CA requirement for solar roofs - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2016, 10:02:57 pm
content: Just heard from my favorite radio station that since there are so many great benefits to having a solar roof, and so little downside, that the state of CA will soon require solar roofs on new homes.I always wonder why we are always requires to have those great things by the gocernments,

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2016, 10:18:57 pm
content: They are not "great", they are required for things to work. For the same reason you are required to pay taxes - maintaining infrastructure is hard, and no one wants to do it on their own.That being said, I don't think they will require to put them on residential buildings. Only some commercial (office) buildings will have to have solar panels.

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2016, 11:03:57 pm
content: Quote from: ataradov on August 11, 2016, 10:18:57 pmAnd enforced via the permitting process. I don't think they would or could mandate retro-active homes and businesses, but new building and possibly new homes might be mandated or otherwise some form of carbon credit offsets before permit is issued.

author: station240
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 11, 2016, 11:05:33 pm
content: Sure it wasn't part of an advertisement ? As radio stations around where I am are run by the flat earth society and the committee for burning coal.Im my part of the world (where it is very sunny) we are required to put solarhotwateron new homes. As heating water uses so much power.It would be too much of a stretch to have solar PV cells as a requirement instead.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2016, 11:09:00 pm
content: It sounds like a good idea for all new house builds to have solar plus a small battery built in.It's a few thousand dollars on top of the house price and can be financed into a mortgage, plus it encourages more people to use solar energy when they may not consider it, or do not want to invest and then have to remove and reinstall it should moving be necessary.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2016, 12:28:04 am
content: California appears to now require a 'solar ready' area on the roof. See page 5 here:http://www.energy.ca.gov/2013publications/CEC-400-2013-001/chapters/07_Solar_Ready.pdfWe had an 8 kW array on the house we just sold and if we could do it again, we would. Unfortunately, our roof is not of a construction that will allow for solar installation.There are a lot of ways to do solar but we just signed up for the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) approach. Basically, it cost nothing to have the system installed and we agreed to buy energy for $0.15/kWh (with very slight increments) for a 20 year period. No money out-of-pocket and substantially cheaper than the utility.At the end of a full year, we owed the utility only for the meter charge, every bit of energy we used came from solar.We have 4 utility rate tiers starting at $0.16/kWh and quickly escalating to $0.36/kWh. As long as the array is large enough to overcome the high tier consumption, it is a win. It just turned out that it was large enough to provide all of our needs.Note well: Residential customers are not allowed to be net generators. Every kWh we generated beyond our usage the utility bought for just $0.04. That's a net loss for us! But as long as we just zeroed out at 'settle-up' (the once per year accounting), we were good. A little one way or another doesn't really matter.I'm a huge fan! So much so that I leased a Chevy Spark EV so I could recharge the battery with solar. Costs $0.03/mi to drive!And the utility, realizing they were losing the high tier revenue that actually pays for maintenance and operations, raised the rate for the lower tier. The lower tier is subsidized for the economically challenged.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2016, 01:47:35 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on August 11, 2016, 10:02:57 pmThat's what bureaucracies do, they expand their powers.

author: calexanian
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2016, 02:18:36 am
content: Quote from: retrolefty on August 11, 2016, 11:03:57 pmThis is typically the way things work. Title 24 here in California works like this. If you are building new, or performing major reconstruction you need to implement the new system. Otherwise it is not required.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2016, 04:55:24 pm
content: I'm so happy for all of you that have benefited from roof panels. But that's no basis for imposing it onto the rest of us.I for example had a great time mud-sledding last week. Does that give me the right to drag everyone through the mud too?

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2016, 04:59:48 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on August 12, 2016, 04:55:24 pmThe reason for imposing this is that current infrastructure can't deal with increased demand.It is similar to Smog Check - sure you can drive your dirty car with no filtering whatsoever, but it is bad for the rest of the people.Solar panels at this point are necessity, not just a nice thing to have.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2016, 05:19:35 pm
content: QuoteIf that's the case, tax all who use the infrastructure to rebuild it. Why just "tax" new construction?

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2016, 05:23:31 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on August 12, 2016, 05:19:35 pmIt is not a tax, it is just a new regulation that benefits everyone in a long run. Sort of like using leaded paint, you could make the same argument there.There is no need to pour money into maintaining fossil-based infrastructure, when it is clear that renewable energy is the future. And building many local "power plants" is way easier and cheaper than building an maintaining one big plant and having huge power distribution network.

author: Seekonk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2016, 06:07:44 pm
content: Think of all the cheap LED's we can now buy because they they banned the light bulb. There were the usual hoarders who said they would never change. And me because a lamp is still one of the best pieces of test equipment ever made. There are the criers, just like when they required more insulation. I now pay more for basic monthly gas service than I do for gas to heat my home. It wasn't like that when I bought the home. They didn't like emissions controls on cars. I drive around now for less than ever. The world moves on, some people don't. It is more of a religious thing than than logic. People should install better roofs. Visited a relative and saw his roof from an upper deck. I said how old is this place, about 18 years? The roof was in bad shape. No, he said 10 years.

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2016, 06:20:16 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on August 12, 2016, 12:28:04 amThis is the "utility death spiral" in action. The utility can't pass on their fixed costs to poorer people, because they have no money, and those who can afford it find it economically advantageous to change their usage so that they don't pay it, either.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2016, 06:29:19 pm
content: QuoteThen disconnect your house from the grid all together.An invaluable function a grid provides is optionality: when your "home power plant" goes down, you can flip a switch and have access to power from the grid which you don't pay for under today's pricing model. You are essentially free-riding on those who do pay for the grid through their utility bills.In a perfect world, we would have priced the grid separately, for distribution and for capacity. Unfortunately, most people are too dumb to understand that.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2016, 06:41:27 pm
content: QuoteTake a look at their financial reports, for either a typical generating utility or a distribution utility, and you will be surprised at how wrong your statement is.I'm covered by a small utility that a few years back spent over $500MM on line repairs from storm / hurricane damages, mostly because of their love for trees.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2016, 07:11:29 pm
content: QuoteIt may be helpful to understand the differences between a generating utility vs. a distribution utility before you go further into a discussion.

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2016, 07:30:57 pm
content: Quote from: AcHmed99 on August 12, 2016, 07:22:47 pmIt really does behoove you to understand the terms being used before offering an opinion. Electrical utility prices are segmented into generation, transmission, and distribution costs, and these are normally separated on customers' bills to help them understand that structure.The HT lines that carry power from generator stations to localities is called the transmission network. In most of the world, the transmission network is run by an Independent System Operator that is not tied to any power company, such as the UK's National Grid.Distribution refers to the street-level plant in a single locality, under the management of the local power+light company that customers deal with directly. It is a fixed cost that is related to the number of customers the utility has, rather than their energy usage.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2016, 08:00:03 pm
content: QuoteGlad you are c oming around on that.Quoteit may very well be a fact but I don't see you establishing it here in this discussion. You simply stated it over and over and over. That doesn't make it a fact.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2016, 08:10:58 pm
content: Quote from: ataradov on August 12, 2016, 04:59:48 pmOppression always comes with 'justification'. It's for our own good.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2016, 08:23:50 pm
content: a few points of clarification:1) the auditor's report covers OPG, one of many utilities in the world of "utilities", for a period of time. So are you extrapolating that to mean that the deficiencies the auditors noted at OPG also apply to other "utilities" wherever they are? That would be a crazy generalization in my view. If you agree, maybe you want to state your view about utilities' cost structure to OPG.2) the auditor's reports didn't attribute a motive to OPG's neglecting maintenance. You may very well be right on those guys being incompetent crooks but own up to that statement and don't attribute it to, especially implicitly, to the auditor's report. They flat out didn't say that.3) The auditor's reports talked about fabulously compensated "long time employees". Employees are a much bigger subset of "executives" so maybe the problem isn't just limited to the incompetent crooks in the corner office? Some of the fat linemen may be crooks too?It is always helpful to separate facts from conjectures and wishful thinking, even if such wishful thinking is critical in supporting one's arguments.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2016, 08:38:44 pm
content: QuoteThe way I understand it, don't quote me on this please, is that utilities, both generating and distribution, can be either publically or privately owned, as defined in a "public company" vs. a "privately held company". There are also publically held private companies / utilities, like co-ops that are not publically listed (so they are a private company) but are owned collectively by rate payers, townships, or simply special purpose vehicles whose ownership varies drastically.But generally speaking, the distribution side, even if held by a generating utility, is a regulated monopoly. And in most (but not all) states, is required to "distribute" power generated by a generating utility selected by the rate payer.ie., a rate payer may have a default distribution service from his distribution utility but may opt to purchase power from a power generator somewhere else, many times in a different state, or from a provider that has no physical power generation plants. This is how green power generators / traders or merchant generators come into popularity now.This was introduced in the 1990s as a way to introduce competition into the power market.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2016, 08:41:03 pm
content: QuoteIf everyone in your privince gets their power from OPG, doesn't that make OPG the ***ONLY*** utility in your province?The fact that OPG is the ***main*** utility in your province necessarily means that ***NOT*** everyone gets their power from OPG.Logic dictates that.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2016, 08:43:59 pm
content: QuoteBut that's the report your quoted, right?The point I was trying to make is that just because the sky is purple in your neck of the woods doesn't make it so everywhere else. In a discussion about utilities in general, it is helpful to qualify your statements and provide some context so your readers can better understand your perspective.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2016, 08:56:38 pm
content: QuoteThat bottom line is probably falling out: for the record, I'm an indirect owner in a wind power plant in Ontario. My ownership is tiny, though.and I reside outside of Ontario and am not a taxpayer in Ontario.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2016, 01:58:22 am
content: I was just trying to point out that not all utilities in Ontario are tax-payer owned, demonstratably so.QuoteWhen people are dumb enough to hand you money for getting less from you, who am I to say "no".On that, I'm in complete agreement with Mr. Gore. Global warming may be as crazy as it seems, it has been a great business opportunity and it is foolish to let one's ideology get in the way of making some money off of it.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2016, 01:00:21 pm
content: QuoteWell, you want to be concise or people don't take you seriously.Your credibility is on the line.QuoteWho put the politicians in charge?QuoteI used to think that way but I have since wised up. I think the politicians are pretty smart. It is the voters who vote those politicians in that are stupid.Think about those who bought "dope and change" 8 years ago, or those that are buying "hillary cares about you".Politics is a con game. The only people who got con'd are those who "think" they are smart.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2016, 02:38:31 pm
content: QuoteIn my country? I live in a 3rd world country where the "free media" is nothing but propaganda, and the "political parties" present to voters faux choices. Its version of democracy is nothing but a tyranny and its legal system has one set of rules for the powerful and another for the powerless.