The one I heard about today was The City of Dubuque, IA has completed its community-wide water meter replacement and unmeasured-flow reducer (UFR) installation project.

So if you wanted to keep your old meter, they would fine you. If you buy a four foot 25 foot round pool and want to fill it, they can shut off or restrict your water usage.

So you are sitting peacefully in your house after blogging about Brett Kimberlin and he is SWATting your house. They can cut off your water by electronic command. Also your electric, etc.

Think of the implications.

I can't recall the specific figures, but when my ex and I were building his company (Spray Foam Insulation), I looked into various "green" building techniques.

Solar panels can be pretty cool once installed, but the cost of installing them is astronomical. Recouping those costs takes an extraordinarily long time. It's something like 10 years or more before the energy savings actually 1. pay for the cost of the solar panels so you can 2. actually experience an energy savings from a financial perspective.

I'll try to find a link, but I left all my prior research with the ex so may take a minute.

OK I haven't verified this website and I'm running off to a Renaissance Faire today, but here is a quote that at least sounds in line with my former research:

At the time of this writing, the installed cost of solar panels was between $7-$9 per watt: A 5 kW system would cost around $25,000-$35,000. Many utility companies offer incentives, and some subsidize as much as 50% of system costs. Even at half the cost, though, a system that generates an average $75 of electricity per month could take a long time to pay for itself.

http://solarpowerauthority.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-install-solar-on-an-average-us-house/

The Commission says not to worry about the extra costs because the new rules will reduce energy use by 25% and save homeowners money....

Was this estimate done by the same people who estimated the cost of the sparkly fast train to nowhere?

If residential solar panels reduced energy usage by an average of 25%, there would be a long line of people on the road to the solar panel factory. Instead, the grass grows pretty high on the road to the solar panel factory.

California, party like it's 1999!

And how long do solar panels last before they need replacing? and is their energy output a constant, or do they degrade as they age?

I think it's worth pointing out that whatever the merits of this particular regulation, strong building codes are a good idea. Look at the results of the earthquakes of similar magnitude just one year apart in Japan (strong building codes rigorously enforced) and Haiti (virtually no standards for construction). Granted, there are many other differences between these two countries, but the high standards of construction used in Japan saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

"And how long do solar panels last before they need replacing? and is their energy output a constant, or do they degrade as they age?"

While you're at it, ask this about hybrid car batteries.

Not to worry. Only 2 or 3 homes will be built under the new requirements, due to all the open-space laws that California has.

I've looked into this more than once ofer the years. I keep hoping that things have improved; unfortunately, they haven't.

Solar panels for electrical generation make no financial sense. If you run the numbers generously, you *might* get a payback of your initial investment in 20 years. Of course, you could have invested your money for those 20 years. Meanwhile, there will be maintenance costs, and after 20 years the panels need replaced.

What canmake sense are panels to provide hot water. The panels are cheaper and the extra plumbing is not all that expensive. This makes sense for any new house; retrofitting an existing house may be more expensive.

In one newly built industrial building I am familiar with, they went one step farther: they use a heat-pump for heating in the winter, with the heat exchange happening in a field of pipes in the ground under the building. When their hot-water generation has excess heat, this is run through another set of pipes in the heat-exchanger field. So, the warmth from a sunny winter's day goes into the ground under the building, where it will support the heat-pump during the night.

In short: solar for heat generation is efficient and inexpensive enough to make sense in lots of cases. Direct electricity generation with solar cells only makes financial sense in places where you are off the grid, and would otherwise require a generator.

Lots of people are researching ways to make solar cells less expensive and/or more efficient. However, there is nothing waiting in the wings that will change the cost/benefit ratio anytime in the next 5-10 years.

Factual Interjection, code v earthquakes and codes v esthetics are two completely differnt animals

Kudos to Melonie and a_random_guy for getting to the fiscal heart of the matter. The vast majority of renewable energy devices are far from cost effective, even with massive subsidies. Solar hot water is actually one of the few that is cost effective in a reasonable amount of time. Look it up and see if it works for you, and it's an easy way to "go green" that actually helps overall.

The article selectively quotes the increased cost of the regulations NOT including the solar panels. If we could really do it all for

My personal soapbox is cost-effectiveness. If we're wasting time, effort and money (personal and taxpayer (meaning EVERYONE'S money)) on things that are this inefficient, that's hurting everyone and especially those programs that tend to be the punching bags for both sides when budget get tight (teachers, food stamps, etc).

Like other commenters, I run the numbers every few years to see if they've changed and it makes sense to put in solar panels (not yet, but I'm hoping). In the meantime, I'd rather my tax money do some good or just stay in my pocket rather than be wasted like this.