All Forum Posts by: Steve K.

Yup you nailed it with the tragedy of the commons. I so wish you hadn't compared solar to ethanol though, that was such a disaster and I really hope we're not going down that path, and doubt we are.  

 I for one am thankful for catalytic converters being mandatory, as an example. Those old cars were nasty. Seatbelts too, that was a good idea. I think a lot of good ideas become mandatory, don't they?

Also solar doesn't have to be mandatory, it's already the fastest growing form of new energy, and the mandate doesn't start until next year. 

 Thanks for the recognition Tanya. This has been exasperating with all the outdated or just bad info being disseminated, batteries aren't big enough, "windmills" consume energy, solar is the only form of energy that receives govt. money, etc.... Apparently if you want a post with 200 comments, all you have to do is mention solar, but 50% or more of the posts will be straight out of left field.

I had forgotten how little the general public knows about solar, it's mainstream in my area and has been for a while plus working in the industry I'm dealing with folks who have at least a basic understanding. It seems a lot of people have their "solar talking point" from 10 years ago and still think it's relevant. New energy economy train has already left the station people, time to play catch up now.  

 Haha Jay how could I forget. We haven't had any solar wars yet, but I wouldn't rule it out. 

 Jay I think that would be achieved by less government help in what we pay at the pump, true cost of gasoline is in the neighborhood of $15/gallon. But if fuel costs weren't subsidized, cost of goods would skyrocket, nobody wants that. 

 Don't worry Karen, even as solar professionals we have to constantly update ourselves literally every day. This industry is moving at a lightning fast pace it's hard to keep up with it. I'd be curious to see what the $50k system you were quoted before would cost with current pricing. If you let us know the size in watts Andrew and I could give you a rough updated cost per watt estimate.  

I agree whole heartedly. I actually see the mandate as somewhat of a nothing-burger compared to people's reactions to it. It doesn't really move the needle that much compared to the blowback from people who aren't looking at the whole picture. 

What I would prefer to see personally is an incentive for landlords to install solar on rental properties.

But it's easy to point to a piece of legislation and criticize it for not being more in line with whatever ancillary agenda people have. Ultimately complaining is the cancer of the soul. 

So let's accept the mandate, (builders will be fine learning how to slap a few panels down during a new build or a remodel, it's really not difficult, we're gonna be fine) and separately we can work towards other legislation to end homelessness, create a carbon tax, reduce reliance on government help for all forms of energy, provide incentives for solar on investment property, and whatever anyone else's pet issue is.

I agree government should get out of the energy business but we might differ on which forms of energy they should stop supporting first. I'd like to see the subsidies for coal, nuclear, and gas go away first. Solar and wind are the two forms of energy that have potential to exist without government subsidies.  

 Seth good point about remodels, I had forgotten about that thanks for bringing that back to my attention. I definitely see your point. Any addition over 500ft2 in my area triggers the dreaded "site plan review" process aka a ton more hoops to jump through. I want to add a bedroom on my primary and the list of things they want me to do would add about $10k to the project (and I already have solar, now they want me to add sprinklers but I have vaulted ceilings so that's not practical, they don't care) so I feel your pain on regulations in general.

Of course it causes a knee jerk reaction whenever home prices are increased in a region that has a major housing crisis but I think the thought process being applied here is more long term (and I frame it this way because as I have said I have mixed feelings about the mandate, so I can only present what I think the policy makers intentions are). The way proponents of the mandate frame it is as it relates to home pricing is that initial costs will increase but total cost of home ownership actually decreases due to reduced monthly operating expenses. So it's basically forcing people to become investors in a power plant on their roof as opposed to being locked into buying electricity from the utility with no return on their end, ever. Homes with solar save their occupants money whereas homes without solar keep a debt to the utility on the books each month indefinitely. Reduced operating expenses also theoretically reduces the rate of mortgage default and makes home ownership MORE affordable in the grand scheme because the electric bill is eliminated, which in CA as you know can be a significant monthly expense. At least that's what I assume the policy makers would say based on what I've read. I'm still learning about how this experiment is expected to work.

Let's face it, a large part of homelessness is due to people making poor personal decisions (in addition to a very long list of other factors beyond people's control of course to be fair, but still, many homeless people made bad life decisions). A solar mandate forces people to save money and removes the option for them to divert money they should use for their bills to buy luxury items. Many of us have tenants with a fancy flat screen TV and a blinged-out BMW who are behind several months on their electric bills. They wouldn't be behind on their bills if they didn't have those bills, because the electricity they use was provided by the solar panels on the roof. That's the idea anyway, and it wasn't my idea but I'm trying to present what I believe is the intention behind the mandate, take it or leave it.

I think this mandate is looked at as a drastic measure even among the most ardent supporters of solar such as yours truly. Perhaps drastic measures are needed as we enter the new energy economy. It's not going to be easy to adjust as we move forward, big changes are coming to the way we produce and consume energy.  I plan to profit from the changes, crucify me for it if you like.  

@Brian Ploszay

@Rhonda Wilson

@Karen Margrave

@Andrew Smith

@Jay Hinrichs

 Net metering: meter reverses during the day when surplus energy is being produced, credits those kilowatt hours to the account for later use when sun isn't shining.