Skip to content
×
Pro Members Get
Full Access!
Get off the sidelines and take action in real estate investing with BiggerPockets Pro. Our comprehensive suite of tools and resources minimize mistakes, support informed decisions, and propel you to success.
Advanced networking features
Market and Deal Finder tools
Property analysis calculators
Landlord Command Center
ANNUAL Save 54%
$32.50 /mo
$390 billed annualy
MONTHLY
$69 /mo
billed monthly
7 day free trial. Cancel anytime
×
Try Pro Features for Free
Start your 7 day free trial. Pick markets, find deals, analyze and manage properties.
All Forum Categories
All Forum Categories
Followed Discussions
Followed Categories
Followed People
Followed Locations
Market News & Data
General Info
Real Estate Strategies
Landlording & Rental Properties
Real Estate Professionals
Financial, Tax, & Legal
Real Estate Classifieds
Reviews & Feedback

All Forum Posts by: Andrew Smith

Andrew Smith has started 1 posts and replied 169 times.

Post: Is My Virtual Wholesaling Plan Viable

Andrew SmithPosted
  • Investor
  • Valencia, CA
  • Posts 171
  • Votes 130

Hi @Rick Sheldon On the solar side, I changed my business model around so that I could do precisely what you are looking to do. As an example this year I spent three months in the Galapagos and Ecuador with my family and still sold 8 solar projects in the US from there. My main focus is residential solar and absolutely love the "life by design" way of working. I'd be happy to have a phone conversation if you'd like as there might also be some synergy if I need an outlet for commercial and vice versa. I'll send you a connection request.

Post: Solar Panels to BRRR a property

Andrew SmithPosted
  • Investor
  • Valencia, CA
  • Posts 171
  • Votes 130
Originally posted by @Frank S.:
Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:
Originally posted by @Frank S.:
Originally posted by @Steve K.:
Originally posted by @Frank S.:

Unless you get some good tax credits, there is no payback on solar panels.   It's done as a good effort to protect our resources, not for the money.  The Heloc assessment may not reflect market price.

In Chicago, payback is about 20 years.

Currently the average payback period for residential rooftop solar in Chicago is 8.2 years, according to the folks who track these numbers: https://www.solarreviews.com/b...

8.25 years according to these guys: https://www.energysage.com/sol...

and 5.1 years according to these guys (who are factoring in potential future rate increases): https://www.solar-estimate.org...

That's pretty good in my book for such a low risk investment, especially when compared to zero payback and infinite negative cash flow if one just continues paying their electric bill.

One company I work with is installing 29.36MW of commercial PV in the Chicago market this year, totaling over $90M. Those installations all have a payback period under 5 years. 

I agree with Franks comment that there is a soft benefit to producing renewable energy, and many folks buy into it for environmental reasons alone. However this is far from the only reason solar makes sense and we are seeing many sophisticated investors and large financial institutions are choosing to invest in solar in 2019 for the financial returns alone. The numbers are very good in certain markets with Chicago being one of them. For example the specific projects mentioned above are all strictly numbers-based as there are institutional investors involved who demand a certain return and give zero cares about the "warm tinglies" of saving the planet. These companies are choosing to put over $90M in solar in the Chicago market strictly because they see it as a low risk, high return, completely bankable investment. 

The tax credit is part of the equation of course but that's not unique to solar as every form of energy is heavily subsidized. It could just as easily be argued that nobody would invest in building a coal power plant without the many tax credits allocated to those projects, or without being able to mine coal on public land for pennies on the dollar. Furthermore the oil and gas industry wouldn't be what it is without the “Intangible Drilling Costs” (IDC) tax credit among many other subsidies. Not a single nuclear power plant would exist without government stepping in to insure them and manage the waste. Transportation wouldn't be what it is today if we had to pay the true cost of gas at the pump. We can't just single solar out as the energy industry is not a free market in any way. So the solar investment tax credit is necessary to keep solar cost-competitive with other forms of energy that have all been propped up by government for many decades in a heavily manipulated energy market. The good news is that solar is on it's way to becoming cost-competitive without subsidies whereas energy from fossil fuels will require increased subsidization over time to remain competitive. But I digress. In Chicago there is also a nice SREC program where one can sell their solar energy back to the grid for a premium which is an additional benefit on top of the tax credit. 

In my experience as solar leaves the early-adopters phase and enters the main stream, which happened in 2012-2013 in many markets, more and more solar customers are concerned with the hard numbers over the soft benefits. In many places with mature solar markets the hard numbers are looking very good thanks to decreased costs from mass production of equipment and increased efficiencies in racking and installation techniques. But other areas of the country don't even have net metering yet so solar hasn't advanced much in those areas where customers are locked in to an energy monopoly with no option to generate their own electricity and sell it back to the grid. 

One important thing to note is that unfortunately the 30% investment tax credit only applies to a primary residence or vacation home and specifically does not apply to investment property, so the payback period will be 30% longer in instances when the property doesn't qualify for the ITC. There are ways to monetize the ITC on investment property such as using a 3rd party that can take the tax credit and pass the savings on, like in a PPA or lease situation, but those options have some drawbacks such as clouding the title with a UCC-1 fixture filing (kind of like a lien) which isn't a benefit during transfer of title as in during a sale. Also worth noting is the ITC is dropping to 26% at the end of this year and will be phased out entirely in the next few years. 

I talked to a local company, this one was a referral from a good friend that used to work there.  

The federal incentive is a credit and it will expire in 2020-ish (don't recall the date).  The White House may or may not extend it.  With the current clowns in power, I assume the answer is no.  This is relevant only if you end up owing uncle Sam Federal taxes. 

The IL incentive is about $6K. 

All in all, we are looking at $15K before a new roof ( without fed credit). This is for about +- 18 panels.  Selling energy can give some money back, not much.

If needed, there is financing out there: 5% for 12 years.  There are some origination fees, 1% or so.

Payback, if any, is still 15/20 years depending on consumption and cost. The panels have a 20-year warranty but excludes replacement. A panel replacement can set you back a few grand. 

Batteries, forget about it. $10K.

Still, it may not work for everyone, but it's an interesting option. 

Frank

The Federal Incentive is not expiring. It is on a pre-determined diminishing rate. Right now it is a 30% tax credit, this will be 26% in 2020, 22% in 2021. After that, it could be zero as it stands but it is up for a renewal.

Thanks for the update. 

I will revisit this when I replace my roof.  It's not worth to reduce my roof's expected useful life by 7 years ( I hope, it's at least 7). By then, this should be much cheaper. 

No worries. A couple of considerations though. First, the cost of solar systems may diminish some or get more power for the money with time. However, about 65% of the cost of the system is in human beings. Income increases with time will likely negate or supersede any potential savings in equipment.

The diminishing tax credit - even if it remains - represents $thousands in increased costs with time.
If your electric bill is say $150/month, that's $1,800/year. Over 7 years that's $12,600 to "rent" power instead of investing in your own system and that doesn't even account for increases in utility rates.

If your roof did need replacing, the cost of lifting and replacing a solar system is truly nominal. 

All that said, there are reasons to go solar and reasons to not go solar, but if it is something you are planning to do at all, then doing it now makes way more sense economically than waiting 7 years plus.


Post: Solar Panels to BRRR a property

Andrew SmithPosted
  • Investor
  • Valencia, CA
  • Posts 171
  • Votes 130
Originally posted by @Frank S.:
Originally posted by @Steve K.:
Originally posted by @Frank S.:

Unless you get some good tax credits, there is no payback on solar panels.   It's done as a good effort to protect our resources, not for the money.  The Heloc assessment may not reflect market price.

In Chicago, payback is about 20 years.

Currently the average payback period for residential rooftop solar in Chicago is 8.2 years, according to the folks who track these numbers: https://www.solarreviews.com/b...

8.25 years according to these guys: https://www.energysage.com/sol...

and 5.1 years according to these guys (who are factoring in potential future rate increases): https://www.solar-estimate.org...

That's pretty good in my book for such a low risk investment, especially when compared to zero payback and infinite negative cash flow if one just continues paying their electric bill.

One company I work with is installing 29.36MW of commercial PV in the Chicago market this year, totaling over $90M. Those installations all have a payback period under 5 years. 

I agree with Franks comment that there is a soft benefit to producing renewable energy, and many folks buy into it for environmental reasons alone. However this is far from the only reason solar makes sense and we are seeing many sophisticated investors and large financial institutions are choosing to invest in solar in 2019 for the financial returns alone. The numbers are very good in certain markets with Chicago being one of them. For example the specific projects mentioned above are all strictly numbers-based as there are institutional investors involved who demand a certain return and give zero cares about the "warm tinglies" of saving the planet. These companies are choosing to put over $90M in solar in the Chicago market strictly because they see it as a low risk, high return, completely bankable investment. 

The tax credit is part of the equation of course but that's not unique to solar as every form of energy is heavily subsidized. It could just as easily be argued that nobody would invest in building a coal power plant without the many tax credits allocated to those projects, or without being able to mine coal on public land for pennies on the dollar. Furthermore the oil and gas industry wouldn't be what it is without the “Intangible Drilling Costs” (IDC) tax credit among many other subsidies. Not a single nuclear power plant would exist without government stepping in to insure them and manage the waste. Transportation wouldn't be what it is today if we had to pay the true cost of gas at the pump. We can't just single solar out as the energy industry is not a free market in any way. So the solar investment tax credit is necessary to keep solar cost-competitive with other forms of energy that have all been propped up by government for many decades in a heavily manipulated energy market. The good news is that solar is on it's way to becoming cost-competitive without subsidies whereas energy from fossil fuels will require increased subsidization over time to remain competitive. But I digress. In Chicago there is also a nice SREC program where one can sell their solar energy back to the grid for a premium which is an additional benefit on top of the tax credit. 

In my experience as solar leaves the early-adopters phase and enters the main stream, which happened in 2012-2013 in many markets, more and more solar customers are concerned with the hard numbers over the soft benefits. In many places with mature solar markets the hard numbers are looking very good thanks to decreased costs from mass production of equipment and increased efficiencies in racking and installation techniques. But other areas of the country don't even have net metering yet so solar hasn't advanced much in those areas where customers are locked in to an energy monopoly with no option to generate their own electricity and sell it back to the grid. 

One important thing to note is that unfortunately the 30% investment tax credit only applies to a primary residence or vacation home and specifically does not apply to investment property, so the payback period will be 30% longer in instances when the property doesn't qualify for the ITC. There are ways to monetize the ITC on investment property such as using a 3rd party that can take the tax credit and pass the savings on, like in a PPA or lease situation, but those options have some drawbacks such as clouding the title with a UCC-1 fixture filing (kind of like a lien) which isn't a benefit during transfer of title as in during a sale. Also worth noting is the ITC is dropping to 26% at the end of this year and will be phased out entirely in the next few years. 

I talked to a local company, this one was a referral from a good friend that used to work there.  

The federal incentive is a credit and it will expire in 2020-ish (don't recall the date).  The White House may or may not extend it.  With the current clowns in power, I assume the answer is no.  This is relevant only if you end up owing uncle Sam Federal taxes. 

The IL incentive is about $6K. 

All in all, we are looking at $15K before a new roof ( without fed credit). This is for about +- 18 panels.  Selling energy can give some money back, not much.

If needed, there is financing out there: 5% for 12 years.  There are some origination fees, 1% or so.

Payback, if any, is still 15/20 years depending on consumption and cost. The panels have a 20-year warranty but excludes replacement. A panel replacement can set you back a few grand. 

Batteries, forget about it. $10K.

Still, it may not work for everyone, but it's an interesting option. 

Frank

The Federal Incentive is not expiring. It is on a pre-determined diminishing rate. Right now it is a 30% tax credit, this will be 26% in 2020, 22% in 2021. After that, it could be zero as it stands but it is up for a renewal.

Post: Any experience with Solar Panels?

Andrew SmithPosted
  • Investor
  • Valencia, CA
  • Posts 171
  • Votes 130

@Tim Bradley We sell a lot of batteries with systems in FL and TX but for sure there it's a "lifestyle" choice as it adds about $40-$60/month to a typical solar zero down loan. It's worth it if multiple and/or extended down times are anticipated for the "peace of mind" factor.
In PG&E territory, a battery not only covers the increasing downtime but they are also economically viable because of the underlying cost per KWh from PG&E.
Looking forward to battery tech following the same curve as solar - 90% decrease in cost in 15 years. Batteries have a way to go and I wish I was smart enough to help advance that tech.

Post: Any experience with Solar Panels?

Andrew SmithPosted
  • Investor
  • Valencia, CA
  • Posts 171
  • Votes 130

@Nick Murray There are different studies that show a home value increase. The one we use is one by Zillow which shows an average 4.1% increase in home value.

https://www.zillow.com/research/solar-panels-house-sell-more-23798/

@Tyler Gibson Usually the solar finance is zero down and in most cases replaces the cost of the utility bill as a wash or in fact saves homeowners money. Whether that is the case depends on the usage, current cost per KWh for existing utility and the available roof space as well as its orientation. It doesn't make sense for every home for sure, but does for a large number of homes. One real benefit is that the cost of solar finance is fixed, whereas utility rates most certainly are not. 

In terms of numbers, solar absolutely is "there". Other aspects such as battery storage are not there yet, but are a lifestyle choice. I am in the solar industry for full disclosure.

Post: Adding Solar Panels on a House

Andrew SmithPosted
  • Investor
  • Valencia, CA
  • Posts 171
  • Votes 130
Originally posted by @Bill B.:

It’s usually a relatively bad deal, you do it because to makes you feel good not because it’s a good financial decision. In 4 months the 30% tax break goes away and it gets even worse. So do it today if you want to feel good. (Permits and installation take at least 30-60 days in Vegas, so you have about 2 months to act in an area like mine.)

The tax break is not going away in 4 months, it is decreasing from 30% to 26%. Whether solar is a good financial decision depends on current usage and available roof or ground space to build a system that offsets the usage. There are reasons that people choose not to go solar, but financials are typically not one of those. Even if the bill is a wash with current utility spending, it is a fixed cost so savings increase with time. With zero down, that's a pretty good ROI in most people's eyes.

For the most part, a current bill of at least $100/month, a credit score of 650+ and enough unshaded roof will result in solar being a great financial decision notwithstanding the surveys such as Zillow's that shows a home value increase with solar. https://www.zillow.com/research/solar-panels-house-sell-more-23798/

Post: Adding Solar Panels on a House

Andrew SmithPosted
  • Investor
  • Valencia, CA
  • Posts 171
  • Votes 130

Hi @Pope Lake

I am in the solar industry and work in NY. Solar has financing that is zero down and mostly results in a lower monthly payment than you were paying your utility. Zillow showed in a recent survey an average of a 4.1% home value increase across the Country by going solar.

Post: Have you made your rental homes MODERN? Solar Roof?

Andrew SmithPosted
  • Investor
  • Valencia, CA
  • Posts 171
  • Votes 130

Hi @Charlie Moore,

If you mean the Tesla Tile roof, it's really a non-starter. The tech is in fact tested by companies such as GE and was shelved.

The cost of a solar tile roof is as much as slate tile. Only a certain portion of those tiles will be able to produce power because of orientation and/or shading. That means a ton of cost with limited return.

In a "normal" installation of say 30 standard panels, there are 30 connectors to join them. With a tile roof, there are thousands to go wrong. Contractors don't like that either for the inherent fire risk.

So unless someone is in the 0.01% financially and really wants to be the cool kid on the block, traditional solar represents a vastly better solution.

Post: Solar panel installation

Andrew SmithPosted
  • Investor
  • Valencia, CA
  • Posts 171
  • Votes 130

As @Jacob D Adamczak said, zero down ownership is the way to go. These add value to the home as a national average. They are fully appraisable per Fannie Mae if they are owned but not if leased.

You have different options. Either add a flat fee to the rent, or you can buy a cheap (about $100) monitor to monitor their usage and legally charge up to the utility rate. Set that as a monthly fee with a 6 month review.

In either event make sure that it is in the rental agreement that they pay whatever is owed the utility on top of the amount for solar. That way if they grow - erm "herbal products", they'll at least be on the hook for the bill for the power that comes from the utility above your system's capability.

Post: Do solar panels raise the value of a property in MA?

Andrew SmithPosted
  • Investor
  • Valencia, CA
  • Posts 171
  • Votes 130

Leased solar systems are explicitly not able to be appraised by Fannie Mae but owned/financed systems explicitly are able to be appraised for full value by Fannie Mae.

Outside of that, there are subjective factors that could raise/lower the appraised home value, but the incentives in MA makes solar highly attractive.