Cost per Watt in SF Bay Area?; system cost difference with SolarEdge vs. SMA?

[jonathan]

Looking for 2015 options in Bay Area

Thanks to all the great info people are posting here! Very helpful all the way around - pricing, installers (via pm's), optimizers, monitoring, Zigbee's etc. Hopefully bay area solar shoppers for 2015 will find this thread.

I've been lurking for a month or two, but not near the 10-post PM limit yet. Great thread thus far. Thanks all!

I'm in Mountain View also, will3700 ... and would love to talk about your experience if you have a moment.

Others - if you're willing to PM me to share some of your installer info that would be great. Thus far I'm still in the early research stage/quote stage. I suspect we'll try to have an install done closer to October after the peak summer season ... and also because we were out of our house for a remodel for most of 2014 and our 12-month trailing history is out of whack with many months of ~40kwh usage. I've started getting some quotes from the big national leasing companies which proposed system designs but have quickly realized that a purchase will make more sense for us.

I suspect our system needs are on the smaller side - likely 4k - so would appreciate if anybody is willing to share installers to seriously consider or to at least request bids from.

Jonathan

[araghava]

I bought the system myself and had it installed by my General Contractor. 3.6Kw system. 3$/Kw for a total price of 11,000.

[ktran1]

@araghava,
Can you PM me the general contractor contact info? Thanks

[ab26]

@araghava,

Could you PM your general contractor contact info? (I recently joined and do not have enough authority to send PMs)

[araghava]

@araghava,

Could you PM your general contractor contact info? (I recently joined and do not have enough authority to send PMs)

PM sent

[happyfunball]

I sent you a pm.

Artie, please PM me as well. Thanks!

[awhite]

For my 5 Kw system, I bought 18 280w Solarworld panels in Campbell and brought them home, so no shipping charges. Then i ordered the rest (Solaredge SE5000, optimizers, Ironridge rails, Quickmounts) from Renvu in Mountain View. They are very helpful. I found an installer from Nabcep's website. I worked on the solar permit application, submitted it and got approved. I'm working thru the PG&E documents now. $15k for 5Kw or $3/watt.

[jonathan]

I am looking for some feedback on the options we’re seeing for our house in silicon valley, and whether my logic thus far is flawed.

Goals & Demand :
* We’d like to invest in solar to reduce our electricity costs for the long haul, since we don’t anticipate moving. While we do have some warm and fuzzy feelings around solar, we’re generally approaching this looking for ROI. We’re looking to purchase the system.

* Our house was recently remodeled, and very energy efficient. We anticipate our usage year-round is probably around 550kwh/mo. Most of heavy energy-using appliances are gas - range (but not oven), water heater, furnace, clothes dryer. No A/C, efficient lighting and appliances.

* Both cars are gasoline-powered, though when we replace a car in 4-7 years, there’s a good chance it will be either a plug-in hybrid or electric.

Locations for system:

* We have a fair amount of roof space for pv, though several of our roofs are flat, or tilting in a non-ideal direction. From conversations with several different firms, the best options appear to be on top of our flat garage, with some shading in winter from a tree we like, or in the center of our house with basically no shading.

* In our situation, then, we’ll have some panels tilted on top of the garage, or reverse-tilted on some of the roofs. We are concerned about aesthetics, however in the locations that we’ve chosen they will not be visible from the street, and generally obscured from other angles. But it looks like the tilt mechanisms are increasing the costs for the bids.

Size:
* We anticipate moving to a TOU plan with PG&E, and the sweet spot appears to be in the 4kw-5kwdc range, depending upon how much overcapacity we want to build in to offset future usage within the home, or future vehicles.


Bids & Technology Choice:
We’ve got about half a dozen bids thus far, and one conclusion that we’ve come to is we don’t want to pay for SunPower — we don’t need the extra efficiency given our roof sizes, and the premium for the warranty doesn’t matter that much right now to us.

The technologies for the bids vary from single inverter, to solar optimizers, to enphase m250 microinverters. We’re leaning at this point to using microinverters for a few reasons — shade in a few locations of our roof, the hypothetical ability to expand w/o replacing an inverter [though this isn’t a huge issue for us], as well as our belief that when the microinverters fail, that the labor to replace them in our case (with reverse-tilt, or tilt panels) will make it relatively painless.

QUESTION 1: Based upon our description above, do others agree with the logic presented above?

For potentially several reasons the bids that we’re seeing are somewhat higher than what I’m seeing on the board. I can’t tell whether it’s (a) the Bay Area is expensive (b) by generally choosing to work with highly rated firms on Yelp or elsewhere, I’m paying a premium (c) my system size is relatively small and so there are fewer kw to amortize start-up costs around labor, etc, or profit, (d) the materials and/or engineering of doing tilt or reverse tilt adds to the mounting costs, (e) I haven’t tried to negotiate on pricing yet, or (f) other?

Ignoring SunPower bids which are generally over $5/watt, I’m seeing things in the $4.20-4.50/kwh range. These are all with Enphase m250, the upgraded per-panel monitoring, and generally 10 (sometimes 15) year warranty of product/install. A few have guarantees in terms of production, but their targets are usually 8-10% lower than what pvwatts defaults (for azimuth/tilt) suggest is possible.

QUESTION 2: Should I realistically be expecting better pricing then I’m getting?

PANEL BRAND:

Finally, there’s the issue of brand of panel. I get that some panels are more efficient per square foot of roof space, though in our circumstances we really don’t have a problem installing 18 panels at this point … and hypothetically could look into installing others in the future in other roof locations. So while I would like to have panels be more efficient since I’d get an additional few hundred watts total across our entire system, I don’t need to bend over backwards for that.

So, my logic then turns to the potential failure rate and warranty issues with a panel.
In a perfect world I’m looking for a brand of panel with a company behind it to fulfill warranty obligations in years 11-25. To that end, I kind of like large, well-diversified conglomerates that will continue to exist. For example, LG, which is one of the brands being quoted.

But I want to be pragmatic about the costs to deal with warranty replacement. Because we are using microinverters, my thinking is that I have flexibility in terms of what the replacement panel is like. In theory it just needs to be a 60 cell panel under 310 watts … which presumably will cost less then what they do today. And thus if 15 years down the line the time/effort/cost to get a single panel replaced under warranty, then I have some options.

QUESTION 3: Is my logic on warranty flawed?

Finally, to brand specifics. Most of the installers I’m talking to have a variety of brands, and LG seems to be the sweet spot in terms of brand, efficiency, production, and cost for most installers.

Except one installer that I generally like, and appears to do quality work, is suggesting Suniva panels. Specifically a 275w variant: the Suniva Optimus 275-60-4-1B0. It looks like the wholesale cost of these panels is closer to $1.10/w whereas the LG 300s are around $1.40 a watt, which clearly will help the margins on the installer. But if the price/quality of the install seem “fair”, and if I don’t need the additional 25*18=450w that I’m missing out by that lower panel output, then I’d simply judge the economics of the total $/watt install.

QUESTION 4: Is my logic on just focusing on $/w in this context right? I know that ~18 of these lower-output panels are about the same as ~16.5 higher efficiency panels, but when I look at the final $/w, and i know I “have the space”, this doesn’t really seem to matter to me. Am I wrong?

Finally, t I just can’t tell whether I should seriously be considering the Suniva brand, and don’t understand if they aren’t more widely used in residential for reasons that I should care about. And I don’t know if I am going to trust what I hear from sales folks at the various installers I’m considering.

QUESTION 5: Is there something “wrong” with Suniva panels? Should I worry about the financial health of this private company in years 2026 to 2040, or, if the panel is going to fail, is it likely to be DOA? Or am I just not seeing the SunPower-level of marketing, and that’s coloring my view?

Anyway, we’d appreciate any feedback that others have on our thinking, the five questions above. If you’re reading this and have a good experience with installation in this area, I’d love to receive a PM with more detailed information on your choice.

Thanks!

[J.P.M.]

First: With a usage that small, you may have difficulty making any solar equipment cost effective. Run the #'s w/an EV and remember that TOU rates for super off peak charging may be a lot less than other rates and may change the economics. Using (additional) solar to offset charging that costs, say, $0.10/kWh, or a lot less than regular rates may not be justifiable.

Second: Find PVWatts on the net, read all the help/info screens twice, and make a few runs.

Third, get familiar with upcoming rate reform. With low usage such as yours, your bills will likely be going up. That will impact the finances/decisions regarding solar. Consider that it may not be cost effective to offset your entire load (or any at all at your usage) with solar.

Responses to questions:

1.) No shade == string inverter.
2.) Probably. Get more quotes and negotiate hard but fair.
3.) If you choose quality equipment, most warranties are about equal in practical, realistic terms. Read the fine print on a warranty. You may come to the conclusion that it's pretty difficult to make a warranty claim and have it honored.
4.) Don't focus on # of panels. Focus on system (electrical) size. Most equal size arrays in the same location, orientation and duty will produce about equal annual output for a long time. Note that PVWatts implies this by using "standard" (most everyone) or "premium" (Sunpower), and even then, not much difference in output between those 2 choices. Focus on a quality vendor who will be around in 10 years, and quality equipment.
5.) "Wrong" may not be the right word or approach. Suniva seems a known name. There will probably be a lot of companies failing/getting absorbed in the future, maybe more failing than surviving in some form, particularly after 12/31/2016. Time will tell.

[jonathan]

Thanks, @J.P.M. Great feedback. An alternative that I'm considering to reduce costs is to skip the whole reverse tilt, and add additional capacity (since I don't have space constraints on the roof) to compensate for the less than ideal ~60 degrees azimuth with 12 degree pitch roof. Playing with pvwatts suggests that the multiplier from system size to annual kwh production would likely reduce from 145% to 129%, necessitating perhaps 12% additional generation capacity. I can run the numbers with bids to see whether I win out one way or the other. Other than bottom-line costs (up front, as well as potential with additional panels that I might have additional maintenance costs), is there anything wrong with this approach?

[J.P.M.]

Thanks, @J.P.M. Great feedback. An alternative that I'm considering to reduce costs is to skip the whole reverse tilt, and add additional capacity (since I don't have space constraints on the roof) to compensate for the less than ideal ~60 degrees azimuth with 12 degree pitch roof. Playing with pvwatts suggests that the multiplier from system size to annual kwh production would likely reduce from 145% to 129%, necessitating perhaps 12% additional generation capacity. I can run the numbers with bids to see whether I win out one way or the other. Other than bottom-line costs (up front, as well as potential with additional panels that I might have additional maintenance costs), is there anything wrong with this approach?

You're welcome. opinions vary.

Beyond questioning the cost effectiveness of doing this at all because of the low usage, I'd skip the reverse tilt portion and concentrate on lowering consumption, and seeing how far usage goes down. Then, resize and get revised quotes before getting solar. Just remember that under current legislation, fed. tax credits will reduce to 10% from 30% on 12/31/2016.

[jonathan]

concentrate on lowering consumption, and seeing how far usage goes down.

Ultimately, we've done everything we can to lower consumption -- the house is pretty bare-bones. The largest amount of electricity we use is related to our ERV/fan system, which consumes somewhere between 0.2-0.4kw each hour every day. It was effectively a Title 24 requirement for our house, and it does help keep our natural gas usage low, even if it drives our electricity demand up.

Any additional good pointers on AB327 implications? I've spent some time searching, and PG&E's consumer-facing material/propaganda clearly shows that we'll be moving to a two-tier system ultimately, with above-baseline costs not substantially larger than baseline rates, but it's unclear what the impact will be on baseline kwh rates -- aside from a $10/mo+inflation meter connection fee.

From what I've read, it seems like if we move onto a TOU plan with solar, we'll be grandfathered for NEM for 20 years, for installs <mid-2017. From that perspective, solar seems like a good hedge against energy inflation costs. On the other hand, I can't imagine my current $/month bill going down all that month sticking with non-solar, since I personally am in the tier-3 territory, but only for perhaps 25% of my total usage.

[J.P.M.]

Ultimately, we've done everything we can to lower consumption -- the house is pretty bare-bones. The largest amount of electricity we use is related to our ERV/fan system, which consumes somewhere between 0.2-0.4kw each hour every day. It was effectively a Title 24 requirement for our house, and it does help keep our natural gas usage low, even if it drives our electricity demand up.

Any additional good pointers on AB327 implications? I've spent some time searching, and PG&E's consumer-facing material/propaganda clearly shows that we'll be moving to a two-tier system ultimately, with above-baseline costs not substantially larger than baseline rates, but it's unclear what the impact will be on baseline kwh rates -- aside from a $10/mo+inflation meter connection fee.

From what I've read, it seems like if we move onto a TOU plan with solar, we'll be grandfathered for NEM for 20 years, for installs <mid-2017. From that perspective, solar seems like a good hedge against energy inflation costs. On the other hand, I can't imagine my current $/month bill going down all that month sticking with non-solar, since I personally am in the tier-3 territory, but only for perhaps 25% of my total usage.

Nice work on the reduction. What is your annual usage by month ?

In So. CA, the smart money has lower tier rates going up ~ 8-10%, upper tier rates down by about the same - how much not yet final.

Read the rest of the NEM cap business. Once PG & E gets to the 5% cap, they can cut off any new NEM cust. under existing tariffs- it's 07/01/17 or when the reach 5%, whichever is sooner. The 5% may well be reached sooner. Check it out.

[jonathan]

Nice work on the reduction. What is your annual usage by month ?

We only have a few months of data since we moved back in after major remodel, but our daily average usage for the past five months has consistently been between 18-19kwh. With no A/C, efficient appliances, lighting such an insignificant portion of our load (each room lit with about ~45w of LED lighting), I don't think we'll see a material difference based upon seasonality.


Re PG&E an NEM cap ... I think if we go solar in the next 12 months, we'll be fine. Hard to predict beyond that. But based upon PG&E's reporting at http://www.pge.com/en/mybusiness/sav...ing/index.page they're at about 2.88% now. I am a bit surprised that the solar industry isn't promoting angst about this ... but presumably with the sunsetting 30% credits business demand has already been sufficiently firm?

[jonathan]

And, predicting the future with AB327...

So I can understand what the new status quo would look like, I've found this Feb 2014 proposal from PGE - https://calseia.memberclicks.net/ass...8-14%20all.pdf, which if you look at page 7, describes potential future-E1 rates. Obviously there's the large base fee (which I'll just ignore, since presumably that will hit me regardless of whether I stay w/o solar or in fact go to NEM E-6 TOU rate... though I still don't understand whether that $10+ fee/mo will apply to grandfathered NEMs?) but it looks like they'd be moving from perhaps .15/kwh base to .18/kwh base, and then a flat 20% more/kwh for overage.

When I look at our numbers, it looks like because about 50% of our consumption is non-baseline, our bills will probably go up by about 10% for usage, plus $10 for meter plus whatever energy inflation costs look like. So the "payback" for solar modeled on non-AB327 rates is probably fairly accurate, and potentially a little conservative. But gosh, if I was a users in tier3 or tier4... then the solar industry projection of payback would potentially be overly optimistic!

Is my read of the situation wrong? It seems to match what you've said, above. Granted, this is all based upon a PG&E proposal and I don't understand the politics/policymaking details well enough to understand whether this is a likely scenario.

Also, any idea on whether the $10 monthly base fee from AB327 will retroactively apply to all grandfathered NEM customers? I can't tell.

[J.P.M.]

So I can understand what the new status quo would look like, I've found this Feb 2014 proposal from PGE - https://calseia.memberclicks.net/ass...8-14%20all.pdf, which if you look at page 7, describes potential future-E1 rates. Obviously there's the large base fee (which I'll just ignore, since presumably that will hit me regardless of whether I stay w/o solar or in fact go to NEM E-6 TOU rate... though I still don't understand whether that $10+ fee/mo will apply to grandfathered NEMs?) but it looks like they'd be moving from perhaps .15/kwh base to .18/kwh base, and then a flat 20% more/kwh for overage.

When I look at our numbers, it looks like because about 50% of our consumption is non-baseline, our bills will probably go up by about 10% for usage, plus $10 for meter plus whatever energy inflation costs look like. So the "payback" for solar modeled on non-AB327 rates is probably fairly accurate, and potentially a little conservative. But gosh, if I was a users in tier3 or tier4... then the solar industry projection of payback would potentially be overly optimistic!

Is my read of the situation wrong? It seems to match what you've said, above. Granted, this is all based upon a PG&E proposal and I don't understand the politics/policymaking details well enough to understand whether this is a likely scenario.

Also, any idea on whether the $10 monthly base fee from AB327 will retroactively apply to all grandfathered NEM customers? I can't tell.

Keep in mind that while that come from PG & E, its, via SEIA - a solar industry group. More importantly, it's over a year old, making it somewhat dated given the pace and scope of rate reform these days.

With those caveats in mind, look at table 2 on P. 6 for non CARE rate customers. As proposed lower tiers would go from about $0.15/kWh to about $0.18/kWh near tem and to ~ $0.19 or so longer term, while upper tier rates would drop what looks like to be something like 20% near term and 40% long term. So, if the rates of table 2 were to be approves and implements, low usage customers would pay more, and large users would see what appears to be substantial reductions, more so as time went on. If so, in the bigger scheme of things the $10/mo. is not as big of a deal, at least initially. That importance could of course change once the monthly fee gets its foot in the door and increases over time.

The bottom line here is, be aware that things are changing, and stay attuned to how they can affect your decision making. BTW: the $10/mo. will likely hit everyone.