SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Right now, about one in five new homes in California comes with solar panels already installed. In two years, it will be all of them.
On Wednesday, California Energy Commission's vote was unanimous: California will soon become the first state to require solar panels on all new homes and on residential buildings smaller than four stories.
The law, which takes effect Jan. 1, 2020, specifies the minimum size of the system would be based on the size of the building and can vary between 2 and 7 kilowatts of output per dwelling.
California mandates solar panels on all new homes by 2020
Also at https://www.nytimes.com
An editorial in the Los Angeles Times expresses support for the measure.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
California Mandates Solar Panels on New Homes Under 4 Stories by 2020
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 29 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Could I have a drug overdose?
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Saturday May 12 2018, @11:46AM (12 children)
Less affordable housing. Good job.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday May 12 2018, @11:50AM (7 children)
That already happened, entirely without solar panels.
People really can't commute any further than they already do, and traffic can't get any worse than the standstill it already is. California will have to come up with different solutions since the free market is failing to deliver the housing stock that is required.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 12 2018, @12:29PM (6 children)
How are government restrictions a failure of a free market?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 12 2018, @01:17PM (1 child)
Let me introduce you to a little book called economics in one lesson. http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/ [steshaw.org]
The book shows how many gov restrictions if not carried out correctly can have the exact opposite effect of what they intend. Also remember big businesses can basically BUY laws to help lock out little players and lower competition. It is an interesting theory and a subset of the broken window fallacy.
http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/chap06p1.html [steshaw.org]
http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/chap18p1.html [steshaw.org]
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday May 12 2018, @07:03PM
Oh, do carry on. You are SO making his point for him.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday May 12 2018, @05:08PM (3 children)
Regulatory capture. You know how people like to say "guns don't kill people, people do?" Well s/guns/regulations/ and s/people/businesses/. It really is that simple.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday May 12 2018, @07:34PM (2 children)
Exactly...
...
...
The question was rhetorical. But in a nutshell:
1) Phoenix666 blames free market for the housing problem, suggests government step in
2) AC points out that the government ALREADY controls every aspect of building in CA, and therefore Phoenix666's expecting government to fix it has already proven a failed course of action, but in any event, the current situation is not the Free Market's fault because there is no free market in housing, and there hasn't been such for 50 years.
The housing industry in California is not dying. Its just building what it is allowed to build.
ALL OF THAT says nothing about the requirement to start requiring solar on houses, because that does NOT increase the cost of housing over the mid term. (For California, the Average savings per year of the average solar installation is $1709.4 ($142.45 per month), Estimated time for the system to pay for itself: 12 years, 4 months). [decisiondata.org]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Sunday May 13 2018, @05:42AM (1 child)
I love how many people are reacting as if a $5k to $10k system was that big of a deal on a new building. As if the law didn't include an exception for really cheap (e.g. mobile) homes.
Do they realise that we could save buyers a lot of upfront cash by not mandating that houses have electricity, plumbing, HVAC, or insulation, too?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 20 2018, @03:21AM
How many times can California mandate the addition of $5 to $10k systems on houses? I bet it's a lot more than once.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday May 12 2018, @01:51PM (2 children)
Yeah, million dollar McMansions will go up to 1.4 million now. What a shame.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Saturday May 12 2018, @05:00PM (1 child)
You don't get a McMansion for $1.4M today.
A million dollars buys just an average house is large parts of CA. The average price of houses sold in San Jose is close to $1M. Where I live, 2000 sq ft ranch-style houses cost almost $2M.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 13 2018, @02:35AM
Ahhh, the cost of having the fifth largest economy in the world, right? Everything is grossly overpriced and overvalued.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 14 2018, @04:59PM
Suppose they incentivize higher density housing, perhaps by adding costs to lower density development, would that help? Like, say, require every building under 4 stories to have solar panels?