PG&E’s New Tariff Could ‘Gut the PV Opportunity’ for the Commercial Sector

PG&E’s New Tariff Could ‘Gut the PV Opportunity’ for the Commercial Sector

The proposed regulation threatens commercial rooftop solar economics in Northern California.

by Jeff St. John

If you were wandering the halls of last week’s Intersolar conference in San Francisco, you probably heard a lot of worried, angry talk about something called the A-6 tariff, and how proposed changes to it were threatening to undercut commercial solar PV economics in Northern California — or, maybe, make energy storage a must-have part of any new commercial-scale solar project in the region.

The controversy over Pacific Gas & Electric’s special tariff for mid-size businesses, school districts, and other commercial customers that want to go solar has been brewing for years now. But lately, it’s been kicked into high gear, driven by an unusually poorly worded proposed decision from the California Public Utilities Commission that could, if left unchanged, slash the economic returns of the majority of commercial PV projects in PG&E territory by about 30 percent.

That’s the calculation that Tom Williard at Sage Renewable Energy Consulting has been warning his solar customers about since June 23, when the proposed decision (PDF) from CPUC administrative law judge Douglas Long was published. This document was meant to resolve a years-long legal argument over what to do with PG&E’s Schedule A-6 tariff. But according to Williard, the solution it proposes is far worse than the problem it was trying to solve.

“It’s really happening, and it’s happening in a very abrupt way,” he explained. “The transition is really disorderly, which is one of the biggest problems.”

In fact, the way the proposed decision would alter rate structures and customer energy costs is so dramatic and uncertain that the CPUC decided this week to assign a new administrative law judge to the issue, and postpone a final decision on the matter until at least next month. That could give the agency time to fix what Williard described as the key flaws in the previous document, including a lack of clarity about what will happen to existing A-6 tariff customers, and what customers with solar projects in development should do to preserve their economic value.

“A regulatory environment with this much lack of transparency and inconsistency makes these kinds of projects virtually impossible,” he said. “You cannot plan in an environment like that.”

Complex rate structures can make or break solar economics

Why is the existing A-6 tariff so valuable for solar economics? First of all, it’s an “all-volumetric rate,” which means that it doesn’t assess the demand charges, based on maximum electricity consumption at any one moment in time, that apply to almost all other commercial rates in California.

Instead, it charges customers only for the energy they consume, with much higher rates during times of the year and the day when demand is highest, typically summers and late afternoons. Those, of course, tend to be the same times that rooftop solar PV will be at peak generation, which makes the A-6 tariff structure very profitable for net-metered solar systems.

And because the A-6 tariff was open to customers with up to 500 kilowatts of average power consumption over a three-month period, it applied to a very broad class of commercial buildings, school districts, government agencies, small industrial sites, and other key classes of commercial solar customers.

In its 2012 general rate-case filing, PG&E asked to reduce the cap on customers eligible for the A-6 tariff from 500 kilowatts to 75 kilowatts, which would cut out a large number of commercial customers. Solar advocates protested, the issue went into litigation, and last month’s proposed decision was how the CPUC decided to resolve the disputes.

The first big problem with the proposed decision has to do with its timing, Williard said. PG&E had asked for any new tariff to start in November of this year. But the proposed decision abruptly declared that any customer not already on the A-6 rate would have that option closed to them as of the moment the decision was approved as law — which would have been this week.

“We have clients getting close to finishing projects in the next two to three months, public agencies that have been in this process for a long time,” preparing for a November deadline for switching to the A-6 tariff. “Now all of a sudden this says, if you don’t have a signed contract for A-6,” you’ve only got a month to make the move.

Another big problem is that the proposed decision didn’t offer a specific alternative for all those customers with more than 75 kilowatts and less than 500 kilowatts of demand, he said. Instead, “they just closed it completely off without any other carrot in place that adequately values the solar PV generation on PG&E’s network.”

The other tariff that applies for customers with between 75 and 500 kilowatts of demand is called the A-10 tariff, and it includes a more typical demand-charge regime, along with less-steep rates on the energy side of the equation, he said.

“For a typical school district, their PV production on A-6 is usually about 26 to 27 cents per kilowatt-hour on average,” he said. “On A-10, it’s somewhere around 19 cents per kilowatt-hour,” taking the changes in energy rates and the new demand charges into account. That’s the calculation that led him to predict that solar systems losing the A-6 tariff could expect to lose 30 percent of their long-term economic value, more or less overnight.

Customers tend to stay on the A-10 rate until their solar system is ready to turn on, and then switch to A-6. With the uncertainty brought about by the CPUC’s proposed decision, customers with solar systems in the midst of being built might want to switch to the A-6 rate before the opportunity is taken away from them.

But that’s a problem too, because going to A-6 will add much higher energy costs to the building until the solar system is turned on — between 30 percent and 50 percent higher, depending on what time of year the transition comes, he said. “And if a PG&E client switches tariffs — if they go onto A-6 right now — they can’t change their tariff for a year,” he said.

Uncertain grandfathering rules could undercut existing projects

Finally, the proposed decisions was quite vague on how existing A-6 tariff customers might be “grandfathered in” to any new tariff regimes, he said. “When this thing closes, you’ll be able to remain on that rate,” he said. “But the proposed decision did not specifically [state] that. It says, ‘You can remain on that rate until we figure out what to do with it in a future rate case.’”

The proposed decision directed PG&E to create a new solar-friendly rate for customers with between 75 kilowatts and 500 kilowatts of average demand, most likely based on the “Option R” tariff structures now in use at PG&E and Southern California Edison. These are more cost-effective for solar than the existing rates, but they still include demand charges, and Williard estimated that it would reduce solar paybacks by 15 percent compared to the existing A-6 rate.

What’s more, solar customers who’ve built 20-year economic forecasts based on their existing A-6 rates will have to wait until PG&E’s next rate case, which opens in 2017 and may not yield final tariffs until 2018 or later, to learn what options are open to them.

“They created this donut hole — you bring A-6 down to 75 kilowatts, then you don’t have any solar-friendly tariffs between 75 kilowatts and 500 kilowatts,” he said. “There are two and a half years where they have no commercial PV tariff.”

Williard said he’s hopeful that the CPUC will correct some of the proposed decision’s most glaring problems — but he’s not confident all of them will be addressed. “There are two pressing issues here: timing of any A-6 closure and the grandfathering-in of existing A-6 customers,” he said. “I imagine they will fix the timing at least a bit, but the far larger issue is grandfathering. And that is very much in question.”

Can energy storage help fill the gaps?

One of the interesting upshots of this situation is that it could open an opportunity for energy storage to help shore up the economics of affected solar systems. Behind-the-meter batteries can store power from solar or the grid, and then inject it when a customer’s energy usage is approaching a peak. That, in turn, could at least reduce the impact of the demand charges that could start affecting customers losing access to the A-6 tariff.

That has no doubt been one of the factors driving companies like Stem and SunPower, SunEdison and Green Charge Networks, and SolarCity and Tesla into the California solar-storage field. SunEdison recently partnered with storage provider Green Charge Networks to deploy battery-solar projects in California, and SunEdison’s Tim Derrick told us that “a lot of RFPs from schools and municipalities are coming with a storage component.”

Those are the same types of customers that Williard said could be negatively affected by changes to the A-6 tariff, and which could find value in storing that energy. But right now, “with demand charges on the Option R tariffs, it’s hard to make storage pencil out,” he said. “Generally speaking, they reduce demand charges by a half to a third of what you’d expect from standard tariff demand charges. So they aren’t as high, and right now what we’ve seen is, it’s very close to penciling out or not,” depending on the individual customers’ load profiles.

“Storage guys kind of like this, because they’re saying, ‘Now we can get into PG&E territory.’ But that’s a less efficient way to address energy usage than PV by itself,” he said. “There are no storage projects going in on A-6, because it makes no sense — it would cost a lot more than PV alone.”

Of course, changes to the A-6 tariff are just one of the many changes underway in California that could alter solar-storage economic models. The state is in the midst of restructuring its entire net-metering regime, which could bring about entirely new models for how customers are compensated for the solar power they produce. It’s also in the midst of a long-term shift away from steeply tiered monthly rates to daily time-of-use rates for residential customers, which could alter the value of household solar and solar-storage systems in new ways.

Kirk Stokes, the director of sales for Sharp Electronics’ energy systems and services group who’s leading the company’s U.S. solar-storage business, noted at last week’s Intersolar conference that the proposed changes to PG&E’s A-6 tariff could well “gut the PV opportunity” for the commercial sector. “These A-6s, and the Option R rates in Southern California and SDG&E territory, are going to create limits for PV [companies] to sell solar. But it also creates opportunity.”

TAGS: a-6, california, cpuc, green charge networks, pg&e, rooftop, sharp, solar, solarcity,stem, storage, sunedison, sunpower, tesla

Smart Thermostats Begin to Dominate the Market in 2015

Smart Thermostats Begin to Dominate the Market in 2015

Nearly half of those sold are connected two-way thermostats, opening up many options for utilities.

by Katherine Tweed

The fully connected home still is not a reality for most consumers, but increasingly, smart thermostats are the norm and not the exception.

Connected digital thermostats are one of the gateway devices on the path toward building a smarter home. In the case of some vendors like Nest, they serve as the hub of the smart home.

It is no longer just early adopters who are buying up connected thermostats, which are offered by every major vendor in the market. By the end of this year, nearly half of all thermostats sold will be smart thermostats, according to new research from Parks Associates.

As users gain the ability to monitor their energy on the go, they are also looking for more energy options. One out of five broadband households surveyed by Parks last year said they are likely to switch energy providers to one that offers energy and monitoring services.

Thermostat sales are growing overall, but there is also a considerable difference in the ways they’re being purchased today in comparison to even two years ago. Customers are increasingly buying their thermostats through retail stores. The HVAC channel is growing as well, but the utility segment is stagnant.

Although in most cases, utilities are not the ones selling the smart thermostats, that doesn’t mean they can’t reap the benefits of these devices being installed.

Utilities can use smart thermostat data from customers who opt in to programs to further fine-tune demand-response offerings. They can also use smart meters to disaggregate data to offer the sorts of tailored monitoring services customers will increasingly be seeking.

Last fall, for example, Bidgely began providing disaggregation analytics to all of TXU Energy’s 1.5 million residential customers that can tell them whether their AC compressor or pool pump is on the fritz.

People are increasingly willing to pay for monitoring services, Parks Associates found. For utilities, the time could be ripe to capitalize on the relationships they already have with customers before they are cannibalized by the more than 100 other companies that are looking to get in on the smart home.

To maintain that relationship, utilities are increasingly leveraging various brands of smart thermostats already on the market into demand-response programs. Those programs will have to grow more sophisticated as people buy their thermostats from many manufacturers in a variety of stores.

“Opening utility programs to include the variety of different types and brands of devices is an important consideration,” Tom Kerber, director of home controls and energy research at Parks Associates, said in a statement. “Energy providers have the opportunity to monetize the mountain of data derived from both smart meters and smart devices.”

TAGS: byot, connected home, hems, home energy management, parks associates, smart home, smart thermostats

This Is What Happens When A State Seriously Invests In Clean Energy

 

ELON MUSK
Solar farms are blooming across California’s deserts, wind turbines are climbing the Sierra, photovoltaic roofs are shimmering over suburbs, and Teslas are the Silicon Valley elite’s new ride. A clean energy rush is transforming the Golden State so quickly that nearly a quarter of its electricity now comes from renewable sources, and new facilities, especially solar, are coming online at a rapid rate. Last year, California became the first state to get more than 5 percent of its electricity from the sun.

With its goal of 33 percent renewable energy by 2020 now within reach, Governor Jerry Brown recently raised California’s bar, ordering the state to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below the 1990 level within the next 15 years — the most ambitious target in North America. To meet the new directive, planners say Californians will need to step up their energy transition even more: doubling energy efficiency, boosting electric transportation, and getting at least twice as much of their electricity from renewables. Energy experts caution that it will take effort, but they say it’s doable.

It’s difficult to remember that just 15 years earlier the state was experiencing an energy meltdown. Electricity prices skyrocketed, supply crashed and blackouts rolled, due mainly to a disastrous deregulation attempt and unscrupulous market manipulation. Fast-forward to 2014, and the state’s renewable capacity grew to an estimated 21,000 megawatts, including more utility-scale solar than all the rest of the states combined.

So how did California go from chaos to clean power leader in such a short time? And where does it go from here?

“Fifteen years out of a crisis — that’s kind of unprecedented,” said Daniel Kammen, director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Lab at the University of California, Berkeley. “For the world’s seventh-biggest economy, to be in such a solid and good climate position in a decade and a half is remarkable.”

California’s phoenix act stems from a combination of favorable geography, innovative policies, and businesses that saw the benefits of clean energy investments, Kammen said. Reeling off a list of California solar companies, he said, “All of these companies are creating wealth … and that is the most fundamental part of the whole equation.”

With bipartisan support, state legislators a decade ago enacted an ambitious Renewables Portfolio Standard requiring that 33 percent of electricity sold in California come from renewable sources by 2020. Governor Brown has called for that goal to be raised to 50 percent by 2030, and his administration has expanded efforts to boost energy efficiency and to significantly increase the use of electric vehicles and renewables, among other measures.

Wind energy production has doubled since 2009, and today California generates nearly 6,400 megawatts of wind power, providing around 7 percent of the state’s electricity. Massive new solar farms are also coming online, including two 550-megawatt photovoltaic plants added last year. By the end of 2014, California had roughly 5,400 megawatts of utility-scale solar installed and several more facilities, including a new 579 megawatt plant, are slated to open by the end of next year. California also leads the nation in small distributed, or “rooftop,” solar, with more than 2,300 megawatts now installed, and analysts predict continued strong growth through 2016.

On top of that, the state has ample geothermal energy production, with expansion on the way. All told, according to the California Energy Commission, commercial renewable energy facilities in the state, including small hydropower, now generate enough clean electricity to power more than 7 million California homes — and that doesn’t include home solar and other smaller, on-site production.

The push toward renewables has bumped up electricity prices — Californians pay around 14 cents per kilowatt hour across all sectors, compared to a little over 10 cents nationwide, according to 2015 figures from the U.S. Energy Information Agency. But thanks to a mild climate and successful energy efficiency programs, residents’ monthly bills are actually among the lowest in the nation — Californians rank 49th in energy use and 46th in per-person spending on electricity.

But as California’s clean power goals rise, new capacity could begin to slow. Some planned large projects are now on hold due to financial problems. Others face environmental challenges, such as threats to bird flyways and desert habitats. Large-scale solar plants, particularly those using solar thermal technology, are losing appeal to investors as photovoltaic panel prices plunge. And utilities, having largely reached their current renewable procurement targets, have few new projects in the pipeline. What’s more, the federal solar investment tax credit program for new utility projects drops from 30 percent to 10 percent after 2016, and ends completely for individuals.

Despite these obstacles, a number of enterprising alternatives are emerging.

In the past few months, both Apple and Google have announced they are developing their own grid-scale renewable energy projects. Apple is partnering with FirstSolar to build a 280-megawatt solar farm not far from its Silicon Valley headquarters. The facility, slated for completion next year, will power all Apple stores in California, as well as the company’s offices and a large data center — plus deliver 150 megawatts to the grid. Not to be outdone, Google has bought into a wind project to power its huge Mountain View campus. The company plans to replace outdated turbines that are inefficient and hazardous to birds with fewer, higher-efficiency, bird-friendly machines.

california solar
DirecTV has built a solar farm at one of its California offices. Its television technicians now offer solar energy packages when visiting customers’ homes.

Another new approach is designed to stimulate small, local renewable energy projects. Under this program, Community Choice Aggregation (CCA), cities and counties contract with renewable energy producers to tailor their own clean energy supply. Electricity is still delivered through the area utility, which charges a transmission fee, but residents can choose whether to receive up to 100 percent clean energy from the CCA.

The state’s first CCA, Marin Clean Energy, opened in 2010 and now serves about 165,000 customers. The program keeps costs down by buying directly from several small, local energy projects it helped develop, including a solar panel array on city airport hangars and biogas from a county landfill, as well as agreements with commercial solar, wind, and geothermal producers.

California’s green energy aggregation model is now spreading to other states, including one starting up this summer in New York’s Westchester County. The Los Angeles-area city of Lancaster this month launched its own CCA, which, along with Sonoma County, brings California’s total to three, with more in progress.

In a testament to clean energy’s bipartisan appeal in California, Lancaster’s Republican mayor, R. Rex Parris, dreams of making his city “the Silicon Valley of Clean Energy.” His initiatives include requiring solar panels on all new homes in this fast-growing community and luring an electric bus manufacturer to town.

“We’ll be net-zero this year,” Parris said, enthusiastically. “We’ll be producing more electricity than we use.”

In addition to slowing global warming — a cause Parris considers critical — he said becoming a clean energy community makes fiscal sense. The CCA’s direct purchase from solar farms will save Lancaster users 15 to 30 percent on their energy bills, he said.

“The free market is working,” Parris said. “There are my Republican principles!”

California’s three large investor-owned utilities will soon begin offering clean power choices as well. Under a state community solar development mandate, they’ll be required to purchase renewable energy from small, local producers in an effort to encourage such endeavors and let customers choose their own energy mix.

Meanwhile, unlikely allies from universities to county dumps are banding together and taking a new look around their properties, with an eye to unused space that can be repurposed for clean energy production. Earlier this month, standing on a closed landfill near San Francisco Bay slated to sport 19,000 solar panels by next year, U.S. EPA administrator Gina McCarthy said she hopes a pioneering Regional Renewable Energy Procurement arrangement by a group of public agencies will become a national model. Under that initiative, solar panels will be installed at 186 sites such as fire stations, city halls, libraries, college campuses, and sanitary districts across four northern California counties to produce energy than can be fed into the grid.

California’s energy transition still faces some daunting obstacles. A massive influx of new energy threatens to overwhelm the current transmission system. The sporadic nature of wind and solar poses a special challenge. In addition, the remote location of many new energy producers means the state will have to extend electrical wires.

The grid is already starting to experience oversupply episodes when wind and solar produce unexpected bursts of power, which forces the grid to shut down its energy feeds, said Steven Greenlee, a spokesman for the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), the state’s utility regulator. That wastes energy.

To address these problems and achieve California’s goals for a new energy future, CAISO envisions fleets of private and mass-transit electric vehicles that serve as batteries on wheels — plugging in and soaking up excess current when the load gets too high, and feeding it back into the grid through special charging stations when supply drops. The plan also calls for retrofitting the state’s sluggish old conventional power plants or building new ones that can ramp up production quickly when the sun sets or the wind dies, then stop when these sources become active.

A third component — a regional electricity-sharing grid where California and its neighbors can cut costs and increase efficiency by offloading surplus or acquiring extra within minutes of peak demand — was launched last year. So far, Western Energy Imbalance Market members include parts of Oregon, Washington, Utah, and Wyoming, in addition to California.

Reaching the state’s aggressive new energy target likely will raise costs. A recent study by the consulting firm Energy+Environmental Economics and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory estimated that the steps needed would add an average of $14 to monthly household bills. But Berkeley energy professor Kammen points out that the effort also will spur innovation, stimulate the economy, and create jobs.

Lancaster Mayor Parris agrees. “Once you release the creative forces like that,” he said, “it doesn’t stop.”

Weyl what? Discovery of new particle could lead to low-energy electronics

by Christine Lepisto (@greenanswer)

With an intricate structure reminiscent of the deep carvings in the Hagia Sophia, the engineered crystal pictured above may go down in history as one of the wonders of our generation. The amazing structure, based on a mathematical surface known as a “gyroid” was built from crystallized tantalum arsenide using modern manufacturing techniques.

Gyroids do exist in nature, for example in the shimmering rainbows of butterfly wings. But this was one made to order based on calculations predicting that a precisely built gyroid structure, with the symmetries of the surface broken in specific ways, would allow researchers to identify Weyl fermions.

This could change everything

Named after the physicist Herman Weyl, who predicted their existence in 1929, the massless particles are true wonders of nature, in the “this could change everything” vein.Firstly, unlike the Higgs boson (controversially known as the “god particle”), the Weyl particle sticks around. A lot of the particles theorized in the wake of Einstein’s paradigm changing shake up of physics can be seen only by smashing other particles together in super-colliders, disappearing soon after their high-energy birth. But now that scientists have defined the “Weyl photonic crystals” in which the Weyl fermions can be generated, they can make more of them, any time they want.

Second, these Weyl particles are really different from any of the other bits of the universe that we usually catch running around. Ling Lu, MIT-based lead author of one of two studies reporting this month on Weyl fermions, compares them to monopole magnets. Do you remember experimenting with magnets in school? If you cut a magnet in half, you don’t get one ‘south’ bit and one ‘north’ pole — instead you get two new magnets, each with its own north and south poles. The Weyl fermion is crazy weird, like finding a magnet that has only one pole. Plus, they have no mass! Says Zahid Hasan, Princeton-based co-author of a second paper confirming the new particles:

“The physics of the Weyl fermion are so strange, there could be many things that arise from this particle that we’re just not capable of imagining now.”

These strange properties bring us to the third wonder of Weyl particles: they can carry a charge, just like electrons do, but without generating waste heat. You know how the fan is always running or your thighs are getting toasted by your electronic gadgets? All that heat wastes energy. Electronic devices based on Weyl particles could be like LEDs are to the old Edison incandescent lightbulb.

They can also carry a charge long distances, which could revolutionize the power grid, overcoming power transmission obstacles currently faced in the use of small, localized generators instead of big, centralized power plants.

These dreams could take a while, as scientists will have to get to know this new particle before we can harness its amazing abilities. But simpler technologies could develop much sooner: for example large single-mode lasers might be realized first. These would allow ever more precise use of lasers, which are already omnipresent in barcode scanners, disk readers, and a multitude of other modern applications.

The Weyl fermions are so geeky, we are waiting to see if the mainstream media even takes a stab at reporting this breakthrough. We hope you get to be the first to tell your friends you know all about it (which might be a slight exaggeration…if you really want to be a geek god, this will start you surfing — from the Dirac equation through spinons and beyond).

How Green Is Your Supply Chain?

New report examines the environmental impacts of production and delivery

Green purchasing

Your building may be certified green, but what about the materials that went into it or the supplies used to run it? A new study by the United Nations Environment Programme examines the supply chain in an attempt to understand its environmental impact.

Focusing on new and existing office buildings (both public and private) as a representative building type, the study evaluates potential green interventions in thedesign, delivery, and occupation of buildings, as well as the material supply chain that enables each of those stages.

Purchasing and procurement offer unique opportunities to meet green goals, according to the study authors; emphasizing sustainable purchasing practices “helps create value for the businesses involved by providing a clearer picture of purchasing-related impacts and potential risks.” Standard criteria for green private procurement policies are sorely needed, but in the meantime, FMs can look to responsible purchasing trailblazers for ideas.

The multinational building materials manufacturer Saint-Gobain, for example, developed a Suppliers Charter that explains its requirements for service providers in the areas of human rights, business practices, and economic and social performance. Compliance with the charter is monitored with a questionnaire and regular site audits. In addition, it relies on lifecycle assessments (LCAs) to measure the environmental footprint of its products, and the company’s Building Distribution sector now enforces an Environmental Timber policy that monitors the origin of wood products and ensures their traceability.

The study also introduces the Intensity Analysis Methodology, an LCA-based attempt to understand the impacts of 10 raw materials – aluminum, bricks, cement, flat glass, mineral wool, plaster board, polystyrene, polyurethane, rebar, structural steel, and timber. Lifecycle data indicates that structural steel, aluminum, and cement were the biggest contributors to the studied materials’ total environmental impact, an assessment that looked at primary energyconsumption, fresh water use, disposed waste, and global warming potential. Rebar, brick, and polyurethane were characterized as making a “modest” contribution to the total impact compared to the other materials.

However, the study clarifies that “a high contribution is not necessarily equivalent to a high reduction potential,” so FMs looking to minimize their usage of high-impact materials should look for additional information on reduction potential and consider which resources are most endangered in their areas – for example, facilities in drought-stricken states should prioritize products with a low impact on usage of fresh water.

Interested in boosting the green credentials of your own materials purchases? Greening the Building Supply Chain is available free at unep.org.

DEAR PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN FANCY TINY HOUSES: Do you ever wake up wondering, “Have I made a huge mistake?

source– Tiny: A Story About Living Small; photo by Kevin Hoth

Dear People Who Live in Fancy Tiny Houses…

Do you actually love living in a fancy tiny house*?

You look so freakin’ happy in that Dwell Magazine article or Buzzfeed post, but c’mon, you can’t tell me that you don’t lie awake at night, your face four inches from the ceiling because the only place your bed fits is above the kitchen sink which also acts as your shower, and think, I’ve made a terrible mistake.

source– Tiny House Basics

Look, I’m not criticizing you. I commend you for making this giant leap. Since we humans seem comfortable with pillaging Mother Earth of all her resources, I believe more people should think like you. But 250 square feet? What the hell happens when your tiny house partner farts Mexican food farts, huh? Where do you escape to? Nowhere. You have nowhere to run. All you can do is walk three feet to the other end of the house and pray.

Or maybe you can run out into the tiny forest surrounding your tiny house.

I f’ing love the idea of downsizing and living a “simple life,” but seriously, where do you put your shit? You still have some clothing and shoes and towels and all that jazz, right? Or do you just wear overalls now? Overalls and Birkenstocks and one towel that you share with your entire family. Where do you wash that towel, hmm? Do you have a tiny river that runs behind your tiny house? I bet you do. I bet your whole Goddamn property is whimsical.

And I know your house isn’t that clean all of the time. In your pictures, it looks like you only own a tiny sofa, several throw blankets & pillow, one cooking pan, one antique book and one framed photo of you laughing in front of your tiny house.

source– FYI.TV; photo ofBlessThisTinyHouse.com

Hey. Do you have privacy in your tiny house?

God damn, I have so many questions.

What if you’re having a shitty day and you just want to be alone? You can’t be alone, right? Because your partner or children are sitting two to ten feet away from you at all times. Don’t you feel like a rat trapped in a cage? Don’t you ever want to turn toward your lover or spawn and shout, “Get out! Get out of my tiny house!”

What about sexy time, huh? There is no f’ing way your kids aren’t hearing that shit. If you’re boinking four feet from your offspring, they might grow up to hate tiny things and end up building a McMansion with ten empty bedrooms just to spite you. Each bedroom will represent their years of lost innocence.

And your poor teenage children. What happens if they need sexy time? They go through puberty. They need the sex.
WHAT HAPPENS TO THE SEXY TIME?!?

Some of you tiny house dwellers don’t even have beds! WHERE IS THE BED?!

source– HGTV; photo byDaniel Sokol

Even the dog is like, “Where the fuck is the bed, guys?”

What about guests? Where do you put your guests? Can friends and family even visit you? Do you have friends and family? ANSWER ME! Are people now afraid of you?

“Honey, want to go visit Petal & Ralph out in their 250-square-foot house this weekend?”

“Are you shitting me? That place smells like a hot box of Mexican food farts.”

Guys, you know when the zombie apocalypse comes you’re going to be the first to go, right? Four zombies could pick up and shake your tiny house like a Smart Car. Your bodies will be flinging out the windows like hornets shaken from a nest. You’re only going to have that one cooking pan and farts to save yourself.

Be honest: You just want to live out your life like a Wes Anderson character, don’t you? You want to be some eccentric full of whimsy who doesn’t need modern tools or resources to live a fulfilling life. Well, good for you and your small abode.