Where do I find a solar lawyer?

[rocketcity]

I'm about to sign a 20-year contract for a PV system. Everyone agrees that consulting an attorney is a good idea. Where do I find an attorney familiar with:
1. solar contracts
2. my state laws (California)
3. my utility (Pacific Gas & Electric)

[Naptown]

Have you tried Google?

[rocketcity]

Have you tried Google?

I did, and all I seem to find are lawyers who write contracts for giant corporate projects, not a little project like a 4.41 kW DC on my house.

[prhamilton]

I don't think you need a lawyer to look over your lease. I've leased a car without a lawyer. I've bought and refinanced mortgages without a lawyer. Most the leases are pretty standard. You should read your lease and understand it but I don't think you need a lawyer to review it.

From what I've read here some of the biggest difference in the lease are the production guarantees and how you are able to transfer the lease in the event of selling the house.

Some production guarantees specific a cumulative total production. So it rolls over extra production to the next year. Other production guarantees specific a yearly production amount typically at 95% of estimated production. I don't like the cumulative guarantees.

Transfers should be spelled out and typically require a buyout. The buyout is typically expensive in the first 6 years, so you want to be reasonably confident you are staying put for the first 6 years before you get a lease.

Bottom line is a solar lease requires a certain level of trust between you and the lessor. If that doesn't exist you might want to rethink the lease and instead look at a purchase.

[Ian S]

I did, and all I seem to find are lawyers who write contracts for giant corporate projects, not a little project like a 4.41 kW DC on my house.

Have you read the lease over? Most that I've seen are fairly clear in the obligations of both parties. So I would recommend you read it closely and make notes of any areas you don't understand fully. Prhamilton mentions some important considerations. I would add also the insurance coverage provided by the lessor if any. Then if there are points you are unable to figure out, I would just talk to a lawyer who does business contracts and ask him your specific questions.

[russ]

I would just talk to a lawyer who does business contracts and ask him your specific questions.

Right - that is all a lease is - a business contract

[wwu123]

While a lawyer may not be needed to sign a lease, it been very educational to me based on a number of good discussions on this forum, that leases can quickly complicate the buying or selling of a home with a leased system, such that one might want to consult a lawyer to know what's down the road. It seems actually very scary to me that there are no clear precedents for this, for example:
-if selling a home on which you've signed a solar lease, you have no way of ensuring you can transfer the lease to someone else, and can be financially responsible for the remainder of the lease without having the benefit of the power from the arrays
-if buying a home on which someone else signed a solar lease, you have no ownership of the system attached to your roof, and cannot force the owner (leasing company) to get it off your roof in a timely manner.

[Ian S]

Comments in bold.

While a lawyer may not be needed to sign a lease, it been very educational to me based on a number of good discussions on this forum, that leases can quickly complicate the buying or selling of a home with a leased system, Yes, it's clearly a complication and IMHO, no one should consider leasing - or even buying - solar if their plans are not to remain in the house for the foreseeable future such that one might want to consult a lawyer to know what's down the road. Not sure a lawyer will be able to predict the future that much better although they might identify pitfalls due to specific lease wording. It seems actually very scary to me that there are no clear precedents for this, for example:
-if selling a home on which you've signed a solar lease, you have no way of ensuring you can transfer the lease to someone else, and can be financially responsible for the remainder of the lease without having the benefit of the power from the arrays I don't think it's quite so dire as that. Usually the lease spells out the requirements for transferal. Typically, a decent credit rating is the key and these days, if someone's getting a mortgage, they will almost certainly qualify for the lease.
-if buying a home on which someone else signed a solar lease, you have no ownership of the system attached to your roof, and cannot force the owner (leasing company) to get it off your roof in a timely manner. Not sure why you would want to if the seller did his due diligence in getting the lease in the first place i.e. making sure it made good financial sense. If as expected, future changes to rate structures and net metering make it less attractive to go solar, then a grandfathered system, even a leased one might look pretty darned good.

[wwu123]

Comments in bold.

Don't disagree those simpler scenarios are possible, but they're only uncomplicated if the buyer of the house is interested and willing to assume the lease on terms negotiated years before by two other parties. If the buyer values solar any less than the lease terms, then lawyers need to get involved, according to other threads. So for the owner and future seller, getting advice of a lawyer years before that, before the lease is actually signed, may be prudent.

[Sunking]

Just use your Family Lawyer or CPA.

[JCP]

Why spend $2K on a lawyer to hear the same thing you've just read here? I'll finance and own the panels outright to avoid having to deal with a 3rd party if I ever plan to leave my house in the next 20 years. For my the biggest issue, when I talked to Solar City although I suspect it's the same with other leases, is that I could not simply expand my array as I saw fit. If I ever wanted to expand, I would have to enter into a new contract for a new install and a separate inverter. From a business standpoint, it certainly makes sense as they are bundling and selling those leases back to investors. From my standpoint, it's a royal PITA, and I'll pay $0.50 more a watt just to have the peace of mind to know that I can do with my house as I see fit. As usual, YMMV.

[inetdog]

Why spend $2K on a lawyer to hear the same thing you've just read here? I'll finance and own the panels outright to avoid having to deal with a 3rd party if I ever plan to leave my house in the next 20 years. For my the biggest issue, when I talked to Solar City although I suspect it's the same with other leases, is that I could not simply expand my array as I saw fit. If I ever wanted to expand, I would have to enter into a new contract for a new install and a separate inverter. From a business standpoint, it certainly makes sense as they are bundling and selling those leases back to investors. From my standpoint, it's a royal PITA, and I'll pay $0.50 more a watt just to have the peace of mind to know that I can do with my house as I see fit. As usual, YMMV.

Contract aside, chances are good wherever you are located that a simple, small, expansion would still require a new building permit, with associated plans and inspections, as well as a new interconnect agreement from POCO.
From the point of view of Solar City, they may find it easier to do all of that (and avoid having to make changes in the installed system because of code changes) by getting a new contract with no overlap of equipment.

[JCP]

Contract aside, chances are good wherever you are located that a simple, small, expansion would still require a new building permit, with associated plans and inspections, as well as a new interconnect agreement from POCO.
From the point of view of Solar City, they may find it easier to do all of that (and avoid having to make changes in the installed system because of code changes) by getting a new contract with no overlap of equipment.

I think that the issue is that each lease is resold to investors (just like a mortgage). So, expanding a system is not really feasible when the existing revenue stream has already been sold off to investors. I'm pretty sure (although I could be wrong) that it's a financial requirement not a business issue.