My roof is perfect for solar but my electric bills are low. Worth it?

At only 100 bucks a month, unless it is something you just plain want to do for piece of mind and/or your children's future, you'd have to be a very good shopper to buy a system to compete with that. But 428 kwh is a small enough system to be an easy setup.

Have you read jebatty's thread below? I have'nt made it all the way thru the thread yet as it is quite a long one with lots of great info to absorb, but I think there is mention of many of the costs and rebates etc.

Depends upon how your utility handles excess generation. Do they pay you for excess at a very low rate (like .03 per kwh) than you have to buy back at a high rate (your current rate)? Many different ways for the utilities to make excess generation profitable for them and not for you. You will have excess generation with almost any system you put in. Producing more electricity than you are consuming at any given time.

Going to go with no on this one. Not a fan of drilling all those holes in a roof either. Not for 100 bucks a month especially

I think the free variable is the size of the array. If your resource is good, net metering is aok, and the elec is expensive, it seems like it would be a good investment if you got a decent quote. IF you don't use a lot of juice, quote a smaller system.

Personally, I would consider future demand if you grew your family, your kids got older (i.e. teens), you wanted to get an EV, etc.
The fed incentive may expire in 2017, so this might be a local minimum in costs.

Brian26 said:

Never thought about looking into the excess rates but I found this document. It looks like you are correct and they only pay .03 kwh. Though I am not sure of exactly what these numbers mean. Probably not worth it but I am going to crunch some numbers further I may just call a solar company in for free consultation and see what they say.

View attachment 168712

Click to expand...

If you do, and decide to go solar, would you please share the info here? I use even less than you at 250-300 kwh, but would like to go solar for a percentage of my usage that I consider recreational or non critical. I doubt I will ever be completely off grid unless I find a gal with similar interests to share the lifestyle with.

Does your utility require 2 meters for customer generation? Mine does. If I generate more than what I use, it accumulates on a second meter and standard usage accumulates on the first meter.

If you only need one meter, it might be okay. If you generate excess, it might count backwards on the meter and standard usage would count forwards. If this is the case, your excess would be at the same rate of your usage.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for solar and renewable energies. I have over 10kw installed myself. But it seems that the utilities are getting the public service commisons to side with them the majority of the time in regards to customer generation. If I were to install a new system today, I probably wouldn't put in such a large system and would know exactly the what the utility's rates / structures are. When I installed my system, my utility bought back the excess at the same rate as what I pay. Great deal. Now, they buy back at wholesale rates and charge you normal rates. Remember I have 2 meters, so there is no credit for excess that would be used by me at a different time during the month. Sell back to them low, buy back from them high. Not a good deal.

Hi Brian26, in terms of "financial payback", this can be easily calculated if your utility supports yearly net metering. If you utility does not support yearly net metering, it gets a lot more complicated. CT electricity prices are very high, so the financial payback will be quicker.

A 400-500 kWh load per year is a good size demand for a solar PV system. You can easily handle that with an ~5kW system installed in CT on a roof, and the cost of such a system will be reasonable, and this is a typical size system installed. If you were only looking at a 2kWh system, many installers will likely not be interested (based on an earlier experience I had with a small house and small roof area). If you put in a larger system, you may then have the ability to add a load that you maybe always wanted (e.g. electric stove instead of gas/propane stove) or give you an amenity that wasn't possible before (e.g. mini-split heat pump for cooling, and some shoulder-season heating).

If your decision isn't made purely on economics, but on a decision to "do the right thing" for whatever reason, then if you can afford it, just do it. My personal decision to install a 5.3kW ground-mount system wasn't based just on payback time - I've wanted to do this for 20 years and finally had the location to allow it. My financial payback is likely around 15-18 years, but I don't care. I have what I want, I could afford it, and I feel that I am doing the right thing. My money is better spent on that than on a sports car or something like that (my opinion). After incentives, mine was about $3/watt installed (with a ground-mount, which is more expensive).

I haven't checked recently but it would not shock me if roof-installed solar PV systems are going in for $2/watt or less nowadays after incentives. The 30% federal tax credit incentive is eliminated after 2016, so that might be reason to move sooner rather than later.

I would encourage you to investigate this in detail now and think about what you want to do for the next month or two, and line up some installers for a spring install, if this is what you want. Don't want until the fall of 2016 - the installers will be plenty busy by then.

We're about to pull the trigger on a 12.5 KW system on Cape Cod. We want to make sure that we get our system installed this calendar year, so that we're assured of getting both the federal and state tax credits, and stay in the SREC 2 program.

With a low interest solar loan, we will be cash flow neutral between the monthly loan payments and the SRECs. Then we get free electricity on top of that. Plus, with EverSource on the Cape, we can bank our excess generation or even "gift" it to another subscriber in the area...and then work out a side arrangement for reimbursement with them. Never heard of this before...

Loan and SRECs both run out in ten years. System is guaranteed by the panel manufacturer for 15 years beyond that...

I'd suggest that you meet with a couple of local solar providers and work the math with them. Public policy is a fascinating thing.

What do you use for heat? Running solar to build up summer surplus and matching it with minisplit is a nice option. I now only run my wood boiler during peak cold weather and use the minisplit for shoulder seasons.

The federal 30% tax credit is good through 2019 and then scales back in steps.
http://energy.gov/savings/residential-renewable-energy-tax-credit

Solar-electric property

• 30% for systems placed in service by 12/31/2019
• 26% for systems placed in service after 12/31/2019 and before 01/01/2021
• 22% for systems placed in service after 12/31/2020 and before 01/01/2022
• There is no maximum credit for systems placed in service after 2008.
• Systems must be placed in service on or after January 1, 2006, and on or before December 31, 2021.
• The home served by the system does not have to be the taxpayer’s principal residence.

Disregarding the financial return/cost analysis, there are good reasons to install solar electric, some of which are:
Leaves a visible legacy for family and future generations
Better secures retirement: reduces/ eliminates cost of electricity
Does the “right thing” – is sustainable, preserves and protects the environment

My wife and I put in our system to do "right thing." Only after the system was in did the other benefits become obvious, as well as the fact that our system returns 4.6% tax free, more than 4X better than the cash that was sitting in a money market account.

jebatty said:

The federal 30% tax credit is good through 2019 and then scales back in steps.
http://energy.gov/savings/residential-renewable-energy-tax-credit

Solar-electric property

• 30% for systems placed in service by 12/31/2019
• 26% for systems placed in service after 12/31/2019 and before 01/01/2021
• 22% for systems placed in service after 12/31/2020 and before 01/01/2022
• There is no maximum credit for systems placed in service after 2008.
• Systems must be placed in service on or after January 1, 2006, and on or before December 31, 2021.
• The home served by the system does not have to be the taxpayer’s principal residence.

Click to expand...

Good information here.

Additionally, the Renewable Energy Credit program is in its second phase - SREC 2. The first phase provided a higher return on a per KW basis. SREC 2 provides a return that puts us just ahead of the carrying costs on a low interest "solar" loan offered by a number of banks in Massachusetts, making the investment a no brainer. With SREC 3, the credit will be lower, potentially not covering the system costs.

I don't know when SREC 2 runs out and SREC 3 kicks in. All I know is that I signed a PV contract this week on a house I don't own yet...I want to make sure that we get it done this calendar year, and that I don't miss out on the SREC 2 level reimbursement. Also, I just heard that the utility company is looking to get the net metering credits lowered to 40% of retail, rather than the 85% (ish) currently.

Public policy in action!

Its pretty simple in Massachusetts, either pay to put solar on your roof or pay for your neighbor to install a system via surcharges on your electric bill. Renewables and efficiency incentive efforts for commercial and institutional are all being funded by surcharges on utility bills and as the ball get rolling, those left buying the electricity are going to see their bill skyrocket even if nat gas remains cheap.

Not sure on the climate in CT

peakbagger said:

Its pretty simple in Massachusetts, either pay to put solar on your roof or pay for your neighbor to install a system via surcharges on your electric bill. Renewables and efficiency incentive efforts for commercial and institutional are all being funded by surcharges on utility bills and as the ball get rolling, those left buying the electricity are going to see their bill skyrocket even if nat gas remains cheap.

Not sure on the climate in CT

Click to expand...

Well...the SRECs are a national (actually state by state) program, as is the federal tax rebate.

Again, public policy at work. Government is choosing to make specific investments to drive desired behaviors. In my case, they're incenting me to invest in a large solar array that is bigger than my individual needs. The excess will go back onto the grid and be consumed by my neighbors. As a result, Eversource will not have to provide quite as much total capacity. I see that as a win-win. And in the case of my local area, I can actually direct my excess to another customer and work out a side arrangement with them for reimbursement.

SRECs are not national, every state has different rules and participation. I just got my SREC check for NH which is around $45 a MWh while Mass was paying $430 per MWhr. I would much prefer to sell mine in the Mass market but Mass doesn't allow it.

Unfortunately what you missed is that Eversource (or any utility) needs to provide backup infrastructure to generate power quickly if the clouds move in or the sun isn't out. They end up paying "capacity payments" to power producer to have fast start up gas turbine generators on line that typically run #1 fuel oil. They aren't particularly efficient but they go on line quick. Someday battery storage may make a dent in this but currently the cost per MW hr is significantly higher.

peakbagger said:

SRECs are not national, every state has different rules and participation. I just got my SREC check for NH which is around $45 a MWh while Mass was paying $430 per MWhr. I would much prefer to sell mine in the Mass market but Mass doesn't allow it.

Unfortunately what you missed is that Eversource (or any utility) needs to provide backup infrastructure to generate power quickly if the clouds move in or the sun isn't out. They end up paying "capacity payments" to power producer to have fast start up gas turbine generators on line that typically run #1 fuel oil. They aren't particularly efficient but they go on line quick. Someday battery storage may make a dent in this but currently the cost per MW hr is significantly higher.

Click to expand...

I stand corrected on the SREC statement.

Agreed that utilities do need to provide additional instructure. Nicely enough, solar energy is more readily available during periods of peak demand (daytime).

EatenByLimestone said:

Are you sure you want to risk your house on this? A home equity loan uses your house as collateral.

Click to expand...

A HELOC by the homeowner is lot better then the creative financing approaches used by various solar financing firms. The majority of those deals allow the solar firm (or the firm that buys the paper), to keep their control of the financing. When the homeowner goes to sell their home, the solar firm has the right to approve the new buyer. If they don't approve the new owner, the current owner has to pay off the system. Many firms cook the books to raise the initial installation cost so they can get higher federal rebates up front so the buy out rate is quite high, they would much rather get the homeowner to pay them the inflated rates.

In general I run my finances so that I don't borrow money but solar panels on a roof may be an exception as long as the solar installer has nothing to do with the HELOC.

Since solar PV is an investment, not a cost, it would be an appropriate use of a HELOC if the terms were good. My HELOC has a rate of 1% below prime, which would be about 2.5% right now. Given that PV return on investment in my area pays 5% or more, a HELOC loan could be a good choice if other funds were not available. Like peakbagger, I too manage finances so as not to borrow money. "Neither a borrower or lender be" -- William Shakespeare, Hamlet.