All Forum Posts by: Steve K.

 I agree that California has a housing crisis but I think the effect this policy will have on the housing market overall is minimal. The mandate applies to about 80,000 new homes being built annually, so far less than 1% of CA housing stock. Additionally many affordable housing developments will be exempt because the mandate only applies to buildings of 3 stories or less. I agree it would have been smart to make an actual exemption for all affordable housing. I'm guessing they didn't do this because in CA clean energy is seen as a benefit to low income communities and they want affordable housing to incorporate solar because it lowers monthly expenses for the building's residents. Groups like GRID alternatives and others have been very active leveraging donated equipment and volunteer labor to install solar for free on low income housing in CA which has made it possible for disadvantaged communities to gain access to free electricity. The mandate may not be a shining example of renewables benefiting low income people because it does add to the expense of new homes, but it's not an isolated policy. Aside from the mandate, clean energy contributes to California's efforts to address the affordable housing crisis such as 35% of proceeds from the cap and trade policy going directly to affordable housing. I think in general increased access to green energy benefits poorer communities, who are impacted more by dirty energy sources because they live in more polluted neighborhoods and closer to industrial sites like coal power plants, causing cancer rates to be a lot higher and life expectancy to be shorter in those communities.  

@Rhonda Wilson

Brian, 

For starters, here is a photo of a windmill, used centuries ago to mill grain or pump water:

And here is a wind TURBINE, the cheapest form of electricity available today:

One thing that's important to understand about energy: all of it is subsidized and always has been. Coal, gas, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, all of it. Every form of electricity relies on subsidies, and that has always been the case going back to before our country existed (even back then timber, whale blubber, and coal were subsidized by Great Britain). So if you don't think energy should be subsidized, you should support the forms of energy that are on a path to stand on their own. Nobody really wants to pay the true cost of energy as a consumer though; without energy subsidies our economy would grind to a halt immediately. Energy is a complex topic but put simply put all forms of energy have always been propped up in some way, indirectly and directly. It's not a free market in ANY way, and if it were we'd probably all still be huddled around campfires. The coal industry wouldn't be what it is today, we wouldn't have a single nuclear power plant, gas would be prohibitively expensive, etc. Every form of energy is heavily subsidized to the tune of trillions of taxpayer dollars a year. So your comment "If it wasn't for subsidies they would be a complete disaster" applies to each and every single form of energy. Currently the only forms of energy with potential to exist without support from government are wind and solar, so if you truly are an advocate for unsubsidized energy, you should support the forms of energy that have a clear roadmap to becoming cost effective without needing subsidies (although I doubt you'd like to pay the true cost of electricity, gas, or goods being transported).  

@Account Closed Are you still talking about batteries? 

Holy Cow Bill there's a lot packed into that article. The TPO model is such a lightning rod issue in the industry. On one hand it introduced the "$0 down, switch to solar, save money day one" option which allowed solar to scale quickly at a critical time period, bringing equipment prices down and bringing us to where we are today. On the other hand, the sales tactics employed by leasing companies, the "fixture filing" (lien) involved complicating transfer of ownership, and also (not mentioned in the article but visible in the photo to the trained eye) the install quality of leasing companies may not always conform with industry best practices. Fortunately the TPO model is rapidly being replaced with 10/15/20yr. amortized loans that weren't available when the TPO model was introduced. Even Sunrun, the company mentioned in the article, is transitioning to financing. 3rd parties are here to stay for the time being however unfortunately when it comes to solar on investment property. This is because the tax credit does not apply to investment property but the leasing company can claim it and pass the savings on. I'm not sure why investment property was excluded from the investment tax credit back in 2006, but it was, leaving us with leasing as the best option for our rentals, which is why not many investors put solar on their rentals. 

The article makes some valid points regarding the possibility of TPO solar complicating an RE transaction, as well as the solar company not really designing the system properly (not surprising as the big leasing companies are more in line with Walmart than Audi in terms of quality, you get what you pay for in any industry). Also the salesperson in that case may have been a little silver-tongued (shocker, a salesperson using sales techniques to close a deal). One thing that stood out to me however was that the example used is an oddball case; not the norm. The selling agent dropped the ball on this one. If he/she had framed expectations properly going in, uncovered and disclosed the lien like they should have, and understood all the options available such as the prepaid lease buyout option for $15k (which the writer admits she would have readily agreed to), it would have been a non issue. The buyer/author was also being a bit unreasonable; letting the sale drift and threatening a lawsuit over $30/month which she arrived at using bad math. The whole issue was that she didn't plan to use enough electricity to make the system cost effective, because the previous owner had oversized the system to run a Ham radio operation that was no longer in use. So the surplus electricity made the lease payment higher than the electricity bill would have been without solar, because they would be paying for extra capacity. Generally lease payments are less than the electricity would cost without solar so the buyer sees solar as a value ad because their operating costs will be lower. In this case they would be $30 higher (estimated by the writer, although she reached that number by comparing to her previous home of an entirely different design with different appliances, which no energy expert would recommend, and couldn't possibly be accurate). Anyway, earlier in the article she mentioned that the new home didn't have AC. Why not just add AC and use the extra capacity? Problem solved, everybody wins. Wouldn't she want AC in Santa Barbara anyway?  A savvy agent could have finessed that deal easily. I would have offered to buy them an AC unit personally. Turn up the AC, turn down the bickering over $30, and let's close this deal! Instead, the author ends the article with imagery of herself pregnant in a house in SoCal with no AC and no solar (and probably a leaky roof). It didn't have to end that way. Another option would have been for buyer and seller to split the $15k prepaid lease option. That would have been an amazing deal for the buyer, and $7.5k probably wouldn't have been a deal breaker for a willing seller, which was an estate that inherited a house in Santa Barbara free and clear, that eventually agreed to pay $27,500 to have the system removed anyway. This deal could have been massaged a number of ways, it's a shame it worked out the way it did but it's just as much the fault of the agents and principles involved as it is the structure of the solar contract.

 Sure Russell, I think there was definitely a “better the devil you know than the devil you don’t” approach to it from the CBIA perspective. Their spokespeople have said as much. As soon as CA committed to go carbon free builders knew big changes were coming and since solar is practically standard on new builds there anyway they figured this was a concession they could swallow compared to possible alternatives. In my experience over the last 15 years builders have mostly been warm to the idea of solar, but extremely cold to new regulation of course. CA builders are certainly familiar with the solar installation process by now, most are partnered with an installer they work with regularly, so it’s easy to implement. “Supporting” this over some unknown requirement being concocted behind the scenes made shrewd business sense.

@Account Closed okay well generators aren’t clean and green, you’re absolutely correct, not sure why anyone would assume they were, just trying to help you find a solution for backup power, jeez.

@Bill F. the overall trend has been away from TPO last few years. I would imagine since the mandate deals with new construction the systems will be included in the price of the homes, and rolled into the mortgage (average increase in mortgage payment is estimated at $40/mo. Whereas energy savings are estimated at $80/mo so net benefit for the homeowner). I’ll have to read that article later and get back to you with my thoughts tonight, still shoveling lol.  

@Danny Grey you’d be surprised there are actually a lot of closet conservatives in Boulder these days, not just the hippy town it once was. Also I could say the same thing about you being in CA, except I’m not into making sweeping generalizations that dump entire populations into one bucket. Not sure what you’re talking about regarding efficiency or cost of solar either. The solar panels on my roof are 22% efficient, paid for themselves in less than a year, and the utility pays me whereas if I didn’t have solar I’d still be paying a couple hundred bucks for electricity each month. If that’s not good enough for you you’re welcome to keep paying your electric bill as long as you want. Sure a coal power plant is slightly more efficient, but you have to keep mining coal and putting coal in it for it to make electricity whereas the fuel source for solar is free and unlimited. Plus the fact the coal power plant belches emissions that directly cause shorter life expectancy and higher risk of lung cancer, so there’s that, but yes they are a few percentage points more efficient so if that’s your only metric you win. 

@Account Closed no batteries are not clean and green, nobody said they were. Not sure why you’re still talking about batteries now that we’ve already established numerous times for you that 99% of solar installs do not include batteries nor does the CA mandate that this thread is about require batteries. Solar panels are one thing, batteries are a whole other thing.

@Danny Grey Yes in this context I mostly agree with you, as the mandate itself is certainly not a conservative policy or one that promotes freedom of choice. However any new housing development will be hooked into a grid where whoever purchases the home will be required to buy energy from somewhere, so there's not much freedom of choice either way. Solar in general provides a lot more freedom than buying energy from a monopolistic corporation which is what my conservative customers like about it.