California outlook ....

[dundasdad]

So - we have the new (old) guy Michael Picker (was Senior Advisor for Renewable Energy) at the helm now at the CPUC.

Governor Jerry Brown wants 50% renewable energy by 2030.

This seems positive for the solar industry in California BUT there are still a lot of questions re: what the future may bring.

• The Federal ITC at 30% will be disappearing at the end of the year.
• The big 3 IOU's are asking for net metering to be canned and a feed in tariff established
• The tiered rates will be condensed from four to two making it not as cost effective to go solar
• A surcharge of up to $10 per bill will be added "to help maintain the power grid for solar energy users"

I can see a lot of activity happening this year to get as much done before this all kicks in, but post 2015? Does solar dry up and go bust in California?

[bash]

I am concerned

All of the issues you brought up are concerning. I am not in the industry but if I were, I would probably be preparing for a financial strain or getting out all together (in California of course, not up to speed anywhere else). As someone who is looking to invest in solar and do not yet have a system, it concerns me that a local company may not be around through that as opposed to one that is national. After all, what good is an installation warranty if the company isn't around to follow through. On the other hand, it is not all or nothing and more likely we will be looking at only one or two of those issues and not all...I hope.

[russ]

Governor Jerry Brown wants 50% renewable energy by 2030.

Governor Moonbeam at it again! The guy is full of jokes!

[sensij]

• The tiered rates will be condensed from four to two making it not as cost effective to go solar
• A surcharge of up to $10 per bill will be added "to help maintain the power grid for solar energy users"

These two don't bother me too much, as they have both been proposed in a way that is revenue neutral.

In general, condensing from four to two tiers lowers the monthly bill of high users, but increases that of lower users. The fact that solar payback is longer for high users because the electric bill is lower does not seem like something to complain about, although I agree that may be a headwind for the industry. For me, as a low user, these projections actually improved the payback calculation and helped justify the installation, but the sales pitch is not as obvious as it is for those paying $0.30+ / marginal kWh.

Same thing with the $10 surcharge... with a fixed monthly fee, it means the per kWh rates are slightly lower. It is revenue neutral, but makes the solar payback longer since less of the bill is available to be offset. I think it is healthy that solar customers are required to make some payment for use of the grid, and in the testimony before the CPUC, the $10 fee does have some level of cost justification. A minimum monthly bill would be more solar friendly, and might even encourage system sizing to be slightly less than annual usage. That would likely be more cost-effective than what is often done with regard to system oversizing.

As others have pointed out, the solar industry in CA existed before the tax credit and will still be here once it expires. Maybe some fly-by-night installers won't be able to ride through it, which is why if long-term support from the installer is important, finding someone with a more diverse revenue stream is probably a good idea.

[J.P.M.]

So - we have the new (old) guy Michael Picker (was Senior Advisor for Renewable Energy) at the helm now at the CPUC.

Governor Jerry Brown wants 50% renewable energy by 2030.

This seems positive for the solar industry in California BUT there are still a lot of questions re: what the future may bring.

• The Federal ITC at 30% will be disappearing at the end of the year.
• The big 3 IOU's are asking for net metering to be canned and a feed in tariff established
• The tiered rates will be condensed from four to two making it not as cost effective to go solar
• A surcharge of up to $10 per bill will be added "to help maintain the power grid for solar energy users"

I can see a lot of activity happening this year to get as much done before this all kicks in, but post 2015? Does solar dry up and go bust in California?

Small corrections/comments:

The fed. tax credit expires 12/31/2016, not the end of this year.

The big 3 IOU's are not asking for net metering to be canned any more than has already been planned for discussion. I'm sure they'd like it gone, but they probably never wanted it in the first place. Unless things change, the 5% caps will limit the # of NEM cust. under current limits. New tariff/rate schemes are still being hashed out, including new/proposed NEM tariffs. Some small changes are happening but more jockeying than reality at this point.

New proposed tier reform may well get solar closer to being cost effective for small users. That sounds good to me.

The $10/month adder is perhaps the foot in the door #. I wonder what it will be 5 -10 yrs. hence.

Whether or not it's true, if peddlers can convince the public that solar is a good deal, it'll do well in CA and other places. It's that simple.

[dundasdad]

Thanks J.P.M. - my mistake with the date. It does indeed expire at the end of 2016.

Good points - there are a lot of uncertainties in the market looking forward.

[solar pete]

Its not all doom and gloom for the solar industry. We went through something similar in Australia, subsidies have been wound back and the feed in tariff rates have dropped to almost nothing (most places 0c to 5c per kWh). It did slow us down a bit but we still pay above .30c per kWh so it still makes sense for a lot of people. It also helped get rid of a few of the more dodgy operators which was great for us, the other thing we have noticed is that commercial solar systems have really taken off in the last 12 months we have done lots of 70kW to 100kW jobs on various business's like supermarkets, council buldings, chicken farmers, mechanical workshops etc .etc

[OftheSeven]

Newbie in California

I'm in Orange County and on the fence about getting solar and curious how things will change over the next few years.
Not sure how to ask this but did you guys chose solar for the short term (1-10yrs) of lower rates or were you more motivated of price protection for the future (10-20yrs)?

Meaning, were you looking for an immediate payoff now or as a future proof investment? (green issues aside).

I pay $130-$180/mo now with a recently purchased plug-in hybrid car and don't know if it's more prudent to look at short term cost/savings or try to figure long term scenarios? Especially as it relates to being in California (SCE).

[J.P.M.]

I'm in Orange County and on the fence about getting solar and curious how things will change over the next few years.
Not sure how to ask this but did you guys chose solar for the short term (1-10yrs) of lower rates or were you more motivated of price protection for the future (10-20yrs)?

Meaning, were you looking for an immediate payoff now or as a future proof investment? (green issues aside).

I pay $130-$180/mo now with a recently purchased plug-in hybrid car and don't know if it's more prudent to look at short term cost/savings or try to figure long term scenarios? Especially as it relates to being in California (SCE).

Wide questions with as many answers as people to ask. FWIW, a short opinion: Money, or the perception of saving it, real or usually imagined, trumps most everything else.

Environmental issues aside and assuming a grid tie situation, the question usually has finances as at least one focus.

The future is a crap shoot as exemplified by recent petroleum prices, etc. Some of the inputs might be: How old you are, how long you plan to stay where you are, # of people coming/going in your residence, EV/not, current electrical usage, any feelings about conservation vs. solar vs. lifestyle adjustments, how much you know about how you are charged for electricity, etc, etc.

Usually, most folks considering solar are mostly energy ignorant and wind up as easy marks for peddlers who make money putting solar equipment on roofs, not necessarily saving people money over the long term. My apologies to the ethical peddlers.

[OftheSeven]

Wide questions with as many answers as people to ask. FWIW, a short opinion: Money, or the perception of saving it, real or usually imagined, trumps most everything else.

Environmental issues aside and assuming a grid tie situation, the question usually has finances as at least one focus.

The future is a crap shoot as exemplified by recent petroleum prices, etc. Some of the inputs might be: How old you are, how long you plan to stay where you are, # of people coming/going in your residence, EV/not, current electrical usage, any feelings about conservation vs. solar vs. lifestyle adjustments, how much you know about how you are charged for electricity, etc, etc.

Usually, most folks considering solar are mostly energy ignorant and wind up as easy marks for peddlers who make money putting solar equipment on roofs, not necessarily saving people money over the long term. My apologies to the ethical peddlers.

While looking at solar, I noticed mortgage rates were going down, so I just locked in a refi! The plan is to use some cash out to finance the solar. So from a money perspective, it "feels" better to lower my monthly mortgage and finance the solar at a better rate than the solar finance partners. But like you said, it is mostly the 'perception of saving' that really drives this, especially for us smaller electricity users.

Some of the info:
-Family of 4, I'm mid 40s
-Plan to live here for a while (15+ yrs)
-Might lease another EV if gas prices go back up
-Currently use about 8200kW /year

[J.P.M.]

While looking at solar, I noticed mortgage rates were going down, so I just locked in a refi! The plan is to use some cash out to finance the solar. So from a money perspective, it "feels" better to lower my monthly mortgage and finance the solar at a better rate than the solar finance partners. But like you said, it is mostly the 'perception of saving' that really drives this, especially for us smaller electricity users.

Some of the info:
-Family of 4, I'm mid 40s
-Plan to live here for a while (15+ yrs)
-Might lease another EV if gas prices go back up
-Currently use about 8200kW /year

I'd bet refi is better and cheaper than a lease payment for the same size system.

At 8,200 kWh/yr. making it cost effective might be a challenge.

[SoCalsolar]

To solar or not to solar ...

Should you go solar? Much depends on your lifestyle and commitment to live in your house as was stated. It seems likely that if your bills are $130-$180 ($.21 kWhr) and you are committed to the house for 10 plus years that it is likely that you will save money by purchasing solar. The cash out refi is one of the lowest cost ways to secure the funds to purchase solar deductible interest and low rates. Now if your roof needs work or you need a main panel upgrade it could flip the equation on you or if you don't pay any Federal taxes. Going with a refi you ought to be able to finance a system for less than your current electric bill.

[sensij]

I'm in Orange County and on the fence about getting solar and curious how things will change over the next few years.
Not sure how to ask this but did you guys chose solar for the short term (1-10yrs) of lower rates or were you more motivated of price protection for the future (10-20yrs)?

Meaning, were you looking for an immediate payoff now or as a future proof investment? (green issues aside).

I pay $130-$180/mo now with a recently purchased plug-in hybrid car and don't know if it's more prudent to look at short term cost/savings or try to figure long term scenarios? Especially as it relates to being in California (SCE).

Do you have a good roof for installing the panels? South or Southwest facing, with not much shade? My monthly bill for SDG&E is less than yours, and I am putting up a system that I think be financially beneficial in less than 10 years. I am hoping it will be more like 8 years, but we will see. If the EV represents a decent portion of your energy use, you might find that a time-of-use (TOU) rate plan, coupled with solar, could be more cost effective than you are thinking if you are able to charge your vehicle during off-peak hours. Rate plan details will change, of course, but the TOU structure is expected to continue.

[OftheSeven]

Thanks for the replies everyone!

Yes, I know I'm on the border for cost effectiveness as of today, but I do see usage going up in the coming years (closer to 10,000kWh/yr). Kids will be teenagers soon [sigh], we're looking into a second EV vehicle mis 2015, might add a freezer in the garage, plan to be here more than 10 years, etc.

I plan to use the same installer as Alisobob, so his references are good and he actually lives a couple blocks away from me! My electrical panel is rated 125Amps so he said I didn't need to update, but I'm thinking to have it included in the proposal for future upgrades. Roof is OK, about 15 years old (I moved in 10 years ago). Panels will be mostly be south and west. Maybe I'll start a new thread w/ the PV info and other specs.
Preliminary shown: SolarRoof.jpg (btw, I was told they won't overhang the garage roof).

Yes, refi at 3.75% is better than the 4.99 I've seen for solar financing.

[SoCalsolar]

Landscape Orientation

Landscape Orientation will likely fit better on your larger south and west arrays. Takes a little more racking but will fit better.