Hi. We own a house in the SF Bay Area that we rent out today, but had a 7 KW solar install done back in the 2005 timeframe with 36 panels that face almost due south with no trees in the way, perfect for a string inverter. A few years ago the Fronius inverter failed, and parts to replace it were unavailable. Replacing the inverter with a modern inverter required all new wiring to the panels and for the new inverter install to be code compliant, so we left the system offline until the time came for a roof replacement.
That time is coming near, and so we need to make a decision about what to do with solar. From what I understand, NEM 1.0 grandfathering expires in 20 yrs after install, so 2025, which is just around the corner. Is that correct?
I think we have 3 choices:
1) Install a system that is the same size as the system before, but requires many fewer panels and pretty cheap. Keep the NEM 1.0 until 2025, and then moves to NEM 2.0, is that correct? Or would it move to NEM 3.0 if the system were replaced with a same sized system today? Tesla installs only would do 4.8 KW correct?
2) Install a much bigger system, but that would now attach with NEM 3.0, which has pretty questionable economics.
3) Remove the panels, replace the roof, and no solar.
We could try and go with a solar roof instead of a typical roof, but it would seem that decision is based on the arbitrage of the price of replacing the roof and solar vs solar alone.
The utilities are paid by the renters, so the investment trade off is making the house more valuable, and could support additional rent increases if the utilities are reduced. We have a request to add an EV charger, so could take advantage of EV rates in the payback calculations.
Did I get my assumptions right? A cursory calculation argues for no solar given the circumstances, or maybe a small inexpensive system if NEM 2.0 were still in force in 2025.
Did I miss something?
Thanks everyone!
That time is coming near, and so we need to make a decision about what to do with solar. From what I understand, NEM 1.0 grandfathering expires in 20 yrs after install, so 2025, which is just around the corner. Is that correct?
I think we have 3 choices:
1) Install a system that is the same size as the system before, but requires many fewer panels and pretty cheap. Keep the NEM 1.0 until 2025, and then moves to NEM 2.0, is that correct? Or would it move to NEM 3.0 if the system were replaced with a same sized system today? Tesla installs only would do 4.8 KW correct?
2) Install a much bigger system, but that would now attach with NEM 3.0, which has pretty questionable economics.
3) Remove the panels, replace the roof, and no solar.
We could try and go with a solar roof instead of a typical roof, but it would seem that decision is based on the arbitrage of the price of replacing the roof and solar vs solar alone.
The utilities are paid by the renters, so the investment trade off is making the house more valuable, and could support additional rent increases if the utilities are reduced. We have a request to add an EV charger, so could take advantage of EV rates in the payback calculations.
Did I get my assumptions right? A cursory calculation argues for no solar given the circumstances, or maybe a small inexpensive system if NEM 2.0 were still in force in 2025.
Did I miss something?
Thanks everyone!
