My first quote in Texas. Please give your thoughts!

[russ]

i would find it hard not to factor that into my search for another house if we move. and it would certainly affect the money i'd be willing to offer. but i'm in the minority unfortunately. i live in a small neighborhood with approx 90 homes averaging 1-1.5 acres (all with plenty of roof space) and i am only the 4th customer in here to go solar.

You just joined the fraction of 1% that have any idea what it does.

[bando]

To your comments:

1.) Anything done to a property may (or may not) increase its value. I'd suggest the reasons, justifications and logic for permitting have more to do with maintaining safety and community standards, and (for certain) increasing the tax base for revenue purposes than increasing real estate values per se.

2.) I'd take the situation described that an appraiser added a $$ figure of 15K, seemingly pulled out of the butt as to what a solar electric system may add to the value of a property, as adding some weight, even if anecdotally, to my prior statement to the effect that most appraisers' knowledge of solar equipment and it's worth is largely an ignorant guess and is of little use. I'd also suggest the method, as described, is misleading and unprofessional. It takes no account of any annual or lifetime savings, such as "the value is 20X annual savings", as I've seen (Which BTW, I'm not endorsing but it's better than a dart throw), or whether the system cost $10K, or $50K. Sounds like a blowoff , both in # and attitude, IMO. Not even asking for how much it cost ? C'mon. If I paid $50K for a system, I think I might challenge the appraiser. If I paid $10K, I'd shut up. If I were the potential buyer, my actions would probably be the reverse. So much for the value and accuracy of the appraisal, and thus appraisers who operate as described.

Appraisals are mostly for banks ( or other mortgage holders) to cover their butts and have probably become equally or more important as a revenue enhancement. I'd suggest drivebys, pictures, comparing comps and other mostly useless tasks that consume little time or brainpower as little justification for several hundred $$'s tacked on to a closing statement. Appraisals are a necessary evil, but probably say little about a property's market value.

I reiterate an opinion: A property is only worth what someone is willing to pay. What others, including the owner(s), or some appraiser may think has little bearing except to the degree they can influence the potential buyer's opinion (one way or the other).

I think my solar generating station is pretty slick and I know what it cost. Some neighbors agree with the slickness part. Some think I'm nuts. I care some about the value enhancement such as it may, or may not be and less about public opinion, but have no idea what it does to the value of my property. I'll haggle with some potential buyer some day for an answer.

3.) Opinions, perceptions and goals vary. You pay your money and you take your choice. I'm thankful it's still a free country, and I'll strongly support someone's right to roast hot dogs on their front lawn using a fire fed with $20 bills. Just don't ask me to endorse it as a good idea.

I sincerely do not want this to come of as arrogant, but, at the risk of asking what may be a rhetorical question, sometimes I wonder: if more people knew more of what I and others have been fortunate enough to learn about solar energy, conservation, energy use and related stuff, would they be making the same choices ? Sometimes I feel like I'm watching a weeny roast.

yes appraisals are all very arbitrary, and i agree that it's all up to the buyer how they value various "features" of a house. a year ago if we were buying a house, we would not have given much thought to solar on a house. in fact, i admit that i was one of "those people" that thought PV systems were just ugly and i didn't want it to detract from the appearance of our roof and house. i will be the first to say i was a fool! it doesn't hurt that prices came down to the point that my payback period is under 4 years. now that ours is done and we are really happy with our results, i think the system looks great.

now that we have gone solar, i would find it hard not to factor that into my search for another house if we move. and it would certainly affect the money i'd be willing to offer. but i'm in the minority unfortunately. i live in a small neighborhood with approx 90 homes averaging 1-1.5 acres (all with plenty of roof space) and i am only the 4th customer in here to go solar.

[J.P.M.]

just wanted to add a few tidbits of information from my own experience:

(1) in san diego, as with most other cities, anything that requires permits increases your property value and hence you pay more taxes. solar is one of those projects that requires permit, however it is exempt from increases as an added incentive for homeowners to go solar.

(2) we recently refinanced and as part of the process an appraisal was performed. the appraiser has done dozens in my neighborhood alone and only had to take pictures since he already had floor plans and sq ft. granted it's only an appraisal and our refi was nowhere near the max LTV, but he did assign "solar electric" a positive value of 15,000 over the recent comps of my neighbors without solar. he didn't need to do that to attain a certain value, and he never asked about the details. i guess that's just some fixed number he uses for now without asking how much my bills are or the size of the system.

(3) finally, in my eyes, savings on electricity is like savings on anything else. in san diego, i can choose to live in an older neighborhood with no HOA and save considerably. however i choose to live in a gated community where my neighbors and i pay over $400/mo in HOA. all of my neighbors average $400-600/mo in electric alone. let's say you save $500/mo. well, at a fixed rate of 4.5% over 30 years, $500/mo is approx $100,000 in mortgage. so theoretically, if i am comparing two homes that i like and are similar in most ways (including price), with the only difference being solar, i can "afford" to pay up to 100,000 more on the solar house if it saves me $500/mo. of course you wouldn't offer that much more just because of solar, but in the back of my mind, that's what i would think.

granted this is a very simplistic calculation because i haven't taken into account the cost of inverter replacements, and i haven't taken into account what would happen after the solar system and/or roof needs replacement, but if this is my starter house and i only plan on being here for 7-10 years and the solar was put in 5 years ago, i would DEFINITELY be willing to offer more on the solar house to save $500/mo in electricity. it's just math. again, it's a bare bones example and in real life you'd likely be looking at homes that are already far apart in price with varying features and aspects. but the idea is, if you have a budget of $4000/mo to spend on housing related costs, ALL IN, that will include things like anticipated electricity and water.

same goes with HOA - if i find two houses i like in diff communities with diff HOA, that savings in HOA is a fixed cost that i have to consider. i think this phenomenon is getting more and more common now. people used to just buy the house they wanted and didn't pay much attention to the other costs, but things like HOA can be a real burden and something people really think about when buying a house.

just my $0.02

To your comments:

1.) Anything done to a property may (or may not) increase its value. I'd suggest the reasons, justifications and logic for permitting have more to do with maintaining safety and community standards, and (for certain) increasing the tax base for revenue purposes than increasing real estate values per se.

2.) I'd take the situation described that an appraiser added a $$ figure of 15K, seemingly pulled out of the butt as to what a solar electric system may add to the value of a property, as adding some weight, even if anecdotally, to my prior statement to the effect that most appraisers' knowledge of solar equipment and it's worth is largely an ignorant guess and is of little use. I'd also suggest the method, as described, is misleading and unprofessional. It takes no account of any annual or lifetime savings, such as "the value is 20X annual savings", as I've seen (Which BTW, I'm not endorsing but it's better than a dart throw), or whether the system cost $10K, or $50K. Sounds like a blowoff , both in # and attitude, IMO. Not even asking for how much it cost ? C'mon. If I paid $50K for a system, I think I might challenge the appraiser. If I paid $10K, I'd shut up. If I were the potential buyer, my actions would probably be the reverse. So much for the value and accuracy of the appraisal, and thus appraisers who operate as described.

Appraisals are mostly for banks ( or other mortgage holders) to cover their butts and have probably become equally or more important as a revenue enhancement. I'd suggest drivebys, pictures, comparing comps and other mostly useless tasks that consume little time or brainpower as little justification for several hundred $$'s tacked on to a closing statement. Appraisals are a necessary evil, but probably say little about a property's market value.

I reiterate an opinion: A property is only worth what someone is willing to pay. What others, including the owner(s), or some appraiser may think has little bearing except to the degree they can influence the potential buyer's opinion (one way or the other).

I think my solar generating station is pretty slick and I know what it cost. Some neighbors agree with the slickness part. Some think I'm nuts. I care some about the value enhancement such as it may, or may not be and less about public opinion, but have no idea what it does to the value of my property. I'll haggle with some potential buyer some day for an answer.

3.) Opinions, perceptions and goals vary. You pay your money and you take your choice. I'm thankful it's still a free country, and I'll strongly support someone's right to roast hot dogs on their front lawn using a fire fed with $20 bills. Just don't ask me to endorse it as a good idea.

I sincerely do not want this to come off as arrogant, but, at the risk of asking what may be a rhetorical question, sometimes I wonder: if more people knew more of what I and others have been fortunate enough to learn about solar energy, conservation, energy use and related stuff, would they be making the same choices ? Sometimes I feel like I'm watching a weeny roast.

[rubdom]

The Enphase 190 was a very unreliable Microinverter. I'm using the 215 inverters that clip at 225w. My brother-in-law has the 190s on his roof and has had to replace a few every year since his installation 3 years ago. So far the little data I have on the 215 they have no where near the failure rate. I have not lost any on my roof to date but my installation is not yet a year old. As for the warranty, Enphase did at one time pay for the labor to replace but after the 190s fiasco changed that warranty to just include the device itself. Its no concern for me because my Solar company Astrum will still replace my Microinverters free of labor for a 20 year period. The rep at Astrum did mention they wont deal in the 190 series anymore but so far 215 and 240 have been reliable. I do have shading issues especially during the winter. That and I like the ability to monitor each panel individually is why I went with Microinverters. There is no evidence to suggest the 215/240w Enphase Microinveters will be unreliable in hot climates. Easy enough to dispel, just post around for people living in Texas that use 215/240 Enphase Microinverters.

John

Thanks for the info. I think the installer wants me to steer away from micros because they will be replacing them if something happens years down the road. This is more expensive for them.

[bando]

just wanted to add a few tidbits of information from my own experience:

(1) in san diego, as with most other cities, anything that requires permits increases your property value and hence you pay more taxes. solar is one of those projects that requires permit, however it is exempt from increases as an added incentive for homeowners to go solar.

(2) we recently refinanced and as part of the process an appraisal was performed. the appraiser has done dozens in my neighborhood alone and only had to take pictures since he already had floor plans and sq ft. granted it's only an appraisal and our refi was nowhere near the max LTV, but he did assign "solar electric" a positive value of 15,000 over the recent comps of my neighbors without solar. he didn't need to do that to attain a certain value, and he never asked about the details. i guess that's just some fixed number he uses for now without asking how much my bills are or the size of the system.

(3) finally, in my eyes, savings on electricity is like savings on anything else. in san diego, i can choose to live in an older neighborhood with no HOA and save considerably. however i choose to live in a gated community where my neighbors and i pay over $400/mo in HOA. all of my neighbors average $400-600/mo in electric alone. let's say you save $500/mo. well, at a fixed rate of 4.5% over 30 years, $500/mo is approx $100,000 in mortgage. so theoretically, if i am comparing two homes that i like and are similar in most ways (including price), with the only difference being solar, i can "afford" to pay up to 100,000 more on the solar house if it saves me $500/mo. of course you wouldn't offer that much more just because of solar, but in the back of my mind, that's what i would think.

granted this is a very simplistic calculation because i haven't taken into account the cost of inverter replacements, and i haven't taken into account what would happen after the solar system and/or roof needs replacement, but if this is my starter house and i only plan on being here for 7-10 years and the solar was put in 5 years ago, i would DEFINITELY be willing to offer more on the solar house to save $500/mo in electricity. it's just math. again, it's a bare bones example and in real life you'd likely be looking at homes that are already far apart in price with varying features and aspects. but the idea is, if you have a budget of $4000/mo to spend on housing related costs, ALL IN, that will include things like anticipated electricity and water.

same goes with HOA - if i find two houses i like in diff communities with diff HOA, that savings in HOA is a fixed cost that i have to consider. i think this phenomenon is getting more and more common now. people used to just buy the house they wanted and didn't pay much attention to the other costs, but things like HOA can be a real burden and something people really think about when buying a house.

just my $0.02

[bcroe]

On The Ground

Is your system ground mounted ?

Yes on the ground, some 600' from the house. I am one of those
who wouldn't want it on the roof, and it wouldn't fit anyway. Bruce

[itnetpro]

That is pretty nice guarantee on the move. I haven't seen any company around here that will do that. I wanted to do microinverters but he said he has had a lot of failures here in TX since it gets so hot. We have high heat and humidity in TX. He said if I am ok with the inconvenience of having to call them every time an inverter fails then I should be fine with them. Not sure the extra cost but I will find out.

The Enphase 190 was a very unreliable Microinverter. I'm using the 215 inverters that clip at 225w. My brother-in-law has the 190s on his roof and has had to replace a few every year since his installation 3 years ago. So far the little data I have on the 215 they have no where near the failure rate. I have not lost any on my roof to date but my installation is not yet a year old. As for the warranty, Enphase did at one time pay for the labor to replace but after the 190s fiasco changed that warranty to just include the device itself. Its no concern for me because my Solar company Astrum will still replace my Microinverters free of labor for a 20 year period. The rep at Astrum did mention they wont deal in the 190 series anymore but so far 215 and 240 have been reliable. I do have shading issues especially during the winter. That and I like the ability to monitor each panel individually is why I went with Microinverters. There is no evidence to suggest the 215/240w Enphase Microinveters will be unreliable in hot climates. Easy enough to dispel, just post around for people living in Texas that use 215/240 Enphase Microinverters.

John

[russ]

= I'd suggest the real value of an asset is whatever the owner thinks it's worth, or in the case of a (potential) sale the value that the seller and buyer of the property agree upon. No more. No less.

Correct - the pool of home buyers that understand solar is quite limited in reality. Odds of solar adding to RE value are not good in most places.

[J.P.M.]

None of those scenarios have anything to do with my question. No
it doesn't imply anything. If the value is negative, seems like having
solar far from the house would be a lot less negative.

Just what the future brings remains to be seen. If a property had a
small solar system, it likely wouldn't have much impact. Most buyers
have a pretty good idea what they are looking for; property with a
large solar system will go to someone who likes solar, or is serious
about saving energy.

Who and how even decide undersized/oversized anyway? My
definition probably differs from the next owner. A buyer discerning
enough to chose will buy accordingly, same for quality.

Safety is a concern; same for a pool. Fences, laws, etc apply to
such things. I know a lot of fatal pool incidents, non for solar yet.

I see my array got onto Google earth. The picture was taken between
June & Sept, because the second section isn't up. None of the
concerns raised here apply, being fenced & completely beyond
view of the house. No soccer field possible with the big changes
in elevation all over. Bruce Roe

Is your system ground mounted ?

[bcroe]

Respectfully:

Your question seems to imply that all solar electric systems will increase the value of a property simply by virtue of being solar electric systems. I'm not sure that's something I'd agree with, at least not in all cases.

True enough - with a ground mount, my roof replacement scenario does indeed go away with the attendant extra cost to remove/replace the panels, as do the extra holes in the roof. So, I guess the easy answer is yes. However, another, and I'd argue perhaps equally valid answer is that a ground mount might detract less from the value of a property for some potential buyers because roof maint. would be easier and less $$'s, but still detract from the overall marketability and selling price, just not as much as the roof mount.

Most of my point is that some folks may not want an existing solar energy system making a property with existing solar less marketable - it may be viewed as limiting their options, or as an albatross. Or it may be viewed as desirable - it depends on the buyer and the situation - each one is unique.

- What if the solar is 10 yrs old, needs work and sits in the middle of the yard? Suppose potential buyers have kids and fears of electrocution surface ?
- Regardless of location, what if it's a lease and potential customers think leases are a bad deal ?
- What if the system is crappy panels of poor quality and the buyer wants or has been brainwashed into Sunpower ?
- What if it's oversized for the customers needs and the customer doesn't want to pay for more than their needs ?
- What if it's undersized ?
- What if they think solar is a sham and a ripoff ?

etc.

I can generate as many or more positive scenarios for making solar equipped houses more marketable for more $$'s but again, my point is that just because someone says solar is great and increases property resale values doesn't make it so. Maybe yes - but maybe no.

None of those scenarios have anything to do with my question. No
it doesn't imply anything. If the value is negative, seems like having
solar far from the house would be a lot less negative.

Just what the future brings remains to be seen. If a property had a
small solar system, it likely wouldn't have much impact. Most buyers
have a pretty good idea what they are looking for; property with a
large solar system will go to someone who likes solar, or is serious
about saving energy.

Who and how even decide undersized/oversized anyway? My
definition probably differs from the next owner. A buyer discerning
enough to chose will buy accordingly, same for quality.

Safety is a concern; same for a pool. Fences, laws, etc apply to
such things. I know a lot of fatal pool incidents, non for solar yet.

I see my array got onto Google earth. The picture was taken between
June & Sept, because the second section isn't up. None of the
concerns raised here apply, being fenced & completely beyond
view of the house. No soccer field possible with the big changes
in elevation all over. Bruce Roe

[J.P.M.]

Solar is actually an add on benefit of preperty, but really not a real asset. That's also why your property tax is exampt.

Active solar gets a property tax exemption in many, but by no means all places and is also usually eligible for fed./state tax credits and utility rebates for reason(s) that probably, IMO, have little if anything to do with any value the solar energy equipment may (or may not) add to real property as much as they do politician's and policy maker's attempts to curry voter's favor and/or influence societal direction and public opinion through manipulation of the tax code. Also, since in many places property assessments (from which property taxes are calculated) often bear little resemblance to actual market values, I'd suggest the real value of an asset is whatever the owner thinks it's worth, or in the case of a (potential) sale the value that the seller and buyer of the property agree upon. No more. No less.

[silversaver]

Solar is actually an add on benefit of preperty, but really not a real asset. That's also why your property tax is exampt.

[J.P.M.]

That brings up the question, will a ground based system add more property value than a roof mounted system? Bruce Roe

Respectfully:

Your question seems to imply that all solar electric systems will increase the value of a property simply by virtue of being solar electric systems. I'm not sure that's something I'd agree with, at least not in all cases.

True enough - with a ground mount, my roof replacement scenario does indeed go away with the attendant extra cost to remove/replace the panels, as do the extra holes in the roof. So, I guess the easy answer is yes. However, another, and I'd argue perhaps equally valid answer is that a ground mount might detract less from the value of a property for some potential buyers because roof maint. would be easier and less $$'s, but still detract from the overall marketability and selling price, just not as much as the roof mount.

Most of my point is that some folks may not want an existing solar energy system making a property with existing solar less marketable - it may be viewed as limiting their options, or as an albatross. Or it may be viewed as desirable - it depends on the buyer and the situation - each one is unique.

- What if the solar is 10 yrs old, needs work and sits in the middle of the yard? Suppose potential buyers have kids and fears of electrocution surface ?
- Regardless of location, what if it's a lease and potential customers think leases are a bad deal ?
- What if the system is crappy panels of poor quality and the buyer wants or has been brainwashed into Sunpower ?
- What if it's oversized for the customers needs and the customer doesn't want to pay for more than their needs ?
- What if it's undersized ?
- What if they think solar is a sham and a ripoff ?

etc.

I can generate as many or more positive scenarios for making solar equipped houses more marketable for more $$'s but again, my point is that just because someone says solar is great and increases property resale values doesn't make it so. Maybe yes - but maybe no.

[inetdog]

For me it would but for others that want a soccer field probably not.

Nor for families with kids that throw rocks....

[SunEagle]

That brings up the question, will a ground based system add more property value than a roof mounted system? Bruce Roe

For me it would but for others that want a soccer field probably not.