Caution against solar panel loan / lease

Just one more data point. In summer of 2018 I had an appraiser add 50% of the cost of PV solar to the value of my home. It all depends on where you are standing. This was in Sonoma California.

Yes, NEM 3.0 is going to be tough.
Regarding differentials in pricing between TOU periods I think there are some usage profiles that can benefit from larger differentials. I have often said that one can leverage solar by purchasing an EV. An EV allows you to charge at a less expensive rate. Of course this assumes at least some of your solar generation (inverter production) is at the higher rate. Your mileage may vary.

Yes, that could be true for the rest of the country as well. It does take a clever writing skill in order to be understood by the ignorant.

Agreed. I'm pretty ignorant about most stuff and further constrained by my limited writing skills and thought process when I need to condense concepts in order to better reach those folks with limited attention spans who get frustrated following ideas that take more than fifty words to explain.

One big, simple reason might be most residential PV users, with or without battery systems - at least the ones I speak with - don't have a clue about rates, or what rate plan they're on, or even that a choice of rate plans exist. Ask around. You may come to the same conclusion.

Most all new SDG & E customers who are NEM 2.0 users are on DR-SES not because of any conscious decision on their part, but because it's the default rate for such users chosen for residential users by SDG & E if they do not proactively make a choice. They just go down the rate chute with all the other sheeple.

Opinion only, but based on experience: Residential users don't understand what's happening when they use electricity or how they're charged for it, and SDG & E, like most POCOs, knows that making things easy to understand is not good for profits. I'd suggest that's not a combination likely to lower electric bills.

I suspect even if POCOs did make things simpler, and then also spoon fed the info, most users would still be, and stay, in the dark.

These guys know more than me but I wonder if part of the issue is related to policy and codes for going solar. In FL they don't tax solar installation and they also don't add to your real estate taxes. So if they don't add taxable value does that lead to not increasing property value? I have liked to track my home value on zillow (even though it is not really accurate). I never saw a real difference in value when I went solar. Just normal market fluctuations.

Many states do not reassess residential property when PV is added. CA is one such state. Believe it or not, and contrary to what solar peddlers and real estate slugs will claim, some people looking to buy a home don't like PV. Not everyone is a fan. At least not without knowing the limitations.

If more folks knew more about PV, or if they knew some of what I believe I might know about the subject, they might not be quite so eager to swallow the B.S.

I'm as big a fan of alternate energy as you're likely to find, but if I was house hunting I wouldn't consider a home with exiting PV on it unless the owner lowered the asking price by as much as it would cost to remove the system. Or negotiate.

I wonder if that might shift when the net zero construction standards come into effect in 2020. As more people experience the benefits, perceptions may change. However what we are probably going to see is rate changes, TOU period shifts and fixed charges so that a net zero home may still get a substantial bill.

I fear that the net zero construction law will drive people away from CA because of the increased cost for a new home. I believe the city of St Pete here in Fl tried to pass a similar law and it was voted down by a large %. People just don't want to be told to do something. They would rather the State find a way to lower prices so PV is affordable to all.

On a side note I read somewhere (probably fake news) that CA would be soon mandating EV's for all future vehicles. The rub was that you may be required to purchase an EV yet the POCO's might be turning off the power to reduce fire hazards. Seems ironic to me.

Energy officials in CA estimated the new solar provisions will add $10,000 to the cost of building a single-family home, about $8,400 from adding solar and about $1,500 for making homes more energy-efficient. But those costs would be offset by lower utility bills over the lifespan of the solar panels. It is unknown how this will affect sales prices but one can assume that if it costs the builders an addl. 10K to add solar to a home, the asking price will increase by at least as much plus whatever markup. With the median home value in CA being $550K+. I don't think this is going to be a very big deal to anyone who can currently afford to buy a home at these prices. Keep in mind that this only applies to new construction, which there is very little of in some of the more densely populated parts of CA.

It makes sense to purchase a PV system when you are building a new home. The additional cost is minimal compare to the rest of the home. Still there are some people that may not be able to get a mortgage if the amount they have to borrow is above what they can afford. It all comes down to the additional amount the builder asks for to include the PV.

Depending on building code conservation mandates, PV prices, home orientation and design, and climate, it may/may not make sense to add PV to a property.

Maybe a good idea, but in the most bang for the energy buck realm game, PV may/may not be the most cost effective place to put the $$ earmarked for lower future utility bills.

Example: In cold and (winter) cloudy climates such as the NE /upper midwest U.S., a more cost effective and at least/probably equally comfortable home without any PV hassles can be of a superinsulated type, probably with some fenestration consideration/placement for passive solar winter heat gain and summer shading.

PV is not necessarily a slam dunk in every situation. Many, yes. All, no.

To imply PV is always a no brainer without considering all the energy conservation measures that can/may have a greater long term economic benefit does a disservice to the solar curious who are also and mostly solar ignorant who already get the pro PV hype crammed down their throat from media and peddlers.

A properly designed PV system can be very attractive in sunny CA. The thing is that depending on which county/utility district you live in the actual value of the system and ROI will vary greatly. For example, San Diego county SDGE has some of the highest electricity prices in the country. SD also has one of the largest amounts of residential PV installs in the country. It is not unusual to drive through some neighborhoods in SD and see a PV system on every other house. While Orange County and LA on the other hand have lower electricity costs and less demand for residential PV systems.

How did you reach the opinion that SDG & E customers pay more per kWh than SCE customers ? Got any numbers or just hearsay/what you read from greenwash media or uninformed sources ?

Besides, residential rates within each utility can vary quite a bit even from one neighbor to the next for reasons most folks are completely unaware of. Overall the two POCO's residential rates are about comparable.

Bottom line: Smart folks know you don't pay for what you don't use, and it's cheaper to not use electricity in the first place than generate more of it.

As for installs being on every other house in some neighborhoods, my HOA has one of the highest PV utilization rates in CA and it's about 28 %. Can you point me in the direction of a neighborhood that's HOA size with => 50% utilization ? I've got streets in my HOA with clusters of 4-6 homes w/ PV out of a dozen or so homes, but that's mostly monkey see/monkey do play, or keeping up with the Joneses.

As for ROI, the way I learned it, depending on relative cost, the best ROI/smallest installed cost of an improvement is the one to start with- like changing thermostat settings and simply turning stuff off when not in use.

Again using the ~ 150 installs in my HOA, having been involved with every one of them, I'm of the opinion that every residence with a PV system would have been money ahead if use reduction and conservation measures had been taken and the resulting energy savings been considered before PV was added.

PV may be cost effective, but that's different than the idea that while it may be cost effective, it's also usually the least cost effective and also usually the most expensive way to reduce an electric bill when compared to other measures, and that'/s before any consideration for the effects that those other measures will have on reducing the size and hence the cost of the smaller PV system after conservation efforts.

That's how to optimize the use of the funds with respect to electric bill reduction.

Having previously or currently owned property in LA, Riverside, OC, and SD, I found the cost of electricity in SD to be higher than the others.

Of course using less is always a better option. But there is only so much you can cut back on, also even though you try and save every year the cost of electricity goes up so the savings never seem to materialize.

I'm my current neighborhood in rural N. San Diego County, half of the homes on my street have a PV system. Many of the adjacent neighborhoods are similar.
​