Would you buy a house with a solar lease?

[Anonymous]

This doesn't sound that bad. We were looking at a house that had a solar contract with Vivint that required the homeowner to buy electricity from the company. The rate was not awesome and it was a multi-decade committment. Replacing the roof seemed like a huge hassle with lots of complaints on BBB about how the company was not responsive when it came to taking the panels off.

However, I'm generally not impressed with homeowners that enter into a contract or lease for such a long period and then leave after a few years and dump that contract onto the next owner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This doesn't sound that bad. We were looking at a house that had a solar contract with Vivint that required the homeowner to buy electricity from the company. The rate was not awesome and it was a multi-decade committment. Replacing the roof seemed like a huge hassle with lots of complaints on BBB about how the company was not responsive when it came to taking the panels off.

However, I'm generally not impressed with homeowners that enter into a contract or lease for such a long period and then leave after a few years and dump that contract onto the next owner.

Such a strange word to use. It's neither impressive nor unimpressive. Many people don't like the hassle of making the decision to start, and the installation process.

It's like saying, I am "unimpressed" by someone that puts in a pool and then sells the house and "dumps" that pool onto the next buyer after several years.

Yes, you can just decide to buy another house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This doesn't sound that bad. We were looking at a house that had a solar contract with Vivint that required the homeowner to buy electricity from the company. The rate was not awesome and it was a multi-decade committment. Replacing the roof seemed like a huge hassle with lots of complaints on BBB about how the company was not responsive when it came to taking the panels off.

However, I'm generally not impressed with homeowners that enter into a contract or lease for such a long period and then leave after a few years and dump that contract onto the next owner.

Such a strange word to use. It's neither impressive nor unimpressive. Many people don't like the hassle of making the decision to start, and the installation process.

It's like saying, I am "unimpressed" by someone that puts in a pool and then sells the house and "dumps" that pool onto the next buyer after several years.

Yes, you can just decide to buy another house.

Always weird to have a sort of moral judgment on things like this!

But yes the Vivint example is why many posters are talking about being careful who you do one of these contracts with. And entering into a Power Purchase Agreement is pretty onerous- frankly the homeowner there probably didn't understand that they should have gotten the electricity for free, or had less leverage in the negotiation. Again, no reason to make some sort of moral judgment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are looking at a home that checks all the boxes, but it has a solar lease - electricity is free but we can’t sell any SERCs. Seller says it’s irrevocable and they save about $2000 in electricity a year. I don’t see the downside other than the lost SERC income. Reg flag or good thing?

Yes for sure

It is actually expensive and time consuming to set up solar systems /- and energy prices are projected to skyrocket with climate change / extreme weather disrupting power grids .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This doesn't sound that bad. We were looking at a house that had a solar contract with Vivint that required the homeowner to buy electricity from the company. The rate was not awesome and it was a multi-decade committment. Replacing the roof seemed like a huge hassle with lots of complaints on BBB about how the company was not responsive when it came to taking the panels off.

However, I'm generally not impressed with homeowners that enter into a contract or lease for such a long period and then leave after a few years and dump that contract onto the next owner.

Such a strange word to use. It's neither impressive nor unimpressive. Many people don't like the hassle of making the decision to start, and the installation process.

It's like saying, I am "unimpressed" by someone that puts in a pool and then sells the house and "dumps" that pool onto the next buyer after several years.

Yes, you can just decide to buy another house.

Please, you can fill in a pool. You can't get out of these leases/contracts that somebody else signed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This doesn't sound that bad. We were looking at a house that had a solar contract with Vivint that required the homeowner to buy electricity from the company. The rate was not awesome and it was a multi-decade committment. Replacing the roof seemed like a huge hassle with lots of complaints on BBB about how the company was not responsive when it came to taking the panels off.

However, I'm generally not impressed with homeowners that enter into a contract or lease for such a long period and then leave after a few years and dump that contract onto the next owner.

Such a strange word to use. It's neither impressive nor unimpressive. Many people don't like the hassle of making the decision to start, and the installation process.

It's like saying, I am "unimpressed" by someone that puts in a pool and then sells the house and "dumps" that pool onto the next buyer after several years.

Yes, you can just decide to buy another house.

Always weird to have a sort of moral judgment on things like this!

But yes the Vivint example is why many posters are talking about being careful who you do one of these contracts with. And entering into a Power Purchase Agreement is pretty onerous- frankly the homeowner there probably didn't understand that they should have gotten the electricity for free, or had less leverage in the negotiation. Again, no reason to make some sort of moral judgment.

Whenever you buy a home, you take a big risk. The character of the owner matters. Did they paint over water damage? Are they selling because they became aware of a huge expense that's coming that they don't disclose? Usually, there's no way to know these things ahead of time. Signing a 20-30 year solar lease and then selling the house 5 years later is weird. Legal, yes. But also sketchy and irresponsible.

[Anonymous]

No I would not. I have passed on two houses with leased solar panels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This doesn't sound that bad. We were looking at a house that had a solar contract with Vivint that required the homeowner to buy electricity from the company. The rate was not awesome and it was a multi-decade committment. Replacing the roof seemed like a huge hassle with lots of complaints on BBB about how the company was not responsive when it came to taking the panels off.

However, I'm generally not impressed with homeowners that enter into a contract or lease for such a long period and then leave after a few years and dump that contract onto the next owner.

Such a strange word to use. It's neither impressive nor unimpressive. Many people don't like the hassle of making the decision to start, and the installation process.

It's like saying, I am "unimpressed" by someone that puts in a pool and then sells the house and "dumps" that pool onto the next buyer after several years.

Yes, you can just decide to buy another house.

Always weird to have a sort of moral judgment on things like this!

But yes the Vivint example is why many posters are talking about being careful who you do one of these contracts with. And entering into a Power Purchase Agreement is pretty onerous- frankly the homeowner there probably didn't understand that they should have gotten the electricity for free, or had less leverage in the negotiation. Again, no reason to make some sort of moral judgment.

Whenever you buy a home, you take a big risk. The character of the owner matters. Did they paint over water damage? Are they selling because they became aware of a huge expense that's coming that they don't disclose? Usually, there's no way to know these things ahead of time. Signing a 20-30 year solar lease and then selling the house 5 years later is weird. Legal, yes. But also sketchy and irresponsible.

There so many valid reasons why you would sell a house 5 years after signing a solar lease. Got a great promotion in another city. Parent at home died and moving back to take care of other one. Kid needs some special services in a different part of the region. One parent changing careers and downsizing, etc., etc. "Weird", "Sketchy", "Irresponsible"? Nobody is forcing you to buy! Someone will assess the risk, value it appropriately, and the property will changes hands. No reason to add on all these value judgments about something you know nothing about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This doesn't sound that bad. We were looking at a house that had a solar contract with Vivint that required the homeowner to buy electricity from the company. The rate was not awesome and it was a multi-decade committment. Replacing the roof seemed like a huge hassle with lots of complaints on BBB about how the company was not responsive when it came to taking the panels off.

However, I'm generally not impressed with homeowners that enter into a contract or lease for such a long period and then leave after a few years and dump that contract onto the next owner.

Such a strange word to use. It's neither impressive nor unimpressive. Many people don't like the hassle of making the decision to start, and the installation process.

It's like saying, I am "unimpressed" by someone that puts in a pool and then sells the house and "dumps" that pool onto the next buyer after several years.

Yes, you can just decide to buy another house.

Always weird to have a sort of moral judgment on things like this!

But yes the Vivint example is why many posters are talking about being careful who you do one of these contracts with. And entering into a Power Purchase Agreement is pretty onerous- frankly the homeowner there probably didn't understand that they should have gotten the electricity for free, or had less leverage in the negotiation. Again, no reason to make some sort of moral judgment.

Whenever you buy a home, you take a big risk. The character of the owner matters. Did they paint over water damage? Are they selling because they became aware of a huge expense that's coming that they don't disclose? Usually, there's no way to know these things ahead of time. Signing a 20-30 year solar lease and then selling the house 5 years later is weird. Legal, yes. But also sketchy and irresponsible.

Again…such a bizarre take. It’s neither weird nor sketchy nor irresponsible. Is somebody that puts in a pool and then sells one year later selling because the pool is leaking and destroying the foundation…or they got a new job in another city or any of the myriad reasons someone moved.

[Anonymous]

Run away

[Anonymous]

Google Ralph Wilson ASG

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are looking at a home that checks all the boxes, but it has a solar lease - electricity is free but we can’t sell any SERCs. Seller says it’s irrevocable and they save about $2000 in electricity a year. I don’t see the downside other than the lost SERC income. Reg flag or good thing?

It looks like the panels were installed under this program: https://www.solarsolutiondc.com/power-to-the-people

Basically, the PPA that exists for this house means that power purchase is set to $0.00 instead of say $0.03 (what solar solution offered for power costs under their traditional lease, when we got solar) or $0.11 (pepco's current residential rate). It's not clear to me what happens to the array and the PPA once the contract ends, but otherwise it's a good deal. In the normal lease scenario they sell the array/equip to the homeowner for $1 at contract end.

[Anonymous]

Run the other direction. Not sure why ppl fall for these scams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Run the other direction. Not sure why ppl fall for these scams.

There is no scam here. It's free electricity. You don't pay anything. Why would this be bad? Or scammy? Not getting the logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Run the other direction. Not sure why ppl fall for these scams.

There is no scam here. It's free electricity. You don't pay anything. Why would this be bad? Or scammy? Not getting the logic.

I think these responses are because early on there were a number of scams around these panel installations- but they don't understand that a mature market in DC has been created, and as such there are a number of solid operators like Solar Solutions who aren't scammers. I sort of get it because the SREC values are so high that it feels like it SHOULD be a scam. Once I understood that the DC SRECs are so high specifically because of legislation mandating Pepco purchase DC-created power, and that they couldn't count MD or VA SRECs towards it, then it made sense.