We paid cash for a large solar panel system two years ago, but it isn't providing the savings that we expected ... the only other variable is the new meter that the electric company forced us to install ... so either the old meter was way off or the new one is way off. Really no way for us to compare as the electric company takes back the old one and tells us the new one works as designed! We are also not allowed to be off grid during a power failure or store excess power in backup batteries. So still a bit of David vs Goliath when dealing with utility companies!

We installed it to be more "green" and aren't worried about what it will be worth when we sell many years from now.

We paid for ours a year ago. Our monthly bill went from $400-$900 to $1.75 per month, but there is an annual cumulative energy charge of about $1200 to the utility company. We have saved a lot per month. We did not rent our equipment. We paid for it, and it conveys with the house fully paid for. The spiel they spin is that rates will be going up, and by installing solar, your rates will be locked in. Who knows?

I forgot to mention that many solar companies try to install for free and they charge monthly rent on top of the cumulative energy charge. That may still offer an energy savings, but it's a big disadvantage at selling time because the new owner must assume the rental agreement, and some people don't want to do that.

Also, it's hard to compare energy companies. In Southern California we were not forced into a meter change, but chispa was. Interesting.

Suzi, we are in the LA area and Edison wasn't the easiest to deal with for the solar hookup process. There should really be a third party involved because the electric companies have no interest in being supportive of something that takes away from their profits. Certainly a conflict of interest!

Wow Chispa! I had no idea you are with Southern California Edison. Wonder why they were so tough on you with that meter update? They gave us no problems (so far..hehehehe). Do you think a third party would just add to the cost and make it unprofitable?

Suzi, maybe a third party more in the sense of rules/regulations that support the homeowners and cutting back on wasting our limited natural resources, instead of protecting the utility companies. Solar makes a lot of sense for many in So. CA.

With companies like Tesla changing the way people use and view electricity, I hope that it will make a change in the long run. I'm not that interested in an electric car at the moment, but their developments in batteries and energy storage will certainly be usefull in home applications too.

Pros and cons on both sides. When you lease the system the new buyer has to qualify to take over the lease. You could lose a sale over it. Most systems are still pretty new and the bumps are still being ironed out. That said it sounds like you are just saying the buyer could install solar. That pitch can't hurt! Best of luck on your sale.

To calculate savings, you'd need to include interest on the money you would have invested if you hadn't *bought* the solar installation, right? Or at least prorate the installation costs over X number of years?

Elderly friends bought a whole house solar system, then sold the house within a year to move closer to their adult children. This makes me wonder if solar isn't a harder sell to Seniors in general. How many years does it take to 'break even'?

You can use any Net Present Value calculator on the web to see if the financials make sense. They almost never do. I am a big fan of solar but if you look at it as a financial investment it is a tough sell.

chisue, it depends on a lot of different factors. In Chicago it might take you forever. In a sunny CA city you could reach breakeven in less than 10 yrs.

We don't have air conditioning and use gas for heat, so our 14-panel rooftop system eliminates just about all electricity costs as long as it's not raining or heavy overcast. In the SF Bay Area/NorCA, figure April thru end of October. Minimum charge from PG&E (one of the highest cost utilties in the country, we're so [NOT] grateful) is $5, but will be going to $10/mo under new rate structure just approved by our gutless wonder, the state PUC.

Electricity is very expensive in CA. There is currently a 4-tier price system; recently challenged in court it was dumped and will now be a 2-tier system. Those who used or wasted the most electricity will see a drop in their bills; most including those who tried to conserve, will see a rise in rates.

We never made extreme efforts to conserve electricity but we are retirees and the TV/broadband/computers are running most of the 24-hr day, 7 days a week (unless we're traveling). We were on the lower end of the 4th highest-priced tier even w/o air conditioning or an electric car.

Once you put in solar all of the 3 CA utilities only bill once a year for electricity. They keep a running tab so you know how it changes month-to-month. You are billed and pay for gas usage monthly, as before.

We have no regrets buying the system. We are getting the 20-yr warranty (the standard install comes with a 10-yr) and it will be transferable to a new homeowner. There is huge interest in solar in our area, but few homeowners have put it in. RE agents have told us it's definitely a plus for resale.

>>>The spiel they spin is that rates will be going up, and by installing solar, your rates will be locked in. Who knows?>>

Okay, here's WHAT EVERY CALIFORNIA SOLAR SYSTEM OWNER SHOULD KNOW:

There is no question about "Who knows?" Although most of the media flubbed the 2015 coverage badly, the big issue before the PUC, which took over a year to settle, was NOT just the rates the utilities are charging customers. It was also the fact that solar customers have a special rate to begin with, under the program called "Net Energy Metering" or NEM.

This program is also known by its old name, "Net Zero Monitoring". This is how residential & commercial private solar installs are allowed to use their solar generation production for credit on their bills.

NEM was the states' part in the push by the federal government to encourage solar system installations. CA was one of those states; as was Hawaii and a few others.

The NEM credit given to solar customers was deliberately generous. In wiping out most of a user's bill for a good part of the year, it also means that customer isn't paying to help maintain the power stations and grid, without which there is no power delivery to anyone. It's the same problem that has arisen with electric cars: by bypassing the gas stations and the gas taxes, they are using and wearing out streets and highways, but not paying to maintain the infrastructure they use alongside non-hybrids/non-electrics.

Sooooo......the California PUC's decision was:

- NEM is being phased out. There was always a numeric cap to the # of installs. At last count - you can check your own utility's cap on-line, it shows up in a Google search - PG&E will probably reach its max NEM cap sometime in mid-2016 or earlier, depending on # of solar installs.

- The other two CA utilities are not quite as close to their cap #s as PG&E, but they are seeing a steady stream of installations. Figure 2017 or 2018 at the very latest.

- After the NEM cap is reached, each utility will no longer offer the generous NEM credit to a user's electricity bill. Usage will be assessed and charged, or debited, at current approved rates.

Now for the critical part for those who already have solar systems installed: NEM users will have a 20-yr maximum transition period. After that, the NEM rate ends for that user and you go to market rates.

I wrote a post in the Renewable Energy forum about this, so you may want to go read that:

http://ths.gardenweb.com/discussions/3133178/solar-investment-tax-credit-remember-expiry-date-is-12-31-2016?n=1

If you own the system outright it is good for resale. Most are leased and the buyer will have to qualify with the solar company. The solar company can ruin your deal based on their handling of the buyer. I had one transaction that went very smoothly and one where the buyer had to pay an extra $100 per month to qualify with the solar company - even though he qualified to buy a house. And to make matters worse the solar company didn't decide this until a week before closing. I wouldn't have blamed the buyer if he had walked. So agents that say it is good for resale might not have ever actually had a transaction that involved solar as they are a relatively new issue.

I wouldn't say "most are leased". In my state, they are all owned. And, we generally will see ours paid for itself in 6 years.

What state are you in that you are getting 6 year payback? That is definitely nothing even remotely close to ours. While regions do vary, that seems really impressive.

It is subsidized. Ironically, I'm just outside of Seattle.

We have the net metering, as well as a production incentive that is subsidized by the state through 2020. Ours is well on its way to fully paying for itself by 2020 when the subsidized bonus is set to expire. However, we expect many years after 2020 of continued savings in electric.

I should have qualified that, most are leased in the desert area in California from Palm Springs to Coachella.

What we can't do here economically is geothermal ...

In MA we did a prepaid lease option where we kept the SRECs. We had estimated a 7-8 year payback, but it looks as though it will be closer to 5-6, as the SRECs have brought higher prices than I estimated. We bought through a program called Solarize Massachusetts where the state negotiated volume discounts on a town by town basis. Our town achieved the highest discount level, with about a megawatt of generation capacity installed in a year.