i suspect this is an exercise in futility, but I have heard the comments too many times to think they are not true. Most know we have leased our solar system with an intent to buy it out in 2019. We had to do it that way because as a non-profit corporation, we would not qualify for rebates or incentives (like private home owners would). I think most of us agree, owning them makes for a better return on.investment. The one area that isn’t true is with a lease, the holder of the lease is responsible for maintenance and repairs. If you own it outright, it is on you to fix. The older systems came with massive inverters that are strung together with numerous panels. Some of the newer systems come with mini-inverters, effectively meaning each panel has its own inverter. The good news in that is if one goes out, the other panels still work generating power. Not true with panels that are strung together. So, here’s the ugly rumor: Our inverters have been going out on a regular basis, leaving us short on production levels. Most systems come with production guarantees, so it is in everyone’s best interest to get them back on line and working. Except in our case (the RCSC), the word is the company is claiming there is a lengthy back-log and so the RCSC is just replacing them as needed. If this is true, why would we do that? The company that owns the system should be on the hook, not us. Given the email blast where they argued they couldn’t change the language regarding HUD foreclosures due to their fiduciary responsibilities, if in fact they are paying for inverters when they aren’t ours to pay for...isn’t that a breach as well? Just asking eh?
I wonder the cost of buying the leased now? I hope someone does the math before they buy and older system vs newer. They get cheaper every year. And why do inverters go out or did you mean the panels? It doesn't seem like SC has a good system if there is that much failure. I did my research on the string vs the micro intervters. Originally I was dead set on the mico, but then decided to go with string for various reasons which I won't belabor. The string is still sometimes still a more appropriate set-up especially with the heat of the Arizona sun (the micro inverters are on the panels themselves and can burn out). You still need a large inverter though...the micro inverters don't negate that...it's just each one is individually controlled. I know your engineer friend, whom you sent me to, prefers the micro and I understand his reasons. He had his installed with the same company I did, BTW, which offers both types. Did you go with the mico on the install of your new house?
Thanks for the clarification, i always get that wrong. Micro, not mini. Duh. Yup, we went with the micro on the other house. No idea how they are working because the only real time we had was during the winter and they were Canadians who kept the house cooler than we would. We"ll know better next year when we get in and try and heat the pool. The cost to buy the system for the RCSC will be just the other side of 5 million dollars. I would love to see some info on how the system is doing, but alas, nothing published to me knowledge. And, this is exactly the kind of stuff the board struggles with releasing. Shouldn't be that way, but it is.
I installed a Neurio box on my system. That way you always know if there is a drop in power and exactly how much you are generating. You can check it from your phone or PC. My inverter did come with monitoring system but it's a lot more clunky to used than the Neurio. Some people complain but so far it's been very stable for me, never dropped offline since installing it, and I'm easily able to keep an check on my system. You can buy one on Amazon. It's not a self install though, unless you know electrical very well and can manage the software. My handyman did it but he's an exceptional handyman. The mico inverters must come with an online monitoring system of their own too...it's a lot easier than standing outside.
Great news (kind of); it cannot be a breach of their fiduciary responsibilities for repairing the inverters rather than having the company holding the lease do it. Seems they found out a while back, there is no maintenance clause in the lease agreement. Really? It gets worse, but maybe one of the board members wants to jump in here and explain why it isn’t one giant cluster fudge? Or more importantly why they are ignoring it as if it is no big deal....because it truly is.
Even with a no maintenance agreement the panels and inverter should have a warranty of 10-20 years by the manufacturer. Maybe the no maintenance means the original installer will not physically come out and re-install the new panel/inverter but certainly they must have a warranty for the panels/inverter. I know nothing about leasing but I can't imagine a lease involves no warranty. If this is the case they certainly should not buy the product....especially since some have already failed. You say some have failed but I wonder if the number is higher than average. I imagine it's temperature related failure. Here is an interesting post on solar failures
So here's the problem C. No one is saying much of anything about this. About a year ago, one of the potential candidates started telling me there were huge issues with the solar production. He posts on here sometimes and it would be great if he would jump in. He knows far more about it than i do. His comments are the reason i began asking questions. People wonder why i believe open governance is more important than the closed door crap we find here. This is exactly why. If no one is ever responsible or accountable stuff just keeps getting shoveled under the rug. Over the past two years there's been enough issues with solar to get the best CEO fired. I'm not even advocating for that, but i do believe the board needs to start holding management accountable for what is going on. Hiding it from us doesn't help change what is going on.
