I don't know about you, but I'm conservative with AC and electrical usage in a SFR and once anyone gets solar their usage should probably go up, I'd blast my AC, leave my outdoor lights on longer, not go turning off random lights the kids leave on, etc.
Say the $65 rental covers part of your electricity (assume average SFR is $100-120), you're still going to pay the difference on usage, I'm not sure where the gain is here. Is that $65 going to cover ~$100/m worth of electricity? (100-65)*12=420 in net savings, the middle of your $200-600 gain? I don't believe that small of a system can cover $100/m SCE bill, and like you said it would be worse going to TOU from tiered before SCE forces you to.
How does one calculate break even/ROI on this if its a solar rental? Doesn't it make more sense to purchase or finance a system if you plan to stay in the home long term? I'm trying to understand how a rental is better.
Medium System of 7.6 is $1560/y (10 year rental) = $15600 (not taking into account any price increases)
To buy a 23 panels at 330 watts which is a 7.59 system at 2.60/watt = 19,737 (30% tax credit back) = 13,814 (this is probably using better materials than the Tesla rental too)
After your break even after 5/6 years average, it's all ROI, but you'd still be paying on a rental.
woodburyowner said:
The calculation is a bit different for this rental program since you pay a fixed monthly fee. If you size the system too big, you might end up losing money each year if you don't use enough electricity. Medium system is $130/month so $1560 a year. If your bill is < $1560 per year, it makes no sense to rent a medium system. For a small system, the cost is $65/month or $780/year. Most SFR people will have bills higher than this so it's pretty easy to make the rental work. This is where the $200-$600 net gain comes from.