Mandatory Renewables

[J.P.M.]

Unfortunately when you live in a state who's government is narrowly focused on one path you end up spending more money to satisfy their wishes.

I can think of two options. Vote the current government out of office (hopefully a better group is elected) or move to another state.

Or buy an existing dwelling constructed before the mean, old, intrusive government mandated common sense measures that most are too shortsighted to see will save them money, not that people actually seem to care about being proactive in such things, which, in the opinion of some, winds up being part of the folly we all pay for.

[max2k]

Or buy an existing dwelling constructed before the mean, old, intrusive government mandated common sense measures that most are too shortsighted to see will save them money, not that people actually seem to care about being proactive in such things, which, in the opinion of some, winds up being part of the folly we all pay for.

If those measures are so common sense free market would eventually 'figure it out' and 'implement' them anyway. Problem with government guided common sense measures is when something goes wrong along the way they still see them through as there's no self adjusting mechanisms along that path. That is one reason why big government initiatives often end up being financial disasters which takes market years to heal. When common sense is mandated it stops being common sense .

[sensij]

As JPM pointed out, CA already had Title 24 in place. One of its requirements is Zero Net Energy buildings ( www.californiaznehomes.com/faq ) ALL new homes ZNE by 2020 and commercial by 2030. SolarPV will be on lots more new homes in CA in 3.5 years.

Title 24 as approved does not require Zero Net Energy buildings now, or at any time in the future. It is a policy goal for the next cycle of the energy standard to achieve ZNE on all new residential construction in 2020, but so far, only the energy efficiency side of the equation has been put into practice, not the distributed generation. Until the 2019 cycle is written and approved, it is impossible to know exactly what the requirements for 2020 will be.

[jflorey2]

If those measures are so common sense free market would eventually 'figure it out' and 'implement' them anyway.

Well, no. The market implements the cheapest solution. That meant, in the 1960's, cheap coal power plants that killed tens of thousands every year, and cars that made Los Angeles almost uninhabitable. The cheapest solution was not the best solution for the people of the US, because the side effects (pollution) were sickening and killing people.

Thus the CARB regulations in California and the Clean Air Act. And now the air in Los Angeles is between 50% and 90% cleaner than it was 40 years ago, depending on the pollutant. And the number of people killed by coal power in the US has fallen from tens of thousands to about 7500 a year.

The cheapest solution is not always the best solution; we've learned that lesson dozens of times over the years. That doesn't mean that any government solution is better, of course; a large number of them are abysmally stupid (like Prop 65 warnings in California.) But it's often the best we can do.

[cebury]

Title 24 as approved does not require Zero Net Energy buildings now, or at any time in the future. It is a policy goal for the next cycle of the energy standard to achieve ZNE on all new residential construction in 2020, but so far, only the energy efficiency side of the equation has been put into practice, not the distributed generation. Until the 2019 cycle is written and approved, it is impossible to know exactly what the requirements for 2020 will be.

Thanks for the correction. I guess ive been a little freaked and influenced by reading thru so much about CA in the last couple weeks. I'm trying to be reasonably informed and falling victim to overexposure.

Putting PV on all new homes just seemed like a goal from 20 years ago before we saw the duck curve and HI grid saturations.

[max2k]

Well, no. The market implements the cheapest solution. That meant, in the 1960's, cheap coal power plants that killed tens of thousands every year, and cars that made Los Angeles almost uninhabitable. The cheapest solution was not the best solution for the people of the US, because the side effects (pollution) were sickening and killing people.

Thus the CARB regulations in California and the Clean Air Act. And now the air in Los Angeles is between 50% and 90% cleaner than it was 40 years ago, depending on the pollutant. And the number of people killed by coal power in the US has fallen from tens of thousands to about 7500 a year.

The cheapest solution is not always the best solution; we've learned that lesson dozens of times over the years. That doesn't mean that any government solution is better, of course; a large number of them are abysmally stupid (like Prop 65 warnings in California.) But it's often the best we can do.

not necessarily- if the same government regulates pollution levels that's fine but when it goes above that and mandates technology which needs to be used to achieve that or creates favorable economic environment for one technology at the expense of others or suppresses competition supporting one firm at the expense of others that's what I have problems with.

Even controlling pollution levels government often goes over board like requiring second set of catalytic converters in the cars while single was already enough (no self adjustment mechanism at its best).

[jflorey2]

not necessarily- if the same government regulates pollution levels that's fine but when it goes above that and mandates technology which needs to be used to achieve that or creates favorable economic environment for one technology at the expense of others or suppresses competition supporting one firm at the expense of others that's what I have problems with.

Creating favorable economic conditions for cleaner technologies at the expense of more polluting technologies is one way of regulating pollution levels - and it's arguably "fairer" than just banning some forms of power, or requiring unrealistic levels of cleanliness. That's how CAFE requirements work, for example.

Even controlling pollution levels government often goes over board like requiring second set of catalytic converters in the cars while single was already enough (no self adjustment mechanism at its best).

I haven't heard of any governments "requiring a second set of catalytic converters." They require a certain level of tailpipe emissions, and I can see some car manufacturers deciding that the best way to do that is with a second converter. If they can do it with a single one, they should be able to do that if they want.

[max2k]

Creating favorable economic conditions for cleaner technologies at the expense of more polluting technologies is one way of regulating pollution levels - and it's arguably "fairer" than just banning some forms of power, or requiring unrealistic levels of cleanliness. That's how CAFE requirements work, for example.

I haven't heard of any governments "requiring a second set of catalytic converters." They require a certain level of tailpipe emissions, and I can see some car manufacturers deciding that the best way to do that is with a second converter. If they can do it with a single one, they should be able to do that if they want.

I believe all new cars sold in CA since about 2000 had to have secondary catalytic converter to meet CA pollution requirements. You're probably correct there's no explicit requirement to do it this way but most likely the easiest for manufacturers as all I'm aware of switched to that design. So this screw up falls under 'requiring unrealistic levels of cleanliness' although it makes little difference to me at the end as I'd be forced to pony up serious money if those things need replacement, to the tune of $1,500 per cylinder bank. Car passes CA emissions levels with or without but if ECU trips 'Service Engine Soon' light because of one of them malfunctions I am SOL.

[J.P.M.]

If those measures are so common sense free market would eventually 'figure it out' and 'implement' them anyway. Problem with government guided common sense measures is when something goes wrong along the way they still see them through as there's no self adjusting mechanisms along that path. That is one reason why big government initiatives often end up being financial disasters which takes market years to heal. When common sense is mandated it stops being common sense .

I'm no fan of gov. running folks lives, but it looks like there is some divergence of opinion as to just what constitutes common sense. The free market figures out and reflects what people want, which is largely determined by what they can be convinced will make their lives better/easier by manipulation ( advertising), not reality and not necessarily what common sense would lead them to believe or do if they had any. Big gov. initiatives can also end in disaster or failure because they do not address root causes of problems, just symptoms.

[Sunking]

I am all in for Mandatory RE if in that same bill we make Mandatory sterilization for stupid people and school drop outs.

[max2k]

I am all in for Mandatory RE if in that same bill we make Mandatory sterilization for stupid people and school drop outs.

If only we could reliably determine who is stupid such test would be priceless on its own .

[DanKegel]

SB100, De Leon's bill, leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB100
is technology neutral, doesn't say anything about solar or wind, nor about individual homes.

SB71 (by a different senator) leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB71 is a separate bill, less well advanced, that would allow the state's Energy Commission to modify the building code to require new residential buildings to have solar (if cost-effective) by 2020.

As cebury points out, this seems like a goal from before the duck curve... but given that the bill requires cost effectiveness to be taken into account, it probably won't change anything if storage etc. aren't up to the task of shifting the energy to a time when it's economically useful.

[J.P.M.]

I am all in for Mandatory RE if in that same bill we make Mandatory sterilization for stupid people and school drop outs.

For further reading/info Re: forced sterilization: Cohen, Adam, "Imbecles:The Supreme Court and the Sterilization of Carrie Buck". ISNB-13 9780143109990, Penguin Publishing.

[SWFLA]

Another potential Cali law. They just don't stop.

businessinsider.com/tesla-stock-price-california-state-government-bailing-out-2017-7

[jflorey2]

So this screw up falls under 'requiring unrealistic levels of cleanliness'

Why are the levels of cleanliness required unrealistic? Given that cars are more powerful than ever, safer than ever, cleaner than ever, more efficient than ever, and cost about the same (in real dollars) of cars 30 years ago, it sounds like the standards are pretty realistic. They're certainly not crippling cars or making them unaffordable.

although it makes little difference to me at the end as I'd be forced to pony up serious money if those things need replacement, to the tune of $1,500 per cylinder bank. Car passes CA emissions levels with or without but if ECU trips 'Service Engine Soon' light because of one of them malfunctions I am SOL.

Right. Cars are checked pretty thoroughly when they are new, and from then on most smog check stations rely on OBD-II (or similar) diagnostics to ensure that the system is still working. Saves a lot of money that way.