More California regulations = more migration to Arizona.

And who is going to pay for the waste that begins about 2030?

It’s important for these panels to be recycled; otherwise, valuable resources will end up in landfills. Additionally, solar panels contain heavy metals, such as cadmium and lead, which could leach into the environment if not properly recycled. Solar panels also can contain rare elements, such as gallium and indium, that are slowly being depleted. Recycling these materials helps conserve the supplies of these finite resources.

While I like the idea of solar panels and in fact we have looked into them for our own home, I am not a fan of over-regulation. -Kasey

Serves them right! We know how they like to vote, well, most of them.

Too much regulations in my opinion.

Ridiculous like every law they pass. Over reach from government on local homeowners.

You're welcome to come to the sane side of the country Caroline! We'd love to have you!

Here on the East Coast having solar has become an issue when selling. The reason is that many home owners had the installation leased or financed. When selling, many buyers do not want to pay the monthly finance or lease payment. 

I did not know. Thanks.

What's next?

    In a state where the average Joe cannot afford to buy a house, jack up the prices by $28,000.  Sounds reasonable.

Caroline ~ I heard about this as the decision came up... and it seems to me that they adding costs to homes in a market that is already very expensive.  I can just imagine many first time or move up home buyers being priced out of the market because of this.  Having solar panels should be up to the buyer in my opinion, not big government.

I'm working with more and more buyers from California.  They are starting to realize that Florida might be a very attractive and more affordable option for them.  

Very controversial subject. I for one think it is a step in the right direction. I have long been one that believes that widespread use of solar would benefit everyone. Here in Arizona, we could be generating millions of watts of clean energy for free, but the Arizona Corporate Commision has stymied the growth of solar by allowing the local power companies to charge exorbitant fees for connecting to the grid and paying lower than average rates for the power solar customers generate. All they have done is protect the 100-year-old business model that the power companies have been using, instead of adapting to new, better technology.

For those that say it is overregulation, Why do you not think that the dozens of regulations that favor the power company are not overregulation? If you really believed in "free market" you would not be in favor of this protectionism that hurts the consumer.

That's quite a price tag, not including ongoing maintenance.

We shall see. . .

I agree with Kasey - and also at least CA isn't requiring RESALE homes to have solar panels!  Luckily that is just for new construction.

Hopefully, the volume of purchases will reduce the cost for everybody in the country. I think this is a smart move for California.

Seems like too much regulation.  Will be interesting to see how this pans out. Personally, I think a good number of homeowners will be finding another location to call "Home Sweet Home"

I hate that it is a law...Many of our friends have done this on existing homes, but the DWP asks for a pound of flesh for doing that.  A

I am mixed on the law. I think it is really good to break the dependency on fossil fuels and other energy sources, while the sun is there. I do not like the mandatory use of materials from the top down. I do wonder, IF, in the long run this will lower the price of renewable energy sources.

it makes sense in California, but it certainly won't here in New England.... although, in California, that's just another cost added to the list....

Good for them!

Now the State government AND the Utility monopoly can stick it to the homeowner AGAIN by gaming the remissions to the homeowner.  Then that 10 year payoff get extended to 20, long past the effective life if the system.

Californians get the government they deserve.

It is a good idea, let's see how it is going to be implemented. As a big supporter of all green and sustainable, I'd love to see more of it.

With more users the cost per user should go down as more vendors get in the game.

Ridiculous. I'd being working on hiring some new regulators, politicians, etc.

Not sure we got a 2.3Kw system as part of a new home purchase.  There were ~$3K deduction.... The sytem is under a hisdtorical tree....

More residents will move to Texas

I actually like the idea!

(1) What Candice A. Donofrio said.

(2) I think the jury is still out on real costs and real savings and will be for quite a while.

Its a smart move to get it done during construction..

I think I won't ever be buying a home in California.

Absurd costs for very quickly outdated technology, OR strapping complex liens to your property to save on the costs.  California is becoming more and more toxic by the day.  I've got a great position with a great company, but renting looks more and more like a win for me.

Ah, I love seeing the law of unintentional consequences at work...let's just see how this plays out.  

Big Brother dictating, be cheaper if the state built large solar farms, so expensive putting on individual homes.

Candice A. Donofrio nailed this one!

I know that in Hawaii if I was to buy a system for $25,000 I wouldn't recover my investment in 10 years.

The oil companies are the power in Oklahoma so I don't think so. The only reason we are n umber two in wind power is the oil companies are investede.

I would rather see incentives for buyers & builders to choose to do this than making it mandatory.  I hope it accomplishes the intended purpose, but I suspect there will be surprise unintended consequences too. 

From a save the planet viewpoint, it would behoove local or national government to push solar, especially in southern states where it seems there should be no excuse to use panels.  Germany is one of the highest per capita users of solar.  Check out their longitude on a globe compared to the U.S. to be surprised.  Even a northern country can use solar!  Of course mandating solar use without any tax credits seems a bit oppressive.  We have a throwaway consumer mentality to boot.  Our houses are made of tiny sticks stapled together and glued (simplification).  Houses in the Old World were built of stone completely or brick with rubble infill.  They were built to last for generations.  We also have a mobile society.  Jobs change fast and investing in solar on a new home that may only be occupied for three to five years does not generate the payback in time.

Like electric cars which have been promised for many years, solar panel costs have been also estimated to become reasonable but in both cases this has not been so.  

One of the best things to do to keep heat (in the south) from creating high cooling bills is to install the highest R insulation you can.  It is cheaper than any solar installation and you get immediate results including raising the life of your AC unit.  Check out Icynene and its green counterpart.  I think before solar is mandated, proper high R value insulation should come first... and be required on older houses, not only newer ones.  You might guess that utility companies are there to block either of these suggestions....

Now is this leased solar or purchased solar, as there can be issues with leased Caroline Gerardo, that I have seen here in AZ.   

Caroline Gerardo after a few years we will know the impact.

This requirement will not kick in for two years. The cost of a new construction home will include the cost of the solar. Solar will not be an option like up-grade counter tops. The financing is for the cost of the home, not the solar so re-sale will not be an issue as came occur now with solar that if financed in addition to a home mortgage. Home buyers will look at the cost of a new home…not think about what solar has done to the cost…and decide whether they can afford to buy or not. The price difference between a new home now and in two years will be affected by more aspects than the addition of solar.

I believe one comment mentioned the long term environmental effect, well here is a long term resell effect:
Imagine 3 years afterward and the buyer needs to find a qualified inspector to make sure the system he is paying big bucks extra for actually works. Think used hot tub, older it is, worse it’s Value (or ever have a space style TV satellite dish in the back yard?). I can see the inspectors are trying to get up to speed on solar quickly in order to be ready for the wave of resale’s in a couple Years. With technology ever changing, I can see the “old models” (last year) being worth less than this years and next years will be even more efficient.

As Candice A. Donofrio wrote. We are poised to help those wishing to move out of Cali to Florida and have enjoyed the business from many new clients doing just that!

The cost numbers I saw were lower. I think it's a great LONG TERM solution.

I think you have put the cost much higher than I have heard.  It is a great idea.  The cost will be a part of all homes being built and the market will adjust.  It is going to hurt those under contract since there will be new technology that makes existing plans obsolete.

Solar is a great choice. When it is. I longer a  choice it is government over reach.  One reason we no longer live in CA 

It is a great idea in theory, but CA is doing a great job at driving their population out of CA. 

A big price today for savings that will most likely benefit a future owner of the property!

I have not had the time to study this.  Off the top of my head, the intentions are good, but it may be a bit heavy-handed.

For lack of a better response:  UGH!

I think this is a crazy idea. More government overreach

I don't think this is something that should be required/regulated. It should be an option.

No idea

You're going to need a lot of kilowatt hours saved to see that return some of your initial investment. Has it been calculated into the law for consumers?

I don't like mandates. Never have. However if CA wants to encourage Solar why not have tax incentives or rebates on new Construction.

Up here we are into energy efficiency in homes and businesses. Our state has Alaska Housing Finance  Corp they offer low interest rates on loans for energy efficient homes new construction  and a program for existing homes  to be rebated for energy efficient upgrades 

rebates for 5 Star plus were given for years just lately stopped 

Weatherization programs to help income driven upgrades for energy efficient homes.

there are ways States can help people use new methods to heat or cool that dont involve mandates

Caroline Gerardo - now that is something I don't like (and I know I can't do anything about it!)

Love the solar, hate the regulation.

I think it is too much regulation. And it's not just a simple matter of putting solar on homes and we don't have to worry any further...there are so many other issues to consider.

When I was in California, I saw very little new construction. Maybe this is one of the reasons why.

I think the government in Cali wants people to move to another state.

That should be a deterrant to byilding new

Saves energy, too much to invest, can it be financed?

Won't be better to have solar in each house? 

I am not sure that they can make you do it.

Sounds like Government gone wild with stupid ideas!!!

I think this should be a homeowner decision, not a regulation.    We went through this phase years ago.