Sunpower solar quote:

[J.P.M.]

They quoted $28,000 for a 5.5kw system. Su-ge--ty.

$5.09/Watt ? Seems well over a buck/Watt high, closer to $1.50 unless a whole lot of extra stuff is included. I'd get more quotes. For price verification, check the CSI data base if you have not done so already. Can be a real eye opener. Prices, vendors, everything about most, close to all residential CA jobs except name/address.

[J.P.M.]

Heat pump would be even better though.
At our rates for propane these days, resistance heat and propane are not all that far apart.

Depending on outside amb. temp. and building balance temp., I'd agree that heat pump may be viable if propane/elec. resist. costs are close.

[KRenn]

They quoted $28,000 for a 5.5kw system. Su-ge--ty.

Yeah, your first mistake was trying to buy a system from Sungevity, their for-sale systems are ridiculously overpriced. Throw that quote into the trash and talk to someone else.

[silversaver]

They quoted $28,000 for a 5.5kw system. Su-ge--ty.

5.5kW? hmmm.... Sunpower doesn't carry 250W panels...(if 22 panels) Do you mean 5.5kW AC or DC?

Please tell us more detail. What type of panel and how many?

[OvertheSun]

Do you have HOA? Does your HOA allow to place the panels that is visible in front of house? Is your neighbors ok with it?

I don't think HOA can restrict if it decreases efficiency (20%) or increases cost (>$2k). What basis would neighbor have to seek a restriction? They'd lose an injunction motion on public policy grounds.

See below.

ARTICLE 2. Conditions of Ownership [707 - 714.5] ( Article 2 enacted 1872. )

714.
(a) Any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of, or any interest in, real property, and any provision of a governing document, as defined in Section 4150 or 6552, that effectively prohibits or restricts the installation or use of a solar energy system is void and unenforceable.
(b) This section does not apply to provisions that impose reasonable restrictions on solar energy systems. However, it is the policy of the state to promote and encourage the use of solar energy systems and to remove obstacles thereto. Accordingly, reasonable restrictions on a solar energy system are those restrictions that do not significantly increase the cost of the system or significantly decrease its efficiency or specified performance, or that allow for an alternative system of comparable cost, efficiency, and energy conservation benefits.
(c) (1) A solar energy system shall meet applicable health and safety standards and requirements imposed by state and local permitting authorities.
(2) A solar energy system for heating water shall be certified by the Solar Rating Certification Corporation (SRCC) or other nationally recognized certification agencies. SRCC is a nonprofit third party supported by the United States Department of Energy. The certification shall be for the entire solar energy system and installation.
(3) A solar energy system for producing electricity shall also meet all applicable safety and performance standards established by the National Electrical Code, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and accredited testing laboratories such as Underwriters Laboratories and, where applicable, rules of the Public Utilities Commission regarding safety and reliability.
(d) For the purposes of this section:
(1) (A) For solar domestic water heating systems or solar swimming pool heating systems that comply with state and federal law, “significantly” means an amount exceeding 20 percent of the cost of the system or decreasing the efficiency of the solar energy system by an amount exceeding 20 percent, as originally specified and proposed.
(B) For photovoltaic systems that comply with state and federal law, “significantly” means an amount not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000) over the system cost as originally specified and proposed, or a decrease in system efficiency of an amount exceeding 20 percent as originally specified and proposed.
(2) “Solar energy system” has the same meaning as defined in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 801.5.
(e) (1) Whenever approval is required for the installation or use of a solar energy system, the application for approval shall be processed and approved by the appropriate approving entity in the same manner as an application for approval of an architectural modification to the property, and shall not be willfully avoided or delayed.
(2) For an approving entity that is an association, as defined in Section 4080 or 6528, and that is not a public entity, both of the following shall apply:
(A) The approval or denial of an application shall be in writing.
(B) If an application is not denied in writing within 60 days from the date of receipt of the application, the application shall be deemed approved, unless that delay is the result of a reasonable request for additional information.
(f) Any entity, other than a public entity, that willfully violates this section shall be liable to the applicant or other party for actual damages occasioned thereby, and shall pay a civil penalty to the applicant or other party in an amount not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000).
(g) In any action to enforce compliance with this section, the prevailing party shall be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees.
(h) (1) A public entity that fails to comply with this section may not receive funds from a state-sponsored grant or loan program for solar energy. A public entity shall certify its compliance with the requirements of this section when applying for funds from a state-sponsored grant or loan program.
(2) A local public entity may not exempt residents in its jurisdiction from the requirements of this section.

[Volusiano]

^^^ My 44 panels are all on the west roof which is visible to the main street that goes into my subdivision (I have a corner lot). It's prominently displayed for everybody who drives on that street to see. HOA approved it just fine, even though my east roof is just as big to handle all those panels and is not visible from the main street at all. They never even asked why I didn't want to put the panels on the less visible side.

[silversaver]

It really depends on your neighborhood and HOA. I would never put the panels at the front roof of my house, because it is just ugly.

Rights for solar? really depends on where you live.

[Volusiano]

It really depends on your neighborhood and HOA. I would never put the panels at the front roof of my house, because it is just ugly.

Rights for solar? really depends on where you live.

Yep, state of AZ's law on residential solar trumps HOA's aesthetic rules.

Also, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I wouldn't say that solar panels are ugly nor would I say that they're pretty. If they can be placed on a more inconspicuous area, it's better. But I wouldn't go out of the way to hide them at the expense of production. Besides, mine are all bunched together in 1 place with 4 rows by 11 columns so it looks like one big monolithic slat of panels. When the installer offered to raise the panels south a little bit to maximize production from the southern sun for free (even though it'd cost them more to do this), I declined however because that would have required the 11 columns to be spaced a little further apart to avoid shading and they wouldn't be flat against the roof pitch anymore. In that case, I settled for lower production so they don't look scattered all over the place.

[OvertheSun]

It really depends on your neighborhood and HOA. I would never put the panels at the front roof of my house, because it is just ugly.

Sure. But that's your choice, based on what you consider ugly. In my HOA, I have to get design review committee approval to change the color of my front door, among other things! What I consider ugly and what they consider ugly are very different. If it weren't for the state law protections, the HOA would never let anyone install solar panels.

Definitely depends on where you live, but i thought the OP said he was in CA.

[J.P.M.]

I don't think HOA can restrict if it decreases efficiency (20%) or increases cost (>$2k). What basis would neighbor have to seek a restriction? They'd lose an injunction motion on public policy grounds.

See below.

ARTICLE 2. Conditions of Ownership [707 - 714.5] ( Article 2 enacted 1872. )

714.
(a) Any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of, or any interest in, real property, and any provision of a governing document, as defined in Section 4150 or 6552, that effectively prohibits or restricts the installation or use of a solar energy system is void and unenforceable.
(b) This section does not apply to provisions that impose reasonable restrictions on solar energy systems. However, it is the policy of the state to promote and encourage the use of solar energy systems and to remove obstacles thereto. Accordingly, reasonable restrictions on a solar energy system are those restrictions that do not significantly increase the cost of the system or significantly decrease its efficiency or specified performance, or that allow for an alternative system of comparable cost, efficiency, and energy conservation benefits.
(c) (1) A solar energy system shall meet applicable health and safety standards and requirements imposed by state and local permitting authorities.
(2) A solar energy system for heating water shall be certified by the Solar Rating Certification Corporation (SRCC) or other nationally recognized certification agencies. SRCC is a nonprofit third party supported by the United States Department of Energy. The certification shall be for the entire solar energy system and installation.
(3) A solar energy system for producing electricity shall also meet all applicable safety and performance standards established by the National Electrical Code, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and accredited testing laboratories such as Underwriters Laboratories and, where applicable, rules of the Public Utilities Commission regarding safety and reliability.
(d) For the purposes of this section:
(1) (A) For solar domestic water heating systems or solar swimming pool heating systems that comply with state and federal law, “significantly” means an amount exceeding 20 percent of the cost of the system or decreasing the efficiency of the solar energy system by an amount exceeding 20 percent, as originally specified and proposed.
(B) For photovoltaic systems that comply with state and federal law, “significantly” means an amount not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000) over the system cost as originally specified and proposed, or a decrease in system efficiency of an amount exceeding 20 percent as originally specified and proposed.
(2) “Solar energy system” has the same meaning as defined in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 801.5.
(e) (1) Whenever approval is required for the installation or use of a solar energy system, the application for approval shall be processed and approved by the appropriate approving entity in the same manner as an application for approval of an architectural modification to the property, and shall not be willfully avoided or delayed.
(2) For an approving entity that is an association, as defined in Section 4080 or 6528, and that is not a public entity, both of the following shall apply:
(A) The approval or denial of an application shall be in writing.
(B) If an application is not denied in writing within 60 days from the date of receipt of the application, the application shall be deemed approved, unless that delay is the result of a reasonable request for additional information.
(f) Any entity, other than a public entity, that willfully violates this section shall be liable to the applicant or other party for actual damages occasioned thereby, and shall pay a civil penalty to the applicant or other party in an amount not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000).
(g) In any action to enforce compliance with this section, the prevailing party shall be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees.
(h) (1) A public entity that fails to comply with this section may not receive funds from a state-sponsored grant or loan program for solar energy. A public entity shall certify its compliance with the requirements of this section when applying for funds from a state-sponsored grant or loan program.
(2) A local public entity may not exempt residents in its jurisdiction from the requirements of this section.

I'm the guy on the HOA Arch. Review Committee that reviews, advises and recommends on solar matters. As you may guess, I'm favorable to most solar projects, but try to keep an open mind w/respect to community sensibilities and balance that w/common sense and the law as much as possible.
Sec714(b) can be interesting. The operative word there being "reasonable". If someone wants to fill up their front yard with blue panels that would cause a lot of glare for their neighbors at large solar zenith angles, some, perhaps many folks may not think that reasonable. Something may need to be done in that case that would be in excess of the 20%/$2,000 #'s. That one would probably go to arbitration, or the courts. Or, a misuse of the CA law may happen if an overzealous HOA gets petty or vindictive and simply forces a redesign up to the 20%/$2,000 limit because the HOA Board members all have rectocranial insertion. I've not seen that yet, but it's possible. We've been mostly lucky in my HOA in that most owners are reasonable, common sense folks about the approval process. It seems the trick is to keep everyone informed. Boards and HOA's don't much care for being treated like an afterthought or ignored altogether. Tends to pissum off more than bring them around to your way of thinking and only makes it more difficult for them to fulfill their fiduciary responsibility to the rest of the community.

[OvertheSun]

I'm the guy on the HOA Arch. Review Committee that reviews, advises and recommends on solar matters. As you may guess, I'm favorable to most solar projects, but try to keep an open mind w/respect to community sensibilities and balance that w/common sense and the law as much as possible.
Sec714(b) can be interesting. The operative word there being "reasonable". If someone wants to fill up their front yard with blue panels that would cause a lot of glare for their neighbors at large solar zenith angles, some, perhaps many folks may not think that reasonable. Something may need to be done in that case that would be in excess of the 20%/$2,000 #'s. That one would probably go to arbitration, or the courts. Or, a misuse of the CA law may happen if an overzealous HOA gets petty or vindictive and simply forces a redesign up to the 20%/$2,000 limit because the HOA Board members all have rectocranial insertion. I've not seen that yet, but it's possible. We've been mostly lucky in my HOA in that most owners are reasonable, common sense folks about the approval process. It seems the trick is to keep everyone informed. Boards and HOA's don't much care for being treated like an afterthought or ignored altogether. Tends to pissum off more than bring them around to your way of thinking and only makes it more difficult for them to fulfill their fiduciary responsibility to the rest of the community.

If only you were on my HOA board....

[J.P.M.]

If only you were on my HOA board....

Further to the HOA business, It's my understanding from discussing such matters w/the HOA legal counsel, that while not having a license to dictate, the courts in CA generally Give HOA's a somewhat wide leeway when it come to aesthetics and community standards. Case law with regard to solar matters so far seems to favor HOA's but that may be due to the paucity of cases of that sort and/or because the matters were more clear cut than they might have been, IMO, w/the resident often being a bonehead about it.

[OvertheSun]

Further to the HOA business, It's my understanding from discussing such matters w/the HOA legal counsel, that while not having a license to dictate, the courts in CA generally Give HOA's a somewhat wide leeway when it come to aesthetics and community standards. Case law with regard to solar matters so far seems to favor HOA's but that may be due to the paucity of cases of that sort and/or because the matters were more clear cut than they might have been, IMO, w/the resident often being a bonehead about it.

I've only seen a few cases, but I haven't made an extensive search. Where HOAs just say "no", with no reason given, the homeowner has prevailed and has been awarded attorney's fees and costs. Ditto where the defendant is a local government.

When the HOA prevails, you are right, the homeowner typcially is a bonehead, usually proceeding without even making an application to the HOA for approval.

[OvertheSun]

Further to the HOA business, It's my understanding from discussing such matters w/the HOA legal counsel, that while not having a license to dictate, the courts in CA generally Give HOA's a somewhat wide leeway when it come to aesthetics and community standards. Case law with regard to solar matters so far seems to favor HOA's but that may be due to the paucity of cases of that sort and/or because the matters were more clear cut than they might have been, IMO, w/the resident often being a bonehead about it.

I think (f) and (g) are what keep most HOAs in check. Actual damages could include the difference in electric bill due to litigation, from denial to installation. With new ordinances coming online, I would argue for any increased costs resulting from new setbacks and possibly higher priced "class A" panels. Plus, what about the tree that the neighbor planted in the interim that grew to eventually shade the array before your install and the right to serve him with a solar easement? Damages have to be pled with particularity, but with solar, there's so much data that I doubt it would be hard to prove with a good damages expert. The civil penalty may be capped, but actual damages aren't capped.

And don't forget those attorney's fees.

[J.P.M.]

I think (f) and (g) are what keep most HOAs in check. Actual damages could include the difference in electric bill due to litigation, from denial to installation. With new ordinances coming online, I would argue for any increased costs resulting from new setbacks and possibly higher priced "class A" panels. Plus, what about the tree that the neighbor planted in the interim that grew to eventually shade the array before your install and the right to serve him with a solar easement? Damages have to be pled with particularity, but with solar, there's so much data that I doubt it would be hard to prove with a good damages expert. The civil penalty may be capped, but actual damages aren't capped.

And don't forget those attorney's fees.

All good talking points.
1.) f. may be a consideration for both sides of a dispute as is g. My experience w/g. is that it works more often for the HOA because it's the HOA's money, not the Board members, so they don't have as much if anything to lose. Homeowners rarely have the stomach for gambling on success or failure when it comes to paying court, arbitration or attorneys' fees. The Board can always justify spending money to defend something usually unpopular w/the community in general.
2.) New ordinances, depending on what they are, may or may not be applicable. For example, fire safety in the case of ridge setbacks would perhaps come under 714 c, applicable health and safety standards. Class A fire rating might fall under 714,c,3. as UL listing is mentioned but in a non specific sort of way.
3.) Trees usually fall under solar access laws. If you have unobstructed sunlight between 10 and 2 when the array went up, you get to keep it and the obstruction loses. I'm not sure what would be the outcome if a dispute went on so long that a tree grew into the solar access of an array after resolution began but before resolution, or someone built a structure in the same time frame. I suppose if intent was given before construction on an array, the owner/user may have a stronger position.
4.) For the little I know of it, I'd suspect a lot of situations will arise that will wind up determining what path the future holds. Until then, it's all speculation