All Forum Posts by: Andrew Smith

 It depends on how price/KwH is being measured. Often the "delivery charge" - that cost for the trucks coming to your door with your electricity :) is not often included but shows significant increases. Also, utilities can simply withdraw tiers. That resulted in a 38% annual hike in Ventura CA overnight but is not considered underlying inflation. 

4% is an industry standard number. The reality for many parts such as CA is way higher. When we track through a few decades of history we can see a doubling of utility cost every 8 years.

Even if it never increased at all, it is surely still preferable to lock in a lower rate which most can and invest in their own roof rather than renting from a utility?

Third Party Ownership comes with significant downsides. Fannie Mae specifically disallow the appraisal of a solar system if it is not owned or financed ownership. Typically liens are placed on a home with leases, owned systems are covered by UCC1 filing rather than property lien. My team has been responsible for around 600 installations over three years of which 95% are owned rather than TPO and I don't see that ratio changing for us at least.

 I cannot give you a specific case study, but the legislation that is most relevant is H.R. 1598 from the 112th Congress. It's called the Solar Opportunity and Local Access Rights (SOLAR) Act:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/1598

 HOAs cannot legally prevent a homeowner going solar.

 I promise you that everyone involved in solar would welcome removal of all subsidies as long as that applied to fossil fuels too. Fossil fuels receive on the low end $1.5 trillion to on the high end $5 trillion in annual subsidies depending on the source of data. That doesn't factor in the human cost of American men and women being in harms way across the globe in the defense of fossil fuel supply lines. 

If all subsidies were removed solar would hand fossil fuels its arse economically.

I look forward to working with you first hand then Alex! :)  

 With all respect to Mike, it would be nice if the referrals could be made to solar professionals who are BP Members.

 Ha Ha! We're on the same page for sure though I have zero desire to shovel snow! For sure it is a massive statement of intent when an economy the size of CA makes solar mandatory and as you said a much needed impetus to modernization. Enjoy the shoveling!

 Depending on your local authority requirements, you will be connected to the grid with or without batteries unless you are far enough away from utility power. There are many people currently living off-grid with solar power or other renewable with battery technology.
If your home has the right conditions such as enough unshaded roof space, a solar system won't simply reduce costs, it will eliminate your utility bill. The cost is in purchasing the system. In most cases in AZ the cost of that ownership is less than you were paying for utility. Ownership of a solar system would be something you would have whether you were on or off-grid.

It depends on how many batteries you have but yes they net out to about $7K for true daily use batteries. When you need power you always have power. You are either using power from your solar system or using power from your utility when your system cannot produce. During the day, assuming you produce excess (and systems are designed with this in mind) your utility purchases that excess in the form of a credit. At night you buy power from your utility. In that way you are using the grid as a "battery" or "piggy bank" through the process called net-metering. It used to be considered that your meter "spins backwards" but in reality it is a digital meter tracking in and out.

When financed, batteries add to the cost of a system such that for the most part it costs more for the system with batteries than the monthly usage people have with their utility. That means it's not economic for most to add a battery now though some - especially in places like FL and Houston are adding them as a life-choice so they maintain power even when the grid goes down. In CA it's almost there economically. Battery cost is dropping as solar panels did 15 years ago. Storage both on residential and utility scale remains the area of renewable energy that needs the most development.

Hi @Account Closed I'm happy to run numbers with you in AZ, because what you have posted is certainly no reflection of the reality I work with there. My latest customer, for example in Prescott Valley had a utility bill averaging $183. We eliminated that bill with a solar system that costs him $149/month for 20 years with no increase. If you factor in inflation on the utility at 4% annually then he will save tens of thousands over 20 years. He did not come out of pocket one cent to do that with the zero down loan.

For sure batteries are the next massive step that is and will happen in solar and renewable, but for now the utility is the "battery" through net metering. The over-production from solar is purchased by the utility. At night power is purchased back from the utility. The goal to offset that overall bill to zero - depending on the roof space etc.

There are some small utilities in AZ that have punitive conditions for solar, but for the overwhelming majority, the numbers for solar in AZ are excellent. Batteries are already economically viable in CA because of the cost of utility power. It will be around 24 months before that's the case in AZ