Chevy Bolt EV Forum banner
1 - 20 of 53 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
771 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
...but not EVSE's?

CA Building Code Requires Rooftop Solar for New Apartment Buildings

The California Energy Commission voted unanimously this week to update the state’s building code to require rooftop solar panels on all new apartment building and condo construction starting January 1, 2020. This change would make California the only state with such a rule, SCPR reported.

  • New condos and apartments up to three stories high being built will be required to have solar PV systems
I did a cursory search and did not find any California code requiring at least EVSE pre-wiring and power capacity in new construction garages and parking areas of any new structures.

Charging in multi-tenant dwellings is indeed a major impediment to EV adoption, as much if not more than charging stations for long distance travel. Moreover, EV's have a far greater impact on reducing carbon (the stated goal) than Solar considering the migration from coal fired to gas fired and other renewable driven centralized power production.

Me thinks Misguided priorities.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
624 Posts
seems like an easy way around this if developers don't want to do it - just make the building 4+ stories high (which i'm fine with, as it would lead to more housing). and i can see why they wouldn't want to - there must be some amount of ongoing maintenance cost associated with it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
862 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
771 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/building-standards/calgreen/docs/HCDSHL605_2016.pdf
Requires at least raceways for EVSE's in all new construction for both single and multi-family dwellings as well as minimum parking space requirements for EV charging.
Thanks for that. My concern is non-attached parking, basically the parking lot for a multi-family building. Assuming raceway = conduit, I understand this to mean that the builder has to run 1 conduit for every 40 parking spaces, does not mandate any EVSE or EVSE capable power receptacle. Therefore a landlord is not required to provide anything. This code seems to be a relic of 10 years ago, where only one tenant in perhaps 100 would have a 30kWh Leaf.

This should be revised to 25% of all common parking spaces, and 208V/50A finished circuits at each of the parking stalls - some ability to easily upgrade main building power - but NOT any connection between parking stall connections and main power.

This would spur development of "Smart" multi endpoint DCFC charging technology that would drop-in between main power and the pre-wired common parking spaces. Example, lets say 10 of the 40 renters owned Bolts. They all come home from work in the evening and all plug into their respective stalls. The "Smart" multi endpoint DCFC charging technology would charge two at a time, and all would be fully charged by morning using just one 100A 208V 3-phase circuit.

At least I think that would work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,963 Posts
Cally? Cally?!!!?

Are you out of your f.u.c.k.i.n.g mind?

I don't understand why people don't say "Michy" or Yorky" or "Washy" if they can't use more than 2 syllables in a word. The name of the state is "California". If you really aren't able to type, CA or even "Calif" is acceptable (the old, very old, USPS abbreviation for the state) - but "Cali" (and even worse, "Cally") is insulting.

Edit: sorry, pet peeve of mine. NATIVE Californians (those born here) really hate to hear "Cali".

{Fourth gen Californian, myself}
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
862 Posts
Oh, this is one of those sites. What a shame.
Yeah, I HATE sites where there is a diverse group of people with varying opinions and experiences they are willing to share :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
771 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Cally? Cally?!!!?

Are you out of your f.u.c.k.i.n.g mind?

I don't understand why people don't say "Michy" or Yorky" or "Washy" if they can't use more than 2 syllables in a word. The name of the state is "California". If you really aren't able to type, CA or even "Calif" is acceptable (the old, very old, USPS abbreviation for the state) - but "Cali" (and even worse, "Cally") is insulting.

Edit: sorry, pet peeve of mine. NATIVE Californians (those born here) really hate to hear "Cali".

{Fourth gen Californian, myself}
LOL, No offense taken. I empathize with your frustration. No need to get your panties in a bunch.

I am a California native myself, born and raised in L.A., for the most part of 44 years. California does some great things environmentally speaking, considering it is really a independent republic as it is the worlds 5th largest economy. But I escaped 10 years ago like a runaway Insane asylum mental patent. California is a great place for some. I have ZERO regrets and wish I would have left 10 years earlier. No one in California misses me, and I dayum sure don't miss it.

Please accept my apologies, as I don't consider "Cally" as a pejorative, but will refrain from that term from now on since it may interpreted as be a 'trigger', and I want to preserve any 'safe spaces'. :x
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,064 Posts
Oh, this is one of those sites. What a shame.
I'd say this kind of banter is relatively uncommon here, and I certainly didn't help put it to rest (the inner troll in me likes people to be confronted with the fact that they are responsible for their own emotions, not other people).

I've been impressed with the quality of the people and the thoughtfulness of their posts overall.

Stick around a while.

BTW, I'm ok with people calling my state "Ore-gone".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,378 Posts
Yes it's horrible here absolutely dreadful tell everyone you know please don't move here (please!).
Sorry to say, it didn't work for Seattle. Some how, we're getting transplants who are finally starting to understand our mild summers and winters. The rain isn't that bad really and does wonders for air quality.
 

·
Registered
2020 Bolt EV Premier
Joined
·
86 Posts
Moving past the Cally vs CA debate..... What I wonder about is the long term effect on electricity prices will be with mandating solar into new construction? I suppose that for the most part, the grid can handle the one offs (eg. new home constructed among many other existing homes) and that the sub-stations for a complete new housing development (something like a Toll Brothers 700 unit housing development) will be able to handle the reverse flow of power or that the sub-station will be designed to handle it. No, I wonder how long it will take the power companies (The So Cal Edisons, the SDG&E's, the PG&E's) to go to the CPUC and ask for rate increases to a) handle "all" of the infrastructure required for this reverse flow and b) how much more they'll need to raise rates since they will be "losing" out on revenues since "so many new homes" will now be net generators of electricity?

I went solar 3 years ago. And I added the Chevy Bolt this year since I wanted to see how stable my power production would be. I got my "true up" bill this morning--$42 for the year. I guess it will just be a matter of time before the power companies IMO will be back at the table asking for another increase for this mandate to include solar for new construction. I for one am glad I adopted solar energy. But in all transparency, I didn't do it for the "green savings"--that was just a nice benefit. No, when you show me the financial reasons to adopt solar or switch one vehicle to a BEV, then that's easy to understand. With gasoline going north of $3.50 / gallon, it was easy with my daily driver of less than 10k miles / year to swap a 14.5 mpg SUV for a Chevy Bolt. Combine that with the CA $2500 rebate and what the cost / kW is during Time of Use, well, it's a no-brainer.

Just wondering....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
575 Posts
It is a sad comment on California politics. Solar doesn't make sense for everyone. It isn't just the shady roof issue. Some utility companies (such as the Silicon Valley Power Company in Santa Clara) offer their customers such a great deal on electricity that solar panels aren't cost-effective. Homeowners (or buyers) should have the choice to go solar, it shouldn't be forced upon them. This issue will likely end up on the ballot as a referendum, subjecting it to voter approval.

The state's biggest utility (PG&E) loves solar, because they can't keep pace with the state's electrical power needs. Between older power plants being taken out of service and onerous restrictions on making new ones of any kind, they just can't keep delivering the needed power. We suck up 50 gigawatts peak during the summer: that's a heck of a lot of juice. It has recently been predicted that voluntary or mandatory power use reductions will be necessary this summer.

But most buyers of these new homes with solar panels will save money - lots of money - in the long run. PG&E's residential customers pay up to 47 cents per kWh, so any PG&E or SoCal Edison customer who has a sunny roof and signs up for a time-of-use plan should see payback in less than ten years.

I have lived my entire life in California, in the San Francisco Bay Area. I can't see living anywhere other than California, although I wouldn't want to live anywhere south of the Tehachapi Mountains (southern California). The climate is awesome, the opportunities are amazing and there are so many things to do. It's expensive and traffic is a grind, but as an engineer in biotech, I do quite nicely. And it helps to know that Trump hates my guts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
625 Posts
Sorry to say, it didn't work for Seattle. Some how, we're getting transplants who are finally starting to understand our mild summers and winters. The rain isn't that bad really and does wonders for air quality.
Even though I'm only 36 I'm starting to think of where I would like to retire, and the PNW is really the only area of the States that I could find which matches my criteria of an ideal place to live, weather-wise:
  • not too cold during winter (don't like much below freezing)
  • not too hot during summer (don't like 85 and above)
  • distinct seasons

edit: and I grew up in northeast Ohio, which has some of the highest percentages of cloudy days (behind Seattle and Portland), so I really don't mind cloudy weather.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,165 Posts
This issue will likely end up on the ballot as a referendum, subjecting it to voter approval.
I doubt it since this only is for new homes/developments. This is aimed at the housing developers who are in the process of tearing down 1 old home to put 3 new "luxury" homes on the same lot.

I don't know about (hella) NorCal but here in SoCal we've seen non-stop redevelopment where a developer will buy 1-3 homes, raze them all and put up a small housing development in it's place. These houses are all right on top of each other with basically nothing in terms of yard or privacy but they are chock full of luxury features and sell quickly for a huge premium.

Just in the last year a developer bought one of the last "ranch" properties in my area, was a 2 acre lot, worth about $5M in land value, built 20 new homes on it and all 20 sold in a matter of months for $750k-$850k.

Meanwhile larger homes on much larger lots just one street over are selling for $650k-$750k because these homes were built in the late 1970s and early 1980s and people want new new new.
 
1 - 20 of 53 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top