Robert wrote on Jun 10, 2008 9:08 PM:While not the total solution, it is a start. What fails to get mentioned is that you are paying for power one way or another. The only difference is that with a PV system you will some day own the power, and not have to pay the electric company for it. You just have to pay off the system. I would rather write a check to "PV Solar Company" for however many years it took to pay off my system than to continue getting raped by SDG&E every month!

Juan Grande wrote on Jun 10, 2008 9:55 PM:Of course the Republicans are against anything that solves the energy problem, their buddies are making too much money off the crisis. Commit to solar like Germany has and problem solved. Google what germany has done. I installed a 3kw system for 11,000 out of pocket. Supplies all my power on the coast.(4.8 MegaWatt Hours a year, 1500 sq/ft house)

Derek wrote on Jun 10, 2008 10:43 PM:$20 a square foot? That's like 5% of the cost of new construction in San Diego! We can't afford that!

Floyd the Accurate One wrote on Jun 10, 2008 11:15 PM:The amount of electricity that can be generated by moonlight is nowhere near enough to power a house after sundown or overnight. The electrical grid will be vitally important to bring us power from reliable sources (nuclear and oil plants) when solar power isn't working. Here's an important point: electricity can't be stored on the grid any more than it can be stored in the solar panels. Power must be generated when needed. Just because your meter is running backwards doesn't mean you're building a stockpile of elecricity somewhere -- when it runs forwards, it's because there's a power plant making that energy for you. To meet the needs of a growing population and prevent shortages, we need additional power plants to maintain the service, not more oddball rationing proposals that just make the situation worse.

Also -- did anyone notice that the increased cost per house for a mandated solar installation would be $40,000 and up? That's what I've been saying in these blogs for months while DD Wiz was loudly expostulating that my numbers were wrong and that I did not know what I was talking about. I hope this news article settles that issue in the mind of the gentle reader.

She forgot to add wrote on Jun 11, 2008 6:46 AM:that based on the amount of energy that should be produced by these panels an energy tax will be sent to you monthly from the state. And you thought it was free!

Farmer Steve wrote on Jun 11, 2008 6:53 AM:To simulate alternative energy... just allow owners of wind or solar systems to sell excess energy to the grid at a wholesale price. Currently, it makes no sense to install a residential system that takes care of any more than you can use yourself. Farming solar doesn't require water, plus we wouldn't need those extra powerline corridors.

Robert wrote on Jun 11, 2008 7:07 AM:"Floyd"; You are correct; you cannot stockpile electricity, but neither can the electric company. The "excess" that is produced by PV is used, it's just sold to someone else. A backward running meter is just like depositing money in the bank; when nighttime comes (or a cloudy day) you take the money (electricity) off the grid, but you have to bring the meter back to zero before you are buying any more. So, it doesn't matter who is "making" the electricity, someone has to. I would rather make my own and perhaps have to pay occasionally than always have to be held hostage by the electric company!

Fine by me wrote on Jun 11, 2008 7:16 AM:"Opponents also stress the bill would fundamentally change the way California gets its electricity, throwing into question the role of big utilities such as San Diego Gas & Electric Co. and Southern California Edison."

Juan Grande wrote on Jun 11, 2008 8:08 AM:Floyd - the grid would remain, however it would not be the only source of power (monopoly eliminated) At night when the power plants are idling millions of watt hours of power go to waste because the plants can not throttle back, they have to stay on. Night time power has never been an issue, and never will, the night demand is a fraction of the day demand. That is the beauty of grid-tied solar, it produces power exactly when it is needed

Sam wrote on Jun 11, 2008 9:32 AM:For a little reality here check the dot com public web site for the California Independent System Operator (CAISO)which inter-connects most of California electic generation and user utilities except several places. They show a neat graph constantly of the current demand and the current availability. Right now the demand is running at 30,000 megawatts with a peak expected later today of 35,000 megawatts. They also have some power generation on rotating backup, etc. Anyway the power demand in late afternoon after solar panels are not making much power is not much below peak demand as shown on their daily graphs. Early evening is a still high consumption period from th egrid. Late night. This decreases after ten PM and is low from midnight to early morning when there is low demand on the grid. It is true that the when large power generting equipment needs to be kept running and electricty for charging plug in cars could be made available cheaply.

Sam wrote on Jun 11, 2008 9:48 AM:OK so she thinks it should be mandatory to put $60,000 of new solar panels on every new house in California in a few years. But with a rebate of $20,000 it would cost only $40,000 to the homebuyer. WHO pays the $20,000 rebate? The rest of us normal income or retired persons would be charged extra taxes or higher electricity bills to pay a subsidy for the new home buyer who with inflation will no doubt be making twice as much then as we make now. I like some solar panels, but this is extremism run amuck. Then there is the argument that with new process they will be much cheaper than now. Maybe. But we were told a few years ago there was plenty of sand for solar panels. Now we are being told there is a shortage of the proper quality of sand for solar panels. And for all you people who think it will be free after you get it paid for you should know that it will soon be time to replace it by then and you will have to buy all new panels again.

Sam wrote on Jun 11, 2008 9:59 AM:I could agree that a reduced requirement for new houses in sunny parts of California should have a place for some solar panels to be installed later. That would consist of adequate strength in the building where panels would go, and installed with empty conduit tubes built in from the roof to the places where the electrical connection to the house wiring and the grid would be made. Then at some time the solar panels could be installed nicely with much less expense, if desired.

Sam wrote on Jun 11, 2008 10:13 AM:This legislation is political correctness run amuck. The governor and this legislature actually think the earth is in danger and we have to drastically cut carbon emissions to save it. They are being caught up in a huge fraud. If not voted out of office they will ruin the country. It is not that Republicans are against Solar panels. It’s just that we calculate things according to physical laws. For example we can calculate that the world will need to build at least 1200 new nuclear power plants by 2050 if we are to replace half of the existing plants that burn oil or gas or coal in order to reduce CO2 by 50% like they are saying. Things like this are what have caused so much industry to leave California, and then they wonder why they are $17 million per year short on the state budget.

Butler wrote on Jun 11, 2008 10:18 AM:I think I'll wait awhile. Solar is the answer to our problems and most of the wrinkles well be ironed out in the next five years. In twelve years solar will be a paying proposition for the individual home owner.
A little figuring shows that if the Carlsbad man that installed Solar at $45,000.00 and his electric bill was $50.00 a month it will take 900 months, or 75 years, to reach the break-even point. During that time he will have maintenance cost.
I would venture to say that within 12 years a home can be total solar, but there will be additional costs for some homes, to assure that the house will support the additional weight of the solar panels if some or all of them are not installed on the ground or on other buildings about.
total solar is the future and the answer to a lot of our countries environmental problems.

head in the sand wrote on Jun 11, 2008 11:30 AM:I can't believe people still have there head in the sand! The Earth is warming! Gas is 4.33 a gallon! A gallon of milk is 5$ and if you want it free of steroids and antibiotics that will be 6.99 a gallon! It's is because you have dragged your feet and somehow conjured the spectacle of higher taxes and lost jobs that we are in this place. Well people are losing there jobs and taxes arent' the problem it is the cost of living that is now the problem! Can we please use our available technologies to put ourselves in a better place!

andy wrote on Jun 11, 2008 11:41 AM:With a household income of over 300k, we pay alot of taxes, much of it out of pocket at the end of the year. We have no children, but we don't mind paying for your children's education because it makes our community a better place. I feel the same way about the solar rebate. Yes the money is coming from somewhere, it is coming from the top 5%earners like myself and we don't mind because it makes our community better and we all benefit!

FINALLY wrote on Jun 11, 2008 11:43 AM:Finally Sustainability!

Finally a Push that is LONG OVER-DUE.

Still pondering why thing wasn't done 5 years ago! So we can be living a greener life!

TAKE ACTION NOW....not 12 years from now.

Solar Panels are not just bing cluncky heavy roof tops. There are new lines out for PV (Photo-volactive) that are merely a thin linning that can grab energy so lets get busy.

We should be demanding our cities to have these building codes in place.

The Real Question is WHY NOT?

Other Questions why just solar, ALL NEW BUILDING PERMITS SHOULD INCLUDE A GOLD LEVEL OF LEED, to include at Least, Solar, Hot Water Heaters, Energy Windows, and Rain Water Catchers to water yards. At the very minimum all NEW BUILDS SHOULD HAVE THIS. At most people need to understand we CAN LIVE A CLEAN GREEN, SUSTAINABLE LIFE.... that doesn't mean we have to live in the 18th century to do so....the RESEARCH IS HERE, THE GREEN MANUFACTURES ARE READY...LETS BUILD A CLEAN TOMORROW!

Check out the book, "Green Jobs" this book is highly educational on all the research all the new companies, and all the ideas and ways people can live...truly AMAZING! And we should be doing it Right Now.

MOVEMENT wrote on Jun 11, 2008 11:48 AM:We the Residents have to make sure the Corners are not cut here.

The Sun Power should be owned by NO ONE!!!!

We need to make sure government doesn't control our rights to free sunshine!!!

Vista Resident wrote on Jun 11, 2008 12:08 PM:If the developers were smart, they wouldn't be fighting this. When they build more houses that tax our infrastructure, it just gets everyone more opposed to growth. If their PR department were smart, they would be on the bandwagon.

The government expects our population to double in 30 or 50 years. Why do we have to just sit back and accept that?

Actually, it is ridiculous that we are waiting 12 years to require this.

If construction costs are only $40k more for a 2000 sq foot home, that's minimal in today's housing market which wildly fluctuates in value anyway. Anyway, the investment in solar appreciates the value of a home more than the investment in the solar panels.

There are all kinds of costs that the taxpayer and the utility rate payer already pay to bring us energy. There's the cost of the Iraq war at a billion dollars a day -- plus trillions in interest. There's the cost of the Sunrise line to bring us alternative energy from down near the Mexican border. That cost doesn't even include what it will cost to additionally build alternative energy generation down there. And, there's the cost of protecting that line in a firestorm. The government will want fire resources to protect the lines.... first.

Andy wrote on Jun 11, 2008 3:48 PM:This solution was not entirely thought out. While some people think that fully independent is the answer renewable technologies have been proven to be unreliable on a national scale. Germany has supported its energy demand with renewable, but has to keep a nearly 100% backup non-renewable source for when the renwable doens't work. It think we should focous on developing new technologies the utilize our current infastructure(ie:nuclear, clean coal) and continue to reserch fusion which could provide and endless supply of energy. Also did anypone take into account how much solar panels would go up. Production of solar panels is soaring but not to this extent. Panel prices would almost certantily double or triple

Jim wrote on Jun 11, 2008 5:00 PM:Solar PV is still has the most expensive capital outlay costs of any commercial technology. Building 7 kw for $67,000 is equal to $9.5 million per MW. A modern combined cycle power plant can be built for about $1 million per MW. Since California needs to build 1,000 to 1,500 new MW every year for demand growth and plant retirements, solar PV won't help much anytime soon.

Susan wrote on Jun 11, 2008 7:26 PM:"The national laboratory estimates there are only about 20 homes in the nation that supply all of the power they use in a year."

Where on earth did that figure come from?
We have been supplying all of our electricity needs for 5 years now with a PV system and I'm sure there are more than 19 others like us in the whole nation. If this is mandated, economy of scale will make things less expensive along with new types of solar cells which will be developed when a mass market is assured.
Let's get with it! With rising electricity rates, systems pay for themselves.

Off the Grid wrote on Jun 11, 2008 9:42 PM:Reading ya'lls attitudes... OOPS was I wrong to get off the grid on my own or was I supposed to wait for the government to say okay? Grow up and live your values rather than preaching them at others, California.

Raise the rates wrote on Jun 11, 2008 9:43 PM:like gas and see people maybe turn the lights out when they aren't needed.

Floyd wrote on Jun 11, 2008 9:49 PM:Just guessing here, but the 20 homes that supply all of their own power are disconnected from the electrical power grid, do not have a natural gas hookup for cooking and hot water, do not purchase vehicle fuel, and pump their own water from underground. In other words, they are completely self-sufficient. A 7-kilowatt photovoltaic solar system on your roof that only works when the sun is shining brightly does not qualify as self-sufficient.

Floyd wrote on Jun 11, 2008 9:54 PM:Let's see ... a $40,000 solar power system (after the $22,000 rebate from the taxpayers) will allow me to save $35.00 a month on my power bill and will break even after 95 years of use. The lifetime expectancy of the solar panels is 30 years. I'll have to replace the entire system twice at a cost of $120,000 in today's money -- the taxpayer rebate is phasing out, you know -- before reaching the 95-year point. I don't think the solar panels are cost effective.

ElectricalContractor wrote on Jun 13, 2008 8:39 AM:I'm in the business, and I can tell you, considering that these solar systems will be financed in the mortgage and much less expensive in 10 years than they are now, it'll be better for the homeowner than being tied to SDGE/SCE/SMUD or any other utility. Today, a financed system is almost $0 out of pocket, and the cost of solar equipment will plummet in the next two years, as global manufacturers' assembly lines come online and increase capacity. We have to become self sufficient - as a country and as individuals. We're currently giving our money away to the Middle East for energy and Asia for manufacturing, and it's destroying our country. Self sufficiency in all respects is a must to save our country.