State wants new homes off grid
By: DAVE DOWNEY - Staff Writer
By 2020, all new California houses could supply their own electricity | ∞
State regulators Monday proposed an aggressive statewide energy strategy that would push developers to build homes and shopping centers so efficient they would require no electricity or natural gas from California's major utilities.
While the proposal by California Public Utilities Commission officials would not require builders to meet deadlines, it would set a goal of building only so-called "zero net energy" homes by 2020 and only stores that require no outside energy by 2030.
The idea would be to design houses and commercial buildings to use little electricity and natural gas in the first place and to get whatever energy they use from on-site sources such as rooftop solar panels.
A building industry representative expressed doubts about whether it is a realistic goal, while a prominent consumer advocate suggested it is achievable.
In unveiling the proposed decision, Commissioner Dian M. Grueneich and administrative law Judge Kim Malcolm wrote: "This decision institutes a comprehensive, long-term energy efficiency strategy to achieve our ultimate goal ---- making energy efficiency a way of life."
The Public Utilities Commission is scheduled to take up the proposal Oct. 18.
Paul Tryon, chief executive officer for the San Diego County Building Industry Association, said in a telephone interview that, while having 100 percent self-sufficient homes may be an admirable goal, it also may not be practical.
"It's a pretty assertive goal that will require an evolution in technology," Tryon said.
According to San Diego Gas & Electric Co., about 1.3 percent of the region's supply comes from rooftop panels, and the share is expected to reach 4 percent by 2015.
He said much progress has been made in the campaign to make buildings more efficient. New homes, for example, use 70 percent less energy than same-size houses built just 15 years ago, he said.
"California has led the country in being sort of friendly in its consumption of energy, with both new homes and new commercial buildings," Tryon said. "But this will require quite a stretch to get to the next level."
Scott Anders, director of the University of San Diego's Energy Policy Initiatives Center, said the goal is achievable, but significant obstacles will have to be overcome.
"The biggest challenge is air conditioning," Anders said, noting much of the state's growth is taking place in inland regions such as Riverside County and eastern San Diego County that swelter in summer.
"The goal is going to be difficult because most of the new houses are going to be built in the hotter climates," he said.
Still, Anders said, he lives in a nearly self-sufficient home in the inland community of Lakeside that he rebuilt following the 2003 Cedar fire.
"We did an energy-efficient design. It's nothing out of the ordinary, really," he said. "And then we have a (solar) photovoltaic system." So far, he said, the home is requiring zero electricity from the power grid.
The solar panels, however, were expensive, Anders said, adding that it remains to be seen whether the housing market in this costly region can support the expense of panels on every roof.
San Diego consumer advocate Michael Shames, executive director of Utility Consumers' Action Network, said by e-mail that he believes the proposed goal is "certainly" achievable.
"Most estimates suggest that solar will be considerably less expensive by 2020," Shames said. "With the advent of plug-in cars and lower photovoltaic prices, there's little reason why any new home shouldn't be a zero-net energy structure. Most customers will be able to produce most of the power they need, with the utility infrastructure serving more of a back-up function for new homes."
The commission's proposal would apply only to regions of the state served by California's major investor-owned utilities, such as San Diego Gas & Electric Co., which serves San Diego County and southern Orange County, and Southern California Edison, which serves Riverside County and the Los Angeles area.
Utility officials said they needed to study the proposal before commenting about its details.
"This is a little unusual," said Gil Alexander, a Southern California Edison spokesman.
Rachel Laing, a San Diego Gas & Electric spokeswoman, said: "It's in line with our general philosophy that energy efficiency is the first and most important pillar of our long-range planning."
-- Contact staff writer Dave Downey at (760) 745-6611, Ext. 2623, or ddowney@nctimes.com.
More Stories
Advertisement
Zygo wrote on Sep 18, 2007 2:42 AM:While zero energy may be a bit too optimistic it is obvious that many inovations are already on the market to allow for a lot more energy efficient homes/businesses to be built. I was surprised a couple of years ago, when shopping for my current home, that E-glass was an option with some builders when it should have been standard by all. Solar energy would plumet in cost if their was a mass market for the product.
Anna wrote on Sep 18, 2007 2:54 AM:This makes sense. They should do the same for water. A development can not happen until they secure water rights from a water district through new purchases or conservation. No new net water use for new development. Let them pay their fair share for putting more people in this already overcrowded state. More are not welcome.
Oside Mama 4 wrote on Sep 18, 2007 2:57 AM:I could not agree with you more Zygo. California has potential to lead the plummet of solar energy cost with the Governor's Million Solar Homes Initiative. If we succeed at meeting this plan, the ripples will follow for the rest of the country. Congrats to the state regulators on this aggressive proposal!
Now THAT wrote on Sep 18, 2007 4:36 AM:Is a great idea. AND, I'll bet it can even be done. Whoever, had the guts to propose it should get a bonus. Heck, they should run for Pres.
Sonny wrote on Sep 18, 2007 6:50 AM:Sounds like a darn good idea! California with all its abundant sunshine should fully support the use of sustainable resources such as solar power. As our population increases our willingness to create such low energy developments should incease as well. Lets all think GREEN!!!
cts wrote on Sep 18, 2007 7:01 AM:Government decisions have always forced technology development and resulted in the benefits trickling down to consumers. Imagine the benefit of even the smallest solar cell system on a high percentage of homes vs. what we have today.
Sol wrote on Sep 18, 2007 7:19 AM:Shouldn't the state of California be able to be 100% solar? Just look at the sunshine and the space filled with roofs, parking lots and (with enviornmental impact studies), vast areas of open desert. Between California, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona there should be enough solar power to meet much of the nations energy needs.-
Why will PV panels get cheaper? wrote on Sep 18, 2007 7:31 AM:Worldwide demand shows no sign of slowing down. Production of PV grade silicon is no where near demand. PV panels have gone up in price, while production has increased. Our goverment needs to quit killing Iraqis and start subsidizing the solar industry.
Jon wrote on Sep 18, 2007 7:34 AM:Great Idea, Whats wrong with requiring builders to provide and Install Solar Electric with maybe a generator backup? Over 30 years it adds change to the Monthly Mortgage payment ,And unused power can be sold back to the grid.It sounds like a win win thing to me.
Jon wrote on Sep 18, 2007 7:36 AM:Anna, Theres an unlimited supply of water right off shore. Their called desalination plants. There in use all over the world.
Wes wrote on Sep 18, 2007 7:54 AM:New homeowners are finding out by the thousands that ARM means Adjustable Rate. Oh, and that means their payment is as well. You can't expect the less educated amongst us to demand E rating glass, HE a/c compressors, or even solar water heaters. It has to be mandated to "break in" to the avg 'Joe's' mindset. Basic utilities should not be part of the free market economy. I'm talking natural gas, electricity, and water. We are talking about a carbon based economy making the difficult but necessary change to ... something other than carbon-based. That will have to be legislated to avoid gettin' caught 'with your pants down.' We still have to 'remind' parents to provide basic necessities to their children. You think those audience members give a rat's ass about renewables . . . Unfortunately, these are the same class of folks that hold the majority of the buying power in America; you know, the average consumer.
cadiver wrote on Sep 18, 2007 7:58 AM:Saying that solar energy cost would plummet if it was massmarketed. The fact is in the actual conditions, there is a shortage of material to manufacture solar panels and mass marketing would only accentuate the shortage and increase the cost of the panels. However, there is new solar panel technology being developed that would palliate the shortage (thin film...) and make solar energy more affordable in the near future. Developers should also conceive houses better, build them with better materials, better windows and insulation. But their main objective is short term profit, why would they care, they are not the ones that will be paying the energy bills-
local osider wrote on Sep 18, 2007 8:25 AM:finally a reasonable proposal! If there could be a demand generated for this equipment, it could drive the cost down to the point where everyone in the country could afford it...Now more than ever we need "assertive goals" to lead the future,
To Anna wrote on Sep 18, 2007 8:42 AM:Some warer districts charge $30 to $50 THOUSAND dollars for a $2000 dollar water meter,
Dude in Vista wrote on Sep 18, 2007 9:00 AM:Totally Excellent!!!!!
Concerned-1 wrote on Sep 18, 2007 10:25 AM:I like this direction. Unlike many environmental initiatives, this actually has practical applications. Count me in support.
Lookaround wrote on Sep 18, 2007 10:31 AM:This is absolutely what is needed. All we need now is for this strategy to make its way through the process without getting watered down after complaints of detriment to profits, etc. California has such a pivotal role to play in making energy sustainable across the country--we need this type of leadership to continue. Beware energy barons like SDG&E and their constituents who will be working to protect their own interest. A true shift will require a restructuring of the ranks of energy employees. It won't be easy or painless for everyone, but it will ulimately lead to other jobs and a better life for all.
Floyd wrote on Sep 18, 2007 10:32 AM:So this is the ultimate goal of the conservationists: actively refusing service to the customer. Exactly how is a downtown smart-growth skyscraper going to generate all of it's own power? The electrical needs of one floor will overwhelm anything a rooftop-mounted solar system can provide, leaving the other floors dark and cold! You can't put solar panels on the sides of the building because the shadows from the surrounding skyscrapers will prevent power generation. "Zero net energy" is a step backwards, a bad idea.
fasteddy wrote on Sep 18, 2007 10:47 AM: There cannot be a water shortage if they continue issuing more building permits! Of course they could keep building forcing us to use more sewer water which is already the plan. Reverse osmosis water treatment plants are a viable option and I have been in countries where that is the only water source however the water still tasted salty to me but then even the sea water in some parts of California is polluted
Off-Grid is incorrect wrote on Sep 18, 2007 11:11 AM:IT is actually called grid-tied. Teh user connects to the grid and uses the grid as a battery, a 100% effecient battery. The building panels generates electricity during the peak demand time of day, but can draw off the system all day long. Off grid is a system that is not connected to the utility at all. Only remote locations use off grid technology.
Oside Mama 4 wrote on Sep 18, 2007 11:21 AM:RE: Just as the Director of University of San Diego's Energy Policy Initiatives Center (Scott Anders) said, there are obstacles to overcome. Of course there will be buildings that are not ideal for "zero-net energy", but there will be countless others that are. Nobody is going to "actively refuse service to the customer" as you stated. Turing away from this "achievable" (Scott Anders again) initiative because not all cases are ideal would be foolish. Not only will the implementation of this proposal SAVE energy usage, but it will GENERATE energy as well. There will be many times in which the average "zero-net energy" home/business uses less alternative power than it generates, therefore putting that energy ON the grid to help provide traditional energy for others. Who in their right mind would turn down the opportunity to generate "FREE" ENERGY!?!
Oside Mama 4 wrote on Sep 18, 2007 11:26 AM:Previous message is a response (RE:) to Floyd...
What? wrote on Sep 18, 2007 12:46 PM:Over all I like the idea. I am not fond of the government telling me what to do but something needs to be done. I would rather the developers would catch on and let market forces drive this. With the down turn in housing I think near zero utility costs would be quite a feature on a new home. To those saying volume won't drive down the cost of PV I would say economies of scale. On top of that the more people buying them would mean more people would get into the buisness of selling them. They would then start undercutting each others prices. Same goes for the raw materials involved in manufacturing them. To Anna I would say how about you help us out and move to Montana. Or are you one of those I've got mine and everyone else needs to change?-
John E wrote on Sep 18, 2007 4:27 PM:The cost of energy will continue to rise, and people will embrace conservation either by choice or under mandate, but it will happen. A gradually rising energy consumption tax, with revenues applied to nuclear fusion research, might be a good market-based solution.
latina4jusice wrote on Sep 18, 2007 4:33 PM:Yes, way to go...have often thought that even a solar cell to run air conditioners in the desert would be great, this is even better. We have to push the envelop...no have concerts and ride busses and trains.
Reardon wrote on Sep 18, 2007 5:35 PM:I'll put in solar electric (I already have solar hot water) immediately after latina4jusice (I assume that is ("justice"), Dude, Lookaround, and Concerned_1 install it in their place. Actually, I want to see the Governor's mansion and all of the State Legislators do it first, also. We need leadership and Dude, latina4whatever, and the rest --especially the Legislators -- can show us the way.
Neighbor wrote on Sep 18, 2007 6:00 PM:On a recent vacation to hotter than hell, Indio, I noticed lots of new developments without any solar power. All of these homes will need maximum power during the hot days of summer. There really is no spare electricity for them during hot spells. This idea of mandatory solar power on new homes is long overdue.
Reardon the Sheep wrote on Sep 18, 2007 6:34 PM:Great reardon, be a follower, not a leader. Good thing that your not in charge, nothing would get done. California leads the country and the world on these issues. I have solar and I laugh out loud when electrcity goes up in price. My system pays for itself in 10 years, then it is free power forever baby!!!!
Watcher wrote on Sep 18, 2007 7:47 PM:Since we're rapidly running out of water and energy, we should ask if we should be allowing developers to build any new housing subdivision or shopping centers, on or off the grid. If the answer is yes, I support making them both water and energy self sufficient, in order to avoid burdening existing residents by making them subsidze new sprawl growth.
Reardon wrote on Sep 18, 2007 8:26 PM:To "...Sheep": Sorry, but the actuarial tables say I can't get an ROI. But there is a meeting this next weekend of those in North County who have solar electricity. It is being held in the telephone booth at the corner of ...
First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, e-mail addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. Attempts to misrepresent your identity or impersonate any person will not be approved. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.
Today's Stories
Advertisement