California PUC releases ambitious energy efficiency plan that could make major utility companies obsolete
State wants new homes off grid
By: Dave Downey - Staff Writer
North County Times September 18, 2007
By 2020, all new California houses could supply their own electricity
State regulators Monday proposed an aggressive statewide energy strategy that would push developers to build homes and shopping centers so efficient they would require no electricity or natural gas from California's major utilities.
While the proposal by California Public Utilities Commission officials would not require builders to meet deadlines, it would set a goal of building only so-called "zero net energy" homes by 2020 and only stores that require no outside energy by 2030.
The idea would be to design houses and commercial buildings to use little electricity and natural gas in the first place and to get whatever energy they use from on-site sources such as rooftop solar panels.
A building industry representative expressed doubts about whether it is a realistic goal, while a prominent consumer advocate suggested it is achievable.
In unveiling the proposed decision, Commissioner Dian M. Grueneich and administrative law Judge Kim Malcolm wrote: "This decision institutes a comprehensive, long-term energy efficiency strategy to achieve our ultimate goal ---- making energy efficiency a way of life."
The Public Utilities Commission is scheduled to take up the proposal Oct. 18.
Paul Tryon, chief executive officer for the San Diego County Building Industry Association, said in a telephone interview that, while having 100 percent self-sufficient homes may be an admirable goal, it also may not be practical.
"It's a pretty assertive goal that will require an evolution in technology," Tryon said.
According to San Diego Gas & Electric Co., about 1.3 percent of the region's supply comes from rooftop panels, and the share is expected to reach 4 percent by 2015.
He said much progress has been made in the campaign to make buildings more efficient. New homes, for example, use 70 percent less energy than same-size houses built just 15 years ago, he said.
"California has led the country in being sort of friendly in its consumption of energy, with both new homes and new commercial buildings," Tryon said. "But this will require quite a stretch to get to the next level."
Scott Anders, director of the University of San Diego's Energy Policy Initiatives Center, said the goal is achievable, but significant obstacles will have to be overcome.
"The biggest challenge is air conditioning," Anders said, noting much of the state's growth is taking place in inland regions such as Riverside County and eastern San Diego County that swelter in summer.
"The goal is going to be difficult because most of the new houses are going to be built in the hotter climates," he said.
Still, Anders said, he lives in a nearly self-sufficient home in the inland community of Lakeside that he rebuilt following the 2003 Cedar fire.
"We did an energy-efficient design. It's nothing out of the ordinary, really," he said. "And then we have a (solar) photovoltaic system." So far, he said, the home is requiring zero electricity from the power grid.
The solar panels, however, were expensive, Anders said, adding that it remains to be seen whether the housing market in this costly region can support the expense of panels on every roof.
San Diego consumer advocate Michael Shames, executive director of Utility Consumers' Action Network, said by e-mail that he believes the proposed goal is "certainly" achievable.
"Most estimates suggest that solar will be considerably less expensive by 2020," Shames said. "With the advent of plug-in cars and lower photovoltaic prices, there's little reason why any new home shouldn't be a zero-net energy structure. Most customers will be able to produce most of the power they need, with the utility infrastructure serving more of a back-up function for new homes."
The commission's proposal would apply only to regions of the state served by California's major investor-owned utilities, such as San Diego Gas & Electric Co., which serves San Diego County and southern Orange County, and Southern California Edison, which serves Riverside County and the Los Angeles area.
Utility officials said they needed to study the proposal before commenting about its details.
"This is a little unusual," said Gil Alexander, a Southern California Edison spokesman.
Rachel Laing, a San Diego Gas & Electric spokeswoman, said: "It's in line with our general philosophy that energy efficiency is the first and most important pillar of our long-range planning."
Like what you see? Go ahead and show your support! UCAN is a truly independent non-profit watchdog organization, dependent on grassroots donations like yours!
Utility Consumers' Action Network - (619) 696-6966
Terms and Conditions
UCAN.org is made available by the Utility Consumers' Action Network to assist you in becoming what you always knew you could be: a consumer ROCK STAR! We take no corporate money, and are beholden only to you, the consumer. As such, the site is here for educational, advocacy, and empowerment purposes, as well to to give you general information and a general understanding of the law. Just remember this site is NOT here to provide specific legal advice. By using this web site you of course understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the Web Site publisher, UCAN. The Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.
That said, get to digging on the site, inform yourself, speak your mind, and earn Watchdog Bones! This is YOUR site, and we mean it. So comment on any of the content, discuss the latest issues in the forums, file a complaint on a company with the Fraud Squad, and generally cut loose.
See our Terms of Use, Privacy, and Copyright complaint policies as well as our Content Reuse Policy, Some Rights Reserved. Remember, if you have any questions about copyright law or need legal information regarding intellectual property, the internet, or new technologies, visit our affiliate New Media Rights at www.newmediarights.org. If you are in the San Diego region, you can also can apply to use New Media Rights' multimedia studio and equipment for free.








Thanks for sharing this
Thanks for sharing this valuable information with us.
Thanks,
Income protection insurance
It doesn't have to be Zero to be Sustainably Affordable!
Zero CIVIL engineering techniques make it possible to build every home in a development to Zero standards. To my knowledge however there are no residential production builders who have that engineering application in house.
The most efficient way to heat water and cook is with natural gas! That having been said, an 80% reduction can easily be reached for natural gas as well as 80% of the property's total demand for water. Add the two 80s to 100 (Zero electric) and divide by 3 (the # of utilities) and the result is an annual reduction in operating (utility) costs of 86.66%.
The remaining 13.33% keeps the home from being truly Zero, but when the home owner reinvests the utility savings (86.66%) directly into the mortgage, then the tax break for mortgage interest (33% return from 100% of first year payments) increases the value to 112.66% of Zero. Economically 12.66% better than Zero not counting 1st year rebates and tax credits.
The interest a home owner can write off decreases annually, but utility cost inflate and actually more than offset the write off decrease. This creates greater tax free savings as the final mortgage payment approaches.
Examples showing the inflation offset affect:
1st Year Mortgage payments = 12 - 4 (33% return from interest) = 8 payments, 8 - 2 (113% annual savings) = 6 payments!
30th Year Mortgage payments = 12 - 0 (no more interest) = 12 payments, 12 - 6 (340% annual savings) = 6 payments!
Post new comment