This isn't a huge deal except in aggregate.

For individual renters (or homeowners) it's a small outlay that repays itself over a few years and then saves a small amount of money.

It's relatively boring and that's good.

I'm curious if these systems form a net positive. The cost of a thing provides a pretty reasonable proxy as a summation of the energy put into it's creation. The implication being that a balcony solar system is probably roughly net-negative, environmentally speaking, until it reaches its ROI.

I wonder if enough of these systems reach return to cover all the ones that don't for some reason or another. Looks like ROI might be 3-7 years, at the high end seems probable people would maybe move and not be able to use them and never really get their money's worth out of it.

Unfortunately, the article makes no mention of (approx) how many rental units there are in NJ. A step further would be, of those, how many have balconies. And finally, how many face south (or close).

I live in Central NJ. This bill certainly can’t hurt. But is the impact significant? Anecdotally, it doesn’t feel that way. The (new) governor still has a campaign promise to fulfill.