Citing a study that shows that both solar photovoltaic (PV) and solar water heating are considerably cheaper energy options for Davis residents than using grid-sourced electricity and natural gas, the Natural Resources Commission has proposed a Davis Renewable Energy Ordinance.
Their report shows that installing solar PV could reduce a consumer’s monthly electricity cost by more than 30 percent.
The ordinance says that all new residential and commercial buildings larger than 1000 square feet and all major renovations “[i]ncorporate on-site renewable energy generation capable of producing an amount of electrical energy at least equivalent to 100 percent of the projected electrical usage of the project.”
It additionally calls for the requirement that they “[i]nstall an EnergyStar-rated solar water heater sized to meet 100 percent of the average daily demand for domestic hot water service.”
In an email from Gene Wilson, Chair of the NRC, to city officials and other commissioners, he said, “The NRC report also found that the higher cost to consumers of grid-sourced electricity will undoubtedly get worse. According to the California Energy Commission, utility electricity rates are likely to increase 39 percent over the next 10 to 12 years. PG&E has a request pending now for a 15.6% increase in rates.”
“By contrast, a rooftop solar system installed today is a fixed cost. It will continue to generate electricity at $0.09 per kWh for 20 to 30 years producing greater financial savings for the consumer every year,” he wrote, “This $0.09 price per kWh for solar PV electricity was derived from data published by the Energy Commission showing average prices for solar PV systems installed in California to be $6 per kW of generation capacity.”
In contrast, the PG&E baseline is $.13 per KWh, that increases to $.15 at tier two and soars to $.31 at tier 3.
He writes, “Rooftop solar is practical for installation on new homes now. In fact, some major residential home developers are already offering the benefits of solar PV to their customers at no additional charge. For example, Shea Homes already offers ‘net zero homes standard, at not extra cost to our home buyers.’ “
The NRC report also concludes that solar water heaters offer similar savings to consumers. However, Mr. Wilson notes, “Due to currently low natural gas prices, solar water heaters are only cost effective if they are installed consistently as a part of new construction when costs are lowest.”
He writes, “Again, the savings are immediate, and they multiply over the years as natural gas prices increase. The Energy Commission is expecting natural gas prices to rise 79 percent over the next 10 to 12 years. “
“Moreover, the public supports including renewable energy in new homes. Market research by the California Energy Commission shows that 87 percent of Californians view a home’s energy efficiency as an important factor when purchasing a new home. 71 percent ‘think that home builders should make roof-top solar electric systems a standard feature in all new single residence homes they build,’ ” he continues.
The renewable energy ordinance cites global projects that “atmospheric CO2 has this year exceeded 400 ppm for the first time in three million years and average daily temperatures are projected to increase by as much as 4 degree Celsius this century resulting in sea-water intrusion, desertification, food insecurity, extreme heat waves, loss of agricultural production, extended drought, species loss, ocean acidification, increased disease risk, and related impacts.”
The city of Davis, through its Climate Action Plan, seeks to become carbon neutral no later than 2050. In order to get there, these goals will require the city to cease the “development of new buildings in Davis that do not incorporate renewable energy generation [and that] will lock residents of Davis into an insecure, inefficient and high-carbon energy future.”
The ordinance argues, “Rooftop solar reduces the need for distribution system upgrades, reduces peak electricity demand, reduces transmission losses, avoids costly expansions of long-distance transmission systems, and allows undeveloped land to be used for other economic, social or environmental purposes.”
A number of recent developments have already begun to incorporate the rooftop solar PV as a standard feature in their design. This demonstrates both its economic and technical feasibility. The California Energy Commission has concluded that adding solar photovoltaics can completely offset the related costs.
They argue, “Renewable energy generation can be installed at considerably less expense when the installation is done as a part of the original construction, rather than by retrofitting which potentially involves opening the building for structural upgrades, dealing with split incentives, addressing complex ownership structures, concerns about roof leaks, interference with on-going uses, fixed design limitations, access problems, higher financing costs, deploying a second project, potentially obsolescing distribution system and generation upgrades.”
The cost of renewable energy generation built into a new project can be financed as part of the first mortgage, thus providing the lowest financing cost for renewable systems and maximizing the financial benefit to new owners.
The ordinance calls for urban forest protection, as well. The language states, “It is the intent of this ordinance that priority be given to fostering the growth and development of the urban forest in new developments. In circumstances where the installation of rooftop solar would curtail the future growth and development of the urban forest, the requirements of this ordinance shall be inapplicable insofar as necessary to avoid such impact.”
This is clearly meant to ward off concerns that the installation of solar PV would lead to conflicts with the city’s policies on protecting trees and its urban forest.
They allow that “[i]ncorporation of solar or ground source systems that fully meet the space heating and/or cooling requirements of a project is an acceptable alternative to compliance with Section 1.”
And the ordinance also includes a hardship clause, “The Director of Community Development shall waive compliance with this ordinance, to the extent necessary, for commercial or residential projects where roof space is inadequate or where compliance would impose undue hardship or economic expense or would otherwise be infeasible.”
For electric vehicles: “Residential solar photovoltaic systems installed pursuant to this ordinance shall reserve sufficient roof space to add solar panels to charge an electric vehicle and shall provide an electrical conduit to the solar panels that can accommodate additional wiring sufficient for that purpose. All new residences shall install an electrical conduit for one Level 2 EV charging station and provide panel capacity sufficient for that purpose.”
The Director of Community Development shall monitor the effectiveness of this ordinance and consumer satisfaction, and will report to the council annually for three years to determine if there are any problems and suggest program adjustments as needed.
“For these reasons, the Natural Resources Commission has recommended that the City Council adopt an ordinance (attached) requiring all new residential and commercial construction in Davis to incorporate solar PV and solar water heating beginning in 2014,” Gene Wilson reports. “This is a solution that address the urgent responsibility to reduce GHG emissions and provides an opportunity for Davis to save consumers money while creating new jobs. We urge the City Council to address this issue as soon as possible.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Will this ordinance be applicable to the Cannery project?
[i]Their report shows that installing solar PV [b]could[/b] reduce a consumer’s monthly electricity cost by more than 30 percent.[/i]
Yeah, and pigs *could* fly if the little buggers had wings. It seems like every few decades another batch of loonies comes out of the woodwork to insist their [energy, telecom, internet] proposals make economic sense, are beneficial, and would result in happy times for all, [i]if only[/i]. Bah. None – repeat *none* – of what they propose will pass muster.
I mean, really? ROOFTOPS???? Idiots.
The Commission is amazing. Is there anything for which they cannot develop a ban or a requirement to impose on their fellow citizens? Is there some city rule that limits their consideration to only half of the carrot and stick system used in most localities?
As with all of their proposed mandates, this one includes undesirable consequences on the environment and on our residents. But, that barely slows them down.
It’s time to get rid of the NRC.
[quote]some major residential home developers are already offering the benefits of solar PV to their customers at no additional charge. [/quote]
I think it’s safe to assume the cost is built into the purchase price.
it’s hard to imagine anyone could have a problem with the idea of solar panels on the rooftops, but i guess to the right wingers on the vanguard, everything is a threat to their sovereignty. amazing.
“It’s time to get rid of the NRC.”
after all, no one would ever have thought to impose solar panels on roofs. ps, don’t read the climate action report that council has already signed off on.
It is solar panels versus real economics and trees.
I vote for real economics and trees.
Eventually solar panels will provide a real economic benefit and people will buy them and have them installed. The NRC and other gubment do-gooders should mind their our business as people will pursue their own economic self-interests and go green when it makes economic sense.
But, as for the conflict with shade-providing trees… this is a great green conundrum and the conflicts will rage.
I think the objection might be that it is a requirement for all new construction, 100%, and that it surely increases the cost of new construction. Many people would prefer [i]incentivizing[/i] rather than [i]mandating[/i] energy conservation and solar features at this level. This proposal may be in conflict with providing more affordable housing. And in spite of the specific language about the urban forest, solar systems to affect the placement and size of shade trees selected for neighborhoods.
With regard to shade trees and solar, it is possible that the language of the ordinance would be superceded by state law: [url]http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/15/business/fi-solarspat15[/url]
I thought we were trying to lure new companies to Davis, not scare them away with yet more onerous ordinances and costs.
what in the heck is real economics? we installed pv’s and we now pay nearly nothing on electricity and heating. why is that a bad thing?
“I think the objection might be that it is a requirement for all new construction, 100%, and that it surely increases the cost of new construction. Many people would prefer incentivizing rather than mandating energy conservation and solar features at this level. “
you know that’s not frankly or carlos’ objection.
“I thought we were trying to lure new companies to Davis, not scare them away with yet more onerous ordinances and costs.”
someone has to make the pv’s and install them, no?
Let’s see, I’ve got a business and I’m looking to relocate to the Sacramento area. Davis seems nice but they’re going to force me to install $10’s to $100’s of thousands of dollars worth the solar panels on my new building and just 10 miles up the road I don’t have to. So long Davis.
[quote]Bah. None – repeat *none* – of what they propose will pass muster.
I mean, really? ROOFTOPS???? Idiots. [/quote]
I may be an idiot, but I’m not a Luddite. My solar system installed six months ago on my ROOFTOP happily pumps energy back into the grid much of the day, and will pay for itself in less than five years, based on PG&E usage observed before and after the installation. Like a good little capitalist, I did the ROE calculations well before I agreed to have the work done, since it was a significant investment (albeit at low interest rates).
My urban forest is largely intact, with the loss of only one large tree that we were going to remove anyway. We have actually increased the amount of shade on the house, since the panels shade the roof under them.
[quote]Eventually solar panels will provide a real economic benefit and people will buy them and have them installed.[/quote]
Eventually is now.
[quote]you know that’s not frankly or carlos’ objection.[/quote]
I don’t really care what their objections are. There are practical considerations here, specifically how the PV is financed, what costs it adds to housing (especially lower-cost housing), and the tradeoffs of shade vs. solar access.
[quote]My solar system installed six months ago on my ROOFTOP happily pumps energy back into the grid much of the day, and will pay for itself in less than five years[/quote]
Just curious: how much did it cost? If you prefer, you can email me with your answer.
[i]what in the heck is real economics? we installed pv’s and we now pay nearly nothing on electricity and heating. why is that a bad thing?[/i]
You need to do the present value on the fixed cost of the system, and factor the cost of maintenance and cell replacement. Also, if you have to replace your roof, it increases the cost quite a bit to have to first remove the PC system and re-install it.
Add up all the costs, including the tax incentives, and for a large majority of homeowners, there is not yet a break-even.
And don’t get me going on these leased-system models… they don’t add up over the long-run either.
And yes the construction requirement is my objection. My point is that the economics, including incentives, once positive enough, will cause developers and home and business owners to include solar for financial reasons. We don’t need mandates.
Just stop with the damn mandates to meet social justice and environmental agenda policy goals. Do you know how difficult it is to start and grow a business with all the existing regulatory and code requirements? We keep adding requirements and we never release any requirements. And each new requirement drives up the cost and complexity.
And then we wonder why US corporations sit on trillions of dollars that they would otherwise use to invest in domestic business expansion.
So what does Obama do instead of streamlining our federal business regulatory and tax system? He demands a windfall to steal a big steaming pile of those trillions so HE can ride in on a white horse named “Hazard” to provide yet another stimulus.
Freakin’ libs don’t get it. They never have and they never will. They are continually frustrated at their inability to find a way to force makers to do their bidding. They keep making rules based on their benevolent good intentions, and then the law of logical consequences takes over and we decline, and they go looking something else to tax to try and prop up the decline.
Just stop.
Stop layering top-down rules that constrains enterprise while also demonizing enterprise for not doing enough.
I’m always impressed at the analytical thinking in some of these comments.
[quote]Let’s see, I’ve got a business and I’m looking to relocate to the Sacramento area. [/quote]Great! We’d love to have you. What kind of business? I’m going to assume manufacturing, if you need to build a new building.
[quote]Davis seems nice[/quote] Why? What does Davis offer that would make you give it preference over other areas around Sacramento?
[quote]but they’re going to force me to install $10’s to $100’s of thousands of dollars worth the solar panels on my new building and just 10 miles up the road I don’t have to.[/quote] Have you done a business plan for your new Davis facility? Have you compared costs of energy in the two areas, and amortized them over 20 years with and without the solar panels on your new factory? Manufacturing uses LOTS of energy.
[quote] So long Davis. [/quote] Such an easy decision to make. I wish I could make decisions that quickly.
“Let’s see, I’ve got a business and I’m looking to relocate to the Sacramento area. Davis seems nice but they’re going to force me to install $10’s to $100’s of thousands of dollars worth the solar panels on my new building and just 10 miles up the road I don’t have to. So long Davis.”
then you’re not a smart business person, because you’ll easily pay that 100s of thousands on electricity over the next five years.
frankly, if i had corns on my feet, you’d like it to be obama somehow…
jrberg – the business will already consult with energy experts and consider the cost benefits of different sources and designs. However, if they are mandated to limit their choices, it is likely that a percentage of businesses would face negative consequences having to comply, and then they would assess greater value to alternative locations that do not have mandates.
This does not take much analytical thinking.
And the issue isn’t just this one more additional mandate. Davis is a sucky place to develop. An extreme mass of municipal building codes combined with building inspectors that live on a power trip of interpreting every single code to its fullest and most conservative interpretation, already make Davis a place to avoid. Then add hostile no-growthers and a history of business-hating city politicians, and it is already a place that detracts from attracting good business.
This mandate would just be another weight added to the already crushing pile of reasons why a company would decide to locate elsewhere.
[quote]then you’re not a smart business person, because you’ll easily pay that 100s of thousands on electricity over the next five years. [/quote]
Not true.
[i]frankly, if i had corns on my feet, you’d like it to be obama somehow… [/i]
DP, good luck getting a doctor to see you about those corns once Obamacare really gets rolling after all the delays and exceptions.
“Not true.”
want to see what my pg&e was last year?
“DP, good luck getting a doctor to see you about those corns once Obamacare really gets rolling after all the delays and exceptions.”
i knew you could do it.
[i]. . but I’m not a Luddite.[/i]
I am neither a Luddite, nor as ‘davis progressive’ asserts a ‘right winger’.
[i]Many people would prefer [b]incentivizing[/b] rather than mandating[/i]
Yes, that part, as well as Don’s points about what we used to call ‘passive solar’. The [i]rational[/i] method would have been/still is, for the industry to offer a *lease* so – among other things – they could easily upgrade the system(s) as the technology improves (>40% conversion efficiency is close). And although rooftops are preferred, the NRC *mandate* would allow no credit at all for any subdivision that chose to locate the panels in, say, a common area. You know, like parking lots, portions of parks, driveways, and hey – here’s a thought – [i]a back yard shade structure[/i].
The NRC needs to go back to the drawing board.
Neutral – If you had included this last comment in your first comment, it would have been helpful. Proposed ordinances from Commissions are just that – proposed. They go through many iterations before adoption, and your comments on common areas could certainly be added to the ordinance. I think your modifications should be suggested both to the NRC and the Council. Have you done this, in writing or in public comments? Will you? Those are good ideas, and I can see them being included in the final result.
Incidentally, it always helps to have a conversation with the NRC staff liaison, as well.
Here is the report that was on the agenda of the NRC on July 22:
[url]http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/Media/CityCouncil/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/Natural-Resources-Commission/Agendas/20130722/09-New-Construction-Energy-Efficiency-Ordinance.pdf[/url]
Davis Progressive wrote:
> it’s hard to imagine anyone could have a problem
> with the idea of solar panels on the rooftops, but
> i guess to the right wingers on the vanguard,
> everything is a threat to their sovereignty. amazing.
It is true that some whack jobs on the right have a problem with solar power (and ANY restrictions of what they can do with their home), but there are some whack jobs on the left that think solar should be on everything (and those who are using the solar loving leftys to make more than a UC chancellor year after year).
Then jrberg wrote:
> I may be an idiot, but I’m not a Luddite. My solar
> system installed six months ago on my ROOFTOP happily
> pumps energy back into the grid much of the day, and
> will pay for itself in less than five years, based on
> PG&E usage observed before and after the installation.
I would be interested if you can share some actual numbers (up front cost, PG&E bill this year vs. last year etc. We ran the numbers for a friend’s barn (he boards horses) south of Sacramento and the actual savings were not as great as we hoped for since (as you will probably soon notice) performance when the days are long is a lot better and performance is also a lot better when the pannels are clean (so much so that my friend now pays a guy to clean his pannels a couple times a year).
P.S. We don’t have solar, but since we have big trees that shade our home in the afternoon we are running the AC a LOT less and paying about $50 a month less to PG&E (despite a bigger house) than we paid living in Central Davis with the sun blasting down on the house every summer afternoon…
Don wrote:
> Just curious: how much did it cost? If you prefer,
> you can email me with your answer.
I’m curious if Don has any numbers on the savings from the solar system he has on the Redwood Barn?
Davis Progressive: “it’s hard to imagine anyone could have a problem with the idea of solar panels on the rooftops, but i guess to the right wingers on the vanguard, everything is a threat to their sovereignty. amazing.”
Don Shor: “Many people would prefer incentivizing rather than mandating energy conservation and solar features at this level.
Another right-wing strike by DS! Amazing.
I’ve got nothing against people putting solar panels on their roofs. Some of my best friends are exchanging power with PGE this way. We added passive solar panels on our west Davis house in the 1970s.
I’m just fed up with a commission that keeps coming up with a ban here and a mandate there for things that Davis residents already do in numbers that exceed those in other communities.
We’re wasting staff resources and trying our neighbors’ patience on these flights of fancy. Instead of drafting ordinances to spend other people’s money, the NRC should be tracking down sponsors who’ll help finance incentives or fund education programs to encourage action.
How about moving to Dixon if you really want to make an environmental difference by making people to do things through force or fines.
[quote]I’m curious if Don has any numbers on the savings from the solar system he has on the Redwood Barn?[/quote]
It would be hard to quantify the savings from that little unit. It was installed in the mid-1980’s, cost us about $1000 because the company sold it at cost and installed it free. They worked out of the building next door (Trident Energy? I’m not sure) and wanted it there so they could show it to people. It puts out a steady supply of heat upstairs, and with the R-29 insulation up there it is nearly sufficient on most sunny winter days to heat that 600 sq ft room, to the point that we’ve abandoned our natural gas heater and just use that and small space heaters as needed. Doesn’t do much on a foggy day…
Zero maintenance, zero ongoing cost except a little tiny fan that runs the thing to blow warm air into the room. So I’d guess it’s paid for itself long ago.
[quote]
I would be interested if you can share some actual numbers (up front cost, PG&E bill this year vs. last year etc. We ran the numbers for a friend’s barn (he boards horses) south of Sacramento and the actual savings were not as great as we hoped for since (as you will probably soon notice) performance when the days are long is a lot better and performance is also a lot better when the pannels are clean (so much so that my friend now pays a guy to clean his pannels a couple times a year).
[/quote]
OK – Feb. through July 2012: $1700. Feb. through July 2013: $85 (estimated because I don’t have the July netmetering statement yet, but can read the netmeter and do a pretty good estimate). Upfront cost was $19K, so you can do the math.
Every retrofit on existing housing is different, so as you said, results can vary. However, I would think that solar on new construction would pay for itself in the 20 years it takes to produce mature shade trees. I am also aware of the attenuation from dust on the panels, but it’s pretty easy for me to get up there and spray them off once in a while.
[quote]
P.S. We don’t have solar, but since we have big trees that shade our home in the afternoon we are running the AC a LOT less and paying about $50 a month less to PG&E (despite a bigger house) than we paid living in Central Davis with the sun blasting down on the house every summer afternoon…
[/quote]
We’re in Central West Davis, and have a number of large trees, both on our property and on neighbors’ properties. Shading from them, though, was hit and miss, and with our former dark roof, the house needed lots of cooling. The roof was replaced at the same time that solar was installed, so we benefit from both changes. The solar company that did the installation did lots of calculations before the final installation, and I think they got it right.
[quote]I’m just fed up with a commission that keeps coming up with a ban here and a mandate there for things that Davis residents already do in numbers that exceed those in other communities.[/quote]
Agree 100%
[quote] I’m just fed up with a commission that keeps coming up with a ban here and a mandate there for things that Davis residents already do in numbers that exceed those in other communities.
Agree 100% [/quote]
Do either of you go to Commission meetings and express yourselves? If not, why not?
THe other critical question is whether the NRC simply represents the bulk of the community on most of these issues. When you are talking about things in the Climate Action Report, it’s hard to argue that the NRC is out of step with the typical Davis voter.
We put a system on up. I did the math it was break even over the guaranteed life of the system. If there is extended life, something likely since there are no moving parts, we will come out ahead because of the tax breaks. Still as Frankly points out the net present value of profits so many years in the future is quite small and installed it because we wanted to for environmental non-economic reasons. Also what happens if the tax credits end? In that case the economics look quite different but does the law remain?
As for the expense of taking down the system to do the roof the company agreed to do it once for us over the guarantee period.
Hot water is different. I once had a solar hot water system but one time there was a freeze and the water expanded and blew out the plumbing. Has anyone in Davis with its mild climate have experience with this phenomenon?
As for making this mandatory it will only make buying in Davis more expensive. I think we should be trying to make it easier for people to buy not harder. A better system would help people finance the project as my friend did where he pays for the system over time just like a utility would. Of course the interest rate becomes an important variable in such a case and you need to have enough equity to make the financing work. Making this mandatory would be great for a community of only rich people. is that what Davis should be?
I asked a realtor about that question and was told it would make the house more expensive, but since they can buy in bulk, by far less than it would cost an individual home owner. And we’re talking maybe 10 to 15K on a house that’s 500 to 600K and whatever impact that is on the mortgage is somewhat offset by reduced energy bills.
I agree that incentivizing solar power (thru tax breaks and other mechanisms) for homes is a much better idea than mandating. For new housing developments; the same thing; incentivize solar by giving a few extra points to housing development proposals that include some solar. (Of course point out to prospective buyers the reduced energy costs, significant in long-term offsetting the higher initial purchase price)
Good reminder about the potential conflicts with trees; would hate to see beautiful shade trees cut down to get a few extra watts of solar. Would be interesting to see a study that examines the cooling effect of shade trees vs the required solar panel electric production needed to produce the same amount of home/patio cooling (also include beneficial effect of shading on lawn and many other smaller garden plants, including reduced water use).
[quote]Trees shading a home’s west exposure produced the largest savings, both annual (kWh) and peak (kW), for all climate zones and insulation levels considered. Next largest savings were for southwest (annual and peak) and east (annual only) locations. Three trees (two on the west, one on the east side) reduced annual energy use for cooling 10 to 50 percent (200 to 600 kWh, $30 to $110) and peak electrical use up to 23percent (0.7kW). [/quote]
— POTENTIAL OF TREE SHADE FOR REDUCING RESIDENTIAL ENERGY USE IN CALIFORNIA
by James R. Simpson and E. Gregory McPherson
Here are the recommendations from the article above:
[quote]1. A single tree should be located to provide maximum shade to west or southwest exterior window(s). Alternate choices are east and northwest, and where solar access isn’t a consideration, southeast and south.
2. The largest windows without existing shading devices, with the preferred orientations listed above, should be the first choice for shading. For windows with shading devices, those with darker colors benefit most from shading.
3. Additional trees should be located to as to shade remaining windows on the west and southwest sides first, followed by the east side, and then the alternate locations listed above.
4. Shade tends to diminish as building-to-tree distance increases. Trees should be planted so that at maturity the edge of the canopy is very close to the building wall, consistent with other restraints, such as access and fire safety con- siderations.
5. Planting tall trees at a distance from the south wall that result in winter, but not summer, shading should be avoided.
[/quote]
Let’s not forget, a solar panel array is not an either or proposition. It still requires a grid including the associated costs otherwise the home is without power the moment the panels stop generating sufficient energy. Installing solar panels mostly shifts the grid costs. A solar system independent of the grid including inverters, a battery bank, and all the associated gadgets is far more expensive than a grid dependent home.
Also, solar panels export energy costs from Davis to the communities manufacturing the panels and all the communities along the transportation corridor.
The cheapest method to reduce energy costs is to construct smaller housing units out of locally produced building materials, with white roofs, orient them to the south, design the units with the proper roof overhangs, plant shade trees in the proper locations, etc. There is very little such construction evident in progressive Davis.
This proposed ordinance, as reported in the VG, seems way too superficial to me. Slapping a solar panel on a large, terribly designed home, doesn’t change shit.
-Michael Bisch
Furthermore, designing communities with jobs, living, shopping and recreating in close proximity with one another has a far greater impact on energy useage than solar panels ever will. The same holds true for shopping local, eating locally sourced foods, and purchasing/using locally sourced merchandise and services. Why isn’t the NRC proposing/supporting such initiatives?
-DT Businessman
[quote]Don Shor
07/30/13 – 11:29 AM
…
I think the objection might be that it is a requirement for all new construction, 100%, and that it surely increases the cost of new construction. Many people would prefer incentivizing rather than mandating energy conservation and solar features at this level. This proposal may be in conflict with providing more affordable housing. And in spite of the specific language about the urban forest, solar systems to affect the placement and size of shade trees selected for neighborhoods. [/quote]
Don, you are right that it does increase the cost of construction. The question is whether it increases the value of the home more than the cost of the construction. If that is the case then it is a good investment.
However, even if it is a good investment from a cost/value perspective, it also needs to be able to be afforded by the home buyer. The fact is that it is indeed affordable. To document that affordability, go to [url]http://www.greenmortgagecompany.com/[/url] and you will find the following information about Energy Efficient mortgages.
[quote]Though the general public is just now becoming aware of green mortgages, they’ve actually been around for decades. They are also referred to as Energy Efficient Mortgages or Energy Improvement Mortgages.
A green mortgage allows you to roll in the costs of making specific energy saving improvements to the home you are building or purchasing. This will, of course, increase your monthly mortgage payment but since because these improvements will drastically lower your energy, gas and water consumption, your monthly utilities will decrease even more so than your mortgage. Saving you money every month.
Besides lowering your total monthly bills, you will be eligible to receive tax credits from the federal and local governments for many of your improvements. You properties resale value may actually increase due to the improvements and having an energy efficient home will make the home more attractive to potential home buyers should you decide to sell your home.
Green Mortgages Lower your Monthly Bills
_________________________ Non-Energy________ Energy
_________________________ Efficient Home_____ Efficient Home
Purchase Price___________ 200,000___________ 200,000
Loan amount____________ 200,000___________ 209,000
Interest__________________ 5.85%_____________ 5.85%
Monthly Payment________ 1,179.88___________ 1,232.98
Total Avg Utility Bills_______ 265.00____________ 111.00
Total Monthly Expenses_ 1,444.88____________1,343.98
Monthly Aggregate Reduced Expenses________ $ 100.90
Yearly Aggregate Reduced Expenses________$ 1,210.80
Individual monthly savings will differ depending on the degree of the property’s energy efficiency. We’ve seen instances where the home energy efficiency improvements have led to monthly savings of $400 and greater.
Adding energy features such as solar panels and even residential wind turbines have allowed some green mortgage holders to be free of monthly electric bills altogether. Some companies will even pay you if your home generates more electricity than you use by giving the unused portion back to the grid.[/quote]
It is worth noting that local banks here in Davis offer Energy Efficient Mortgages.
Now that doesn’t change Michael Bisch’s point that Slapping a solar panel on a large, terribly designed home, doesn’t change s**t. It makes the s**ty house more affordable, but it will still be a s**ty house.
Don Shor–great info. on trees; good to see some studies have been done.
A homeowner or potential home buyer who is considering solar and/or tree planting might be well-advised to consult sources such as you posted; rather than rely exclusively on the opinion of the solar panel provider (who after all may have a slight bias toward selling as many panels as possible).
Also don’t forget the many other wonderful benefits of trees!
Seems to me a nice mix of both trees and some solar panels is possible. On some properties with tree-shaded house and an exposed sun-baked area in the yard; keep the shade trees and ‘plant’ some solar panel supports in the yard (likely much cheaper to mount in yard; cleaning/maintenance should also be easier ground-mounted)!
Well, since NRC members are being excoriated in this thread, I thought it might be a good idea if one of the members made a comment or two, and since I am one of those members I’m stepping up.
The solar ordinance was prepared by NRC Chair Gene Wilson and both to my reading of it prior to last Monday’s NRC meeting, and from the discussion of it in the meeting, I don’t see it as being anywhere near as onerous as has been portrayed by many here in this thread. Bottom-line, solar currently pencils out for most typical buyers, and that net positive calculation is only going to get better as electricity rates increase.
Frankly has looked at the decision as an investment and pointed out that when you NPV the stream of monthly positive additions to your family’s bottom-line, the return isn’t high enough. If this were a typical investment where you have $10,000 that you are looking to put into stocks or bonds and you are looking for the best return on that money, I would agree with Frankly. However, the decision about putting solar on a house or business isn’t the same. The house owner (or prospective owner) isn’t starting with $10,000 to invest. They are starting with $0 to invest.
The homework I have done over the past three months as part of the review of The Cannery, says that the information that was posted about “[i]green mortgages[/i]” by Practical earlier in this thread is a true and accurate assessment of the current state of the mortgage industry. Mortgage companies have been able to make the calculation that the debt carrying capacity of a home buyer is increased when the house they are buying has virtually no electricity costs. The money that is no longer being paid out each month for electricity can be used to cover the additional monthly debt service that the construction cost of the solar (PV) adds to the purchase price of the house.
The example numbers that Practical included showed a house purchase price of $200,000, which is obviously too low for Davis So lets double that to $400,000, which may well be the target purchase price for The Cannery’s single family homes. $9,000 for including solar (PV) on one of those new Cannery homes is probably just about right, so the comparative total purchase prices here in Davis would be $400,000 and $409,000. I went to [url]http://www.mortgagecalculator.org/[/url] and used their calculator for a 20% down mortgage ($320,000 borrowed) at 4% and the monthly mortgage payment for a 30 year mortgage came to $1,527.73. At $329,000 the monthly mortgage payment came to $1,570.70. That means that if the average monthly electric bill avoided is $43.00 per month, then the $9,000 borrowed to put the solar (PV) on the house is being loaned by the mortgage company at an effective interest rate of 0.0%. How many mortgages can you get for 0%.
If the solar (PV) costs $15,000 then the monthly mortgage payment is $1,599.34 and the 0% mortgage point is $72.00 of electricity costs avoided per month.
So here is a question for Frankly and Neutral and Just Saying and Carlos Danger and SouthofDavis and Davis Enophile and jimt and Michael Bisch, [i][b]”If you could borrow $9,000 at a 0.0% interest rate to add $9,000 of value to your home, why would you not choose to do so? [/b][/i]
Good post Matt. You make some very good points.
I have a few points in response.
1. I didn’t know we were talking about $9000 or $15,000. Last I checked, just the parts for a DIY 24kw system were about $35k-40k. Add installation and it is the $40k-$50k range. I assume there are economy of scale savings to contract this for an entire development. However, I was still assuming a minimum of $30k for an installed system large enough for a single-family home.
2. The mortgage business uses a few key monetary rations to qualify a borrower. One of those is debt-to-income. This is the one that banks and mortgage companies used to ignore before the Great Recession. You remember stated income loans? That is how a broker or banker got around their lender’s credit policy for debt-to-income… they just stated higher income. But that practice has been done away with by regulators and lenders’ tightening of their credit box post recession.
So, now you are a young family looking to purchase one of these new properties, but the solar-costs-added purchase price has pushed your debt-to-income ration outside the line and you cannot qualify for the mortgage. And, when you add this additional cost to the facts that Davis is already extreme in building code requirements, and the high cost of land due to the lack of supply from all the NIMBY, statist, no-growthers… by adding this solar requirement, you just sealed in Davis’s home ownership upper-class exclusivity.
The way I think this solar thing should work is that the city contracts with a provider that can pitch to each prospective home owner to add solar as an option. Those that can barely squeak in to qualify might decline, but then later as their income increases and the cost of solar declines, they can retrofit their existing homes with this upgrade.
Correction above. ration should be “ratio”. Spell check is not my friend this morning.
Matt
In answer to your question, related to my agreement with Just Saying, is simply to allow me to choose. Your ordinance doesn’t allow me to choose. As your neighbor, your mandates are wearing me out.
jimt: I should note that the authors of that piece, Greg McPherson and James Simpson, are here in Davis. Greg is at the Pacific Southwest Research Station, US Forest Service, as was Jim Simpson. Here are some of Greg’s publications: [url]http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/uesd/staff/gmcpherson/[/url]
SMUD has extensive documentation about the energy-saving benefits of trees.
Matt: [quote]I don’t see it as being anywhere near as onerous as has been portrayed by many here[/quote]
It’s a mandate. That’s the issue.
Matt: since you are on the NRC, I’d like to know how many arborists and urban tree experts testified on this ordinance as you were considering it.
jrberg
[quote]I’m always impressed at the analytical thinking in some of these comments […] Have you done a business plan for your new Davis facility? Have you compared costs of energy in the two areas, and amortized them over 20 years with and without the solar panels on your new factory? Manufacturing uses LOTS of energy. [/quote] Maybe it ALWAYS makes sense for manufacturing…but I doubt it. There are way too many variables involved for that to be an absolute. For example, businesses don’t always intend to occupy particular buildings for 20 years. Often the goal is to outgrow that facility in X years, potentially well before that original investment paid off.
But let’s say a little mom and pop shop do plan on staying in that building for 20 years…let’s go with 25. They then have a nice solid 5 years where those solar panels have paid off (ish). Then when it’s time to sell, they have a clunky 25 year-old solar panel system that is horribly outdated and inefficient (unless we assume technology won’t vastly improve in coming decades). Potential buyers will look at that as a negative, “Well, this system is going to need to be replaced, maybe we should go with the 10 year-old building down the road.” That solar system that finally paid off will be a detraction from the sales price.
Bottom line- if it always made fiscal sense, we wouldn’t [b]need[/b] a mandate from the city. People would always do it voluntarily to save money.
Matt wrote:
> Bottom-line, solar currently pencils out for most
> typical buyers,
I’m wondering if Matt recently got solar (I didn’t see anything on his house in the Google Earth photo).
I would be interested to see the actual cost of system that saves ~$150/month (maybe Matt can ask his two neighbors to the east that have solar 1. if they paid $9K for the systems and 2. if they save $150.month).
Ginger: The ordinance would only call for it with new buildings and major renovations (kind of like ADA works).
” if it always made fiscal sense, we wouldn’t need a mandate from the city. People would always do it voluntarily to save money. “
Not necessarily. It represents an investment.
Frankly: the realtor I talked to suggested that at bulk $10 to $15K for new housing, $25K for a single house.
David, do you know the kwh rating of these systems? It seems too low based on my fairly recent bids for my house.
I think it’s a 5, though a 7 wouldn’t be much more. We’re also talking about relatively small new homes, not 2000 square foot ones.
That is a pretty small system. I have an 1800 sq. ft. house and the experts that provided bids were pushing a 20 – 25 kh system.
Yeah, but this is probably what you’re looking at for most new 1200 ft homes.
Correction… I just pulled the file from my briefcase. I have a spa and was also going to upgrade my appliances and water heater to electric. That probably pushed the kh usage higher.
I think the average home in the US uses 10 or 12 kw.
The challenge with such a small system is that it would not cover peak usage needs for the homeowner. But maybe with better construction materials and techniques and more modern cooling and heating, 5 – 7 kh would be enough.
So, assuming a $15k jump, my issue still stands even if diminished a bit. It will be just one more thing in a long list of Davis development requirements that push the price above the reach of many prospective home owners.
DG:
[quote]Ginger: The ordinance would only call for it with new buildings and major renovations (kind of like ADA works). [/quote]
Yes, I understand. My comments were made with that in mind.
[quote] Ginger:[i] ” if it always made fiscal sense, we wouldn’t need a mandate from the city. People would always do it voluntarily to save money. “
[/i]
Not necessarily. It represents an investment. [/quote]
It’s only a good investment if you either stay in the building long enough to recoup that initial outlay of money (20 years seems to be what’s bandied about often), or if you sell the building and the system has retained its value.
And what if 10 years after constructing this building you decide to do a major remodel? At that point it’s very likely that with technological advances you’re going to need to “upgrade” your now archaic solar panel system to keep it up to “code.”
Ginger, you are so right. If I was looking to buy a house with 12 year old solar panels I would think twice knowing that the panels had to be updated soon. And as Frankly pointed out earlier it’s a greatly added expense removing and replacing solar panels when a roof has to be replaced. I’ve noticed one of my nighbord who had an extensive system put in have had to have the installers out several times due to roof leaks.
Would anyone pay top dollar for a 10 year old Prius?
I’ll point out there is no provision in the ordinance that would require upgrading the unit.
There have been a number of related questions similar to the one below from Frankly, so let me use his as a template for addressing them all.
First, there are no magic bullets. We all understand that.
Second, the issues in new housing vs. retrofits are quite different.
With those thoughts in mind here is Frankly’s quote
[url]Good post Matt. You make some very good points. I have a few points in response.
1. I didn’t know we were talking about $9000 or $15,000. Last I checked, just the parts for a DIY 24kw system were about $35k-40k. Add installation and it is the $40k-$50k range. I assume there are economy of scale savings to contract this for an entire development. However, I was still assuming a minimum of $30k for an installed system large enough for a single-family home. [/url]
The size of the solar installation is clearly going to vary. The $9,000 to $15,000 figure is a new construction example. The Cannery is projected to be built with energy [u]saving[/u] features that bring it down to approximately 24% below 2013 Title 24 (40% below 2008 Title 24), so its energy needs are much, much lower than an existing energy inefficient home. But the numeric equations are the same regardless of the electrical consumption.
So if we use your upper number of $50,000 for a 24 kw system the monthly mortgage amount for a $350,000 borrowing at 4% comes to $1,670.95, which is $143.00 above the $1,527.73 for a $300,000 borrowing. At PG&E’s current rates 24 kw costs a consumer $120.05. That means a shortfall of $23.00 to make it to $143.00. If $50,000 is the true cost of a 24 kw system then the numbers don’t pencil out. At an installed purchase price of $40,000 the incremental monthly debt service drops to $120.00, which is break even based on the current PG&E rates. Anything less than an installed cost of $40,000 and the debt service is less than the avoided electricity costs.
[url]Frankly
2. The mortgage business uses a few key monetary rations to qualify a borrower. One of those is debt-to-income. This is the one that banks and mortgage companies used to ignore before the Great Recession. You remember stated income loans? That is how a broker or banker got around their lender’s credit policy for debt-to-income… they just stated higher income. But that practice has been done away with by regulators and lenders’ tightening of their credit box post recession.
So, now you are a young family looking to purchase one of these new properties, but the solar-costs-added purchase price has pushed your debt-to-income ration outside the line and you cannot qualify for the mortgage. And, when you add this additional cost to the facts that Davis is already extreme in building code requirements, and the high cost of land due to the lack of supply from all the NIMBY, statist, no-growthers… by adding this solar requirement, you just sealed in Davis’s home ownership upper-class exclusivity.
[b]The way I think this solar thing should work is that the city contracts with a provider that can pitch to each prospective home owner to add solar as an option.[/b] Those that can barely squeak in to qualify might decline, but then later as their income increases and the cost of solar declines, they can retrofit their existing homes with this upgrade. [/url]
Now lets deal with Frankly’s second point. The bottom-line is the bolded sentence that begins the third paragraph. I completely agree with the concept . . . well almost completely. The problem is that quite frequently during the home purchase cycle the buyer(s) are overwhelmed with too many things to do and not enough time to do it. As a result they make uninformed decisions in the interests of time management. If the green mortgage numbers pencil out like they do in the example above, what buyer(s) in their right mind would pass up the opportunity to own a more valuable product at a lower monthly cost? No one would. Or I should say that no one who is paying attention would. The key problem is getting people to pay attention to something that is in their best interest.
That brings us to the point Frankly makes in his first paragraph about debt-to-income. What Energy Efficiency Mortgages (Green Mortgages) are all about is the definition of “debt” in the debt-to-income calculation. Bottom-line, the mortgage companies who offer Green Mortgages look at the aggregate of monthly Debt Service costs and monthly Electricity Costs in calculating the debt-to-income number.
With that clarified lets now come back to the first sentence of the third paragraph. The city identifying a solar provider isn’t enough. What the city needs to do is also identify local mortgage companies that offer [u]as standard practice[/u] Green Mortgages, [u]as well as[/u] local real estate appraisers who can provide the mortgage companies and home buyers with accurate market-based appraisals of homes with and without solar (PV). That kind of robust full service offering of [b]”solar soup to nuts”[/b] will make it clear to the home buyer that there is only one decision to make . . . go with solar.
Davis Enophile said . . .
[i]”Matt, In answer to your question, related to my agreement with Just Saying, is simply to allow me to choose. Your ordinance doesn’t allow me to choose. As your neighbor, your mandates are wearing me out.” [/i]
I hear you DE, but if a “solar soup to nuts” as described above is offered to you, why would you choose other wise? You get a more valuable home for a lower monthly payment.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”1) It’s a mandate. That’s the issue. But it’ll be an easy vote for the council, because it only affects new construction.
2) I’d like to know how many arborists and urban tree experts testified on this ordinance as you were considering it.”[/i]
Good comments Don, let me try and address them. Regarding 1) lets draw a parallel. If you went into your mortgage company and they had two [u]otherwise identical[/u] mortgage offerings, one with a 4.0% interest rate and the other with a 4.5% interest rate, but they didn’t tell you about the available 0.5% interest rate savings . . .
— Would you be angry when you later found out that they signed you to a usurious rate?
— Would you feel it was their ethical responsibility to you to make sure you got the best available interest rate?
— If they told you that you walked right by the sign in their lobby telling you about the lower available rate, would you feel they had done an adequate job of educating you?
— Would you want it to be mandatory that they had to ensure that you got the best rate possible?
— Would you be mad at yourself if the reason you didn’t get the better interest rate was because of your own time management pressures?
Regarding 2), no not a single arborist chose to come to the NRC meeting, therefore we received no testimony from an arborist. With that said, I am reasonably sure that Gene Wilson consulted with the City’s arborist in order to craft the existing trees exception language.
With that said, you asked question 2) for a reason. What was that reason?
[quote]I’ll point out there is no provision in the ordinance that would require upgrading the unit.
[/quote]
You miss the point that Ginger and I made.
I didn’t, I simply addressed a narrower point for clarification.
Ginger said . . .
[i]”Bottom line – if it always made fiscal sense, we wouldn’t need a mandate from the city. People would always do it voluntarily to save money.”[/i]
Ginger, your statement would be true if you add another “if” to the end of it. Specifically it needs to read, [i]”[u]If they are paying attention[/u], people would always do it voluntarily to save money, and the biggest enemy of paying attention is the availability of time.”[/i]
[quote]I hear you DE, but if a “solar soup to nuts” as described above is offered to you, why would you choose other wise? You get a more valuable home for a lower monthly payment.
[/quote]
And you missed DE’s point, he doesn’t want you mandating to him what he must do, he wants the option to choose and to get the NRC out of his life.
SouthofDavis said . . .
[i]”I’m wondering if Matt recently got solar (I didn’t see anything on his house in the Google Earth photo)?”[/i]
No, we do not have solar. When we replaced our roof, we did a fiscal analysis and for our empty nester home, the PG&E restriction of how much our monthly electricity savings could be meant that the “penciling out” simply didn’t pencil out. Prices for solar have come down substantially since then, but the constraint of how much electricity we use still is a challenge. If we could sell excess power back to PG&E (see Lois Wolk’s SB 43 currently working its way through the Legislature) then we would have coverer 100% of our south facing roof and been glad to pocket the monthly check.
“And you missed DE’s point, he doesn’t want you mandating to him what he must do, he wants the option to choose and to get the NRC out of his life.”
You’re putting this on the NRC when the city approved the idea in concept when they approved the Climate Action plan.
Frankly said . . .
[i]”That is a pretty small system. I have an 1800 sq. ft. house and the experts that provided bids were pushing a 20 – 25 kh system.”[/i]
Frankly, how does the energy efficiency of your home compare to California’s Title 24 standards? You may need that much power because your home is energy inefficient. That is a common problem for existing homes.
[quote]Regarding 2), no not a single arborist chose to come to the NRC meeting, therefore we received no testimony from an arborist. With that said, I am reasonably sure that Gene Wilson consulted with the City’s arborist in order to craft the existing trees exception language.
With that said, you asked question 2) for a reason. What was that reason?[/quote]
To see if those crafting and considering the ordinance considered the impact on existing and future tree plantings, got input about legal and practical consequences on the urban forest of this ordinance, including trees planted in the city easement (city arborist) and those planted on non-easement parts of the yard (private arborist would have more experience in that regard).
In other words, did you do due diligence on this issue.
If this ordinance were enacted, and you chose to do a major remodel, would it apply to you?
There is a whole lot of dust being kicked up on this issue that is blocking the view. Some commenters are overstating the financials based on what might actually be need for PV solar. The one issue I agree is problematic is the financing of a system for an existing “sh**ty” house like the one I live in. I live in a 1,500 square foot, 3Bd, 2b house. My average annual electricity use for the last five years has been about 5,900 KwH or around 490 KwH per month. My electricity bill has averaged $810 for two adults or $67/month with a range of $35 to $105 over the five-year period. We are retired and are around the house all day using the lights, unlike when we used to go away during the day and burn our employers’ electricity. At any rate, we had a 2.45KW system (ten 245W panels) installed in March 2013, just after putting on a new roof. Why this size? Seems pretty small one might think.
The designer suggested that the most optimal design is to generate enough electricity to get close to zero usage on low months and to always stay within Tier 1 rates. As of the end of July (including the 100+ days in late June and early July) we are still in a negative accounting status (from PG&E’s view). We pay $4.44/month on the electric part of our bill for the privilege of being hooked to the PG&E grid and being able to use their juice when we need it and having a way to get rid of the excess from our PV system. Subtract that $50 from the annual cost of $810 and we are avoiding a charge of $750/year. In 9 1/2 years, that amounts to $7,300, the price we paid up front for the system. That payoff may come earlier as PG&E raises its Tier 1 rates.
We do not own our system. We have signed a 20-year contract with a company to buy the designed output of about 67,600 KwH over the 20-year period at a price of $.108/KwH. Any electricity we need over what the installed system generates, we buy from PG&E at the rate they charge. Since we don’t own the PV panels or inverter, any equipment failures are the PV system owner’s responsibility and if the system fails to generate the designed amount of electricity, we are rebated at the full price of $.108/KwH for every KwH not produced by the PV system. The contract is transferrable to subsequent homeowners, though we intend to stay here until skilled nursing is required. So far, we’ve generated more electricity than we have drawn from the grid.
The only “down side” is that we had to come up with the $7,300 upfront. I see that one issue as the primary stumbling block for most people who wish to retrofit an old “sh**ty” house like mine. Building it into the original construction price and mortgage makes it accessible to anyone who qualifies for a mortgage.
My only concern is that systems not be ‘over-designed’ which makes them more expensive than necessary and that the issue of equipment maintenance be figured into the total cost. I think the ordinance is a great idea and there have been many good suggestions, mostly from the naysayers, on this blog already to make the ordinance more practical and effective.
Don, have you read the Urban Forest Protection paragraph in the ordinance?
I’m not sure that the following language is the final, but it gives you a sense of what was included to address new construction.
[i]2. Urban Forest Protection. It is the intent of this ordinance that priority be given to fostering the growth and development of the urban forest in new developments. In circumstances where the installation of rooftop solar would curtail the future growth and development of the urban forest, the requirements of this ordinance shall be inapplicable insofar as necessary to avoid such impact.[/i]
Matt:
[quote]”[i]1) It’s a mandate. That’s the issue. But it’ll be an easy vote for the council, because it only affects new construction. [/i]
Good comments Don, let me try and address them. Regarding 1) lets draw a parallel. If you went into your mortgage company and they had two otherwise identical mortgage offerings, one with a 4.0% interest rate and the other with a 4.5% interest rate, but they didn’t tell you about the available 0.5% interest rate savings . . .
— Would you be angry when you later found out that they signed you to a usurious rate?
— Would you feel it was their ethical responsibility to you to make sure you got the best available interest rate?
— If they told you that you walked right by the sign in their lobby telling you about the lower available rate, would you feel they had done an adequate job of educating you?
— Would you want it to be mandatory that they had to ensure that you got the best rate possible?
— Would you be mad at yourself if the reason you didn’t get the better interest rate was because of your own time management pressures? [/quote]
Maybe I’m dense, but I seriously have no idea how any of that pertains to my comment.
[quote]Don, have you read the Urban Forest Protection paragraph in the ordinance?
[/quote]
Yes. But that is very vague and probably won’t solve the problems. As I noted, the state’s law probably supercedes that language. And I’m curious as to how the commission feels this would be enforced.
I submit my plan for a remodel.
I state that I plan to plant a shade tree south of my building, which would make my solar panels useless. Do I therefore qualify to NOT have to provide the 100% energy equivalence?
Excellent post Dave. Thank you for that real-life, on-the-ground perspective.
I would add one piece of information. The leasing company wouldn’t be incurring the capital cost if they weren’t turning a profit. If you were making the same decision today, the advent of green mortgages makes it possible for you to avoid the $7,300 up front payment and retain the leasing company’s profit margin for yourself.
Don Shor said . . .
“Maybe I’m dense, but I seriously have no idea how any of that pertains to my comment.”
Those are all the questions that are central to why “turning the decision over to someone who has the time” makes sense.
Said another way is to imposing a mandate or simply delegating a no-brainer decision to someone who has the time?
Said another way, is it imposing a mandate or simply delegating a no-brainer decision to someone who has the time?
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”I submit my plan for a remodel. I state that I plan to plant a shade tree south of my building, which would make my solar panels useless. Do I therefore qualify to NOT have to provide the 100% energy equivalence? “[/i]
My honest answer to that question is that I do not know. However, if the decision were in my hands I probably would say “Yes, you do on one condition, that the tree planting be included in the remodel completion timeline.” Said another way, the added tree in the urban forest needs to be a reality rather than only a promise.
Matt – I should have clarified:
Debt-to-income can look at monthly debt service and income. But it can also be aggregate liabilities (i.e., total debt as a liability) and aggregate income (total income as a primary liquid asset).
Debt-to-income speaks directly to debt service ability (i.e., cash flow). However, it is also a practice to look at the ratio of total aggregate debt and income.
For example, lets say you had a bunch of credit cards with high balances and you were paying the minimum payments. Your debt-to-income ratio would be more favorable paying the minimum payments. But if you were carrying big balances relative to your income, lenders would find you less attractive as a borrower.
So, you have three issues increasing the size of a mortgage because of mandated solar.
One, you push some borrowers over their debt-service credit limit.
Two, you increased the size of the down payment.
Three, you push other borrowers over in total liabilities.
Any one of these things can kill the deal for a borrower on the margins.
Now you are advocating that certain mortgage providers favor the lower cost of living costs from having lower utility bills. Some do. But many won’t. And, in taking this route, you are limiting your competition for rates. This too is something that can kill the purchase for a borrower on margins.
Now, as David has explained that these are small system, the cost impact is quite a bit less than I was assuming. So, this mitigates the challenges I list above. However, I still consider Davis to be one of the most expensive to develop in, and this another of a long list of excessive building mandates that tend to price home buyers – especially young families and young professionals – out of the market.
Matt:
[quote]Said another way, is it imposing a mandate or simply delegating a no-brainer decision to someone who has the time?
[/quote]
If you want to be ‘practical’, it’s imposing a mandate.
[quote]My honest answer to that question is that I do not know.[/quote]
Based on the wording of the ordinance, it would be at the discretion of the Director of Community Development.
Is that bad Don?
Don Shor said . . .
“Maybe I’m dense, but I seriously have no idea how any of that pertains to my comment.”
Then, Matt Williams said:
“Those are all the questions that are central to why ‘turning the decision over to someone who has the time’ makes sense.
…
Said another way, is it imposing a mandate or simply delegating a no-brainer decision to someone who has the time?”
Matt, you’ve tried eight different ways to justify forcing this mandate on the citizens of Davis with some form of this “convenience for your own financial good” argument. It doesn’t make sense.
If I want to turn over my investment decisions to Fidelity, I’ll do it myself, thank you.
To suggest that well-educated Davisites are just too stupid to make an obvious choice in their own financial self interest makes one think that the benefits aren’t all that verified or clear-cut after all.
Yes, mandating such a city requirement is a mandate. And, an unnecessary one as well. And, a questionable one in addition.
“And you missed DE’s point, he doesn’t want you mandating to him what he must do, he wants the option to choose and to get the NRC out of his life.”
“You’re putting this on the NRC when the city approved the idea in concept when they approved the Climate Action plan.”
David, are you saying that the city council decided to require all new residential and commercial buildings and “major renovations” incorporate “on-site renewable energy generation capable of producing an amount of electrical energy at least equivalent to 100 percent of the projected electrical usage of the project” by approving the Climate Action Plan?
If so, you may be right that we should be keeping a closer eye on the council and quit blaming the Natural Resources Commission for all these crazy-ass, expensive bans, restrictions and mandates that have been popping out of their group in recent months.
Matt said:
[quote]
I would add one piece of information. The leasing company wouldn’t be incurring the capital cost if they weren’t turning a profit. If you were making the same decision today, the advent of green mortgages makes it possible for you to avoid the $7,300 up front payment and retain the leasing company’s profit margin for yourself.[/quote]
My contract depreciates the system over five years and allows me to buy out the panels and inverter and own it outright after five years for essentially nothing. So, you are right that the financing company makes money, but it also tells me they have made their chunk and have very little interest in owning the PV panels on my roof after the five years. I think it is worth it to me to not have the responsibility to replace a bad panel, inverter or any other part of the system. They make a profit the first five years, but then I get fifteen more years of no maintenance worries.
The worst case is that the system is off line and the company that owns the equipment has to pay me for electricity not generated. During that time, I’m just drawing electricity from the grid and paying the going rate like everyone else. I’m already ahead and I have zero risk because most likely any problems with equipment will happen not in the first five years, but in year 14, 17 or 19.
Fair enough Dave. You have tailored the structure of your solar system to your personal needs.
Here is a question for you. Is there any doubt in your mind that installing solar was a wise decision?
JustSaying said . . .
[i]”If so, you may be right that we should be keeping a closer eye on the council and quit blaming the Natural Resources Commission for all these crazy-ass, expensive bans, restrictions and mandates that have been popping out of their group in recent months.”[/i]
A couple of points JS. First the composition of the NRC has been changing in recent months. That has led to some interesting decisions. In the last two NRC meetings when extension of the current wood burning ordinance came up, the NRC voted 5-1 [u]not[/u] to extend the current ordinance. The feeling expressed by various individual members of the NRC was that the current ordinance wasn’t working as written and that the key wood burning smoke issue is one of public health, and yet the current ordinance really didn’t align itself with demonstrable public health situations. As a result, what came back to the NRC in the second meeting on that topic was much less of a mandate.
Second, I attended my first NRC meeting on March 25th. So I’ve participated in 5 meetings, and to date the number of members of the public coming to the meeting and expressing their concerns is in aggregate no more than 5 individuals. If there is so much concern about how much the NRC is out of step with the broad sweep of Davis opinion, then why aren’t people coming to the meetings and sharing their thoughts? How do you expect the NRC to know your issues if you don’t step up and share them?
Third, which of the NRC actions (whether before my time or since my arrival on the NRC in March) are expensive? Throughout this thread there is a well formed argument that the Solar Ordinance is contra-expensive. Is the wood burning ordinance expensive? Is some version of a single use bag ordinance expensive? Which actions of the NRC do you qualify as expensive?
[quote] If there is so much concern about how much the NRC is out of step with the broad sweep of Davis opinion, then why aren’t people coming to the meetings and sharing their thoughts? How do you expect the NRC to know your issues if you don’t step up and share them? [/quote]
There are sixteen commissions. They meet monthly, or bi-monthly, or sometimes more often. Sometimes meetings are cancelled. Some post minutes reliably, some don’t seem to. Nobody has any idea what is before any given commission at any particular time except the commissioners, some media, and possibly the city councilmembers.
The only people who could possibly keep up with any percentage of the important business before these commissions would be people who are retired, unemployed, or have no other life activities. People aren’t coming to meetings and sharing their thoughts because they aren’t aware of the meetings, aren’t aware of the proposals, or — in the case of the NRC, with some justification — probably don’t think their views would be given much credence.
For example, some business members made a point of speaking about the bag ban ordinance. My recollection is that their concerns were dismissed with the argument that retailers who were actually affected had either expressed no concerns or were supportive. Lo and behold, now it seems we will all be affected by the bag ban. I’m guessing the retailers who bothered to appear felt they’d probably wasted their time, especially since no material changes were made to the ordinance at the NRC level.
I will tell you that my immediate reaction when I read David’s article this morning was, “Oh, god, here we go again.” And I’m sure I wasn’t alone in that regard. It seems that on most proposals, the NRC goes to a mandate first, rather than an incentive or a voluntary plan.
Yes, I just read the latest report of the wood-burning subcommittee, and it seems the NRC has come around to a complaint-based near-neighbor program. So: why wasn’t that the [i]first[/i] approach, rather than the [i]final[/i] product of 2 – 3 years of discussion?
Why does the NRC start, as so often seems the case, with a top-down heavy-handed ban or mandate, rather than trying to work [i]with[/i] the community? Your reply earlier was pretty telling, I’m afraid: it sounded like a ‘we know best’, rather patronizing attitude.
I strongly urge the NRC to start with incentives, rather than mandates. To find ways to get input — more outreach, more diversity of views. Focus on pragmatic approaches and consider the likelihood of community resistance to being told what to do.
Just Saying: All I’m saying is that a lot of the things people are complaining about in terms of the NRC are things that have been put into the climate action report and are being carried out.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”There are sixteen commissions. They meet monthly, or bi-monthly, or sometimes more often. Sometimes meetings are cancelled. Some post minutes reliably, some don’t seem to. Nobody has any idea what is before any given commission at any particular time except the commissioners, some media, and possibly the city councilmembers.
The only people who could possibly keep up with any percentage of the important business before these commissions would be people who are retired, unemployed, or have no other life activities. People aren’t coming to meetings and sharing their thoughts because they aren’t aware of the meetings, aren’t aware of the proposals, or — in the case of the NRC, with some justification — probably don’t think their views would be given much credence.
For example, some business members made a point of speaking about the bag ban ordinance. My recollection is that their concerns were dismissed with the argument that retailers who were actually affected had either expressed no concerns or were supportive. Lo and behold, now it seems we will all be affected by the bag ban. I’m guessing the retailers who bothered to appear felt they’d probably wasted their time, especially since no material changes were made to the ordinance at the NRC level.”[/i]
Understood Don, but when I scan through the list of those 16 commissions, it is pretty easy to see which ones are likely to have a significant impact on my life.
Bicycle Advisory Commission
Business and Economic Development Commission
City-UCD Student Liaison Commission
Civic Arts Commission
Finance and Budget Commission
Historical Resources Management Commission
Human Relations Commission
Natural Resources Commission
Open Space and Habitat Commission
Planning Commission
Recreation and Park Commission
Safety and Parking Advisory Commission
Senior Citizen Commission
Social Services Commission
Telecommunications Commission
Tree Commission
Further, a quick look at the Commissions webpage [url]http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/commissions[/url] gives the observant reader a very quick clue about the activity level of each commission. To the right of each commissions names is a count of the post(s) for that commission. The swing from a high of 28 posts for the Bicycle Advisory Commission to al low of 5 posts for the Telecommunications Commission gives a pretty good indication how active each commission is.
Even further, when I was asked to join the NRC and attended my first meeting one thing became instantly clear. This was a commission that was thorough in planning its schedule with staff as well as sharing that schedule with the public. For example, every agenda packet posted to the “Welcome to the City Council and Commissions” webpage contains as its last item a Long Range Calendar. Here is the content of the July 2013 NRC long range calendar (see [url]http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/Media/CityCouncil/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/Natural-Resources-Commission/Agendas/20130722/13-Long-Range-Calendar.pd[/url].
J[u]uly 22[/u]
Solid Waste Mid-Year Report
New Construction Energy Efficiency Ordinance
2013-14 Wood Burning Policy
Cannery Park Project
NRC Subcommittee Updates
[u]August[/u]
No Meeting
[u]September 23[/u]
Wastewater/Storm Water Update
Net Zero Davis
Energy Assessment: Economic Feasibility Study
NRC Subcommittee Update
[u]October 28[/u]
City Climate Action & Adaptation Plan
Yolo County Climate Action Plan
2013-14 Wood Burning Program
NRC Subcommittee Update
[u]November 25[/u]
Annual Solid Waste Report
WWTP Improvement Project
NRC Subcommittee Updates
[u]December[/u]
No Meeting
When I look at that information, I find it hard to imagine that anyone would have any problem “keeping up” with what the NRC is going to consider any time in the near future.
Further, the NRC’s Long Range Calendar lists three subcommittees and their members. That is a huge clue about the areas where the NRC has the most activity/interest, and who are the key people to reach out to for one-on-one discussion. Those subcommittes and their members are:
[u]2013 NRC Subcommittees:[/u]
Energy — Eugene Wilson, Ben Bourne
Water management — Steven Westhoff, Matt Williams, Matt Holland
Zero Waste — Alan Pryor, Matt Holland
Wood Smoke — Alan Pryor, Dean Newberry
If you feel that you aren’t being heard at NRC meetings, then I suggest you reach out for one or more face to face meetings with the NRC members who have stepped up and shown an interest in one of the NRC’s focus areas by being on a subcommittee. I don’t guarantee you success, but my short tenure on the NRC has shown me that the NRC members as a group are not closed minded. That doesn’t change the fact that individual members are passionate about certain areas, but in the end, as the recent wood smoke ordinance extension discussion shows, the decisions of the NRC are reached by a consensus of the whole commission, sometimes in the face of some stiff opposition by individual members.
So we all have options. We can throw our hands up in the air and complain, or we can get involved. I suspect that the commissions that have the most impact , can not be described by your words [i]”They meet monthly, or bi-monthly, or sometimes more often. Sometimes meetings are cancelled. Some post minutes reliably, some don’t seem to. Nobody has any idea what is before any given commission at any particular time except the commissioners, some media, and possibly the city councilmembers.”[/i]
Regarding Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Algerian Program you can find information on http://portail.cder.dz
Regarding Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Algerian Program you can find information on http://portail.cder.dz
Regarding Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Algerian Program you can find information on http://wwww.cder.dz
Regarding Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Algerian Program you can find information on http://wwww.cder.dz