# Solar leasing (Sungevity)-how does it work?



## Badfish740 (Oct 18, 2014)

I was at Lowes today and Sungevity was hawking their solar systems.  I had the guy look up my house on Google maps and he confirmed what I already knew-that we have a perfect roof for solar:  Simple gable roof, 25' x 50' rectangle facing directly south and no trees shading us.  It's what kills our air conditioner every summer   They're going to have someone call me, talk to me about my electric bill, etc...and determine what options are available.  They mentioned zero down leasing, which, quite frankly, is the only thing we'd be in a position to do right now.  What is the angle?  Anyone leasing with Sungevity or a similar company?


----------



## sloeffle (Oct 18, 2014)

There was an article in our local paper about solar and they interviewed a couple that leases their panels from Astrum solar. I thought about filling out their online form but all of my roofs ( house and barn ) face east and west. If I did solar I would want it on a mount anyways so that does not really matter. I am not sure if as leasing company would put them on a mount.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/home_and_garden/2014/09/28/solar-surge.html

I am also interested in how a lease deal would work. Found a couple interesting links about leasing solar:

https://www.energysage.com/solar/financing/should-you-buy-or-lease-your-solar-panel-system

http://solarleasedisadvantages.com/


----------



## peakbagger (Oct 19, 2014)

One thing that seems to be  hassle with leases is if you try to sell the home. The lease company has to approve the buyer or the current owner has to buy out of the lease. 

There is also a big competition going on between many companies to gain a large market share so they can go public, they are willing to take loss now in hopes that they can cash out later. Unlike buying a system outright on sale, the lease owner can make it back later on.

I think the standard financial advice applies to solar leases, if you can understand the deal, you probably shouldn't be investing in it.


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 19, 2014)

With the price of solar falling so rapidly, there's also a lot to be said for waiting if you don't have the cash in hand now to buy outright.

The 'angle' is simple.  If the company can pocket the Fed incentives (not you), the equipment is under 30 year warranty, they do not have to pay for the land (you do that), and they can sell you (or the grid) the power for something close to the market rate, then they can turn a reasonable profit on their investment $.  Say between 5-10% return per year, and getting better every year.  If they can get financing at a lower interest rate than that (say a few % for a corporate bond), their profit is the difference between their rate of return and their interest rate.  

As long as the sun shines, and the financing all looks the same, they are all good.  And you are helping to put more green power into the grid (or to take less non-green out), but not realizing any of the potential $ gains from doing so.  You are also spared the risks (currently low) of net-metering arrangements changing in the future.


----------



## DBoon (Oct 19, 2014)

With interest rates so low, a solid 4-5% rate of return is a great return, so I believe that leasing economics are very favorable for that very reason.


----------



## johnny1720 (Oct 19, 2014)

I had the pitch from sungevity last summer.  They basically said for what my yearly electric cost is divided by 12 months they would lease me a system. However there was a part of the system that costs $10,000 and it needs to be replaced every 10 years.  The cost to buy the system was $84000.  

I ended the call after they said $84000


----------



## newburner (Oct 19, 2014)

We are currently in the permitting stage of leasing a system from Solarcity. I too was skeptical of the "no money" deal but so far, I see no issues with it. Our system is due to be installed in December.

As someone mentioned above, Solarcity gets any rebates available since they own the system. In turn, they give us a low lease payment. Our system is designed to provide us with 70% of our current usage. The remaining 30% would be purchased through our current electric co. So, the lease payment plus the 30% we buy from the electric co. will be a couple hundred dollars less per month than what we pay now.

If our system produces more than we use, we get the credit through net metering. Also, they guarantee production. If our system fails to produce what they say it will, they'll send us a check for 11.8¢ for every kWh less than what they guaranteed. That will be nice when our panels are buried under a foot of snow for a few months!

They also warranty the system for as long as its on my roof. Anything goes wrong they fix it for nothing. They also provide repairs to my roof should I spring a leak due to installation, and they have a 2M insurance policy if, say, one of the panels flies off and hits the neighbors house.

With no money out of pocket, so far it seems like a no brainer. The pos far outweigh the negs in my situation. Plus I plan on dying in this home so I have no concerns about transferring the lease when I sell.


----------



## BrotherBart (Oct 19, 2014)

Keep us posted on how it goes.


----------



## Grisu (Oct 19, 2014)

newburner said:


> So, the lease payment plus the 30% we buy from the electric co. will be a couple hundred dollars less per month than what we pay now.



A couple hundred per month LESS?   How much are you paying currently and what size system are they installing?


----------



## newburner (Oct 20, 2014)

We pay $422/mo right now. The system size is 14.025 kW. (55 panels)

I may have rounded up a bit when I said "a couple hundred" but it should be closer to $200 than $150. Plus, I'll be much more cognizant of the energy we are using and should have no problem reducing our load which would save even more money. I'm quite sure we will save at least $2,400 over the first 12 months.


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 20, 2014)

it would be interesting to know what $/kWh you are paying the utility, and what Sungevity wants from you per kWh.


----------



## newburner (Oct 20, 2014)

woodgeek said:


> it would be interesting to know what $/kWh you are paying the utility, and what Sungevity wants from you per kWh.


Are you asking me or the OP? I'm with Solarcity.


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 20, 2014)

both


----------



## newburner (Oct 20, 2014)

We are paying the utility 26.4¢ per kWh and the solar lease is 11.8¢.


----------



## NJ_Burner08002 (Nov 9, 2014)

I have always wondered how this works.    So basically instead of paying the electric company , you are getting your electric from the solar company.    They install for free, and just sell you the electricity from the panels.


----------



## NJ_Burner08002 (Nov 9, 2014)

newburner said:


> We are paying the utility 26.4¢ per kWh and the solar lease is 11.8¢.



So your saving 14.6 ?    Saving 55%?


----------



## newburner (Nov 14, 2014)

NJ_Burner08002 said:


> I have always wondered how this works.    So basically instead of paying the electric company , you are getting your electric from the solar company.    They install for free, and just sell you the electricity from the panels.


In a nutshell, yes.


----------



## newburner (Dec 12, 2014)

I just wanted to update this thread. SolarCity installed our system this week and we are now waiting for the utility to install the net meter. I can't wait to start saving money. Our last electric bill was $588.

When they installed the array, they also replaced our fuse box with a circuit breaker box, grounded our system and "bonded" the electrical to the water. (Whatever that means)

The electrician said everything is up to code and it was all free.

Here are before and after pics of our service panels. I'll get some pics of the array once the sun comes up.


----------



## newburner (Dec 12, 2014)

2 inverters...


----------



## linc1216 (Dec 12, 2014)

A co-worker of mine told me her parents has solar panels on their roof that they rent for approx. $70 a month. However, their home is entirely electic. I thought about it, but I'm already paying $70 or less per month at my house for electric.


----------



## newburner (Dec 12, 2014)

$70 a month is awesome. My goal is to get my $400-500/mo bill down to around $150.


----------



## Where2 (Dec 12, 2014)

The sum total of my electric bills added up for the last 12 months don't total more than $588. Last time I checked, my annual total was around $460.

What is $588 worth of electricity, like 2500kWh at Mass rates? I know Mass has some ridiculous rates (just behind CT and HI), but I'd be living under a bridge if my electric bill was $588/mo.


----------



## newburner (Dec 13, 2014)

Where2 said:


> What is $588 worth of electricity, like 2500kWh at Mass rates?



Yep. We used just over 2200 kWh. Februarys are usually the worst month. We typically run around 3200-3300 kWh then. With National Grids latest rate increase, I'm looking at an $800 bill if my solar isn't operational by then.


----------



## mellow (Dec 16, 2014)

So do you get the SRECS or does solarcity?  I was under the assumption that they got them.


----------



## newburner (Dec 16, 2014)

mellow said:


> So do you get the SRECS or does solarcity?  I was under the assumption that they got them.


Solar City owns the equipment so they gets the SRECs. It's how they make money. All I do is lease the equipment. In doing so, I get free electricity off the array, bill credits from the utility when the system over produces, and solar lease refunds when the system under produces.


----------



## mellow (Dec 16, 2014)

Ahh ok, I gotcha, bill credits and SREC are two different things.


----------



## newburner (Dec 16, 2014)

Here are some shots of my back roof. I have 33 panels on the back and 55 panels total.


----------



## NJ_Burner08002 (Dec 16, 2014)

Change out your light bulbs to LED.    I went from 130 to 50 for the month.


----------



## seige101 (Dec 16, 2014)

newburner said:


> I just wanted to update this thread. SolarCity installed our system this week and we are now waiting for the utility to install the net meter. I can't wait to start saving money. Our last electric bill was $588.
> 
> When they installed the array, they also replaced our fuse box with a circuit breaker box, grounded our system and "bonded" the electrical to the water. (Whatever that means)
> 
> ...



That is a professional clean looking instal. The only thing i don't like is the small panel they used, it's all ready full. They should of went the next size up and left a few open spaces for future expansion


/electrician


----------



## newburner (Dec 17, 2014)

NJ_Burner08002 said:


> Change out your light bulbs to LED.    I went from 130 to 50 for the month.


We are in the process of doing just that. I'm replacing all bulbs with LEDs. Its just going to take a few months because we can't afford to do them all at once. We replace one each week.


seige101 said:


> That is a professional clean looking instal. The only thing i don't like is the small panel they used, it's all ready full. They should of went the next size up and left a few open spaces for future expansion
> 
> 
> /electrician


I never thought about that. To be honest, I was just happy to get the old fuse box replaced. The electrician said he did about $5k worth of work in the 2 days he was there. All compliments of SolarCity. There's no way I could've afforded those upgrades.


----------



## GENECOP (Dec 17, 2014)

What happens in the event of a roof leak....how about when you need a new roof...who pays to remove and reinstall the panels? Since the average roof lasts less than 30 years, it will prove to be a factor during the life if the contract...


----------



## newburner (Dec 17, 2014)

Great questions.

Roof leaks are covered under warranty. If one occurs, they come out and fix it for nothing.

As for the new roof, that's not so much of an issue for me because when the time comes, I plan on doing it myself. The panels are very easy to pop off, unplug and remove to allow for re-roofing.


----------



## peakbagger (Dec 17, 2014)

newburner said:


> As for the new roof, that's not so much of an issue for me because when the time comes, I plan on doing it myself. The panels are very easy to pop off, unplug and remove to allow for re-roofing.



I like your approach. I installed my small system completely solo on 2nd floor roof. It really wouldn't be hard to set up a scaffold, move the panels and reroof. I used EPDM underlayment under my entire roof so I am not worried about leaks for a long time. In reality the roof under the panels will last a long time as they are effectively covered by a second roof. Heck if I could find matching shingles in 20 years I could just change the ones that are not covered by panels.

One of these days someone will come out with glazing system so we can dispense with the roofing and just use solar panels for the roof.


----------



## mellow (Dec 17, 2014)

I had thought about just going to a metal roof when I get around to installing mine.


----------



## GENECOP (Dec 17, 2014)

A few things come to mind....."roof leaks are covered" any and all roof leaks even if they have nothing to do with the install...in that case you are getting a Solar Setup and a roof GAURANTEE for 30 years regardless of the condition of the roof at the time of install? That would be a pretty good deal,,,also , while the panels might pop off easily , the support track system needs to be removed also, and layed out again on the new roof to accept the panels again...it will be a complete new install again....


----------



## GENECOP (Dec 17, 2014)

As far as the panels protecting the roofing, that really remains to be seen, it's not only exposure that will wear on a shingle....excessive heat buildup under the panel will shorten the life, shingles will dry out just as a part of normal wear...debris buildup under the panel, roofing staying wet longer due to no sun exposure....many things remain to be seen...


----------



## newburner (Dec 17, 2014)

GENECOP said:


> A few things come to mind....."roof leaks are covered" any and all roof leaks even if they have nothing to do with the install...in that case you are getting a Solar Setup and a roof GAURANTEE for 30 years regardless of the condition of the roof at the time of install? That would be a pretty good deal,,,also , while the panels might pop off easily , the support track system needs to be removed also, and layed out again on the new roof to accept the panels again...it will be a complete new install again....



Im not sure how other companies install but SolarCity doesnt use roof track systems. They install cleats directly into the rafters. When the panels are popped off, all that remains on the roof are these small cleats. Easily shingled around then re-sealed.


----------



## valuman (Dec 23, 2014)

There are a couple of things in this thread that appear to be in error. First, I don't think National Grid is charging $ .26/kWh in Massachusetts, yet. You're probably looking at the projected cost in 5 years that Solar City's showing on their proposal. The all in rate for NGrid there is more like $ .15/kWh, although I understand that they're using the purported shortage of natural gas pipeline capacity to increase rates based on the cost of gas for generation of electricity. With that in mind, I could be a bit low on their current rate. In any case, I'd reexamine the first year savings you can expect because you're not going to cut your costs in half for 2015.

Second, the panels will absolutely protect the roof from the the thing that's most detrimental to it, the sun. You can expect the roof area under the panels to last around 50% longer than those that are not shaded by panels. There's a further benefit from their shading your roof, they'll keep the roof and attic space cooler, thus reduce summer a/c costs by as much as 10%.

Third, Hawaii, then New York City & Westchester county (Con-Ed), then Connecticut (UI and CL&P) have much higher rates than Mass. 

I hope this is helpful information for folks trying to get their head around how solar truly works from a financial and a physical perspective. I'm happy to field further questions if anyone has them.


----------



## newburner (Dec 23, 2014)

I can't speak to points 2 & 3 but you are incorrect about point number one. With the recent 37 percent rate increase, effective November 1, I am paying over 26 cents per kilowatt hour. That is not a projected rate I am paying that right now. The rate that Solar City used in their proposal was the old rate of 19 cents per kilowatt hour. This is one thing I am not confused about.


----------



## valuman (Dec 23, 2014)

OMG, they are really putting it to you folks down there! That rate should be mitigated by the state because it's a huge gouge based upon the current cost of generation. Two years ago, NGrid was at less than $ .14/kWh in Mass. Rate payers must be up in arms over the current costs and I'm sure the solar companies are reveling in them because it makes selling solar into a near no-brainer. 

The utilities decoupled from the generation side of the business a few years back and got many states to approve a variable rate structure that allows them to pass on generation costs to the consumers. Those rates are tied to the cost of generation and can vary each month and right now with the debates raging over construction of new gas pipelines, the cost of natural gas has skyrocketed, sending up the cost of generating power from gas fired turbines. I'd be super interested in looking at a copy of your most recent NGrid bill to see how they break down their rates by line item.


----------



## newburner (Dec 23, 2014)

You bet we are upset. It is the sole reason I moved towards solar. Without a doubt, the only reason. Not because it gave me the warm and fuzzies inside.

My bill jumped from $344/mo to $588 in November because of the increase.


----------



## peakbagger (Dec 23, 2014)

Its pretty simple in Mass, either pay to install solar or subsidize your neighbor to install solar (or any other renewable) through the higher electric rate. Unfortunately this socks it to the poor renters while the homeowners who can afford an outright install or sign a lease make out.


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 23, 2014)

I was not aware MA had elec tariffs to fund its solar rebates....source?


----------



## peakbagger (Dec 23, 2014)

I am not a ratepayer but did find this sample NG bill

http://www.nationalgridus.com/masselectric/non_html/supplier_samplebillr.pdf

There is one surcharge for renewables and one for energy conservation (a portion of which pays for firms to meet efficiency goals).

I don't know where they hide the cost for state mandated renewable energy minimum limits. Every firm that sells power needs to meet a certain percentage renewable and that goes up every year. It is somewhere over 20% now.  Mass declared biomass generated power non renewable last year so they need to replace the lost generation from wood that they were buying with some other renewable and the options all are much more expensive.


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 23, 2014)

Thanks.  At 1/20 cents per kWh for the RE charge, I don't suspect it is a huge problem.  The folks running Cape Wind are trying to get all other RE systems in MA redefined as non-RE, so they can set their price to meet the mandate.  Shameful.


----------



## peakbagger (Dec 23, 2014)

Note the sample  bill date December 05 , I think the number are a lot different these days!


----------



## valuman (Dec 23, 2014)

peakbagger said:


> I am not a ratepayer but did find this sample NG bill
> 
> http://www.nationalgridus.com/masselectric/non_html/supplier_samplebillr.pdf
> 
> ...


Actually, solar power is a very cost effective renewable energy source that plays no role in increasing rates. You can thank the natural gas industry for the crazy increases there, in MA. Further, solar is a distributed generation source, which reduces loads on the grid and the very expensive upgrades that would be required to deliver point source generation to a society that's ever hungrier for electricity.


----------



## peakbagger (Dec 23, 2014)

I dont know where your info is coming from but mass utilities are paying a major premium for Solar FITs, that they dont pay for conventional generation. Someone is paying for it and it isnt the utility, so the rate base is paying for these enhanced incentives for solar. 

_Further, solar is a distributed generation source, which reduces loads on the grid and the very expensive upgrades that would be required to deliver point source generation to a society that's ever hungrier for electricity. _Its a nice concept that makes everyone feel good, but barring a significant change in demand management, the grid needs to be capable of supplying as much power as customers want on dark cold night in January so having distributed solar on the grid really doesnt help anything from an infrastructure basis. The utilities are arguing that it makes things worse as they have to install more diesel fired peakers to deal with the demand when solar is offline due to time of day or cloudy weather. Texas is currently the poster child for what bad things happen when a high variable uncontrolled renewable load is hung off the grid.


----------



## valuman (Dec 23, 2014)

peakbagger said:


> I dont know where your info is coming from but mass utilities are paying a major premium for Solar FITs, that they dont pay for conventional generation. Someone is paying for it and it isnt the utility, so the rate base is paying for these enhanced incentives for solar.
> 
> _Further, solar is a distributed generation source, which reduces loads on the grid and the very expensive upgrades that would be required to deliver point source generation to a society that's ever hungrier for electricity. _Its a nice concept that makes everyone feel good, but barring a significant change in demand management, the grid needs to be capable of supplying as much power as customers want on dark cold night in January so having distributed solar on the grid really doesnt help anything from an infrastructure basis. The utilities are arguing that it makes things worse as they have to install more diesel fired peakers to deal with the demand when solar is offline due to time of day or cloudy weather. Texas is currently the poster child for what bad things happen when a high variable uncontrolled renewable load is hung off the grid.


Mass has a feed in tariff program? I'd like to see where you found that because it's the first I've heard of such a program there.

Regarding peak demand- in the northeast, that comes on sunny summer days. That's when the a/c's the coolers and freezers in every convenience store and the pool pumps in people's backyards are maxed out. Solar power production meshes really well with that demand, so it not only reduces demand on the grid, it also keeps the utilities from having to buy more power on the spot market which is extremely expensive. That aspect alone provides substantial savings to the utility company.

I have no first hand knowledge of how that works in Texas, but would think it's similar for them.


----------



## DBoon (Dec 23, 2014)

If you Google "electricity duck curve" you will no doubt see the nature of the problem with solar PV generation.  At 5pm (or a little later in the summer), the solar PV generation capacity drops off, but the demand stays constant from 5pm to 9pm.  That is why there is a lot of focus now on some storage or demand-reducton capability, being driven (mainly) by new California and New York initiatives.


----------



## valuman (Dec 24, 2014)

DBoon said:


> If you Google "electricity duck curve" you will no doubt see the nature of the problem with solar PV generation.  At 5pm (or a little later in the summer), the solar PV generation capacity drops off, but the demand stays constant from 5pm to 9pm.  That is why there is a lot of focus now on some storage or demand-reducton capability, being driven (mainly) by new California and New York initiatives.


That's a shoulder season issue related to low demand where the solar generation added to base generation could create a situation where there's more power running into the grid than there is demand for that power. If that's going to occur, it would be in mid day during March/April when solar generation is good and before heavier cooling loads are placed on the grid. In late afternoon during those months, demand increases and there's enough load to consume all of the power from base and distributed generation and the issue goes away. As soon as the weather warms, the additional electricity is needed and appreciated by the utilities.


----------



## DBoon (Dec 24, 2014)

Hi valuman, I'm not arguing that having lots of distributed solar is a good thing.  But what you are stating above is not what reported data has found.  Solar production is reduced 3-4 hours (or more) before baseload demand decreases in the evening.  States with lots of solar production have issues with this transitional period since they have to fire up a lot of generation in a short period of time.


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 24, 2014)

The 'duck' is not a huge issue yet, and will likely be addressed by grid storage solutions currently under development.


----------



## valuman (Dec 25, 2014)

DBoon said:


> Hi valuman, I'm not arguing that having lots of distributed solar is a good thing.  But what you are stating above is not what reported data has found.  Solar production is reduced 3-4 hours (or more) before baseload demand decreases in the evening.  States with lots of solar production have issues with this transitional period since they have to fire up a lot of generation in a short period of time.


Yes, that's right, the Duck is about base loads, not peak demand; it's important not to confuse the two issues.

Base load generation is not set up to be easily regulated so the coming concern is around the creation of more power during base load, or low demand conditions than there's a demand for out on the grid. Storage of the distributed generation from solar will be a big part of the solution for the base load demand, over production challenges. 

Peak demand typically occurs during summer afternoons when solar is a benefit to the utilities with regard to reducing grid overload conditions and reducing the need to purchase additional power on the spot market or generate that power out on the grid using micro turbines that are purchased, installed, fueled and maintained by them at considerable cost.


----------



## mass_burner (Apr 28, 2015)

newburner said:


> I just wanted to update this thread. SolarCity installed our system this week and we are now waiting for the utility to install the net meter. I can't wait to start saving money. Our last electric bill was $588.



New burner, can you please update? I am contemplating solar city and would look appreciate the feedback.


----------



## billb3 (Apr 29, 2015)

No way would I lease . 
It's tantamount to renting your roof  in a rent-controlled environment that  doesn't allow for rent increases or paying  e-trade  50% of  your investment earnings for 20 years.
I'd beg, borrow or steal ( OK, maybe not steal ) the funds to invest in the potential income of my own roof .


----------



## mass_burner (May 3, 2015)

billb3 said:


> No way would I lease .
> It's tantamount to renting your roof  in a rent-controlled environment that  doesn't allow for rent increases or paying  e-trade  50% of  your investment earnings for 20 years.
> I'd beg, borrow or steal ( OK, maybe not steal ) the funds to invest in the potential income of my own roof .


But using your example, e-trade doesn't put up all your investment capital up front, do they.


----------



## billb3 (May 3, 2015)

mass_burner said:


> But using your example, e-trade doesn't put up all your investment capital up front, do they.


They put my investment capital wherever I direct it and take their cut.
The only valid reason to be leasing is  lack of investment capital.
Unless you really believe you can do better in the market than what your return is going to be on the panels in 10 and 20 years.
You might, you might not. I have and I haven't.
At least with a panel investment you know what the returns are going to be.
Unless you believe electricity is going to be cheap in the future...


----------



## woodgeek (May 3, 2015)

Personally, I think a conservative bond/equity mix of index fund will easily beat solar, with acceptable risk. The major factor is that your principal does not depreciate with an investment, but the panels are salvage/replacement value only after 20-30 years.  

Solar also has a finite risk that returns may decrease in the future from changes in net metering, or alternatively, saturation of PV at midday...driving the TOU rate during sunny weather to near zero.


----------



## billb3 (May 3, 2015)

there's zero risk the sun will come up tomorrow

will your index fund have one or more Enrons in it ?


----------



## woodgeek (May 3, 2015)

Sounds like you are ready to do it!!  

A well diversified index fund certainly will have some failing companies in it, but will track the overall economy anyway.  That is the point.


----------



## begreen (May 3, 2015)

billb3 said:


> there's zero risk the sun will come up tomorrow
> 
> will your index fund have one or more Enrons in it ?


The question is not whether the sun will come up, but whether there will be sunshine or clouds or winter shading.


----------



## newburner (May 4, 2015)

mass_burner said:


> New burner, can you please update? I am contemplating solar city and would look appreciate the feedback.


Sorry for the delay, I just saw this...

Everything is going great for me. We generated 1,405 kWh in April. I should have a zero bill from national grid. 

We typically generate between 50-80 kWh per day on sunny days and about 20-30 on cloudy or rainy days. Its all good because our average daily consumption throughout the summer is around 20 so we will be banking credits all summer to use when the panels are covered with snow come winter.

I wouldn't do it different if I had to do it again. Even if I did have the money to purchase them, I probably wouldn't. After 20 years, I'm pretty confident that the panels will have cost us nothing after all the credits are factored in. 

Also, most people will replace their aging roof before installing panels but I didn't have the money for that so I purposely did not re roof prior to install so I could use the savings to replace my roof.


----------



## Brian26 (May 9, 2015)

Anybody in CT have them? I get literally full sun all day. My roof is brand new and its orientated directly South. My neighbor has them and when someone was over from her solar company doing some checks they said to her to tell you neighbor they have the ideal setup and would generate almost all day.


----------



## JP11 (May 9, 2015)

Reading through this... one comment I'll make.  Some might think that roof is penetrated in many places.  it is not.

With my 48 panels, there is just ONE point of roof penetration.  A small junction box that all the conductors go through.  Install company warranties it, but said they have never had a leak yet.  I would imagine they have it controlled pretty well with one small junction box that they seal the heck out of.

JP


----------



## newburner (May 10, 2015)

Brian26 said:


> they have the ideal setup and would generate almost all day.



I would hope so. My setup is less than ideal and they generate all day every day, rain or shine. The only time they haven't is when they are covered with more than 2" of snow.


----------



## mass_burner (May 12, 2015)

What about resale if home, I heard the solar company needs "to approve" the buyer- whatever that means. My daughter has a friend that's moving to CA, they just got panels last year, so I'm watching their situation carefully.


----------



## peakbagger (May 12, 2015)

There have been several posts regarding this provision in equipment leases when homes are sold. It potentially delays to the sale and can be turn off to a buyer.

The cynic in me feels its a backdoor way of the leasing company forcing an owner to buy out the lease if its no longer a financial advantage to the leasing company


----------



## billb3 (May 12, 2015)

begreen said:


> The question is not whether the sun will come up, but whether there will be sunshine .


 Daylight too ?


----------



## CaptSpiff (May 13, 2015)

JP11 said:


> Reading through this... one comment I'll make.  Some might think that roof is penetrated in many places.  it is not.
> 
> With my 48 panels, there is just ONE point of roof penetration.  A small junction box that all the conductors go through.  JP


You must have a metal roof. How did they attach the rails?


----------



## JP11 (May 13, 2015)

I take your point.. I believe they took a screw out and re used my same holes.  I never looked.  It's a long way up!


----------

