not that cool.

 

[Media_Truth]

Look I am not swearing on a Bible here....Your tone is not that cool.

As mentioned, I've had solar panels and a wind turbine for 7 years now (attached photo). Over and over, on these threads I've read falsities about construction, maintenance, reliability costs, Utility company Netmetering charges, surcharges and rates. You'd think this was a PV Owner Facebook group - there are so many "experts".

 

[longview]

The sale price is still the sale price. A bank will not loan you more than you can afford. If all houses in CA are suddenly 30k more, then thats 30k more people have to borrow. However, CA doesnt really care about affordability or solar, just winning elections by using the law to force things which sound good.

I think the idea of putting panels on new construction, means savings on the installation side.
A system like we are talking about, retails for about $8 K
https://www.wholesalesolar.com/1891...ma-inverter-and-24x-mission-solar-305w-panels
New built homes use a lot less energy, so 1000 Kwh a month should get close to net zero.
Part of the mortgage calculation is the cost of utilities, once the new homes have a track record of near zero electric bills, the banks will consider that.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I think the idea of putting panels on new construction, means savings on the installation side.
A system like we are talking about, retails for about $8 K
https://www.wholesalesolar.com/1891...ma-inverter-and-24x-mission-solar-305w-panels
New built homes use a lot less energy, so 1000 Kwh a month should get close to net zero.
Part of the mortgage calculation is the cost of utilities, once the new homes have a track record of near zero electric bills, the banks will consider that.

I live in a place built in the 70's. However, it was renovated with new insulation, low e windows, and a heat pump. Still, new places probably lose half as much heat as mine. Only when I need to heat around 20 F do I break 1,000 kWh. Still, some minimal storage would be needed to properly utilize 1,000 kWh as high energy appliances peak well above that.

Oh... I have no natural gas. My water heater, stove, etc. are all electric.

We had lots of cold days, and I now have a woman living with me for just over 2 months now, first reflected on my November bill. This current bill is just over double my last. With about double the hot water usage... and she cooks. I generally just microwave what I make, except breakfast.

FYI. For those who don't know, hot water uses more energy in the winter than warmer weather, as the incoming temperature of cold water to heat, is colder.

 

[longview]

I live in a place built in the 70's. However, it was renovated with new insulation, low e windows, and a heat pump. Still, new places probably lose half as much heat as mine. Only when I need to heat around 20 F do I break 1,000 kWh. Still, some minimal storage would be needed to properly utilize 1,000 kWh as high energy appliances peak well above that.

Oh... I have no natural gas. My water heater, stove, etc. are all electric.

We had lots of cold days, and I now have a woman living with me for just over 2 months now, first reflected on my November bill. This current bill is just over double my last. With about double the hot water usage... and she cooks. I generally just microwave what I make, except breakfast.

FYI. For those who don't know, hot water uses more energy in the winter than warmer weather, as the incoming temperature of cold water to heat, is colder.

I think under California's net metering 2 rules, the surplus power is credited at the retail rate less 2 cents per Kwh, so daily surplus
can be recovered at night for the equivalent of that same 2 cents per kwh.
Not real storage, but looks the same on paper.
The question I still have is if 2 cents per kwh is enough to cover the grid overhead?

 

[Lord of Planar]

I think under California's net metering 2 rules, the surplus power is credited at the retail rate less 2 cents per Kwh, so daily surplus
can be recovered at night for the equivalent of that same 2 cents per kwh.
Not real storage, but looks the same on paper.
The question I still have is if 2 cents per kwh is enough to cover the grid overhead?

At least the vast majority of California's population is in moderate temperature regions. It wouldn't work if most of California had the temperature ranges of Sacramento, and greater.

 

[longview]

At least the vast majority of California's population is in moderate temperature regions. It wouldn't work if most of California had the temperature ranges of Sacramento, and greater.

Yea the 2 cents per kwh does not seem high enough to me.

 

[Media_Truth]

I live in a place built in the 70's. However, it was renovated with new insulation, low e windows, and a heat pump. Still, new places probably lose half as much heat as mine. Only when I need to heat around 20 F do I break 1,000 kWh. Still, some minimal storage would be needed to properly utilize 1,000 kWh as high energy appliances peak well above that.

Oh... I have no natural gas. My water heater, stove, etc. are all electric.

We had lots of cold days, and I now have a woman living with me for just over 2 months now, first reflected on my November bill. This current bill is just over double my last. With about double the hot water usage... and she cooks. I generally just microwave what I make, except breakfast.

FYI. For those who don't know, hot water uses more energy in the winter than warmer weather, as the incoming temperature of cold water to heat, is colder.

A nice rooftop solar PV system will take care of that bump. The federal tax credit starts expiring next year.

 

[Lord of Planar]

A nice rooftop solar PV system will take care of that bump. The federal tax credit starts expiring next year.

I'm not worried about it right now. Power is cheap enough here in Portland that solar isn't cost effective yet. I live above the 45th parallel, and the solar angle is a bit steep for effective solar. It would take too much area to be effective.

 

[Media_Truth]

I'm not worried about it right now. Power is cheap enough here in Portland that solar isn't cost effective yet. I live above the 45th parallel, and the solar angle is a bit steep for effective solar. It would take too much area to be effective.

Pretty cloudy too.

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=2]Deadly: a quarter of all solar panels pose high or severe risk[/h]
[h=3]Got Solar PV? Don’t let the kids play on the roof[/h]

Would you like a 240Volt shock with that?
​

In Australia, shonky fly-by-night installers are botching the wiring and not screwing the panels on properly. As many as a quarter of solar panels pose a high or severe “electrical safety” risk. Since there are two million households with solar panels, that’s half a million homes sitting under a live problem.
By mismanagement and delusional climate-changing schemes the government has entirely and artificially created the solar bubble. Hopefully people won’t die like they did in the Pink Batts Bubble. Back then, to stop droughts and storms and save the nation from the Global Financial Crisis, the government decided to rush out home insulation. The artificial bubble brought in poorly trained workers and four people died. Kevin Rudd (former PM) now says he wouldn’t have done it if he’d known the risks. But heck, way back in 2010 no one could have realized that artificial government industry bubbles wouldn’t mix well with 240 Volts. Sure.
Australia’s big advance seems to be to stop unnecessary deaths under roofs, and start doing them on top.
[h=3]Warning of deaths over solar panel installations[/h]

• Simon Benson, The Australian

Energy Minister Angus Taylor has written to his state counterparts to warn that lives could be at risk from unsafe or sub-standard solar panel installations, with a national audit report finding up to one-quarter of all rooftop units *inspected posed a severe or high risk.

The national audit of the *Renewable Energy Target has *revealed that between 21 and 26 per cent of small-scale rooftop solar installations inspected every year since 2011 had been found to have faulty wiring and unsecured *panels. Some posed a “severe risk” where wiring was exposed. This required units to be shut down immediately and remediated.
A total of 35 licensed installation contractors have been warned they face the possibility of suspension…
There are so many upstart sharks in the solar installation industry that the faulty panels they leave behind are known as “solar orphans”.
[h=3] Fly-by-night operators installing faulty solar panels[/h]Sam Buckingham-Jones, The Australian
Keep reading →

 

[Media_Truth]

[h=2]Deadly: a quarter of all solar panels pose high or severe risk[/h]
[h=3]Got Solar PV? Don’t let the kids play on the roof[/h]

Would you like a 240Volt shock with that?
​

In Australia, shonky fly-by-night installers are botching the wiring and not screwing the panels on properly. As many as a quarter of solar panels pose a high or severe “electrical safety” risk. Since there are two million households with solar panels, that’s half a million homes sitting under a live problem.
By mismanagement and delusional climate-changing schemes the government has entirely and artificially created the solar bubble. Hopefully people won’t die like they did in the Pink Batts Bubble. Back then, to stop droughts and storms and save the nation from the Global Financial Crisis, the government decided to rush out home insulation. The artificial bubble brought in poorly trained workers and four people died. Kevin Rudd (former PM) now says he wouldn’t have done it if he’d known the risks. But heck, way back in 2010 no one could have realized that artificial government industry bubbles wouldn’t mix well with 240 Volts. Sure.
Australia’s big advance seems to be to stop unnecessary deaths under roofs, and start doing them on top.
[h=3]Warning of deaths over solar panel installations[/h]

• Simon Benson, The Australian

Energy Minister Angus Taylor has written to his state counterparts to warn that lives could be at risk from unsafe or sub-standard solar panel installations, with a national audit report finding up to one-quarter of all rooftop units *inspected posed a severe or high risk.

The national audit of the *Renewable Energy Target has *revealed that between 21 and 26 per cent of small-scale rooftop solar installations inspected every year since 2011 had been found to have faulty wiring and unsecured *panels. Some posed a “severe risk” where wiring was exposed. This required units to be shut down immediately and remediated.
A total of 35 licensed installation contractors have been warned they face the possibility of suspension…
There are so many upstart sharks in the solar installation industry that the faulty panels they leave behind are known as “solar orphans”.
[h=3] Fly-by-night operators installing faulty solar panels[/h]Sam Buckingham-Jones, The Australian
Keep reading →

Don't let the kids play on the roof? Yeah, I think that's good advice.