Do solar panels really increase home value?

There are lots of reasons to go solar. Solar energy is good for the environment and can help you save money on your energy bills. But like many other major home investments, solar panels can also add value to your home.

A collaboration between researchers with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and Abilene Christian University, for instance, looked at a group of homes in San Diego built in 2001. In their 2008 report, the researchers found that “The average gains in value for [homes] with PV systems are higher than for those without PV systems.” These increased values suggested to the research team that “concerns about solar panels diminishing resale value appear unwarranted.”

Drawing on data collected from home sales in and around Sacramento and San Diego, researchers with the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) concluded in 2011 that a standard residential solar energy system added three to four percent to a home’s value. That three to four percent increase meant that an average home would enjoy a $22,554 bump in value － $1,500 more than the average installation cost of the solar system cost (including subsidies).

Another 2011 study of homes in California found that from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) conducted between 2000 and 2009 found that, “California homes with PV systems have sold for a premium over comparable homes without PV systems.” The researchers found that installing a solar system increased the average California home’s value by $3.90 to $6.40 per installed watt, with most home values increasing by $5.50 per watt. Like the prior study by the NBER, the LBNL study found that for most solar systems, the cost of installation was less than the value added. The typical solar system in the study had a capacity of about 3.1 kilowatts, which translated to an average rise in home values of $17,000.

In one of the few studies conducted outside California, the Colorado Energy Office published a report in 2013 about the impact of solar systems on 30 homes in the Denver metropolitan area. The homes were valued between $200,000 and $680,000, and enjoyed a boost in their market values of $1,400 to $2,600 per installed kilowatt. That’s a sharp contrast against the impact solar systems had on home prices in California, which rose by about $5,500 per installed kilowatt according to the 2011 LBNL study. Because of these lower return-on-investment rates, the research team found that “[solar energy] systems currently cost more to install then they contribute to market value.” But at the same time, they concluded that “systems (that are owned) typically increase market value and almost always decrease marketing time.”

LBNL returned to the question of how solar systems impact home values in 2015, when it reported that a 3.6 kilowatt solar system adds an average of $4 per watt (or $15,000) to home values. Drawing on a decade’s worth of data from 4,000 homes in California, Florida, Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina, Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania, LBNL concluded that for each watt of installed PV, sale prices increase by about $4.18. California home prices again demonstrated larger average premium increases value, gaining as a result of solar system installation, with an average premium of $4.21, compared to a $3.11 premium elsewhere.

An even more recent LBNL study that looked at 43 homes in six states found that installing a solar system increased the home price by an average of $3.78 per watt. Like other multi-state studies, the data demonstrated that premiums garnered by solar installations are highly variable according to location. In Florida, for instance, installing a solar system added an average premium of $12,760 to the home’s value. But in the Portland metro area, the average premium was just $10,600 － a 17 percent difference.

These studies have also found that older solar systems tend to add a lower premium to the home’s value. And premiums tend to be higher in areas where a high proportion of the residents are college graduates, since college grads tend to be more aware of their carbon footprints.

In short, solar energy systems not only increase home values, but they often do so at rates that allow homeowners to completely recoup their investment. And these analyses don’t even include the value that solar systems provide in the form of savings on energy bills. PowerScout, a California-based solar startup, estimates that homeowners could save over $1,000 annually on energy expenditures simply by switching to solar.

Article Submission: 

Kyle Pennell is the Content Manager at PowerScout -- we help homeowners

figure out if installing solar is right for them and get competitive bids

from multiple installers. Our long-term mission is to accelerate the

adoption of solar (and other smart home improvements), which will help

mitigate climate change.

Looking forward to your feedback!

Best,

Kyle

kylep@powerscout.co

Thank You for stopping by the Green Blog. If additional information is needed or you have a question let me know by posting a question or comment. Together we can make a difference and create a future that will benefit everyone.

StLouis Property Owner Public Meeting Notice-Set The PACE StLouis

Low Cost Financing for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Upgrades now Available to City of StLouis Residential and Commercial Building Owners.

• Who: StLouis Propety Owners

• What: Public Meeting Financing for Energy Efficiency and Clean Energy Financing Resources

• Where: SLDC- 1520 Market St, StLouis MO

• When: July 17, 2013

The City's Set the PACE St. Louis program is a great opportunity. If building owners use this financing tool, it will promote energy efficiency, save money, help the environment and create jobs. Mayor Francis G. Slay

• Streamlined qualification process
• Low, fixed payments
• Over 150,000 eligible products
• Positive cash flow through energy savings
• Balance transfers to new property owner upon sale
• Interest is tax deductible*
  *Consult your tax attorney or accountant

Eligible Projects

• Energy Efficiency Products
• Renewable Energy Systems
• Water Efficiency Systems

Public Meeting for

Property Owners

July 17th, 2013 at 6:00 pm - 

St. Louis Development Corporation (SLDC)
1520 Market Street, St Louis MO (google map)

View Larger Map

Thank you for stopping by St Louis Renewable Energy. Feel free to comment in the section below or contact Scotts Contracting- St Louis Home Improvement Projects and Energy Reducing Needs Get Your Green Building Tips and Resources at St Louis Renewable Energy Green Blog

loan guarantees for renewable energy projects and Budget Cuts

About $41 billion in loan guarantees for renewable energy projects are caught up in the bipartisan wrangling over the federal budget, which could derail dozens of projects and eliminate tens of thousands of jobs. Even established companies are concerned, underscoring the nascent industry's reliance on government help.

A Republican proposal to slash the loan-guarantee program was included in a U.S. House of Representatives' budget bill passed last month. Such a move would be a setback for the Obama Administration's push to develop alternate sources of energy, slash greenhouse gas emissions and create jobs.

Renewable energy companies, particularly solar power product makers and developers, say the loan-guarantee program administered by the Department of Energy is crucial to allow projects currently under development to proceed. Loan guarantees for nuclear plants would not be affected.

"The DOE loan program provides an important financing 'bridge' at a time when the U.S. private debt markets have little to no experience financing first of their kind utility-scale solar projects," First Solar Chief Executive Rob Gillette said in an email. He said the program supports large solar projects that create jobs, state and local tax revenue and investment opportunities.

The loan guarantee acts as lenders' insurance in case of default or unforeseen delay for technologies trying to go commercial for the first time. It is meant to push companies out of the so-called valley of death where private equity or debt investors are reluctant to cover huge construction costs on unproven technology given the sluggish growth outlook power demand.

First Solar has more than 2,000 megawatts of solar farms under development in the U.S. Among them is a 290-megawatt Arizona project called Agua Caliente, for which the company obtained a $967 million conditional DOE loan guarantee. Independent power producer NRG Energy Inc. (NRG) agreed to buy the solar farm, but only if the DOE provides the loan guarantee.

"Without the federal loan guarantee program, private sector capital earmarked for this and other clean energy projects will stay on the sidelines," NRG Chief Financial Officer Christian Schade said by email. NRG is seeking DOE loan guarantees for two other solar farms and an offshore wind project.

If the House proposal to slash funding were to proceed, the DOE would be forced to withdraw six conditional loan guarantees the agency has issued to renewable projects, said Ebony Meeks, spokeswoman for the agency. In addition, 25 other renewable energy projects that are currently in the final stages of receiving their loan guarantees would not get them, she said.

Together, these projects are seeking more than $13.6 billion in loans to finance $24.5 billion in new energy infrastructure that are estimated to put more than 25,000 Americans to work, Meeks said. Since 2009, the DOE has issued nearly $4.4 billion in such loan guarantees.

Cutting the DOE program would "kill all clean energy projects with pending DOE loan guarantee applications, causing the loss of tens of thousands of jobs and many other benefits," the Solar Energy Industries Association said in a statement.

Federal loan guarantees, along with a investment tax credit and other incentives helped the U.S. solar power market more than double in 2010, with similar growth expected this year, according to analysts and solar power companies.

While larger companies will be able to continue developing projects, albeit on a smaller scale, without loan guarantees, small business owners may be forced to abandon their projects.

James Taylor and his family have sunk their fortune into a $145 million project in Montgomery, N.Y. that converts waste into electricity. The Taylor BioMass Energy project is close to finalizing terms for a $100 million loan guarantee, which the company needs to obtain a loan of that size from a separate DOE program, said Taylor, the company's chief executive.

"We've got every cent that we own in this project on the faith and belief that it appears that [the loan guarantee] is finally going to happen," Taylor said.

After unsuccessfully shopping the project to 150 venture capital, debt and equity investors, the DOE may be Taylor's only way for retaining control over the landfill technology that he spent more than 15 years developing. "I'm hoping I don't have to give it away," he said.

-By Naureen S. Malik, Dow Jones Newswires; 212-416-4210; naureen.malik@dowjones.com

By Naureen S. Malik and Cassandra Sweet
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

Reply from Senator McCaskill-Clean Energy and Congress

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 4:32 PM, <senator@mccaskill.senate.gov> wrote:

September 30, 2010

Dear St Louis Renewable Energy,

Thank you for contacting me regarding clean energy and oil spill liability legislation.  I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.

As you may know, in late July, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada introduced S.3663, the Clean Energy Jobs and Oil Company Accountability Act of 2010.  This bill would take four important steps toward addressing our country's longstanding energy challenges.  First, it would ensure that oil companies and not taxpayers will be held liable for any damage caused by future oil spills.  Second, it would reduce our energy consumption and create jobs by investing in Home Star, an energy efficiency program with bipartisan support.  Third, it would reduce our dependence on foreign oil by making significant investments in vehicles that run on electricity and natural gas.  Lastly, it would protect our environment by investing in the Land and Water Conservation Fund.  If enacted, all the investments made pursuant this legislation will be paid for by increasing the amount oil companies are required to pay into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.  Leader Reid has announced plans for the Senate to consider this legislation in the coming months.

Recently, I have heard from many Missourians, some with concerns and others in support of S.3663.  Many Missourians are disappointed that the legislation does not attempt to put a price on carbon, include a renewable energy standard that will help diversify how we produce energy, or provide funding for the National Historic Preservation Fund.  Others have raised concerns about the impact this legislation may have on U.S. oil companies.  In addressing the latter point, I think it is important to note that oil companies receive billions in taxpayer funded tax credits every year to continue their operations in the United States.  In fact, in the first quarter of 2010, profits for the top five oil companies exceeded $21 billion, a 38 percent increase over first quarter profits in 2009.  There are, however, several Democratic and Republican senators currently working with the Senate Majority Leader to find compromise language that will address the concerns of those states where oil companies contribute significantly to the local economy.  I am hopeful an agreement will be reached in the coming months that wins broad support and ensures this legislation remains paid for, meaning that it would not add to the national debt in these fiscally-constrained times.

While I understand that many Missourians are frustrated that Leader Reid did not decide to bring legislation before the full Senate that directly address the issue of climate change by requiring a cap on carbon emissions or include a renewable energy standard, it should not be overlooked that this bill goes a long way towards reducing our dependence on foreign oil and increasing our energy efficiency, both of which will help to reduce our emissions and the amount of energy consumption.  I have been a longstanding supporter of efforts to address climate change and increase our use of renewable energy.  In fact, I supported the renewable energy standard that was passed by Missouri voters in 2008, which requires Missouri's utilities to produce 15 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2021.  I have also recently cosponsored the Renewable Electricity Promotion Act (S. 3813) introduced by Senator Bingaman of New Mexico, which would establish a federal renewable energy standard similar to the one supported by Missourians.  However, I remain concerned that the current proposal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions does not include enough protections for Missouri consumers, who have no choice but to rely on power generated from coal.  I believe we must and can do better for Missourians who are already struggling to make ends meet.  As this debate continues, I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find a solution that addresses the threat of climate change while protecting Missouri consumers.  

As Congress considers how to address these difficult challenges, please know that I will keep the interests of all Missourians in mind before I cast any votes.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance to you on this or any other issue.

Sincerely,

Claire McCaskill
United States Senator

P.S. If you would like more information about resources that can help Missourians, or what I am doing in the Senate on your behalf, please sign up for my email newsletter at www.mccaskill.senate.gov.

Thank you for contacting the Office of United States Senator Claire McCaskill. We welcome your communication and look forward to hearing from you. Unfortunately, this mailbox is not monitored.
If you would like to send a message to Senator McCaskill, please visit the following website: http://mccaskill.senate.gov.
During business hours, you may reach the office immediately by calling 202-224-6154.
Thank you again for contacting the Office of Senator McCaskill.

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

Solar Thermal Plant-California-Steam Electricity Production

California Energy Commission licenses first solar thermal plant in 20-years

September 1, 2010

Source: California Energy Commission

The California Energy Commission has approved the construction of the proposed Beacon Solar Energy Project, the first solar thermal power project permitted in 20 years.

"Today's action begins the journey of increasing clean renewable energy in California," said Energy Commission Chairman Karen Douglas.
Douglas served as the presiding member of the committee that reviewed the plant's application for certification.

In a unanimous vote, the Energy Commission adopted the presiding member's proposed decision (PMPD) that recommended licensing the 250-megawatt facility in eastern Kern County.

The last solar thermal power plants that the Energy Commission approved were Luz Solar Electric Generating Systems (SEGS) IX and Luz SEGS X in February 1990.

The PMPD for the Beacon Solar Energy Project said the facility, as mitigated, will have no significant impacts on the environment and complies with applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards. The PMPD was based solely on the record of facts that were established during the facility's certification proceeding.

Beacon Solar, LLC, a subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, would construct, own, and operate the proposed plant. The project is a concentrated solar electric generating facility on approximately 2,012-acres in eastern Kern County on the western edge of the Mojave Desert, four miles from California City and 15 miles north of the town of Mojave.

The project will use well-established parabolic trough solar thermal technology to produce electrical power using a steam turbine generator fed from a solar steam generator. The solar steam generators receive heated heat transfer fluid from solar thermal equipment comprised of arrays of parabolic mirrors that collect energy from the sun.

The federal government and the State of California have established the need for the nation and state to increase the development and use of renewable energy in order to enhance the nation's energy independence, meet environmental goals, and create new economic growth opportunities.

Alliance seeks to double clean energy production.(Northeast CHP Initiative): An article from: Fairfield County Business Journal

Missouri-Clean Energy-Politics-McCaskill

Missouri news, views, and issues - Show Me Progress

Clean energy roulette - round and round McCaskill goes and where she lands nobody knows | More by: WillyK Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 21:41:26 PM CDT

It's a sure thing that Kit Bond will respect the GOP love affair with Big-Oil and King-Coal, not to mention his party's general policy of obstruction when it comes time to consider the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act - just consider his absurd response to new EPA clean air regulations. Claire McCaskill, on the other hand, may hew to her Republican-not-so-light line, but, given her recent actions in regard to clean energy initiatives, it's just possible that she may be coming around to understanding that CO2 emission control is part-and-parcel of getting to where we need to be, and that she needs to take a few risks and show some innovative, forward-looking leadership to help us get there. It is surely this possibility that has led organizations like  Repower America and Clean Energy Works to lobby as hard as they can to bring Senator McCaskill on board. Which brings us to a conference call earlier this morning organized by Clean Energy Works. The call, which consisted of brief presentations from Missourians representing political, business, farm, and military interests, fleshed out four compelling arguments for passing the American Power Act (and, I hope, for improving that flawed proposal): Clean energy alternatives are here right now: This point was made forcefully by Steve Flick, Board President of Show Me Energy Cooperative, "a non-profit, producer owned cooperative founded to support the development of renewable biomass energy sources in West Central Missouri." The Cooperative has used "stable biomass" as the basis for a "bio-pellet" that can be used for heat as well as to create electricity - recently the KCP&L utility company purchased the pellets to try them out as an alternative to coal for generating electricity. Better yet, given McCaskill's concern that Missourians not "get the short end of the stick" economically, bio-pellet production has the potential to increase farm income. One of the goals of the Cooperative, for instance, is to  "provide additional revenue streams for farmers and producers for their products by utilization in biomass energy production."

WillyK :: Clean energy roulette - round and round McCaskill goes and where she lands nobody knows

Clean Energy is politically viable: State Senator Joan Bray (D-24) observed that the public is ahead of the policy makers and wants the transition to clean energy now. She noted that the Massey coal mine disaster and the current catastrophic BP oil spill have brought home to Americans the costs of doing nothing. The public expects action not dithering from a congress that, according to Bray, doesn't seem to be able to "walk and chew gum at the same time." This argument might reassure our politically cautious McCaskill, especially since it is supported by some recent polling (see also here). McCaskill, who professes to worry about the impact of precipitate action on the business climate, should also be receptive to Bray's observation that Congress must make prompt decisions about energy for economic reasons as well, since businesses need to be able to rely on known rules if they are to plan intelligently. Clean Energy makes us more secure: Jack Hembree, a U.S. Army veteran from Springfield and a member of Operation Free discussed the fact that because most of our oil comes from the Middle East - only 3% of our consumption is supported by domestic oil production - we will have no choice but to continue our military involvement in the region until we can move to clean energy. Listening to Hembree, it occurred to me that since McCaskill claims to support our troops, given the role of oil in putting them in harm's way, how can she do other than to vote for the American Power Act? Clean Energy has no downside: Ralph Bicknese, of Hellmuth & Bicknese Architects in St. Louis offered this formula for evaluating the real costs of our energy sources: just ask what happens when things go wrong. Coal? Produces coal ash that ends up in unlined and unregulated sludge ponds. And what's wrong with that? Think about toxic chemical byproducts seeping into your water, not to mention spills - remember what happened in Kingston Tennessee? Oil? If I need to spell the downside out, you've been living in a cave for the last four decades. Nuclear? As Bicknesse put it, when Nuclear goes wrong, it goes very wrong. Think Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and then think abut the problems inherent in storing poisonous waste with a half-life of a couple of millennia. Not to mention that power from nuclear energy is expensive. It's a dangerous energy source and it's not cheap. Wind, solar? Maybe there are some little implementation problems but nothing that can go catastrophically wrong - no downside at all really. Biomass? essentially no downside that can't be easily dealt with. Given Senator McCaskill's obvious understanding of at least some of the issues, as she articulates them on her Website, if she continues to walk backwards, as she did in her response to the proposed EPA regulations, we must demand that she tell us just why the considerations above do not convince her to not only support, but work to improve the American Power Act. So go call her - let her know that if she does the right thing, we'll have her back in 2012.

Tags: Murkowski resolution Rockefeller Resolution, EPA, clean energy, aces, American Power Act, Claire McCaskill, missouri, Operation Free, Show Me Energy Cooperative, Joan Bray, Clean Energy Works, Repower America, (All Tags)













Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

Repower America-Clean Energy Movement

Join the movement calling for clean energy

America faces unprecedented economic, national security and environmental challenges. The solution – transition to clean, renewable energy. Join our movement of more than 5 million calling for clean energy and climate policies that will create millions of jobs, make us energy independent and solve the climate crisis.

sign the letter now.