Trying to think through this new California rule to require all new buildings to install rooftop solar. Some links...
1) @BorensteinS isn't a fan, says it's "a very expensive way to expand renewables" compared with utility-scale wind/solar: faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/borenste/cecwe…
1) @BorensteinS isn't a fan, says it's "a very expensive way to expand renewables" compared with utility-scale wind/solar: faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/borenste/cecwe…
2) The CEC evaluation report says the rule would add $8,000 to $17,000 to building costs, while producing benefits twice that. (Though there's no comparisons with the cost/benefit of alternatives to boost clean energy.) docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocument…
3) That report might well overstate the costs though — @solarmj points out that installing solar upfront is much cheaper than installing solar retroactively. (Though there's still the question of what the optimal amount of rooftop solar is.)
4) In some places, rooftop solar could be more valuable than utility-scale solar if there are transmission constraints, though it seems better to sort this out through market mechanisms than flat regulations:
5) Other pros of rooftop solar: Reduce conflicts over solar siting in the desert, especially in fragile ecosystems.
Other cons: California housing costs are already extremely high and even a modest increase certainly adds to the pressure there.
Other cons: California housing costs are already extremely high and even a modest increase certainly adds to the pressure there.
One thing that's clear, this is a *lot* of new rooftop solar being mandated here:
7) Have seen a lot of variations of this take on the solar rooftop law: Sure it may be economically suboptimal. But a policy that *actually exists* and drives down emissions beats a policy that pleases economists yet doesn't actually exist.
