Bank owned foreclosure

[ButchDeal]

If you haven't done so already, and since Tesla had, and may still own the rights to all the SRECs the system produces, one thing you might want to check into is what SREC's are worth these days in MA and any changes that may be on the horizon for them.

Well they are likely claiming the SRECs but I would say that the new owner of the house and equipment should be getting the SRECs. More negotiating leverage there... (and pretty big one too around $300+ per SREC) NOTE to OP you get one SREC for every MWh your system generates.

[J.P.M.]

Well they are likely claiming the SRECs but I would say that the new owner of the house and equipment should be getting the SRECs. More negotiating leverage there... (and pretty big one too around $300+ per SREC) NOTE to OP you get one SREC for every MWh your system generates.

Thanx for the confirmation.

J.P.M.

[ButchDeal]

What are SREC's? All I know is that the system its self is 726 KW/hr system. To be honest (in case you can't tell) I know NOTHING about solar.

PV systems are rated in a size of watts not watt hours. PPA agreements are in kWh (note there is not really a kW/h - no / ). so the agreement was for 726kWh per month.
You have a system of X kW on your roof and an inverter of Y kW size.

An SREC is Solar Renewable Energy Credit and they have value in a few states like MA. You get one SREC for every MWh your system generates so in your case (726 kWh/month) you would get about about 8.7 SRECs a year and at over $300 each that would be about $2,600 a year.

there are several markets for SRECs and they would have to be registered to you as legal new owner etc. as two companies can not claim ownership of the same credits. you can look at https://srectrade.com/

[peakbagger]

Mass committed to large blocks of solar that had somewhat obscene SREC prices. If the system was part of some of the early blocks the SRECs can sometimes be worth over $400 a MWhr. These rate are propped up for many years. That was the why solar companies were flocking to the state. Tesla would have no interest in selling a guaranteed long term flow of payments. Odds are they probably sold them up front to a third party who also is unwilling to let them up.

Note the reason is the rates are "obscene" is the other ratepayers are subsidizing them. The rates have dropped but still very generous. Mass is definitely a state where if you dont pay to put solar on your roof, you are paying for your neighbor to do so.

[ButchDeal]

Note the reason is the rates are "obscene" is the other ratepayers are subsidizing them. The rates have dropped but still very generous. Mass is definitely a state where if you dont pay to put solar on your roof, you are paying for your neighbor to do so.

SRECs have nothing to do with rate payers or other rate payers and certainly not what your neighbors pay for energy. Before you lecture on a subject you should know a little about it.
SRECs are generated 1 per MWH but have nothing to do with the cost of the MWh!

MA SREC prices are high because it is a closed market.

[Ampster]

Yea, it's called double accelerated depreciation and other tax bennies available to lessors only, thanks to the IRS and lobbyists. The leasing scam would not exist as we know it in the U.S. without the tax breaks.

As Peakbagger notes, solar companies often sell off the leases to third parties, but not always, depending on the situation.

The problem for Tesla or its investors in the PPAs is that with accelerated depreciation schemes, if the investor disposes of the property in less than five years the investor may be subject to recapture of some of that depreciation. I don't know if there is a similar concept for ITC recapture. In any event the original contract (PPA) is in default and the foreclosure may have wiped out the investors. That may already have triggered recapture assuming Tesla no longer has title to the system. Tesla or the investor apparently still has no clue as to what happened.

[peakbagger]

SRECs have nothing to do with rate payers or other rate payers and certainly not what your neighbors pay for energy. Before you lecture on a subject you should know a little about it.
SRECs are generated 1 per MWH but have nothing to do with the cost of the MWh!

MA SREC prices are high because it is a closed market.

Not sure where you are coming from, I happen to be quite familiar with the Mass SREC market probably far more than you would expect. Mass has a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) that sets an overall percentage of renewable power each utility is required to meet. This percentage increases periodically. Inside that total percent renewable is a solar carve out that is set percentage of the overall RPS percentage. The carve out percentage is a closed SREC market for some set block of PVpower to assure that the PV generation is located in the state. The utilities have a choice they can either prove they have purchased or self generated a block of specific SRECs to cover the percentage or pay a penalty to the commonwealth called an Alternate Compliance Payment (ACP). The state sets the ACP at a high value for each block of power to encourage the utilities to buy locally produced SRECs. The state has over the years had different programs that set an ACP for a set block of solar. Therefore the SRECs are not generic, there are specific blocks of SRECs tied to specific ACPs all with different values. In order to get PV on line quickly Mass set the initial ACPs quite high and I expect the OPs system is tied to one of those high rate blocks.

Where the ratepayer gets involved are the utilities are regulated utilities, they are guaranteed to make a profit. If the cost for renewable power is higher than the overall cost for power than the companies costs go up and they have the right to surcharge that extra cost to the ratepayer. Those generating with solar are not buying any power and are effectively selling their power at whatever rate the utility is charging due to net metering so they do not see that surcharge. They are also getting specific SRECs that are generated on a 1 per MWhr basis that can be sold through a broker which are ultimately bought by one of the few utilities in the state at some value that is capped by the ACP. Therefore the remaining ratepayers that are buying power from the utility are paying an increased overall cost for power to subsidize the folks getting the high specific SREC rates that are set by law. As the percentage of renewable increase with high SRECs , the remaining ratepayers will see their surcharge increase. As power rates increase, large customers will put in self generation which will further reduce the pool of ratepayers available to subsidize the increasing surcharges.Thus the observation that if someone is not paying to put solar on the roof they are effectively paying to put it on their neighbors roof. This is obviously a gross oversimplification but in the case of OP and his 8811 KWh yearly estimate, depending on what block his SRECs are part of, someone could be getting a check for $3500 a year minus brokers commissions assuming a $400 ACP. Now lets use $3 a watt installed minus the 30% fed rebate and the system cost is 13K. Divide by the yearly SREC check and that is less than 4 year payback not even including the value of the power produced that would offset. If its a five year old system Tesla has paid for the system and its all profit from now on.

Obviously a fairly short summary of a complex system, but do explain where I have made a fundamental mistake in describing the Mass SREC system?

[ButchDeal]

Where the ratepayer gets involved are the utilities are regulated utilities, they are guaranteed to make a profit. If the cost for renewable power is higher than the overall cost for power than the companies costs go up and they have the right to surcharge that extra cost to the ratepayer. Those generating with solar are not buying any power and are effectively selling their power at whatever rate the utility is charging due to net metering so they do not see that surcharge. They are also getting specific SRECs that are generated on a 1 per MWhr basis that can be sold through a broker which are ultimately bought by one of the few utilities in the state at some value that is capped by the ACP. Therefore the remaining ratepayers that are buying power from the utility are paying an increased overall cost for power to subsidize the folks getting the high specific SREC rates that are set by law. As the percentage of renewable increase with high SRECs , the remaining ratepayers will see their surcharge increase. As power rates increase, large customers will put in self generation which will further reduce the pool of ratepayers available to subsidize the increasing surcharges.Thus the observation that if someone is not paying to put solar on the roof they are effectively paying to put it on their neighbors roof. This is obviously a gross oversimplification

You are mixing how NET metering works, how regulated utilities work and tossing in SREC markets.

The utilities are not required to buy SRECs, they can do their own installs just like many other utilities have decided to do. They make a value decision on if they should buy SREC or build their own systems.
The state makes policy based on their goals of increasing solar adoption and how they want to go about that.
They could have done as OH or PA have done and opened the market which would drastically drop the rates, or kept it closed like DC which keeps the rates high in a tight market. The annual sell prices are set yes but it is based on the closed market.

Utilities can guy or build and that is always a cost analysis decision not unlike those made by almost all other utilities in the nation.

The rates are set for regulated (publicly traded ) utilities by the PUC just like regulated utilities in almost all states.

[peakbagger]

You are mixing how NET metering works, how regulated utilities work and tossing in SREC markets.

So lets unbundle this broad statement. I understand how net metering works, effectively the PV owner is building a credit of PV produced with the utility and getting that credit back when they need power. If the system produces an amount equal or in excess of the power the PV owner uses, they have no power bill with exception of some base flat rate. Note some states have a true up date so annual overproduction sometimes may not be carried forward. So how do you propose that I am mixing up net metering? If a PV owner has no power bill with the exception of the base flat rate how is he participating in the surcharge based on power usage that his non PV owning neighbor is paying. That surcharge on the power bill based on the amount of purchased power is how the utilities in Mass recover the costs imposed by the state to encourage renewables.

In Mass, the regulated utilities are not allowed to generate power and haven't been for quite a few years. All generation has to be purchased thus they do not have the option of self producing. Its actually somewhat more complex in Mass than a fixed profit over expenses, the state has various carrots and sticks to encourage the utility to encourage efficiency versus generation that are not germane to this discussion but are funded by power surcharges.

The utilities are not required to buy SRECs, they can do their own installs just like many other utilities have decided to do. They make a value decision on if they should buy SREC or build their own systems. See above they can not by law build their own in Mass

The state makes policy based on their goals of increasing solar adoption and how they want to go about that.

I agree and I summarized on how Mass decided to implement their goals in the past. I am not debating whether its right or wrong but I do understand what has been put in place in the past.

They could have done as OH or PA have done and opened the market which would drastically drop the rates, or kept it closed like DC which keeps the rates high in a tight market. The annual sell prices are set yes but it is based on the closed market.

The discussion is specific to Mass and therefore bringing up other states and programs are not germane to the discussion. Why confuse the issue unless you do not understand the specifics in Mass.? I don't blame anyone for not understanding the Mass programs unless they are dealing with it on frequent basis or just plain are into self abuse as its not worth the effort.

Utilities can guy or build and that is always a cost analysis decision not unlike those made by almost all other utilities in the nation.

Actually this pretty well establishes that your understanding of utilities in the US is pretty flawed. Many states are either fully or partially deregulated for power and generally that means the utilities do not own generation as is the case in Mass. There are multiple sources that show this, here is one of many https://energysmart.enelxnorthameric...ets-explained/

The rates are set for regulated (publicly traded ) utilities by the PUC just like regulated utilities in almost all states.


Not sure what the intent of this statement is?. The regulated utility goes to the state and proposes a rate and various surcharges that supports a agreed upon profit by the utility.

[ButchDeal]

So lets unbundle this broad statement. I understand how net metering works, effectively the PV owner is building a credit of PV produced with the utility and getting that credit back when they need power.

But you also state:

are effectively selling their power at whatever rate the utility is charging due to net metering

Net metering is not selling. If it were then there would be tax and fees due on it.
There are also flat surcharges for the utilities as well as you admit here:

they have no power bill with exception of some base flat rate.

So how do you propose that I am mixing up net metering?

SRECs can sometimes be worth over $400 a MWhr.

you are mixing utility rates, power bills and SRECs. It is confusing to people that don't know what an SREC is because you keep referring to it as a MWh as if an SREC is the actual power.
As you seem to know SRECs are JUST the credit for generating renewable power sort of like the bragging rights, NOT the power itself.

If a PV owner has no power bill with the exception of the base flat rate how is he participating in the surcharge based on power usage that his non PV owning neighbor is paying.

If the point of the surcharge is to encourage solar then why would a solar home need to pay said surcharge? It would only make the cost of the SREC higher

The utilities that sell you power can buy power from multiple sources, any of which could add renewable sources and some do. There are hydro electric plans and utility scale solar& wind plants that all generate RECs There are power generation facilities in the state

https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=MA

[ButchDeal]

I am pretty confused now, are SRECs different than the credit that you get off of your monthly utility bill.

Yes. SRECs are sort of bragging rights for going solar. They are generated at a rate of 1 SREC per 1MWh of solar generation. They are only available in some states, mostly in the north east. You can sell them for money. I live in WV and can sell my SRECs in both PA and OH markets which are open to neighboring states with utility companies operating in them that also operate in PA and/or OH. I sell mine in PA but the PA market has tanked due to so many selling and large utility and commercial scale projects.
NJ, MA, and DC have strong SREC markets.

I am going to look at the system tonight and see if I can find out anything about it from what is on the side of my house.

send the make and model number of the inverter and photos of the inverter and electric equipment near it.

How would I know if Telsa is receiving the SREC credit on the system, and if they aren't should I wait to see if I actually legally own it before doing so?

They almost certainly are receiving the SRECs and or sold them to a third party already.
yes you should wait on the SRECs till the legal ownership is settled but you can check with SRECtrade.com or any other wholesaler to see if your site is registered already.

[peakbagger]

Beans, one of the thing I have learned over the years is never wrestle with pig in the mud as the pig likes it . Therefore I am not wasting my time on Butch's bluster. I have a Mass PE license and some of my income comes from Mass SRECs and other credits in Mass so I will gladly let Butch bluster away and play in the "mud" to his hearts content. Believe him if you wish on this, he normally has good input just don't know why he is being so contrary but that is his prerogative. .

With respect to your power bill I cant comment as I cant see your power bill. I haven't gotten enough into the detail on registration in Mass. I can tell you what I do in NH but cannot guarantee its the same in Mass. The SREC is what is called the renewable attribute. Like paper money, all it is a certificate issued and backed by some entity that says that 1 MWhr of renewable solar power was produced by your system. When you are selling a SREC you are not selling power you are just selling the fact that you generated that much solar power. I have heard SRECs described as bragging rights. Once you sell a SREC in theory you cant brag that your power is coming from the sun. Far more important is the utility has to prove to the state that a certain percentage of their power is coming from solar every quarter and the way they have to do it is buy SRECS as they cannot have their own generation. The problem was who is going to go out on limb and build a solar system that used to cost far more than regular grid power if they didn't get a guarantee what the power was worth?. The solution that Mass did is require the utilities to buy a set amount of Massachusetts produced solar power at a premium or pay a higher penalty . Once that went in place the solar gold rush was on as companies realized that they could make a lot of money effectively guaranteed by the state for a long term (ten years) by selling solar generated power and also sell the SRECS. The interesting part about this approach is the homeowner who puts solar on his roof cuts his power bill by net metering so he sees a benefit every month and then someone else who understood the SREC market could register the system and generate SRECs which can then be sold ultimately to whomever needs them the most. There is also the upfront solar tax credit of 30% or other tax advantages that can be monetized with installing solar so some smart companies realized that they could borrow lots of money and package solar system contracts so they get most of the profits and some homeowner gets enough of a cut that they will let the panels end up on the roof. That appears to be what the prior owner had done. Most of the homeowners are clueless that they signed off on their bragging rights and the potential revenue that comes with it.

The owner of the system has the right to register the system through NEPOOL https://www.nepoolgis.com/. Once registered there can be a unique GIS number assigned to the system. Its sounds simple like you can look it up somewhere but the tricky part is Solar City most likely registered the system under a common GIS account number covering many systems NEPOOL requires that actual readings be read a minimum of quarterly and that usually is done on line through a online portal that has access to your panel output. On my old school arrays they are not grid connected so I have to put on my shoes and go outside and read my production meter (sperate from the utility meter) a minimum of every quarter and then log onto a portal to report my values and attest they are true. NEPOOL doesn't directly trust me so they have an independent verifier who is supposed to check in on me every so often to make sure I am not lying. I expect with your system its all automatic. If your system is somehow connected to the internet or even a phone line I expect its all done outside of your home. If your system had the capability of not talking to the outside world and still running like my systems and you cut that communication someone would definitely be getting in contact with you as without that reporting they aren't getting SRECs to sell. The owner of the system also has the right to sign over SREC's to a third party, some installers were reportedly doing this and the home owners didn't know it so the installers got the checks instead of the owner. In order to have the SRECs go elsewhere the system owner which is now presumably you will need to reregister the system in your name so the SRECS are credited to you. SRECs are not something you can sell yourself, there are brokers who specialize in selling them. One company I am aware of that does consumer systems is Knollwod Energy https://www.knollwoodenergy.com/srec...-srec-program/ this isn't an endorsement and there are multiple entities that do brokering in that market. I expect a broker like Knollwod may be able to assist in swapping registration to you once you prove it is yours to register. They will then connect with your portal and read your quarterly production and sell them every quarter (with a several quarter lag) and charge you a commission and send you a check for the rest. In NH my firm does not withhold taxes on this income but dependent on what tax advisor (which I am not one) you talk to it is income. Given the piddling checks I get in NH I don't think anyone cares but expect its more serious with a potential 3K a year like your system may be generating.

Meanwhile your power bill most likely lists the total amount of power your were supplied from the utility last month and then a separate line that lists the total amount of power you sent to your utility. They can not measure how much you used inside the house, its only the power that you are not using at any given time that goes to the utility. if you send more power to the utility than you used it adds to a running credit. The amount of power the utility supplies you is subtracted from the credit total. As long as you have credit at the end of the month you are not paying for power or the other charges related to your usage but you may pay a monthly flat service fee. I pay about $12.50 a month as I have had a credit for five years and in NH that I never have to cash in. I do not know if Mass has this set up but in many areas the utility has gross up once a year where they either pay you something for your credit or pay you nothing and zero the credit out for another year. I don't know how Solar City sized your place so you may be undersized slightly.

Now you know why the big companies can really confuse a typical homeowner.

[ButchDeal]

I am trying to check to see if my site is already registered, but I don't know a couple of the required answers. Energy type: solar photovoltaic or solar thermal. & size in kW (DC)

It is Solar photovaltaic
the size might be on the contract for the PPA and will be in kW or watts not kWh
it might say how many PV modules and the size of each and you can add them up.

[Spektre]

There isn't really any information about the system itself on the PPA just what was expected for the first year & the price that they bought it at.

are PV modules the panels on the roof? If so, there are 38 of them, but no clue on the size. Is this something the utility company could give me? I'd rather not have to call the rep at Tesla back, but we left out convo pretty open ended for now, and I could continue to play dumb and call back and ask some more questions.

You may be able to look at your city/county permitting agency online. Some of these details would be in the permit that was approved for installation.

[ButchDeal]

The system on the side of the house is: SE100000A-US
and the PN: SE100000A-US000SNR2

There are 3 different parts to the whole system? One is a gridstream, that is from my utility company, the next is the solar city box, "solar edge", and the last is "EATON" AC photovoltaic disconnect

The inverter model is the 10kW version with Revenue grade meter installed which is required for SRECs.
The SolarCity box is likely their proprietary monitoring which is siphoning the reporting from the inverter to them through a serial connection.
So you likely have between 9kw and 11kW of solar installed