Sunpower solar quote:

[OvertheSun]

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

#1 is the problem I have with HOAs in general (and mine in particular). What you describe above is a breach of fiduciary duty. When acting as a fiduciary, an individual is required to act based solely on the interests of the beneficiary, even to their own disadvantage. Fiduciary is the highest standard of care that the law recognizes. Similarly, but with a lower standard of care, when acting in a representative (agency) capacity, the interests of those that are represented should take precedence over those of the representative. My board still has a significant influence from the developer and builders and a there is still a non-homeowner on the board. Their interests may overlap to a degree, but are not perfectly aligned with those of the homeowners.

With respect to 2, I was speaking to damages. Of course the ordinances will have to be complied with and HOA is not responsible for code enforcement. But if the homeowner was delayed in installing his PV array, and the ordinances changed during that delay or for any other reason the cost goes up such that it now costs more to install the same number of Watts, and the HOA is found to be liable, then the homeowner was damaged in an amount equal to his increased cost and the HOA could be ordered to pay the homeowner the amount of those damages. If the homeowner couldn't put up as many Watts as he had originally planned because the ordinance changed and the HOA is responsible, then the damages the homeowner could be awarded include the value of the lost electricity that would have been produced over the life of the array. Those damages are more speculative, but I think a good damages expert could convince a judge or jury to award a significant amount.

3 isn't that simple. If a tree exists when you put up an array, and it later grows to shade your array, you are at the mercy of the tree owner. But if you put up an array and then someone plants a tree, you can force him to cut it back or down completely if you provided notice of your claim to a solar easement when you put up the array. The easement runs with the property and is effective against subsequent owners. So, although it might be a rare occurrence, if your neighbor plants a tree while you are litigating with the HOA, the HOA could be held liable for the loss of production you will suffer when the tree grows to shade your array, because "but for" the HOA's illegal rejection of your solar application, and the delay it caused in installing your array, you would have been able to serve a solar easement on your neighbor and control the shade to your array. You lost a right due to the HOA's improper action and as a result you suffered damages. HOA has to pay.

[bando]

in my neighborhood pretty much anything you erect that is more than 8' tall (including trees, play structures, basketball hoops, etc.) requires HOA approval.

in general, we do need every HOA to have a solar advocate or at least a solar homeowner on the ARC. as i've mentioned before, our neighborhood of 93 homes has 5 solar customers. every person here spends at least $400-500 in electric per month. every house here has roof space for solar. the first person that went solar here back in 2009 has their south facing roof in the front yard and they put over 70 panels all over their house. yeah- not pretty but you know what, she fought the HOA and won. and she is still "winning" while the neighbors are paying SDGE

i agree that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but one of my personal aesthetic goals was to keep the keep the arrays rectangular and/or symmetrical. for me it was easy to do because i have the space. i also do not have it exposed to the front (and i have no neighbor behind me) so the only neighbor i had to have sign off was my West neighbor. but generally, i'm with Vol and silver - large slabs, not staggered, and not right on the front of your house would be preferred. i've seen some older installations around town and man there are some that are just a hot mess. that said, i would never NOT sign off on a neighbors or disallow a solar project like that if i was on the ARC.

and thank you JPM for serving as a solar advisor on your HOA ARC. sometimes we forget that HOA board members and committee members are volunteers and are there to do a thankless job.

[J.P.M.]

#1 is the problem I have with HOAs in general (and mine in particular). What you describe above is a breach of fiduciary duty. When acting as a fiduciary, an individual is required to act based solely on the interests of the beneficiary, even to their own disadvantage. Fiduciary is the highest standard of care that the law recognizes. Similarly, but with a lower standard of care, when acting in a representative (agency) capacity, the interests of those that are represented should take precedence over those of the representative. My board still has a significant influence from the developer and builders and a there is still a non-homeowner on the board. Their interests may overlap to a degree, but are not perfectly aligned with those of the homeowners.

With respect to 2, I was speaking to damages. Of course the ordinances will have to be complied with and HOA is not responsible for code enforcement. But if the homeowner was delayed in installing his PV array, and the ordinances changed during that delay or for any other reason the cost goes up such that it now costs more to install the same number of Watts, and the HOA is found to be liable, then the homeowner was damaged in an amount equal to his increased cost and the HOA could be ordered to pay the homeowner the amount of those damages. If the homeowner couldn't put up as many Watts as he had originally planned because the ordinance changed and the HOA is responsible, then the damages the homeowner could be awarded include the value of the lost electricity that would have been produced over the life of the array. Those damages are more speculative, but I think a good damages expert could convince a judge or jury to award a significant amount.

3 isn't that simple. If a tree exists when you put up an array, and it later grows to shade your array, you are at the mercy of the tree owner. But if you put up an array and then someone plants a tree, you can force him to cut it back or down completely if you provided notice of your claim to a solar easement when you put up the array. The easement runs with the property and is effective against subsequent owners. So, although it might be a rare occurrence, if your neighbor plants a tree while you are litigating with the HOA, the HOA could be held liable for the loss of production you will suffer when the tree grows to shade your array, because "but for" the HOA's illegal rejection of your solar application, and the delay it caused in installing your array, you would have been able to serve a solar easement on your neighbor and control the shade to your array. You lost a right due to the HOA's improper action and as a result you suffered damages. HOA has to pay.

Overthesun:

I agree it's a violation of fiduciary responsibility and I'm certainly not condoning it, but, right or wrong, it does happen as you confirm as being a problem you seem to be familiar with. I'm only suggesting folks be aware of it as one of the landmines of dealing w/ HOA's.

I'm not trying to duck out on damages, but I'm out of my element. As I've suggested several times, seek legal advice. That's why God made lawyers. However, FWIW, I might think 20%/$2,000 limit might have some bearing on liability for lost production/increased cost. If capacity is decreased by <= 20% as may be allowed by the Act, does that mean that the HOA is off the hook for lost production for the expected life of the array caused by that <=20% allowed decrease ? And if so, what bearing, if any, does that have on lost future production in general for other (perhaps ancillary) reasons such as code changes. To be adjudicated I guess.

I stand corrected on priority. A prior existing tree/shrub is not required to be removed or trimmed if my reading of the Shade Control Act is correct. Mea Culpa.

Also, after rereading my copy of the Shade Control Act, and if it is correct and current, I wonder if what you wrote about damages from lost production due to delays would still apply if the solar owner provided the vegetation owner with a notice of intent per the Shade Control Act (which would seem prudent to me, assuming the solar owner was acting in good faith and perhaps due to my limited knowledge of the law). If HOA involvement and resolution took longer than the initial notice date given, would not the extension as described in sec. 25982.1(b) with further notifications as described be applicable ? From my ignorant perusal it seems that the solar owner is not required to serve initial notice of intent. However, if that is correct, I'd ask several perhaps equally ignorant questions: Do solar owners have some responsibilities to be aware of their situation and take appropriate and timely actions ? And if they do have some such responsibility and subsequently fail to take action, is another party, in this case the HOA, and its membership responsible for the solar owner's lack of action ? Looks like you may be suggesting if the solar owner doesn't notify, the HOA and thus other homeowners may be holding the bag. Finally, if initial notice of intent is given, does that make any subsequent notification per 25982.1(b) a requirement ?

Just curious (and a bit humbled).

Respectfully,

J.P.M.

[russ]

Have fun with those HOA's - I would never consider being part of one!

[OvertheSun]

See my comments below in red (I hope I did that right.....)

Overthesun:
I agree it's a violation of fiduciary responsibility and I'm certainly not condoning it, but, right or wrong, it does happen as you confirm as being a problem you seem to be familiar with. I'm only suggesting folks be aware of it as one of the landmines of dealing w/ HOA's. [COLOR="#FF0000"]I agree. I think we're on the same side here - just coming at it from different perspectives. I would never suggest that you should initially approach an HOA or any government or quasi-government entity with guns drawn. Just have them holstered in case you need them. There are a few people like you out there who take their responsibilities seriously and lots who have agendas and resumes to pad

I'm not trying to duck out on damages, but I'm out of my element. As I've suggested several times, seek legal advice. That's why God made lawyers. God did not make lawyers. LOL! However, FWIW, I might think 20%/$2,000 limit might have some bearing on liability for lost production/increased cost. Lawyers love damages. If the HOA sticks to the 20%/$2k limit, then it will prevail and damages won't be an issue

If capacity is decreased by <= 20% as may be allowed by the Act, does that mean that the HOA is off the hook for lost production for the expected life of the array caused by that <=20% allowed decrease ?
Yes. If they stick to the rules, then there's no case. But keep in mind that the HOA can't demand you make cosmetic changes that would reduce productivity more than 20% OR cost more than $2,000k. From the quotes I've seen, they'll probably hit $2k before 20%

And if so, what bearing, if any, does that have on lost future production in general for other (perhaps ancillary) reasons such as code changes. To be adjudicated I guess.
Damages don't come into the equation until after the merits of a case are determined. If the HOA followed the rules and the homeowner loses the case, there are no damages. But if the HOA was wrong in withholding permission to install solar, then it is liable for the damage ($$) it caused to the homeowner. The question is how much did it cost the homeowner? We're not talking about any special type of damages, like punitive damages or treble damages a court can award in some cases to teach a lesson. This is an acutal determination of what would put the homeowner in the position he would have been in had it not been for the HOA's wrongful denial. If he now has to have more expensive panels or set backs or auto-switch offs because he had to wait until 2015 instead of 2014, and the HOA caused the delay wrongfully, then the HOA may have to make it up to the homeowner. If I was on a HOA board, I'd be really careful between now and 12-31-16 when the federal tax credit expires.

I stand corrected on priority. A prior existing tree/shrub is not required to be removed or trimmed if my reading of the Shade Control Act is correct. Mea Culpa. That's my reading, too. So it always good to be friendly with your neighbors.

Also, after rereading my copy of the Shade Control Act, and if it is correct and current, I wonder if what you wrote about damages from lost production due to delays would still apply if the solar owner provided the vegetation owner with a notice of intent per the Shade Control Act (which would seem prudent to me, assuming the solar owner was acting in good faith and perhaps due to my limited knowledge of the law). If HOA involvement and resolution took longer than the initial notice date given, would not the extension as described in sec. 25982.1(b) with further notifications as described be applicable ? From my ignorant perusal it seems that the solar owner is not required to serve initial notice of intent. However, if that is correct, I'd ask several perhaps equally ignorant questions: Do solar owners have some responsibilities to be aware of their situation and take appropriate and timely actions ? And if they do have some such responsibility and subsequently fail to take action, is another party, in this case the HOA, and its membership responsible for the solar owner's lack of action ? Looks like you may be suggesting if the solar owner doesn't notify, the HOA and thus other homeowners may be holding the bag. Finally, if initial notice of intent is given, does that make any subsequent notification per 25982.1(b) a requirement ?
Yes. My interpretation of all the notice provisions is to prevent the vegetation owner from planting a tree that would shade the array when he informally learns of his neighbor's plans before the array is actually installed or even when he has no idea and just wants to plant a tree. Under such a scenario, the vegetation owner could plant a tree the day before a planned install and avoid coming under the law. But the notice gives the array owner (who may have signed a contract for the install after carefully considering the shading issues from existing vegetation), the ability to avoid having his planned array undermined - whether intentionally or not. It only protects the array owner for a short window of time - once he is planning an installation, but before he actually installs. I think it would be prudent to give that notice to the neighbor, but not required. Similarly it would be prudent to give the follow up notice if the install is delayed. The provision about subsequent notice for delay uses "shall", which I read as if you don't follow-up when you have a delay, the first notice is void.

The damages I mentioned were not directly tied to the notice, and would probably apply in only a small number of circumstances. Imagine the homeowner wrongfully denied approval from the HOA. He now has to litigate and that takes months or years. In the meantime, the neighbor plants a tree that will eventually shade the homeowner's prime solar roof space and the homeowner will lose productivity when his array is finally installed. There's no action he can take against the vegetation owner because the solar shade act exempts vegetation existing before the solar is installed. That is a type of damage that the homeowner would not have suffered if the HOA had just approved his application as it should have. It might be a good idea for a prospective homeowner to notify the neighbor of his intent before his HOA approval or rejection is recieved, and then to follow up with a notice of delay every 60 days until the installation. But I don't think a court would find whether he did that or not dispostive since the homeowner would not have known when the install would take place until all the approvals had been received, and couldn't calculate the "not more than 60 days before" until then. Other courts could decide that the homeowner didn't do all he could have done to mitigate damages (by not noticing the neighbor) and could deny the damage claim or apportion responsibility and reduce the award proportionately.


Just curious (and a bit humbled).

You shouldn't be humbled at all. You know an incredible amount about solar and I learn from you and many others every time I read this board! I just try to bring a little something, if I can, while I'm learning....
Respectfully,

J.P.M.

[OvertheSun]

and thank you JPM for serving as a solar advisor on your HOA ARC.

Ditto that, and on this board, too!

[J.P.M.]

Have fun with those HOA's - I would never consider being part of one!

Why not ? You seem eminently qualified. I even bet you can aggravate people more than I can. That seems to be the prime requisite where I live.

[russ]

Why not ? You seem eminently qualified. I even bet you can aggravate people more than I can. That seems to be the prime requisite where I live.

I can do a great job of aggravating people! That seemed to be a major part of my job description when I worked in various countries around the world - India in particular.

[J.P.M.]

I can do a great job of aggravating people! That seemed to be a major part of my job description when I worked in various countries around the world - India in particular.

When I was working some folks claimed I pissed them off like it was part of my job description. I think I worked hard too.

[jsteach]

Had some time, have a few estimates.

This is the --IN HOUSE-- Sunpower estimate
Year 1 Estimated Production: 9,334 KWH
6.54 kW (DC), 5.80 kW (AC) SunPower System
20 x SunPower E20/327 Solar Panel
Solar Mount Mounting System
1 x SPR-6000p-TL (240)
Proposal Economics
System Cost $32,046
net cost is 22,432
cost is $3.43 kw

Sunpower Dealer estimate.
STC-DC Rating 5.232 KW
CEC-AC Rating 4.605 KW
estimated annual production 8,185KWH 57%
total price $ 22,219.50
EPBB Incentive $0.20 per KWH $918.00
federal tax credit $6,390.45
total out of pocket $14,911.05
includes:
16-SUNPOWER SPR-E20-327/Watt modules with 25 year limited production warranty
1 SUNPOWER - SPR5000m Inverter with 10 yr warranty
1 SUNPOWER Webconnect Interface type Data Module
cost per kw $2.85
using 16-SUNPOWER X21 345 W modules $15,738.00
cost per kw $3.00

Same Sunpower Dealer ,
STC-DC Rating 4.160 KW
CEC-AC Rating 3.678 KW
estimated annual production 6,587 KWH 46%
total price 14,579.09
EPBB Incentive$0.20per KWH $733.00
federal tax credit 30% $4,153.83
total out of pocket $9,692.26
system description:
16-RenaSola 260M modules with 25 year limited production warranty
1 SMA Sunnyboy SB5000TL Inverters with 10 yr warranty
1 SMA Webconnect Interface type Data Module
cost per watt $2.32


la solar
8.5 kW Grid-Tied PV System
Annual Solar Production ( 1st Year )* 12,500 kWh
System Cost
Total System Cost Installed $33,830
Less: Rebate $1,360
Less: Federal Tax Credit $9,741
Net Solar Investment: $22,729
Solar Equipment
QtyEnphase M215 Microinverters 34
Canadian Solar 250Watt Modules 34
cost per watt $2.65

Most sound very good?

[J.P.M.]

Had some time, have a few estimates.

This is the --IN HOUSE-- Sunpower estimate
Year 1 Estimated Production: 9,334 KWH
6.54 kW (DC), 5.80 kW (AC) SunPower System
20 x SunPower E20/327 Solar Panel
Solar Mount Mounting System
1 x SPR-6000p-TL (240)
Proposal Economics
System Cost $32,046
net cost is 22,432
cost is $3.43 kw

Sunpower Dealer estimate.
STC-DC Rating 5.232 KW
CEC-AC Rating 4.605 KW
estimated annual production 8,185KWH 57%
total price $ 22,219.50
EPBB Incentive $0.20 per KWH $918.00
federal tax credit $6,390.45
total out of pocket $14,911.05
includes:
16-SUNPOWER SPR-E20-327/Watt modules with 25 year limited production warranty
1 SUNPOWER - SPR5000m Inverter with 10 yr warranty
1 SUNPOWER Webconnect Interface type Data Module
cost per kw $2.85
using 16-SUNPOWER X21 345 W modules $15,738.00
cost per kw $3.00

Same Sunpower Dealer ,
STC-DC Rating 4.160 KW
CEC-AC Rating 3.678 KW
estimated annual production 6,587 KWH 46%
total price 14,579.09
EPBB Incentive$0.20per KWH $733.00
federal tax credit 30% $4,153.83
total out of pocket $9,692.26
system description:
16-RenaSola 260M modules with 25 year limited production warranty
1 SMA Sunnyboy SB5000TL Inverters with 10 yr warranty
1 SMA Webconnect Interface type Data Module
cost per watt $2.32


la solar
8.5 kW Grid-Tied PV System
Annual Solar Production ( 1st Year )* 12,500 kWh
System Cost
Total System Cost Installed $33,830
Less: Rebate $1,360
Less: Federal Tax Credit $9,741
Net Solar Investment: $22,729
Solar Equipment
QtyEnphase M215 Microinverters 34
Canadian Solar 250Watt Modules 34
cost per watt $2.65

Most sound very good?

1.) Prices seem mostly in line w/CSI database for equipment quoted. If no/minimal shading, string inverters may be a less expensive option for the last quote. Pros/cons of practical sit. perhaps needs to be considered. Some folks like'um, some don't. Jury's still out.
2.) DEPENDING ON ORIENTATION and shading, performance est.'s MAY be a bit lower than you may actually see. Performance . est. for quotes 2 & 3 may be more accurate. Also note 2 & 3 estimate production of about the same kWhrs./yr. per Kw of system size- 1.56kWhrs./yr. per nameplate kW. vs. 1.58 same units. The 20+ % Sunpower price premium vs. possible warranty/long term cost effectiveness advantages is something that may need careful consideration. See below.
3.) At ~~ 14,500 kWhrs. /yr. usage if my memory serves correctly, these systems will probably not be oversized - REAL WILD SWAG - ~~ 10500-12500 kWhrs. /yr. system output for min. $/kWhr. cost for remainder of POCO power required.
4.) Balancing what I wrote in 2 and 3 above with long term cost effectiveness, and in spite of what I often rant about, I'd respectfully suggest if you are space limited, you MAY be in one of those situations where Sunpower MAY be cost effective and also meet your other goals, particularly at $4.25/Watt - not a bad price compared to other Sunpower quoted prices - I'd do some vendor checking on that one. If they're an elec. contractor that's been around a while with a good track record they may be a keeper.
5.) Still, other reputable panels may also be something to consider. I wouldn't waste a vendor's time if the choice has already been made, but you may find other reputable panels and equipment for about the same or maybe a bit less $$'s from other reputable vendors.
6.) You have time. Read, research, ask a lot of questions, don't be rushed. Be deliberate. Fed. tax credits run 3 more years, 2014, 2015 and 2016. Don't be rushed. A good deal today will still be good next month.

[jsteach]

Thanks J.P.M.
The part I having the most trouble with is; I'm at 1200kwh month, 800 in tier 3 and 4 and trying to reduce that # to zero or close to it at .30 per kwh.
Everyone has there own idea how big of a system that will take. With net metering for pay back I'm somewhat lost.....

[slopoke]

Had some time, have a few estimates.

This is the --IN HOUSE-- Sunpower estimate
Year 1 Estimated Production: 9,334 KWH
6.54 kW (DC), 5.80 kW (AC) SunPower System
20 x SunPower E20/327 Solar Panel
Solar Mount Mounting System
1 x SPR-6000p-TL (240)
Proposal Economics
System Cost $32,046
net cost is 22,432
cost is $3.43 kw

Sunpower Dealer estimate.
STC-DC Rating 5.232 KW
CEC-AC Rating 4.605 KW
estimated annual production 8,185KWH 57%
total price $ 22,219.50
EPBB Incentive $0.20 per KWH $918.00
federal tax credit $6,390.45
total out of pocket $14,911.05
includes:
16-SUNPOWER SPR-E20-327/Watt modules with 25 year limited production warranty
1 SUNPOWER - SPR5000m Inverter with 10 yr warranty
1 SUNPOWER Webconnect Interface type Data Module
cost per kw $2.85
using 16-SUNPOWER X21 345 W modules $15,738.00
cost per kw $3.00

Same Sunpower Dealer ,
STC-DC Rating 4.160 KW
CEC-AC Rating 3.678 KW
estimated annual production 6,587 KWH 46%
total price 14,579.09
EPBB Incentive$0.20per KWH $733.00
federal tax credit 30% $4,153.83
total out of pocket $9,692.26
system description:
16-RenaSola 260M modules with 25 year limited production warranty
1 SMA Sunnyboy SB5000TL Inverters with 10 yr warranty
1 SMA Webconnect Interface type Data Module
cost per watt $2.32


la solar
8.5 kW Grid-Tied PV System
Annual Solar Production ( 1st Year )* 12,500 kWh
System Cost
Total System Cost Installed $33,830
Less: Rebate $1,360
Less: Federal Tax Credit $9,741
Net Solar Investment: $22,729
Solar Equipment
QtyEnphase M215 Microinverters 34
Canadian Solar 250Watt Modules 34
cost per watt $2.65

Most sound very good?

I had a little time, so I did a little research for you and hopefully my sorting of the spread sheet was correct. Looking at the SunPower systems installed in your three zip codes. I sorted the CSI data to the panels that you want and the number of panels that you need (20-21). For 20 of the 327 panels the cheapest total price is $32,308 and the highest is $36,624, an average of the four installations is $5.30 per watt before incentives. The average installed price of the nine 21 panel systems came to $5.32 per watt before incentives. I found an installation in La Jolla, using the same panels and quantity of yours, it was $28,678, which is $4.38 a watt before incentives. I assume the demographics of your city probably slants your price to the higher side.

I missed the second quote, that looks like a reasonable price per watt.

[J.P.M.]

Thanks J.P.M.
The part I having the most trouble with is; I'm at 1200kwh month, 800 in tier 3 and 4 and trying to reduce that # to zero or close to it at .30 per kwh.
Everyone has there own idea how big of a system that will take. With net metering for pay back I'm somewhat lost.....

You're welcome.

You're not alone - it's involved. Not conceptually difficult perhaps, but a lot of things interacting in often unexpected and unpredictable ways, and not a whole lot of authoritative, understandable explanation from the powers that be. I've found it to be somewhat manageable however.

Start w/ conservation - it's much more cost effective than solar electricity.

After that,

1.) I am unfamiliar with your utility's rate structure.
2.) I suspect it may be similar in some respects to what I am somewhat familiar with - SDG & E in that there are tiers and rates/tier, probably 4 tiers, 1 & 2 being about half or less what 3 & 4 are as a gross oversimplification.
3.) I'd suggest you do your own research, PITA as it may be and learn how your bill is determined by the power co. (POCO for short). An hr. or 2 invested pays big dividends.
4.) I'd start with your bills and become familiar with what each # in them means and where that # comes from. The POCO must publish information about what they charge for things that make up a bill. There is likely what SDG & E calls a tariff book for your POCO. It will contain all the different rates. There are probably something like 100 or more different rate schedules for different user categories - businesses, farms, municipalities, homes, etc. with sub categories for example for municipal street lighting, demand charges etc. You probably want to focus on residential, tiered rates, T.O.U rates and perhaps electric vehicles for starters. Tiered rates are probably not hour sensitive or your POCO but may be season sensitive.
5.) Once you get comfortable with how a bill is constructed, it's rather easy to construct a spreadsheet that will allow you to nail what a bill will be, at least for tiered rates, by "month". To do that you will also need info on your billing schedule, (probably not on the 1st of the month), min. per diem charges and probably some other stuff I'm ignorant about with respect to your POCO. By doing such a spreadsheet, you will also be able to see in a snap what effect increased or decreased usage will have on your bill. BTW: your use is almost certainly not the same from month/month. Thinking that will likely lead to inaccuracies and throw future solar cost effectiveness estimates off. Depending on climate and use patterns, you may be 900kWhrs. one billing period and 1400 some other billing period. Also, if your on something like balanced billing - same$$/mo. adjusted 1X/yr. or such - get off it - your probably getting screwed a little bit.
6.)To perhaps the guts of your question: If your rate structure is similar to mine, a pretty good first approximation to a cost effective system when on tiered rates seems to start with getting rid of all or most of the Tier 3 & 4 use as it appears on your bill. Tier's 1 & 2 probably cost you something like $.15-$.18/kWhr. Tiers 3 & 4 something like $.36-$.39/kWhr. or so. Solar generated electricity is expensive stuff, hopefully less than maybe $.35/kWhr. as a levelized cost of electricity (LCOE for short, a $/Watt figure that lumps all the expense of owning a solar generator over its projected life and expresses it as one $/kWhr. figure with considerations for maint. of the system, borrowing costs, offset expenses - lower bills, etc. and as much other stuff as YOU want to consider. Sort of but not identical to a something called a life cycle cost.), but almost certainly a lot more than $.15-$.18/kWhr. from Tier 1 & 2. What this means to you is that it probably is not cost effective to replace the stuff you're paying the least amount for.
7.) T.O.U. (Time Of Use) rates may or may not be to your benefit depending on your use patterns. Study how your POCO handles T.O.U. They are not all the same. It's a bit involved in that you will need to ESTIMATE what your hourly use pattern is for 8760 hrs. - I.E. each hour of a representative year, calculate 12 monthly bills based on that estimate using the T.O.U rates schedule(s) and compare that to the tiered bill. Also, the different rate structure than for tiered rates is hourly dependent. Usually the more draconian charges are summer weekdays, mid morning to late afternoon; lower at other times like weekends, at night or all winter when demand is mostly lower. Folks home all day w/kids and a lot going on during the day are likely candidates for T.O.U. rates. Yuppies and singles out working all day, and conservation minded folks or those with low bills may be better off w/ tiered rates. Every situation is different. Benefits also seem to be sensitive to the accuracy of the estimated use patterns I mentioned above.
8.) In CA, most residential grid tied systems are on something called net metering. For tiered rates, the utility charges you for the net you draw over what you generate per billing period at tiered rates. Similar for T.O.U. but net charges may be calculated differently for your POCO. BTW: In CA POCO's pay about $.05/kWhr. or less for excess generation. Another reason why oversizing is probably not cost effective. As I suggested, doing the homework and learning how your POCO calc's rates can pay off big. PITA - for sure. It does pay dividends. Want nice ? - pay nice.
9.) I am aware that most people have neither the time or the inclination to go thorough a lot or any of what I describe above, but it's perhaps something to think about. If you attempt some of it, I'd bet you'll be less lost.
10.) As a final suggestion, read AB 327. It may very well have a large impact on electric rates and how solar and net metering is handled in CA in the future. 1st read took me about 45 min. FWIW.

Welcome to the neighborhood.