• Welcome to AppraisersForum.com, the premier online  community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.

Follow up on the Solar discussion from an Installer

Status
Not open for further replies.
The math that you present is entirely based on the complete return OF the investment at one time and it does not consider at all both the return of and return on during the time the owner held the property.

As Michigan CG points out it is making a difference in the commercial market and I believe that is for two reasons ... first of which is that purchasers / investors / tenants recognize value and savings ... secondly appraisers in the commercial segment understand cash flow ... I further believe that purchasers, in many instances in residential, understand the value in savings

Marion says buyers do not walk around with calculators .. I completely disagree in this instance. .

One of the things Marion was alluding to was "Market Acceptance", which is key and must be proved empirically. There may be acceptance in some neighborhoods but not others. If acceptance doesn't yet represent the "market" but a fringe sector of the market, then you'll get people not paying for it or even removing it to improve the appeal of the home.

When you get to 4 unit properties or higher, a property is pretty much just "Numbers" and treated as an investment. The buyers are investors. Homes are largely purchased on the satisfaction of personal preferences for functionality, appeal and prestige and this is why many residential appraisers are having difficulty with this concept - simply, its different than the commercial/investor buyer situation but not necessarily in its entirety.

A solar electric panel depreciates and creates power that has a variable value over time, as prices fluctuate for power.

I wanted to make a few cross correlations to see if there is a similar situation that is valued by residential buyers due to income stream (not talking about investors):

When buyers buy, lets say, a duplex, they are hybrid buyer typically, partly residence appeal bias, partly investment bias. Rental rates can change over time, but they are typically percieved to be fairly stable. One can easily see how renting the other side will offset some of the mortgage payment, its a check in the hand for a certain amount on a monthly basis - very tangible. Solar panel returns are not so easily anticipated by a buyer or fully understood by the market, especially in the long term. Banks can factor in 75% to 90% of the additional unit income in duplexes based upon market rents for qualification purposes, whereas, there is no qualification assistance from solar panel income. In addition, buyers of duplexes may see the additional unit as a mother-in-law or plan to move to another home eventually and rent out the entire duplex after they lived there as a primary residence for the minimum period, so it can function as an investment and yet get a full tax break when they sell. There is no correlation to solar panels in this situation, so a duplex rental can have added utility. Already, I'm seeing significant disparity here in relation to a rental income situation for a residential type individual.

Actually, what I'm thinking is, solar panels are technology that sheds value over time. What sort of thing correlates to this in the residential market? An energy efficient appliance (water heater, furnace, AC system, added insulation, triple pane windows, passive solar-southern exposure), etc. People do pay more for added efficiency but what they pay depends upon the buyer, the appeal of the item if it is visible (furnace doesn't need appeal, but an energy efficient washer does), location of the property and the property itself.

We can see what people are paying for a new unit over and above a standard or less efficient unit. If there is broad acceptance to pay X more for that added efficiency and percieved cost savings per.....year probably, then that should be the contribution for a new unit. I think, to apply a cash flow analysis there has to be proof of market acceptance; otherwise, the market is saying, we don't care about it as an investment, so cash flow is irrelevant for its choice. But they may be paying more for such items and it may be widely accepted, but not because there is tangibly percieved monetary return, but more for a different reason. Appeal, prestige, etc.

The other point I made prior is that even when the investment value is not apparent to the applicable market; it may have value in that market as a hedge against pricing uncertainty, which is more "emotional" rather than numerical and just the stuff that influences buyers in the residential market (sometimes to the point of being irrational). Corporations also hedge against price uncertainty with commodity options, for example, but this tends to be more rational and by the numbers (projects based upon trend lines, standard deviations, business trends, etc).

Other things that influence residential buyers are: Prestige, appeal, social concience, environmentalism, etc. With the exception of prestige, and appeal, I don't think social concience or environmentalism is high on an investors list of priorities.

Appraisers have to think like a typical buyer, we can't deviate from that or else we appraise in an unrealistic way. When buyers percieve a solar installation as an investment that is understood in a rather rational uniform way, then we can appraise using this perception. However, I don't think we are at that point generally in the residential market. The more a particular property appeals to the investor, the more a solar installation factors in as an investment (duplex, triplex, quadraplex, commercial properties). The more tangible and clearly understood is the payback on a solar installation to a non-investor in the residential market, the greater should be market acceptance and the more it should be valued as an investment for non-investors. Then, by all means, stick that result into the sales grid.
 
I agree with Praser... commercial and residential buyers are completely different animals.

We do see a residential market reaction to solar/energy efficient upgrades here. Some net metered homes that are breaking even or better every year, but the market reaction is still no where near the cost of a PV grid tied system.

The OP seems to think that because the cost of a solar system can be rolled into the mortgage, WE are to blame for the lack of a market reaction?

:shrug:
 
When you buy an energy efficient furnace, etc. there is a big sticker on it that indicates what you will save every year according to some standard. This is not possible with PV, so anything that helps the public understand the value against some standard will help (even if not accurate). Also, electric bills showing past performance on a home, etc, can all help create a contributory value from the buyer's perspective.
 
Refering to their appearance;
Yup, some people think so. On the other hand, many do not

You've answered it yourself. In most cases and for a varietly of reasons the value of solar heating is too subjective.
 
I believe there is a fallacy in the thinking and the data as presented in the linked article:

Solar Homes Sold 20% Faster, and for 17% More, NREL Study Finds

http://cleantechnica.com/2010/10/23/solar-homes-sold-20-faster-and-for-17-more-nrel-study-finds/

That article points to the study:

A New Market Paradigm for Zero-Energy Homes: The Comparative San Diego Case Study

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/38304-01.pdf

The data I am looking at from the home sales from years 2000 through 2010 in the Scripps Highland development does not support the assertion of a 17% increase in the resale value of the home that can be directly attributed to having solar panels.

The first article refers to Page 49 of the study. It is a table as shown below.


attachment.php



The actual homes with solar panels is far less than the 257 that was claimed.

When Shea Homes put solar PV and solar thermal systems on half the homes in a development, all 257 of them sold within a year, two years faster than expected. And while these new houses were priced at $380,000 to $500,000, they sold for as much as $600,000.
 
Last edited:
I have no intention of reading 300+ pages of this stuff, but a couple items in the Executive Summary kinda jump out at me:

- The homes were built in 2001 and the report was dated in 2006.

- The regional market conditions during that period were unprecedented. POS homes from the 1920s in the very worst neighborhoods in the region were selling for $500k. You could have sold ice cubes to Eskimos at a premium during that time frame.

- The number of resales in the neighborhood indicate to significant for-profit flip transactions wherein the original purchase decision was based on the potential profit at resale within a couple years, not on the buyer's intent to live there forever. Again, as common as not during that time frame.

- The Scripps Highlands area is one of the premium areas in the region and the location alone would give a new subdivision project a competitive edge over other areas regardless what the economic conditions are like.

- Likewise, I wouldn't call the average buyers for new homes in this area during this time frame "typical", either. Of the buyers who were *not* flippers the residents include a high percentage of tech executives who work in nearby Sorrento Valley, many of them being foreign born engineer types.


Then there's this gem on pg 2 of the summary:

Uptake of Optional PV Systems
Ultimately, 120 of the 306 SheaHomes sold with some sort of PV system. Hence, 39% were sold with PV systems and 61% were not. However, only 260 homes were PV-eligible; hence, 46% of these were sold with PV systems. Clearly, the uptake on optional PV equipment was not as strong as it might have
been. A total of only 12% of all PV-eligible homes were sold with PV systems optionally. Most of the PV systems sold came standard.

So as far as the most of the buyers making informed opt-in choices is concerned I wouldn't exactly call this project a poster child for the marketability of PV systems to the average happy homeowner nationwide.

A sidebar in the summary even comments that it's "best" to bundle the PV system in with the initial constructon, basically alluding to the idea that you can place more PV systems into homes when you don't even give the buyers a choice.

As a region, coastal San Diego is about as temperate as it gets in the U.S.. The homes in Scripps aren't looking at massive electricity bills during a 120* desert summer or massive heating oil bills during a superigloo winter. I'm 100% positive that if this study had taken place in a project in Phoenix or Vegas or Albequerque the buyers in areas like that would be a fair bit more motivated to cut down on their energy costs.

Yeah, buyers everywhere *should* be more motivated to go green(er), but appraisers look for what is, not what should be. I probably *should be* growing my own vegetables, composting my refuse, leading the vegan lifestyle with no animal products of any kind, buying Greenpeace-approved goods that are clearly marked as being produced by fair trade artisans. But the "what is" for my lifestyle is a fair bit different than that. Sorry.
 
The residential side of appraising is still reporting what it sees. Corporations and businesses are not buying green properties just to be green. Many are doing so to give a good public perception.

I submit that residential buyers think this way too. Maybe not so much to promote a good public perception but for a self-perception of "doing their part" in the green movement.

And that's why capping the income (savings) is not an ideal method of deriving an adjustment. The monetary benefit is mixed with the amenity benefit.
 
- The regional market conditions during that period were unprecedented. POS homes from the 1920s in the very worst neighborhoods in the region were selling for $500k. You could have sold ice cubes to Eskimos at a premium during that time frame.

That's basically what I said on Page 2.

http://appraisersforum.com/showpost.php?p=2075163&postcount=12

When prior to 2005 the mindset was regarding ANY upgrade amenity was that every dollar you spent would be worth a buck ten by the time the install was complete. When the perception was that there was no risk in over-buying (over extending financially) on a home purchase, it would be very easy for a person to justify paying for solar because it would save on energy AND appreciate like mad with the rest of the dwelling. The guy with the solar on his house would be that much further ahead in 5 years when he sold his MacMansion before the interest only loan started requiring principal payments.

Now days home purchasers are measuring the housing expenses much more closely. Even the most dense buyers understand that their home could become a noose around their neck, and the $20k they save by not buying the house with the solar cells on the roof could be the difference between weathering a layoff and becoming homeless with 7 years of bad credit.
 
What i go out of these numbers is that solar homes (water and/or electricity) is so important to people don't want to get rid of their solar home ..(c'mon ....33 in 10 years????? while the regular homes flip like pancakes?) and at the same time the solar homes that did sell, sold for more than the non solar homes .... yet you still refuse to see the value that the general public sees.

Solar would not make up the entire $136,000 difference, but the numbers seem to show that solar is a part of the increase.
 
Spartacus,

When times are tough, people buy a Ford Focus with the hope of 30 mpg. They can't
justify buying the BMW that costs twice as much which gets the same mileage or
the Prius that gets 50 mpg, but costs twice as much. At the end of the day, they'll
probably buy the Dodge Charger because it looks good, fun to drive, even though
it gets 20 mpg.

Elliott,

Solar systems need little to no maintence or repair. There are not moving parts and they are so reliable that they have a 25 year guarantee How many other items do you know of that have a 25 year guarantee? If you told people that the Focus will cost them 3 times as much over the length of their ownership as the BMW would cost them .... you would see most people buying the BMW. You are trying to compare things that cost you money and never pay you back with something that will actually MAKE you money. A Solar system can not only pay for it's self 100% it can pay you back more.

If you told people that the exhaust of the BMW can be captured and sold and therefore would pay for it's self plus create an income stream of you after the car was paid off and that exhaust from the focus was worthless and you would never recapture any or your original investment but would simply continue to be a drain on your pocket book and the payments on it would never stop ...... you would see BMW sale soar.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Find a Real Estate Appraiser - Enter Zip Code

Copyright © 2000-, AppraisersForum.com, All Rights Reserved
AppraisersForum.com is proudly hosted by the folks at
AppraiserSites.com
Back
Top