California regulators relied on precarious assumptions and incomplete data to rationalize their decision to require every home in the state be fitted with solar panels.
The California Energy Commission made history when it voted in May to mandate every home carry solar panel installations.
The rule — the first of its kind in the country — will apply to all newly built homes and low-rise apartment buildings beginning in January 2020, with some exceptions for shaded houses and people already involved in other renewable energy programs.
The new mandate was the latest in California’s bid to be a leader in renewable energy development. Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown, a major proponent of climate change legislation, has continually pushed for a higher renewable energy mix in the state while attempting to phase out coal generation.
Besides touting the environmental benefits that would come with such a mandate, the California Energy Commission argued that it would ultimately save residents money. However, one policy expert has dumped cold water on those claims.
Steven Sexton, an assistant professor of public policy and economics at Duke University, outlined where the Commission relied on biased analysis and made flimsy assumptions on what the future costs of solar technology would be — mistakes that don’t reveal the true costs of owning solar panel, according to him.
“Though the solar mandate is unlikely to deliver huge savings to consumers, it certainly will raise the price of new and old homes,” Sexton wrote in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal.
The Commission argued that homeowners would save money with solar panels. Instead of using an independent investigation, however, they relied on economic analysis from Energy and Environmental Economics Inc., a consultancy group that proposed the very mandate they were studying.
Energy and Environmental Economics concluded that homeowners would pay $40 more in monthly mortgage costs but save $80 a month on electricity — a supposed 100 percent return on investment.
Adding further scrutiny to their energy savings estimations, regulators conducted the study with the assumption that that California’s net metering policy would remain the same.
Net metering — a solar subsidy program that ultimately passes costs from panel owners to non-panel ratepayers — has been second-guessed and reformed across the country.
The California Public Utilities Commission is set to reconsider their net metering program in 2019, one year before the mandate is to go into effect. If regulators choose to scale back these subsidies, solar panel owners would likely lose money on such an investment.
Additionally, Sexton argued that the Commission was overly optimistic on the price of solar panel installation.
They concluded that the cost was $2.93 a watt in 2016 and would drop 17 percent by 2020, but a study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that the average cost of panels to be $4.50 a watt for the 2- to 4-kilowatt systems the new policy requires.
Sexton argued that if California regulators were truly interested in the development of solar-generated electricity, they would look toward the economies of scale that is found in large solar farms — projects which produce twice as much electricity as the new mandate placed on small residential homes, but at the same exact cost.
“Sacramento politicians accuse the Trump administration of ignoring science and forgoing expert, independent review in pursuing its environmental and energy agenda,” he wrote. “They should look in the mirror.”
Read more at Daily Caller
Only here in California run by the STUPID JACKASS PARTY(Liberal Democrats)would they mandate solar panels all over some fake stuff like Global Warming/Climate Change after all only ina liberal run city SANTA BARBRA where you will get six months in jail for passing out plastic soda straws because of the Eco-Stupidity of the Eco-Wackos Nxt in line for the California idiots MEATLESS MONDAYS
Just wondering. What would happen if a super-sized hail storm hits all these solar panels? Second question; As it is throughout the northern hemisphere, there is less sunlight in California during the winter months, would there also be less electricity generated during that time? And last of all, It snows in northern California an in California’s mountain areas, would 6-8 inches of snow affect power generation from solar panels?
St. Thomas solar farm destroyed by Irma
https://www.wral.com/weather/video/16953107/
Hail is not unknown in California, even in Los Angeles there have been incidents of hail falling in the past decade. One was quite celebrated, it occurred on a summer day in South Central and around Watts and Compton; the hail fell as small pebbles but in quantity, enough to cover lawns and streets like snow for up to an inch. It falls in the foothills on a regular basis, when monsoon moisture hits the mountains. As to your query about snow covering the panels, yes, it will stop generation of electricity until the snow is removed; I inquired about this once when considering to buy a PV equipped home in UT, the owner said that typically there was enough spare heat in the panels to prevent much accumulation but admitted he occasionally would have to get up on the roof to sweep the panels when heavy snowstorms came.
If California thinks it can change the earth’s temperature with solar panels they should
be able to stop the Saint Andreas fault big shake and balance their books too . Ok that last one may be a bit ambitious .
How many bird cookers do they need to eliminate our little winged friends ?
What happens to all those solar panels when they melt from mann made forest fires ?