Bloomberg: California becomes first state to mandate solar on new homes

[GRA]

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Cal ... 901499.php

. . . Most new homes built after Jan. 1, 2020, will be required to include solar systems as part of energy-efficiency standards adopted Wednesday by the California Energy Commission. . . .

The U.S. had 10.4 gigawatts of residential solar power at the end of last year, up more than six-fold from five years earlier. The industry started slowing in 2017 amid policy changes and efforts by some companies to shift their strategies. . . .

The new policy applies to single-family houses and multifamily units that are three stories or less, and there are some exceptions for homes that are too shady. . . .

Installing a solar system and complying with other energy-efficiency measures required will add about $9,500 to the cost of a new home, according the the California Energy Commission. That would be offset by about $19,000 in expected energy and maintenance savings over 30 years, the commission estimates.

While the policy is good for the solar industry, it may not move the needle that much.

The state adds about 80,000 new homes a year, and the California Solar & Storage Association estimates that about 15,000 include solar power. The Energy Commission estimates that the average home system uses 2.5 kilowatts to 4 kilowatts of panels, so the additional 65,000 new systems would add as much as 260 megawatts of annual demand in the state -- about the size of one large solar farm.

SunPower Corp. expects the rule will increase demand for residential solar in the state by about 50 percent. The San Jose, California-based company makes panels and develops solar systems ranging from rooftops to large, utility-scale power plants. . . .

[RegGuheert]

I've been promoting this idea for a couple of decades, so I guess I'm for this approach. The main difference with my idea is that I believe commercial construction should be required to provide for the generation of the electricity which they will consume using renewable sources. If this had been in place for the past two decades, major polluters like Google would not be responsible for production and burning the fossil fuels required to emit 500 kg of CO2 each second.

[SageBrush]

I appreciate California's forward looking agenda but homeowners are going to be burned by builders if a performance guarantee is not part of the installation. A less top-directed approach would be to enforce building codes that make roofs "solar ready" by:

Not putting shade on the south to southwest faces
Requiring a 30 - 45 degree pitch
Not putting up blocking shade
Easily identifiable rafter position markers
Option to install rafter anchors during roof construction
Improved leakage and insulation for the building envelope

[GRA]

I've been promoting this idea for a couple of decades, so I guess I'm for this approach. The main difference with my idea is that I believe commercial construction should be required to provide for the generation of the electricity which they will consume using renewable sources. If this had been in place for the past two decades, major polluters like Google would not be responsible for production and burning the fossil fuels required to emit 500 kg of CO2 each second.

OTOH:

Tech firms like Google, Amazon push power companies toward solar and wind, a blow to coal

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/new ... 438020002/

Since 2008, renewable energy has gone from 9% to 18% of the U.S. energy mix, according to the Business Council for Sustainable Energy. A big part of that shift stems from tech companies' rapid buildout of cloud storage centers and a move to burnish their public image by vowing they’ll run these centers on sources like wind and solar.

Rather than lose these deep-pocketed customers, the nation’s power companies are changing policies and crafting deals that meet increased demands for renewable energy, in some cases shifting away from traditional electricity supplies like coal and natural gas. Even in coal mining states like West Virginia.

“We have the ability to shape the market,” said Michael Terrell, head of Google Energy Policy. "If you build it, we will come."

Last year, the top four corporate users of renewable energy in the world were Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Apple, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Google announced this month that as of 2017, all its facilities and data centers were running on 100% renewable electricity. . . .

To be strictly accurate, they're sourcing that amount of renewable power into the grid.

Also see:

Google is officially 100% sun and wind powered – 3.0 gigawatts worth

https://electrek.co/2017/11/30/google-i ... tts-worth/

[DarthPuppy]

This is long overdue. Glad to see it finally arrive.

Of course the devil might be in the details. How much solar production is required? Enough to cover the average needs of the home being built? Home plus an EV? Or just a token amount of solar production to help reduce the power company bill?

I looked at a townhome development which included solar for each unit. The solar for each unit would not cover the average needs of the unit. And the builder would not allow upgrading as they didn't want to do any changes to the design, permits, size of inverters or number and layout of the panels. Also refused to consider pre-wiring for my EVSE. And of course since they wouldn't upgrade the capacity, I wouldn't be able to drive my EV on sunshine on their approach. And since it was a townhome, I'd be barred by the HOA from accessing the roof and upgrading it myself as apparently while each unit had it's own inverter, the panels supplying that inverter might not be directly above that unit. I decided not to buy into that complex.

So I suspect this might not be as good as it sounds. If the builder only does the minimum required on a cookie cutter approach and won't work with the buyers to size the system for that buyer's needs, I think this couldl be bad.

[RegGuheert]

Of course the devil might be in the details. How much solar production is required? Enough to cover the average needs of the home being built? Home plus an EV? Or just a token amount of solar production to help reduce the power company bill?

It's certainly true that it takes government to screw any good idea up, and I don't doubt that this will be different.

Here are my ideas of how this will likely get messed up:

- Like Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and Apple mentioned above, many will be able to get around the requirement to put solar panels on their new home by paying others to say that their solar power is magically delivered to that home, even if that is not true.
- Many homes will likely have some or all of their solar panels installed in the shade.
- Other homes will likely leave massive swaths of sunny South-facing roof uncovered even though it should be used to fully cover the home's usage.
- Many systems will likely fall into disrepair not long after installation.
- As you can see from the press release, corporations and governments are immune from this requirement, even though they are the largest wasters of electricity.
- Most new homes (and commercial and government facilities) in CA will likely still be connected to a natural gas pipeline, so the solar requirement will likely not come close to meeting most of the homes energy needs.
- Most new homes (and commercial and government facilities) in CA will likely have gasoline-powered cars in the garage, further reducing the percent of the overall energy requirement provided by the home's PV system.
- Ultimately, providing the net amount of energy will not be sufficient to allow the system to keep operating.

So, yes, while this seems like a great idea, there are so many caveats involved that it will be difficult-to-impossible to implement in a meaningful way. New construction with PV to meet all of the home's energy needs (including heat and vehicle needs) can be done very well even in a cold climate, as Zythryn has demonstrated with his home's construction, but even then the energy provided on-site is net, not load-following.

What HAS worked in the past are requirements in the permitting system for new homes to provide for proper waste disposal, fire safety, meet structural requirements, provide clean water for the home's needs, etc. I don't know if CA can make meaningful PV construction requirements workable, but it will be interesting to see this play out.

[SageBrush]

The PV part of the law has gained media attention but those actually interested should read the law. It is a far reaching GHG building reduction initialtive, spanning PV to envelope improvement to DHW heat recovery and heat pump use.

I haven't seen it translated into HERS yet but I won't be surprised if the total effect is passivhaus level fossil fuel source energy reduction.

It has been years now that PV and conservation save the homeowner money from day #1 but there has been little traction due to upfront costs and builder reticence to learn new skills and to offer a more expensive house to the market. This law removes that inertia.

Go California !! (and leave the trumpers to wallow in their muck.)

[GRA]

Some more details can be found here, via GCC:

New California Energy Commission standards require solar PV systems for new homes; first in nation

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/05 ... -cec1.html

I checked the CEC website, but didn't feel like wading though all the verbiage showing the various changes in the wording of subsections of Title 24.