I am a full supporter of both ownership and leasing since it’s clear that there is not a one-size-fits-all solution. As a retiree, I would not want to be told, “Sorry, you represent a very small percentage of the population, and can’t go solar”.

The general public (no matter how small of the population they may or may not represent) should have options for going solar and I could not be happier that for New Mexican’s, like myself, there is now another way to go solar and take advantage of our abundant southwest sun.

Homeowners who lease solar do not need luck to transfer their lease agreements to new buyers, just as homeowners who own their pv system don’t need it to realize the added value upon resale. They both need an educated buyer with common sense and who wants to pay less on their electric bill.

PACE financing is a wonderful idea, but unfortunately is still held up in the courts and not a viable current option for New Mexicans.

As for your answer, I did what I would expect anyone else to do. I researched my options and chose the best solution that made sense in my particular instance. It just so happened that leasing was a better choice for me.

Reputable solar companies do not suppress or propagandize one option over the other. Here’s to Affordable Solar and Sunnova for offering both options and leaving it up to the consumer to choose.

Solar energy financing (own or lease) is not a thing of the past and blind support for only one option is the only foolish thing here.

Is anyone aggregating that data?

If so, we can make it public. And when low prices are made public they should help bring prices down in other areas.

This site is all about solutions. Helping to drive down the cost of solar and increasing installation rates is a major solution.

In general owning is probably financially better than leasing, but as long as the roof-owner is paying less per month than purchasing power from the grid and there’s more solar installed it’s a win-win.

I agree that $13.5k (pre-incentives) is a much closer estimate than $18k. I’m familiar with the NM market delivering a turnkey grid-tied system for sub $13k ($2.85/W).

However, say someone doesn’t want to/can’t write a big check, or can’t realize the tax credits (retired, disabled, other), or doesn’t want to wait for payback, or doesn’t want to pay more in homeowner’s ins. or any other valid reason for non-owership, then leasing is a great option and still comes out ahead versus staying with your electric provider. Lease solar for $79/mo (0 Down 0 Esc) over 25 years = $23,700. Stay with electric provider for $110/mo, which is roughly what a 4kW (nominal) system would zero out, over 25 years = $33,000 (assuming no rate increase!). That’s a difference of $9,300 over 25 years ($372/year or $31/mo). Would you opt for lower electric bills for these numbers with no upfront cost? Most of the general public would and are in CA, AZ, CO with 75-80% of new systems adopted via leasing.

I’d like to think that we’re a lot lower than that by now but I haven’t seen evidence that installation at $3/watt ($13,500/4,500) is common. You know of a source? Is $3/watt a regional average price?

Australia is now under $2/watt. I’d like to find out that we’re getting down to that level in a hurry.

People with solar clean the snow off their panels.

When there is snow on the ground my panels really crank out the power. They love all that reflected light.