Solar system help need (Northern California - Bay area)

[J.P.M.]

That is probably a safe assumption, but anecdotally I did get a bump up on a recent appraisal on a house with solar. I have also own an investment property which has solar and it is my opinion that the tenants paid more for that one than similar units without solar.

I used to be a peddler. I could probably raise prices as much for a piece of property or a monthly rent with a good pitch if I chose to, regardless of the veracity.

As for added value, from what I've seen and like most things in life, I'd aim for no value added. In such cases, I'll be pleasantly surprised when I'm wrong and cushioned a bit financially, rather than disappointed and scrambling when my overly optimistic guesses didn't pan out. Still, fortune favors the bold (but slaughters the foolish). Informed planning is best, but from what I've seen of value added to a residence for PV, the data is quite sketchy, from less than PV informed sources and very local.

[Ampster]

I used to be a peddler. I could probably raise prices as much for a piece of property or a monthly rent with a good pitch if I chose to, regardless of the veracity.

As for added value, from what I've seen and like most things in life, I'd aim for no value added. In such cases, I'll be pleasantly surprised when I'm wrong and cushioned a bit financially, rather than disappointed and scrambling when my overly optimistic guesses didn't pan out. Still, fortune favors the bold (but slaughters the foolish). Informed planning is best, but from what I've seen of value added to a residence for PV, the data is quite sketchy, from less than PV informed sources and very local.

Yeah, you can call me a peddler. I do try to provide value to my tenants and I have been rewarded with ever increasing rents. One of those value added benefits is free EV charging. That of course has then caused me to justify adding PV to the roofs of those projects. I choose to write off those improvements and not have to mess with depreciation and Federal Tax Credits.

[J.P.M.]

Yeah, I am a peddler. I do try to provide value to my tenants and I have been rewarded with ever increasing rents. One of those value added benefits is free EV charging. That of course has then cause me to justify adding PV to the roofs of those projects. I choose to write off those improvements and not have to mess with depreciation and Federal Tax Credits.

Pay your money - take your choice.

But aren't we getting a little off topic and courting with thread hijacking here?

[Ampster]

........ courting with thread hijacking here?

Yep, my apologies to the OP.

[foo1bar]

Thanks Jonathan. It came down to 3 installers I am negotiating right now and they all have more than 10 years experiences in the solar installation and great yelp reviews. Sunwork is actually non-profit organization which is also 16% cheaper than the quote I have received for LG 340w panels with IQ7+. They also offer LG 335w but total cost only 12% lower than the other 2 installers. Sunwork only provides 10 years warranty for workmanship and other 2 offers 25 years.

I don't think the guarantee for years 11-25 is worth much
But that's me.

There is another concern I have with the non-profit is that they recommend REC REC-315-TP2M or REC-320-NP and I did some study and found that they are also good panels but curious what you think? Thank you.

As far as I know REC is as good as any other panel manufacturer.
But I have very limited experience so take with a huge grain of salt.

I did volunteer for a day with Sunwork on an installation in Sunnyvale. I did it as a learning experience before doing my own installation. I thought they did a good job and would recommend them to anyone in the area that qualifies to use them.

I think an important metric for looking at the options is what's your "break even time"?
When will your electric bill savings probably pay for the upfront costs?
I'd ignore electric rate increases and time-value-of-money considerations.for that.

[ccjw33]

I don't think the guarantee for years 11-25 is worth much
But that's me.


As far as I know REC is as good as any other panel manufacturer.
But I have very limited experience so take with a huge grain of salt.

I did volunteer for a day with Sunwork on an installation in Sunnyvale. I did it as a learning experience before doing my own installation. I thought they did a good job and would recommend them to anyone in the area that qualifies to use them.

I think an important metric for looking at the options is what's your "break even time"?
When will your electric bill savings probably pay for the upfront costs?
I'd ignore electric rate increases and time-value-of-money considerations.for that.

If I read this correctly, lower cost quote will make the most sense. REC is $2.47/w vs LG 340w is $2.89/w. Concern was mainly if it's worth to take the $1750 saving but only 10 years workmanship. Thank you.

[J.P.M.]

I think an important metric for looking at the options is what's your "break even time"?
When will your electric bill savings probably pay for the upfront costs?
I'd ignore electric rate increases and time-value-of-money considerations.for that.

Why would you ignore time value of money considerations ?

[foo1bar]

Why would you ignore time value of money considerations ?

Because inflation is not predictable for the next 10 years.
And neither is electric rate increases.
And IMO they will largely offset each other - so why add the extra complexities to the calculation when it isn't going to make it more accurate?
IMO you're better off keeping the calculation simple and easy to compare between the different options. It'll probably be wrong by 5-10% due to those factors as well as weather. But all the options will be off in the same direction by about the same percentage, so the decision would likely be unaffected.

[JSchnee21]

If it were me, I would pay extra for the LG panels, especially given the small roof size, to maximize yield. As a general rule, I would probably prefer professionals over volunteers, but since foo1bar recommends Sunwork based on his own personal experience they must have their act together.

[J.P.M.]

Because inflation is not predictable for the next 10 years.
And neither is electric rate increases.
And IMO they will largely offset each other - so why add the extra complexities to the calculation when it isn't going to make it more accurate?
IMO you're better off keeping the calculation simple and easy to compare between the different options. It'll probably be wrong by 5-10% due to those factors as well as weather. But all the options will be off in the same direction by about the same percentage, so the decision would likely be unaffected.

Thank you for the response.

I believe I understand what you are writing and respect your opinion.

Inflation, like the rest of the future, is indeed unpredictable as are electric rates.

Whether those two will largely offset one another is another one of those unpredictable things. Some places maybe, others, maybe not. Or, maybe over some time period, and maybe not other periods or of different lengths of time.

I also appreciate the value of keeping things simple. But I'd suggest too simple can be as bad or worse.

Unless I misunderstand your statement, I'd disagree that all your mentioned conditions (and maybe/probably others for that matter) will be off in the same directions and by about the same relative magnitudes, meaning I'd suggest decision making will be affected.

If what you write is correct, then to the degree it's a valid description of the (non)usefulness of time value of money type analysis, or life cycle costing, or comparison of alternatives analysis, or whatever, I'd take that to mean you consider financial analysis of residential PV systems beyond total first cost/total initial net price to be mostly useless.

I'd suggest and partially agree that overanalysis, or analysis based on cherry picked numbers or uneducated guesses probably isn't productive. Nor is detailed analysis something most homeowners are familiar with. Sort of like giving a loaded handgun to a 2 year old with the safety off.

However, I've usually found, maybe for me only, there is almost never such a thing as too much information. And, more information leads to more options and that may well lead to a better design and perhaps more cost effective as well.

The way I learned it, engineering economics or cost analysis does not guarantee much of anything except maybe a greater probability of a more cost effective outcome through analysis of possible scenarios - no promises, but only the idea that a study of the possible impacts and effects on outcome from various choices may lead to a higher probability of a "better" outcome - which for this discussion may be taken to mean this discussion a more cost effective design, but the effects on the costs of other goals (such as safety or maint. costs for example).

The purpose of such analyses is not to predict the future, but rather to provide some ways to consider how a system might respond to different conditions of use and then perhaps adjust/change/modify the design as the perceived probabilities of the possible outcomes may incline an owner or whoever is footing the bill in what is hoped to be a reasoned way.

So, believing as I do that anyone can learn anything they want to learn if they choose to make the effort, IMO, a few hours spent studying time value of money type stuff, engineering economics and a few points of financial analysis and then applying it to a proposed residential PV addition can easily provide pretty healthy hourly return. SWAG example.: Spend 3 hours on such things. If you save $1,000 NPV in such an endeavor, that's $333/hr. and it's tax free to boot.

At the end of the day, what does one have to lose from the effort vs. the possible gain ?

I'd take that bet. If I do, even if I don't make anything more) cost effective, I probably learned a few things useful for other areas of my life, and in that sense alone it may have been helpful. Besides, it beats watching the soaps or some jockstrap convention on the idiot box.

Respectfully,

[foo1bar]

Unless I misunderstand your statement, I'd disagree that all your mentioned conditions (and maybe/probably others for that matter) will be off in the same directions and by about the same relative magnitudes, meaning I'd suggest decision making will be affected.

How do you think the decision making will be affected for choosing between the different system choices?
If I am comparing systemA to systemB before purchase I will look at how long it'll take for it to "pay off".
I can add into that equation guesstimates for inflation/alternative investments, as well as electric rate increases.
But is that going to create a significant difference in the data for the decision?
Not usually.
Most likely it'll mean that with the new assumptions systemA goes from a 7 year payback to a 7.35 year payback, while systemB goes from a 8 year payback to a 8.4 year payback.
Or that system A goes from a 7 year payback to a 6.3 year payback while systemB goes from an 8 year payback to a 7.2 year payback

The absolute values for the payback time changes. But the ranking of them doesn't and the ranking is what affects the decision.
It is possible to create scenarios where the ranking could change - but I think those are likely to either be unrealistic scenarios or scenarios where the financials are so close that they aren't as important as other considerations like bigger system size or more confidence in one installer.

You appear to disagree that the various conditions will affect similar systems by about the same percentage.
ie. that adding in consideration of utility rate increases will change one system by 5%, but another by 15%.
I don't think that's what will be seen.
You might have one system is affected by +5% and the other by +6%.
Or one by +1% and the other by -1%
But those types of things don't affect the decision making as they won't change the conclusions - ex "systemA is better financially" or "it looks like they're too close to really use financials for choosing one vs the other"

IMO, a few hours spent studying time value of money type stuff, engineering economics and a few points of financial analysis and then applying it to a proposed residential PV addition can easily provide pretty healthy hourly return. SWAG example.: Spend 3 hours on such things. If you save $1,000 NPV in such an endeavor, that's $333/hr. and it's tax free to boot.

Can you provide an example of how you're going to save $1k NPV?
I don't see how comparing proposals while adding in time-value of money or utility rate increases will result in a $1k NPV savings.
(I don't see it taking 3 hours to do that analysis either - so *IF* that were true, it'd be an even better "hourly rate". I don't think I'd use an "hourly rate" in this context though as IMO it's misleading since it is not income coming to you.)

[J.P.M.]

How do you think the decision making will be affected for choosing between the different system choices?
If I am comparing systemA to systemB before purchase I will look at how long it'll take for it to "pay off".
I can add into that equation guesstimates for inflation/alternative investments, as well as electric rate increases.
But is that going to create a significant difference in the data for the decision?
Not usually.
Most likely it'll mean that with the new assumptions systemA goes from a 7 year payback to a 7.35 year payback, while systemB goes from a 8 year payback to a 8.4 year payback.
Or that system A goes from a 7 year payback to a 6.3 year payback while systemB goes from an 8 year payback to a 7.2 year payback

The absolute values for the payback time changes. But the ranking of them doesn't and the ranking is what affects the decision.
It is possible to create scenarios where the ranking could change - but I think those are likely to either be unrealistic scenarios or scenarios where the financials are so close that they aren't as important as other considerations like bigger system size or more confidence in one installer.

You appear to disagree that the various conditions will affect similar systems by about the same percentage.
ie. that adding in consideration of utility rate increases will change one system by 5%, but another by 15%.
I don't think that's what will be seen.
You might have one system is affected by +5% and the other by +6%.
Or one by +1% and the other by -1%
But those types of things don't affect the decision making as they won't change the conclusions - ex "systemA is better financially" or "it looks like they're too close to really use financials for choosing one vs the other"



Can you provide an example of how you're going to save $1k NPV?
I don't see how comparing proposals while adding in time-value of money or utility rate increases will result in a $1k NPV savings.
(I don't see it taking 3 hours to do that analysis either - so *IF* that were true, it'd be an even better "hourly rate". I don't think I'd use an "hourly rate" in this context though as IMO it's misleading since it is not income coming to you.)

Thank you for the reply. I'll be out of town for a couple of days, but I'll consider your points carefully and respond ASAP.

Respectfully,

[Ampster]

I agree with foo1bar. These are 15 to 25 thousand dollar decisions. I am not discounting the value of Present Value analysis. I was part of a voluteer group that advised a city about a $250,000 investment in solar panels and the city staffer did a PV ROI analysis on the final proposal to prove to the City Council that the return was better than the City was getting on reserve funds.