• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

San Francisco Approves Solar Bill

mark handler

SAWHORSE
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
11,665
Location
So. CA
California Residential Solar Power: San Francisco Approves Solar Bill

http://www.getsolar.com/blog/california-residential-solar-power-san-francisco-approves-solar-bill

The San Francisco California Board of Supervisors voted unanimously on Tuesday to approve the "Better Roofs Ordinance" that will require new construction in the city to install solar energy systems on the roof. The new ordinance includes requirements for both residential solar power systems and commercial solar power systems, including either photovoltaic electric or solar hot water systems, or both.

California already leads the country in residential home solar power systems installations, as well as commercial and utility solar systems. This new ordinance represents a strong commitment by a large city in the United States to make the transition to a low carbon, clean energy infrastructure. The San Francisco Examiner reports that beginning in January new buildings of up to 10 stories will have to install rooftop solar systems.

San Francisco has aggressive renewable energy and waste reduction goals in place to significantly lower the city's carbon footprint. This includes an ambitious goal of using 100% renewable energy by 2025. In order to reach a goal like that a lot of work will have to be done on grid infrastructure, demand response, energy efficiency, and smart power transmission. The city has also set in place goals for reduction in landfill use and recycling, along with transportation fuel type and ownership mix.

The requirement for new residential home solar power systems in the California city would mean that new rooftops would have to take into consideration space and accommodation for the systems. Solar electric systems would most likely take the lead, however solar thermal hot water systems are also included in the legislation, so new residential homes may see a combination of the two technologies on their roofs. Therefore, the solar electric system would offset fossil fuel generated electricity, and the solar thermal system would offset either natural gas or electrically heated hot water heaters. (See image above for Solar Thermal System).

According to the Examiner, Barry Hooper of the San Francisco Department of Environment, Green Building Coordinator, stated "that 100% renewable energy depends on both development of renewable energy resources and continued improvement in energy efficiency". Additionally as to the new solar ordinance he said "it's been demonstrated as being highly cost effective".

The Better Roofs Ordinance is forecast to install roughly 7 1/2 MW of solar electricity, and pull some 26,000 metric tons of CO2 emissions per year. This is definitely a bold initiative, and some may bristle at the notion of being told what can and cannot be put on one's private property, however building codes and ordinances exist throughout the nation in an effort to set standards of safety and public health. Seen through that lens, the Better Roofs Legislation of San Francisco while ambitious could be seen as in-line with at least the spirit of existing building code tenets.
 
\ said:
This is definitely a bold initiative, and some may bristle at the notion of being told what can and cannot be put on one's private property, however building codes and ordinances exist throughout the nation in an effort to set standards of safety and public health. Seen through that lens, the Better Roofs Legislation of San Francisco while ambitious could be seen as in-line with at least the spirit of existing building code tenets.
They say: " it could be seen as in line with the spirit of existing building code tenets.", that's quite a rationalization for adding political agenda to the building codes, somebody should take them to court and try to get the courts to define how far the codes can be used to advance political agenda.

The reason they are making them mandatory is that solar panels don't work well in foggy, cold San Francisco, now PG&E has pulled rebates unless the electrons delivered occur at a time when they can actually use them, solar panels in San Francisco won't pay off in 200 years, where I live it's considerably warmer than San Francisco, neighbors who have installed them are actually paying higher bills after the "one-year true-up bill" comes.

Meanwhile across the Bay in Oakland:

\ said:
OAKLAND -- The Oakland City Council has finally made a stand: Developers must do their part to pay for affordable housing, despite activists saying the new impact fees the companies will pay are not on par with what neighboring cities charge. The fees will be phased in, and the amount based on where the project is proposed among three different zones. The highest fees climb from $7,000 per unit this year to $24,000 per unit in 2018 in the area with the highest rents and home prices: downtown and Lake Merritt, North Oakland and the Oakland hills.Housing activists argued the phasing of the fees is too slow and falls short of those imposed in Berkeley and Emeryville. Berkeley is raising its fees to at least $30,000; Emeryville's is $28,000. "There is no reason I can find that we don't immediately impose a significant impact fee and begin to rebuild our community," said resident Pamela Drake, a former City Council aide. Greg McConnell, of the Oakland-based Jobs and Housing Coalition, said Emeryville and Berkeley have not collected any money so far from impact fees. "The notion that we should do what they did because it's good is just foolish," McConnell said. "What they did is slow down and stop construction."

Fees will be lower in West Oakland and areas east of Lake Merritt and lowest in East Oakland, where an affordable housing fee will not be collected for two years. A $750 transportation fee will be assessed, however. ¹
Wealthy communities have been charging affordable housing fees for some time, in some communities as much as $67,000 for a residential addition, poor communities have held back thinking that the fees will just exasperate the problem since builders will go elsewhere, note that Oakland is succumbing to the activists even when two adjacent communities that have adopted the fees haven't collected a nickle as yet. Also note that in the spirit of Karl Marx they are charging less in the poorer areas of town.

They wonder why housing costs so much to build, construction has become the cash cow of the radical left wing activists, politics should be no part of building codes, codes are now just another form of taxation.

¹ http://www.eastbaytimes.com/news/ci_...rdable-housing
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top