The irony here is that states like California won't allow you to live off the grid, dependant on clean energy like solar. They make you use the utility companies for energy.
Cite. This is simply not true. Local governance has instituted restrictions in some places, but nothing of the sort comes from the state.
Be patient, it loads a little slow. Not sure of the accuracy of the info: http://tipsforsurvivalists.com/states-with-laws-and-what-they-are-about-living-off-the-grid
This appears to disagree with you. http://klinedinstlaw.com/wp-content...-keeping-california-connected-to-the-grid.pdf
Neither your anecdotal claim nor the preceding legal opinion render the original statement in any way factual. There is no case law based on the energy code causing a homeowner to not be able to to serve their entire electrical needs locally. The entire objective of Title 24 is to promote decentralized green power and applies only to new permitting. Local permit requirements would dictate whether grid establishment requirements exists. Most locals require this where practical to overcome current limitations in reliability, but it's completely disingenuous to claim the state is locking people into the grid. If your brother lives in Sacramento County he is served by SMUD, which allows net metering. He can build a system that will provide 100% of his electrical usage. He wouldn't want to disconnect from the disconnect from the grid because then he cant back flow excess production, and in the opinion of the local building authority (the one who permits electrical systems), current systems are not safe enough to guarantee reliability. That will change with technology and real-world testing. Wholesale off-grid living does create externalities that the CPUC is aware of, but nothing has been done in rulemaking to address them. The grid will be replaced in time, but that will be market forces driving it. If PG&E gets hit with the full bill from the Tubbs fire, it will show a liability not previously foreseen.