# Town to require PV panels on new construction



## semipro (Mar 7, 2013)

Pretty progressive mandate.

http://www.jlconline.com/solar-powe...mail&utm_campaign=JLCNL_030713&day=2013-03-07


----------



## bmblank (Mar 7, 2013)

Another reason I'm glad i don't live in California. Beautiful state, but for all i care it can break off and float away with everybody on it. Except my parents, who are visiting some friends...


----------



## BrotherBart (Mar 7, 2013)

Oh no. What will be next Requiring indoor plumbing? Wiring? Sewer and water? Where does it end...


----------



## bmblank (Mar 7, 2013)

I have nothing against the pv panels. What i don't like is all the government mandates and requirements.  Basically they're asking people to tack an extra 10-15 grand onto the price of their house.
If somebody decides to put panels up on their own, more power to them, but who the hell are they to tell me what i can and cannot do with my own property?


----------



## woodgeek (Mar 7, 2013)

The bigger issue is if the 'average person' just buys a house with pre-existing PV (as opposed to going through the whole educational process of deciding to buy them and have them installed), will they be less concerned with saving juice than if they had bought a house without. 

IOW, will they end up wasting more energy than the PVs generate b/c of the 'green light' that their house is green?


----------



## BrotherBart (Mar 7, 2013)

A house here in the neighborhood had a really nice solar setup installed many years ago. Since they sold the house the people that live there now have never used any of it.


----------



## Bret Chase (Mar 7, 2013)

All the more reason not to move to Lancaster, CA... If I put solar on my house it will be of *my* choosing...


----------



## sloeffle (Mar 7, 2013)

I think a better idea is to require new houses in Lancaster be Passive house compliant or have a Platinum or Gold LEED status. It makes you wonder how many politicians in Lancaster are / were getting their palms greased by the solar industry.


----------



## jharkin (Mar 7, 2013)

sloeffle said:


> I think a better idea is to require new houses in Lancaster be Passive house compliant or have a Platinum or Gold LEED status. It makes you wonder how many politicians in Lancaster are / were getting their palms greased by the solar industry.


 
Good idea. I like the idea of more alternative energy but I can just see some builders throwing panels on a house with no southern exposure just to meet the requirement.


----------



## sloeffle (Mar 7, 2013)

jharkin said:


> Good idea. I like the idea of more alternative energy but I can just see some builders throwing panels non a house with now southern exposure just to meet the requirement.


I cannot agree with you more. I do not get why we always want to re-invent the wheel. IMHO it makes more sense to make the wheel more efficient and use less energy then spend a bunch of money on something that the average home owner could care less about. 

I am all for alternative energy but the average person wants to check a box on their electric bill that gives them x % of their energy from alternative sources.


----------



## charly (Mar 7, 2013)

Myself,,, I think that by the time you break even on most of the solar stuff,, it will be obsolete as far as newer designs. You'll never get ahead. Also a family business by me that has been doing standing seam metal roofs for years went to get their solar install license.. They said what a joke with all the paper work... They did two installs as required as to get their license. They said as soon as they showed that they were not going to go through one of the three major solar outfits and be independent,, they were denied a license...and these guys do beautiful work, usually booked a year in advance,,, so they said screw it! They also said some of the panels that mounted to the roofs with adhesives would ruin the roof if it had to be removed,,, so these panel people instead of paying for a roof rewired around the bad panel..that way the company didn't have to pay for a new roof and the customer never knew any different. The guys wife of the roofing company said they made 10 times the hot water using their wood stove plumbed for heating water then their hot water panels ever did.. Guess you realy need to do your homework and know what your getting into.. I'm too old to see a pay back


----------



## Circus (Mar 8, 2013)

A case of over enthusiasm. Mandating a technology looks and is just asking for corruption. Anticipating future solar "solar ready" is free and would make a later installation much cheaper.


----------



## peakbagger (Mar 8, 2013)

The logical endpoint of the policy is going to be panels facing north. I do like the concept of setting a reasonable energy limit per square foot and let the economics decide what works the best, conservation or generation. 

Unfortunately as many folks find out, there are significant energy savings that can be gained just by chasing around with a can of great stuff or caulking at the end of the day after the contractor has headed out.


----------



## Bret Chase (Mar 8, 2013)

I read something today on this very subject that really p*ssed me off as a taxpayer in my town...  I read that my town is looking into installing a 600KW solar array next to the brand new town garage (as a matter of disclosure, *I* built it, to replace a truly worn out 36 year old cobbled together mess).

This array will be several million dollars... and covered in snow 6 months out of the year....


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Mar 8, 2013)

I can see the value of having municipal buildings with solar on the roof.  I think it will be a nightmare for every house to have it up there.  I think it would be better to have a certification such as a LEEDS cert for houses guaranteeing energy efficiency.  This could be attached to the house and help resale value.  I would be interested in a house with super low utility bills.  


Matt


----------



## Bret Chase (Mar 8, 2013)

LEEDS doesn't guarantee a darned thing.... other than a bigger paycheck for the architect...


----------



## sesmith (Mar 9, 2013)

Instead of a mandate that solar be installed, why not mandate a target energy usage per year for the house instead.  Leave it up to the designer / builder whether the target is reached through building size, insulation, use of heat pumps, solar, etc.  At the end of the year, compliance can be encouraged through a carrot and stick rebate on property taxes.  If you're under your target, you get a rebate on your property taxes.  If you're over, you get a charge added to your property taxes.  Any extra collected in the extra charges in the community over the rebates given out, should be earmarked for community wide energy related improvements.  Some version of a program like this could be used to encourage energy upgrades in older construction as well.


----------



## bmblank (Mar 9, 2013)

Why mandate anything? If people want to spend $500/mo. On energy that's their own prerogative. The carrot should be a less money out of pocket paying for energy.


----------



## woodgeek (Mar 9, 2013)

bmblank said:


> Why mandate anything? If people want to spend $500/mo. On energy that's their own prerogative. The carrot should be a less money out of pocket paying for energy.


 
Agreed. Progressive pricing and frowny faces on their bills...


----------



## Bret Chase (Mar 9, 2013)

bmblank said:


> Why mandate anything? If people want to spend $500/mo. On energy that's their own prerogative. The carrot should be a less money out of pocket paying for energy.


 
I *was* paying about $600/mo for K1 to fire 2 monitor type heaters... it was a crushing expense.  I finally was able to come up with enough money to put in a new class A (existing masonry was unservicable)... My best friend gave me the smoke dragon out of his garage... I went from $600/Mo to about $20.. for gas for the splitter and saw...


----------



## Bret Chase (Mar 9, 2013)

EatenByLimestone said:


> I can see the value of having municipal buildings with solar on the roof. I think it will be a nightmare for every house to have it up there. I think it would be better to have a certification such as a LEEDS cert for houses guaranteeing energy efficiency. This could be attached to the house and help resale value. I would be interested in a house with super low utility bills.
> 
> 
> Matt


 this wasn't on the roof.. this 600kw array will cover damn near an acre... between the new building and the road...


----------



## daveswoodhauler (Mar 9, 2013)

sloeffle said:


> I cannot agree with you more. I do not get why we always want to re-invent the wheel. IMHO it makes more sense to make the wheel more efficient and use less energy then spend a bunch of money on something that the average home owner could care less about.
> 
> I am all for alternative energy but the average person wants to check a box on their electric bill that gives them x % of their energy from alternative sources.


 
Face the house to the correct exposure, and use insulation properly...no need to spend the additional $25K on solar.
They should make mandates on efficiency and insulation vs making PV required. For the record, I am all for solar....just don't think the gooberment should mandate


----------



## Bret Chase (Mar 9, 2013)

daveswoodhauler said:


> Face the house to the correct exposure, and use insulation properly...no need to spend the additional $25K on solar.
> They should make mandates on efficiency and insulation vs making PV required. For the record, I am all for solar....just don't think the gooberment should mandate


 
I don't think the local government should be mandating such things either... especially since there are pre-1640 structures still standing in town.

Speaking of town mandates.... a development my family is selling off (I was against, but got out voted)... each new house is required to have a sprinkler system... on a well and the first thing the FD does is have the electricity cut off....


----------



## scooby074 (Mar 9, 2013)

I dont think that requirements to meet a specific LEED target is a bad idea.

I think a better way to do it is with credits. Got solar? Save $1000/yr off taxes.  X% recycled materials? Save $150/yr. And so on.


----------



## Bret Chase (Mar 9, 2013)

scooby074 said:


> I dont think that requirements to meet a specific LEED target is a bad idea.
> 
> I think a better way to do it is with credits. Got solar? Save $1000/yr off taxes. X% recycled materials? Save $150/yr. And so on.


 
 LEEDS is a misguided joke... that only benefits the "design professional"


----------



## Where2 (Mar 10, 2013)

*Sounds like a great idea*! For those of you who never spent any time in Lancaster, CA, let me point out that every vacant lot was a meadow of tumble weeds when I lived there for four months as a child back in 1975. Our family only had one car, so my mom, my sister, and I walked everywhere while dad was at work. Perfect environment for a PV array in the high desert. Take a look at the place in Google Maps Street View. I still see plenty of tumble weed pastures...

Let me also be the first to point out that the 1.0kW-1.5kW minimum array they are talking about is not a $10k-$25k investment. Its SEVEN 235W panels attached to SEVEN enphase 215W micro-inverters = 1505W. For reference, you can order a 1kW Grape Solar system from Lowes for $2745, and theoretically meet their minimum proposed requirement of 1kW (DC). 

If another flashed hole in the roof (for the one electrical conduit), an extra breaker in the panel (because you can put seventeen 215W inverters on a 20A 220V breaker), a dozen lag bolts drilled into the rafters, and the rack for six panels equates to $15k in your mind as a building contractor, then keep paying your electric bill! (the power company needs more sheep to go along with their 5% annual rate hikes and their minimum 10% return to shareholders).

For those of you saying "If you face the house properly, and insulate...", Great concept, but I've done land development for residential tract housing in my lifetime, and not every lot can have awesome southern exposure if you expect to meet modern development standards using curvilinear streets. If you want to lay every neighborhood out like the 1940's-1950's on a simple rectangular grid where people fly down your street at 80mph, go right ahead, but don't expect to win awards for curb appeal.  

I don't understand why the government hasn't mandated higher efficiency appliances and PV before now, in the places where PV makes sense. Nobody wants a nuclear power plant in their backyard. Where I live, nobody wants the new natural gas fired power plant in their backyard, but everyone wants to run their A/C and the government thinks every road needs street lights. If they are going to keep building houses, schools, and shopping centers, the power has to come from somewhere...   Every new school should have PV on the roof in places where it makes sense. Otherwise, you're just paying my tax dollars as dividends to the power company shareholders.


----------



## DBoon (Mar 10, 2013)

In general, I'm not a big fan of mandates for this type of thing.  I think they are usually put in place by people with limited knowledge and big dreams of what the results will be.  

At the same time, there is a huge disconnect between the price that people pay for energy and the cost of that energy to the environment.  To avoid a "hijack" of this thread, I don't want this to be read as a statement that advocates steps to counteract "global warming" or "climate change" - there are plenty of ways that excessive and unnecessary energy use causes negative impacts - air/water pollution, resource extraction pollution, extra military spending, etc.  People don't pay for these impacts in their energy bill - they are "externalities".   If people paid for them, energy cost would likely double or more than double. 

So why not get people to pay these costs?  Because politicians don't want taxes, or because people think taxes are wasteful, or because nobody can agree on the exact cost of the externalities so there is instead no cost applied.  Are there ways to structure all of this to make it work?  Sure, but it requires reasonable people to have reasonable conversations and make reasonable decisions.  Would applying these external costs to each persons energy bill work well to reduce pollution and energy usage?  Sure - in fact, it would be the most efficient way to make a reduction in pollution and energy usage.  

So, since nothing happens, we get mandates, tax credits, standards, etc. instead, and people feel good, and the results are ok, but not nearly as good as if the same money was spent on a more efficient process.


----------



## charly (Mar 10, 2013)

daveswoodhauler said:


> Face the house to the correct exposure, and use insulation properly...no need to spend the additional $25K on solar.
> They should make mandates on efficiency and insulation vs making PV required. For the record, I am all for solar....just don't think the gooberment should mandate


I faced our log cabin South, lots of glass...All winter long ,  as long as the sun was out the house gained 6-8 degrees everyday by 10am.. My radiant heat wouldn't come on until like 7 or 8 at night.. I was heating via a wood gasification boiler with 1600 gallons of thermal storage. At times I would have to turn the heat up so it didn't have to play catch up being off all day long... What a nice feature facing the house South...Had sip panels on the roof and big logs. A very warm house indeed.


----------

