If you are in DC, I don't think you're likely to find a buyer who would object to having free solar electricity.

There is literally no down side.

The "leased" aspect simply means that you've given your SRECS to Solar Solutions. We did this on our house, and we do not have to pay anything, we simply sold our SRECS to them so that we basically didn't have to pay for the panels.

We hear no kind of noise from the solar system.

You have to try very hard to even see it since we have a flat roof. When you do see them, they blend with the modern look of our 50s flat roofed home.

So, to sum up: you get cheaper electricity at no cost to you. There is no downside. People who wouldn't buy because of this misunderstand the situation.

What is structure of this deal?

They're potentially 4 parties: the power company, the solar manufacturer, the panel operator, and the homeowner.

Charging an EV from solar is a big win, if you and other in a row house

I don't understand all these grumpy old farts. Have a good lawyer read the lease it does not contain any crazy provisions ,and assuming it does not, go ahead and buy the place. You save on electricity costs and there is no downside at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the issue for those who say no?

Solar is hideous. I’d never buy a house with solar.

Even if it generated $2k/year in electricity savings? And if you owned them, probably $6k/year in SRECs (in DC)? I'll take $8k/year for something that is "hideous"!

If it’s a rowhome, it’s likely a flat roof so no one except a helicopter will even know they’re there…

Yup- I was looking at the satellite view of our home the other day and realized how many homes on the surrounding streets have panels- they can't be seen from the street/sidewalk and only barely at a specific distance/angle from the alleys.

The math works out that if you didn't get solar panels on a DC rowhome with a flat roof circa 2019 you were either financially illiterate or il-liquid. We make 4k/year in SREC off ours and they cost 12K after tax credits to be installed then. You can't see them from the street, they prolong the life of the underlying roof (no more UV damage), they don't penetrate the roof (installed on the party walls), are installed in like 4 hours flat, can be easily upgraded to a battery-backup, and make financial sense as long as the SREC program exists. Essentially makes our total utility cost zero (complete offsets, water, internet, TV, natural gas, and car gas).

If the grid ever becomes unstable, we'll buy a battery.

Agreed, we got our panels back then and they have paid themselves back fully and producing nice electricity savings and SREC income. Not sure I am okay with the policy implications honestly, of having all DC electric users basically subsidizing mostly richer people and investors to install pretty small relatively inefficient solar arrays, through drastically high SREC prices, but hey I don't make the rules.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the issue for those who say no?

Solar is hideous. I’d never buy a house with solar.

Even if it generated $2k/year in electricity savings? And if you owned them, probably $6k/year in SRECs (in DC)? I'll take $8k/year for something that is "hideous"!

If it’s a rowhome, it’s likely a flat roof so no one except a helicopter will even know they’re there…

Yup- I was looking at the satellite view of our home the other day and realized how many homes on the surrounding streets have panels- they can't be seen from the street/sidewalk and only barely at a specific distance/angle from the alleys.

The math works out that if you didn't get solar panels on a DC rowhome with a flat roof circa 2019 you were either financially illiterate or il-liquid. We make 4k/year in SREC off ours and they cost 12K after tax credits to be installed then. You can't see them from the street, they prolong the life of the underlying roof (no more UV damage), they don't penetrate the roof (installed on the party walls), are installed in like 4 hours flat, can be easily upgraded to a battery-backup, and make financial sense as long as the SREC program exists. Essentially makes our total utility cost zero (complete offsets, water, internet, TV, natural gas, and car gas).

If the grid ever becomes unstable, we'll buy a battery.

Some banks will not write a loan unless the Solar lease is paid off.

Check the permits. If they didn't pull them, you can use that to terminate the contract.

Absolutely not.

We would skip any house with leased solar panels or any similar encumbrance.

I have to believe the pool of buyers that want to pay almost nothing annually for electricity outnumbers the pool that doesn't like the look of solar panels by probably like 50-to-1.

Also, they are becoming so common these days that it just doesn't look unusually ugly (if you can actually see them...which isn't the case as other pointed out).

To me, it's the equivalent of all the pool screen enclosures you see in FL. I love the fact you can enjoy the outdoors mosquito free, but think they look like absolute shit.

However, it only is an eyesore if you are the only one that has one...but like every other house in FL has one, so it doesn't really matter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. I would not.

1) They make noise. Or rather, the accompanying equipment does. A slight buzzing/fan noise I find irritating. We have solar- that sound on the inverter is only audible if outside within maybe 20 feet

2) They are ugly. Sure? On many houses you can barely see them, or they lay flat on a pitched roof?

3) It's questionable whether rooftop solar panels are actually good for the environment overall.Example of this analysis? I will say I could see the materials usage/energy to produce not being especially efficient for smaller arrays

4) What happens when you want to fix the roof?You get the installer to take the panels off and put them back on later. It's maybe $1k? Not bad for something you probably do once in 15 years, and may be aligned to replacing the panels anyway

5) I know someone whose solar panels set on fire. Um, okay, that is not really a substantive risk? Have never heard of that happening other than your anonymous example

6) Resale. Our owned panels raised our refinance appraisal by $10k

Um, within twenty feet outside is most of my backyard. I don't want to hear that. And I have heard that noise inside as well when in these houses - some people have better hearing than others and I am one of those people, unfortunately.

Both we and our neighbors have solar panels and we don't hear anything. I mean absolutely nothing.

Same. I’m baffled by the noise complaint. I have a tiny home and am really sensitive to noise— and I hear nothing sitting literally outside the box. Like, the box is directly behind my head when I sit on my porch. So I have no idea what this person is going on about.

Anonymous wrote:No. I would not.

1) They make noise. Or rather, the accompanying equipment does. A slight buzzing/fan noise I find irritating.

2) They are ugly.

3) It's questionable whether rooftop solar panels are actually good for the environment overall.

4) What happens when you want to fix the roof?

5) I know someone whose solar panels set on fire.

6) Resale.

Lol don’t listen to this person. I have solar panels as does about half of my block. They do not make any noise, nor does any “equipment.” (I have no idea what this person is talking about.) My roof is flat, so they cannot be seen from the street. (I don’t think they’re ugly but it doesn’t matter if they’re not visible!) If you lease the panels, the company cares for them (including cleaning) and removes them in the case of a roof issue. It is objectively a good thing to invest and encourage renewable energy. And my energy bills are 0. I don’t get the fire thing so can’t comment on that. Finally, homes with solar panels were a plus for us when we bought five years ago.

We just got an EV and added a charger, too, so we’re really happy with our decision.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the issue for those who say no?

Solar is hideous. I’d never buy a house with solar.

Even if it generated $2k/year in electricity savings? And if you owned them, probably $6k/year in SRECs (in DC)? I'll take $8k/year for something that is "hideous"!

If it’s a rowhome, it’s likely a flat roof so no one except a helicopter will even know they’re there…

Yup- I was looking at the satellite view of our home the other day and realized how many homes on the surrounding streets have panels- they can't be seen from the street/sidewalk and only barely at a specific distance/angle from the alleys.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the issue for those who say no?

Solar is hideous. I’d never buy a house with solar.

Even if it generated $2k/year in electricity savings? And if you owned them, probably $6k/year in SRECs (in DC)? I'll take $8k/year for something that is "hideous"!

If it’s a rowhome, it’s likely a flat roof so no one except a helicopter will even know they’re there…