Since there are no currently active contests, we have switched Climate CoLab to read-only mode.
Learn more at
Skip navigation
Share conversation: Share via:

Doron Bracha

Apr 28, 2014


1 |
Share via:
Interesting proposal, although it's very specific to SolarCity and may not apply to people who work with other companies. I think additional info and elaboration would help clarify the idea, the problem and the solution. I know homeowners in suburbs of Boston, who own the solar panels on their roof, they paid for the system with rebates, state gov't incentives and tax breaks, and since they sell power to the grid they expect the payback to take only around 5 years. I believe most homeowners would not feel comfortable having a company control the rights to maintain or change their roof. I'd recommend zooming out to see the bigger picture, and to suggest more generic solutions for those who are interested in solar power but are not in the SolarCity network. Cheers !..

Brook Seaton

Jun 4, 2014


2 |
Share via:
Thanks Mr. Bracha, I've taken your suggestions and altered my proposal. Ownership of the roof should stay with the homeowner. I don't remember why I thought the solar company should own the roof, I was probably concerned about the mounting structures for the solar panels and their maintenance. Name dropping Elon Musk is a great way to start a conversation. I want to be inclusive to as many solar companies as possible, but I don't see any other way to make the conversation compelling. If the legal changes became federal law, it would affect all solar panel businesses, SolarCity would simply be the catalyst.

Mark Johnson

Jun 10, 2014


3 |
Share via:
Hello Valles. I'm installing SolarCity panels on my townhome next month. In reading the contract, and considering there is "general consensus" regarding the desirability of PVs, I believe the next buyer would more than likely agree to assume the lease. Mine is $45/month. If a buyer did not want to make payments, the "quid-pro-quo" of sorts is the price of the home can be increased to a point where the new buyer has "no-further-payment" option. Personally, I think the PVs improve property appearance and during my trips away, I'll be pumping amps to the grid. Next week I am installing 50 year shingles (when the 20 year lease runs its course, the next PVs will be installed without having to redo the roof). Fyi - SC charges $499 to temporarily remove PVs for roof work. Thanks.