Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 329 posts

Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes

#271

Post by viraptor »

ams6110 wrote: post #107
alkonaut wrote: post #23

Requiring specific technical solutions is rarely a good idea. For example mandating that all new cars have catalytic converters is a common but not very good requirement. The requirement should be formulated as a goal/limit, not a solution. Having one solution required means you can’t innovate to find a cheaper or better solution to the same problem. The answer in this context would be to require a total net power dr…

> require a total net power draw for the home Not good either. Just let people pay for what they use. Each person can decide how to optimize for his or her needs.

This makes sense if people living in the house are the owners, but it's completely opposite for rentals. The owner may be keen to invest in lower future bills. But if they're just renting, why would they care? The bills don't come to them and they still get the same in rent.

It could work for rentals if there was enough empty places that people could be picky about the energy efficiency of the houses they rent, but that's likely not the current situation.

Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes

#272

Post by esaym »

fjsolwmv wrote: post #255
esaym wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not that rural. The price for the electric run is $350 for new poles and the service is about $0.10 p/kwh. I'm fine with adding solar. I simply don't have the money right now. And I am not getting a mortgage as the 'just add it to your mortgage' attitude is what has lead to so many (non protested) price hikes in the first place. So adding 'just another' $10k to the price means I get to wait so many extra months t…

If you're going to refuse bog standard conservative financing options that have been used for centuries, your difficulties are mainly self-imposed.

I don't know how standard a mortgage was 30+ years ago. I do know the interest rates were higher and they weren't handed out like candy as they are now. My grandfather bought a brand new house in 1972 for $12,000, paid cash. And my parents built their first house in 1990 and paid cash as well. They moved and built several other houses all with cash as well. Is it too much to ask that I be able to pay cash for a not so great but brand new mobile home?

Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes

#273

Post by shortstuffsushi »

sxates wrote: post #51
tzs wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article says it will add $10k to the home. On a 30 year fixed rate mortgage at current rates that's $50/month. Subtract out the savings on the electric bill, and it probably won't be reducing affordability much, or even at all.

Right - Solar really just front-loads the energy costs of the building. You pay for ~5-10 years of energy up front, and then recoup that investment over the next 30+ years, coming out ahead in the end. You could argue that this sort of policy is a win-win in that it both reduces the longer term cost of housing (both for the first and subsequent owners) and also reduces the amount of net energy required (saves on new…

Serious question -- isn't the lifetime of solar panels (or ancillary equipment) significantly less than 30 years? A quick Google looks like 15 years ish? I have never owned a home (or lived in one with solar), so I'm not sure of the actual typical mileage.

Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes

#274

Post by koolba »

gascan wrote: post #194
jpk wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's basically what we do now, but the trouble is cheap power sources with undesirable externalities win the energy market because consumers want more energy for less money.

Another trouble is the builder doesn't have to pay for the energy usage of the property, and there's no well-established way for the buyer to estimate consumption like there is with mpg.

Maybe not on the home as a whole but every consumer major appliance comes with a standardized energy comparison chart.

Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes

#275

Post by adrianratnapala »

deelowe wrote: post #112
alkonaut wrote: post #23

Requiring specific technical solutions is rarely a good idea. For example mandating that all new cars have catalytic converters is a common but not very good requirement. The requirement should be formulated as a goal/limit, not a solution. Having one solution required means you can’t innovate to find a cheaper or better solution to the same problem. The answer in this context would be to require a total net power dr…

Is this not just a thinly veiled attempt to increase new construction costs by NIMBYs?

Mistakes cause and effect. NIMBYs don't want to increase construction costs, though they want to maximise the value of existing property.

Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes

#276

Post by common_sense123 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #244
common_sense123 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your point is that regulation is needed for people to make decisions that will save them more money. Basic econ/finance will tell you this isn't how the world works.

If you can't get a mortgage for your solar installation, all the basic econ in the world won't help you pay the upfront cost. Bundling it into construction fixes that gap.

If it were cheaper to pay back the principal and interest on your solar installation than continue paying your present electricity costs, then it would be profitable to take out the loan and you'd do it. Lenders would be willing to make this loan... they'd make money here versus utility companies.

"Bundling it into construction" as in whoever builds the house pays the upfront cost of the solar installation? This would inevitably pass the cost on through increasing the value of the home. So homes in CA will be harder to afford and mortgages will carry larger payments.

Sure electricity costs will go down some amount to marginally offset the increased mortgage payment. But to definitively claim they will go down _more_ than mortgage payments rise is a ridiculous claim in my opinion because implicit in that claim is the assumption that everyone is missing out on this way to save money and needs the government to impose this mandate for them to realize it.

Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes

#277

Post by deelowe »

adrianratnapala wrote: post #275
deelowe wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this not just a thinly veiled attempt to increase new construction costs by NIMBYs?

Mistakes cause and effect. NIMBYs don't want to increase construction costs, though they want to maximise the value of existing property.

I could see that. Homes that don't have this requirement will be more valuable over time.

Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes

#278

Post by ghouse »

jonknee wrote: post #81
nv-vn wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds horrible to me for a number of reasons: * Increases the cost of homes * Gives solar power industry a boost in a way that's hard to get rid of--they will lobby to keep this even if other industries are around and it'll probably never change * No incentive to research new energy technology in the meantime

> Increases the cost of homes And decreases the energy bill by a very similar amount of what an increase in the mortgage would be if the cost was 100% passed on. Regardless, in much of California the price of homes has little to do with the cost of building them. So another possibility is buildable land gets a little cheaper because building is more expensive and homes are priced by what the market will bear, not by…

> And decreases the energy bill by a very similar amount of what an increase in the mortgage would be

Sure, this is true iff a) the home has a nice south-facing roof, b) without trees in the way and c) under the current tariff design in most of California.

Some homes are built in wooded areas. Deciduous trees on the south side of the house (in the northern hemisphere) 1) shade in the summer, 2) allow the sun to warm in the winter are 3) are attractive.

Finally, regulated-monopoly utilities will continue to pass their costs to their customers. They will change the designs of their rates to continue to recoup their costs. So what might be saved in utilities costs today won't necessarily be saved over the life of the mortgage.

Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes

#279

Post by ghouse »

lootsauce wrote: post #149
NickM wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the cost of the PV is now baked into the mortgage, then depending on payback periods, interest rates, etc., the reductions in utility costs may meet or exceed the increase in your typical monthly home payment. This could effectively make housing more affordable via lower electrical bills. Without knowing the numbers, I'm really just speculating, though; my point is just that it's not a given that this will increas…

In the hearing someone cited the numbers of $40 increase in mortgage cost and $80 of savings per month

But only if the current design of utility rates remains the same. But it won't, because utilities are regulated monopolies which are permitted to recoup the costs of their investments. So, they will lower the price of power during the day, and raise it during the night.
Post reply on HN