Any studies on non solar homes around solar homes?

[sensij]

Mostly + 1, but I wonder if the satellite issue might be less analogous to solar statutes because it may involve interstate commerce and therefore fed. statutes, not state. Just my $.02.

A summary of the NC's state solar access laws can be found here, last reviewed in 2012. It does appear that restrictions can legally exist on installations that face roads or other common space.

[russ]

If you want to win a battle - any battle - go in prepared. Don't be set in how you go about it or any particular set of facts.

Winning counts in this case and that is all. Be flexible and forget basing everything on one study - which I expect you could find a counter to on the net with a bit of search.

[J.P.M.]

I understand the OP's reasoning. He wants to install solar panels in a HOA regulated neighborhood and hopes to get agreement of the HOA board based on panels that are aesthetically looking. Since most people have different tastes he is also hoping to use the "property value increase due to solar" card. Which if people don't like the looks of solar at least their homes will go up in value with panels and the other homes without panels will not go down in value.

I wish him luck because even with solid evidence (which I have not seen yet) supporting the statement that solar increases property values some people just don't like them and will vote against their installation. At that time there is always the legal system to go to with the approach that my neighbor or HOA can't block my decision to use solar because it is my legal right.

Similar to the FCC ruling that states no one is allowed to block the reception of satellite signals by dictating where the satellite dish can be installed. If that means in front of the house then that is where the dish can go.

Mostly + 1, but I wonder if the satellite issue might be less analogous to solar statutes because it may involve interstate commerce and therefore fed. statutes, not state. Just my $.02.

[SunEagle]

With his present approach and the "super study" he has a lot in common with Hogan's goat and probably zero chance for winning.

I understand the OP's reasoning. He wants to install solar panels in a HOA regulated neighborhood and hopes to get agreement of the HOA board based on panels that are aesthetically looking. Since most people have different tastes he is also hoping to use the "property value increase due to solar" card. Which if people don't like the looks of solar at least their homes will go up in value with panels and the other homes without panels will not go down in value.

I wish him luck because even with solid evidence (which I have not seen yet) supporting the statement that solar increases property values some people just don't like them and will vote against their installation. At that time there is always the legal system to go to with the approach that my neighbor or HOA can't block my decision to use solar because it is my legal right.

Similar to the FCC ruling that states no one is allowed to block the reception of satellite signals by dictating where the satellite dish can be installed. If that means in front of the house then that is where the dish can go.

[azdave]

You loose 75% of the installed cost instantly.

Go ahead and apply that statement to a whole lot of home remodel projects, not just solar. It's sad but one could spend $40k on a remodel but an appraisal the day after it's finished probably won't go up by even half that.

When I recently had my home appraised for a refi I expected to see at least a small bonus added to the home value due to the 2 month old paid in full panels that save enough money to cover one additional house payment per year. The appraiser said the panels were neither a plus or a minus and made no allowance either way. In the end it's okay by me since I'm not moving or selling and it didn't affect the refi outcome.

[russ]

If you're still around to read this, consider the reaction of some posters here to your seeming (to me at least) desperate allegiance to studies friendly to your view as preparation to what the bad guys will quite obviously (again, to me only perhaps) counter with. If you truly consider your future presentation a debate, know that debates are never about the truth and usually only have a cursory allusion to facts or reality. Think like the other guy. They're probably as a group pretty conservative and charged with fiduciary responsibility to uphold what are probably pretty conservative values of other conservatives who do not want change. They dislike solar not because it's necessarily the darling of tree huggers, but mostly because it is a visible sign of what they do not want - change. Stay flexible. Dig in your heels on a few points and you'll be slaughtered. Be professional about it. Don't burn your bridges and remember there is usually some potential relief through arbitration or adjudication through the court system.

Take what you want of the above, scrap the rest.

With his present approach and the "super study" he has a lot in common with Hogan's goat and probably zero chance for winning.

[J.P.M.]

Green hype is real estate statistics? I'm not claiming solar panels are saving the earth. Hehe. This is the most interesting crowd. I'm a registered Republican, not the hugest Obama fan in the world, don't live in the ultra liberal state of California like the vast bulk of the people on this board, and I'm getting obnoxious responses to a simple question that has come up time and time again about real estate values with solar. Its pretty simple. I just need to convince the board it isn't going to bring down the neighborhood. Personally, I don't give two craps if the studies are funded by the Obama administration. Its evidence to support my cause to get solar panels in a neighborhood in which the board will be divided.

Some of you can hold these rather hard lines opinions all you like, as solar rights in your state allow you to pretty much do whatever the heck you want. Its not that way in this state. And since my panels are front facing, I have enormous obstacles.

And who is going to sound more credible? The a-hole claiming that numerous studies (the one from Berkeley certainly is not the only one) is all a conspiracy of the Obama administration or the guy that comes in with numerous reports that claim that solar panels add value?

I don't personally give 2 craps about your political beliefs. I drive an electric car. I didn't go it to be green. I did it for all the other reasons. And it sounds like some of the a-holes on this board think I'm simply some tree hugger.

I'm not. I'm a person trying to win a debate when my opponent is going to make a bunch of wild, unsubstantiated accusations. Its called being prepared.

This board is worthless. I won't be back. You can take your panels, and your ignorant opinions, and shove them where the sun doesn't shine!

If you're still around to read this, consider the reaction of some posters here to your seeming (to me at least) desperate allegiance to studies friendly to your view as preparation to what the bad guys will quite obviously (again, to me only perhaps) counter with. If you truly consider your future presentation a debate, know that debates are never about the truth and usually only have a cursory allusion to facts or reality. Think like the other guy. They're probably as a group pretty conservative and charged with fiduciary responsibility to uphold what are probably pretty conservative values of other conservatives who do not want change. They dislike solar not because it's necessarily the darling of tree huggers, but mostly because it is a visible sign of what they do not want - change. Stay flexible. Dig in your heels on a few points and you'll be slaughtered. Be professional about it. Don't burn your bridges and remember there is usually some potential relief through arbitration or adjudication through the court system.

Take what you want of the above, scrap the rest.

[Sunking]

Green hype is real estate statistics?

What I am saying is Berkley is extremely biased. What applies to the left coast island of CA does not apply everywhere. In states like TX electricity prices start at lower than 9-cents and get cheaper if you use more than 1500 Kwh/month. TX does not have net metering laws and very few incentives. Thus adds almost no value to a property. I don't give a crap about CA, you are getting screwed living there and you like it.

[carzin]

Green hype is real estate statistics? I'm not claiming solar panels are saving the earth. Hehe. This is the most interesting crowd. I'm a registered Republican, not the hugest Obama fan in the world, don't live in the ultra liberal state of California like the vast bulk of the people on this board, and I'm getting obnoxious responses to a simple question that has come up time and time again about real estate values with solar. Its pretty simple. I just need to convince the board it isn't going to bring down the neighborhood. Personally, I don't give two craps if the studies are funded by the Obama administration. Its evidence to support my cause to get solar panels in a neighborhood in which the board will be divided.

Some of you can hold these rather hard lines opinions all you like, as solar rights in your state allow you to pretty much do whatever the heck you want. Its not that way in this state. And since my panels are front facing, I have enormous obstacles.

And who is going to sound more credible? The a-hole claiming that numerous studies (the one from Berkeley certainly is not the only one) is all a conspiracy of the Obama administration or the guy that comes in with numerous reports that claim that solar panels add value?

I don't personally give 2 craps about your political beliefs. I drive an electric car. I didn't go it to be green. I did it for all the other reasons. And it sounds like some of the a-holes on this board think I'm simply some tree hugger.

I'm not. I'm a person trying to win a debate when my opponent is going to make a bunch of wild, unsubstantiated accusations. Its called being prepared.

This board is worthless. I won't be back. You can take your panels, and your ignorant opinions, and shove them where the sun doesn't shine!

[Sunking]

This board is an odd one. Supposed to be a bunch of solar advocates, but there seems to be a lot of negativity.

It is called educated and reality. We don't eat Green Chit. You get the truth and hard facts here, not hype and Green Blather.

[carzin]

It's real easy to criticize with absolutely nothing to back it up.

In my state, the post tax credit cost along with energy company credits of a 20k system is 6k. With 1000 saved a year on electricity, it's a 6 year payback, yet I find it hard to believe I wouldnt get 6k additional out of the house if I were to sell it immediately. It's a 6k risk. No much to worry about.

This board is an odd one. Supposed to be a bunch of solar advocates, but there seems to be a lot of negativity. Don't quite get it, but I don't plan to be too closely involved with this ecosystem.

For those with useful comments, I appreciate it.

As to the solar edge, that would apparently be the choice for the upgraded panels. I don't think I am going to offer it at the hoa.

[pleppik]

In TX and many other states solar has negative equity. You loose 75% of the installed cost instantly. Solar in states where energy is cheap is a negative.

For my own edification, is that your opinion, or do you know of someone who has actually tried to collect some data on the question?

[Sunking]

I don't think you read my question. While you are entitled to your opinion, the most recent study from Berkley Labs I think settles the debate.

Spoken like a Caliphonie. In TX and many other states solar has negative equity. You loose 75% of the installed cost instantly. Solar in states where energy is cheap is a negative.

[russ]

The Berkely study that was just released is the most comprehensive study. Yep - it pacified the green demands of the present administration - the same bunch that is paying hundreds of dollars to thousands of dollars per gallon of bio fuel - really a sharp bunch. You better hope the HOA is populated by fools for them not to nderstand this.

But as to the value of my neighbor's homes... I asked my realtor to see what she could find out. She emailed 100 realtors in her company. None came back with anything negative. No emails came back so all is well?

Bottom line with the HOA, I will have studies to back up my stance, and the opponents will not. Come on!

Comments in bold within the text. Don't try to BS BS'ers

[sensij]

For the record, I have to go microinvertor. I have no choice. My roof has multiple pitches, and a gable that splits the roof. A string inverted system isn't possible unless I want to significantly reduce my collection.

A SolarEdge inverter+optimizers would offer the same benefits as microinverters in this respect, at about the same cost, with improved Sunpower compatibility. However, it would require the installation of a string inverter, which may be an aesthetic problem based on your earlier posts.

I'm not sure I understand the objection your HOA has raised. Are they afraid that by installing solar panels, you will be reducing the value of the neighboring properties, because of the view? It sounds like a very location specific problem, and unlikely to have been covered in studies because of the high number of variables that go into how an installation looks. Good luck.