Comments on: Riverside County’s Property Assessed Clean Energy Program Tops $100mm, Goes State-Wide

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 23:15:00 +0000

Good call. I was actually in a similar situation recently, but with my best friend from college. Had nowhere to direct him. We’ve got an energy efficiency expert on our Important Media team — might be something he’d be up for.

Thanks for the idea.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 23:15:00 +0000

It’s all still in limbo. Ridiculous, since energy efficiency and solar improvements are incredibly low risk.

By: Matthew Todd Peffly

Matthew Todd Peffly — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 14:32:00 +0000

So what happen with Fanny/Freddy did they back down from their attempt to kill PACE programs? IMHO, PACE is one of the bast way for local government to get a lot of energy/water improvements done to property in their tax base, plus push local jobs. The only cost is the risk of default, and a little checking before hand keeps that very low.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 04:41:00 +0000

I’ve lost the link to that earlier study that found that sellers were gaining more than the cost of the system. I think it was done by a realtors group and it was a few years back.

Here’s an article about a larger, more recent study which finds that installed solar was averaging about $5.50/watt in increased sales price.

Given that the seller had already pocked the 30% federal subsidy that meant breaking even if they paid ~$8/watt. And the state and local subsidies would have made an even higher installation price worthwhile.

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/study-finds-solar-panels-increase-home-values/

By: Otis11

Otis11 — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 04:25:00 +0000

Yeah, I found the stuff about payback times and managed to put together a fairly decent argument for upgrading, but the effect on resale value was not documented significantly enough to make a concrete argument (or not enough that I could find anyway – but then again I don’t have the background many people here appear to have).

And having resale value greater than the system? I can believe that – lots of people would pay a premium not to have to do the work to find the best contractor, figure out how to claim it on their taxes, etc, etc, and even more don’t know what they cost anymore (as it’s been dropping so fast).

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 03:22:00 +0000

There’s some good stuff on the web about payback time. It could make for a good article and, perhaps, a sidebar feature.

One thing to consider in addition to payback time is what the improvement might add to the resale value if you did sell before full cost recovery. Some places include energy costs in the listing. And a feature like double pane windows might make the difference in which house some buyers pick.

There was a study a couple years back on resale price for California homes which had installed solar systems. Turns out that those houses sold at a price premium which was greater than the cost of the solar system.

By: Otis11

Otis11 — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 02:46:00 +0000

So we have permanent fact pages for solar, wind and clean energy on the side bar, any chance that we could get an overview of energy-efficient improvements?

Been trying to sell my parents and brother on upgrading their homes (mainly double pained windows, more insulation and an HVAC system that’s not from the 90s – but I always run into the argument, “But I might not live here in 5 years” after I show them that they are all cost effective and have a better 5 year return than most other investments. Having a collective page of incentives/opportunities like what are in this article could be very helpful in that.

Anyway – thanks for a great read. Efficiency is often the most overlooked answer!