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?