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?