Report: solar panels add home appraisal value

"How will putting rooftop solar panels on my home affect its value?" is a common question among those considering residential-sited solar energy projects. 

It will help, according to a report recently released by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, finding solar photovoltaic systems add value to homes in a variety of markets under traditional appraisal methodology as well as statistical analysis.

A residential rooftop solar project in Massachusetts.

Intuition and previous studies have shown a "price premium" effect for solar photovoltaic systems in some markets.  Where a price premium applies, a home with a solar PV system can command a higher price than a comparable home without one.

A 2013 study of California using statistical analysis found "clear support that a premium exists in the marketplace; thus, PV systems have value, and their contribution to home values must be assessed."  That study found a strong correlation between premiums and PV system size, and a weak negative correlation with PV system age.  Essentially, "larger systems garner larger premiums and older systems garner smaller premiums," with each 1-kilowatt increase in size estimated as commanding a $5,911 higher premium, while each year of system age yields a $2,411 lower premium.  

A similar 2014 study of eight states found "PV consistently adds value across a variety of states, housing and PV markets, and home types."  Notably, these studies relied heavily on hedonic or regression pricing models to account for characteristics specific to each property (home type, site, neighborhood, market).  While such large-scale statistical analysis is commonly performed in economics, home buying more commonly relies on the appraisal process to support both price formation and financing.  Few previous studies were written by experienced real estate appraisers using paired-sales techniques or other standard appraisal methods.

The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has released a report designed to bridge this gap, featuring a comparison of statistically derived PV premiums and analysis performed by experienced home appraisers.  That report, "Appraising into the Sun: Six-State Solar Home Paired-Sales Analysis", examined 43 pairs of comparable homes that sold with and without PV across seven areas in six state (California, Oregon, Florida, Maryland, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania).  It compared traditional real estate appraisal analysis of these homes to contributory-value estimates based on gross cost, net cost, and income. Overall, it found that under either statistical or appraisal based analysis, PV systems added premiums of $2.68/W to $4.31/W across states, averaging $3.78/W or about $14,000 for an "average-size" system sold in 2011 (3.8 kW).

The study did identify some difficulty in conducting comparable-sales analysis on homes with solar panels.  (It also includes a section titled "Warning to Users of this Study", noting the analysis was limited to specific times and places, only considered host-owned systems with crystalline-silicon panels, and does not address potential sales price implications related to the location of the PV systems.)  However, it found that appraised premiums are in agreement with the hedonic modeling results as well.  Practically speaking, this means cost- and income-based statistical estimates of PV premiums could be reliable when paired-sales analysis is impossible.

Further information about the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory report on appraisal value of residential solar PV systems can be found in a November 12, 2015 presentation hosted on its website.

Exporting compressed natural gas from the US

In a divided opinion, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has found that it does not have jurisdiction over facilities proposed by Emera CNG, LLC to compress natural gas for export to the Bahamas by ship.

Natural gas is an important fuel used globally for electric power generation, heating, and industry.  Throughout most of the U.S., an abundant supply of natural gas means domestic pricing for gas is lower than overseas.  This creates a potentially profitable opportunity to export natural gas from the U.S., if regulatory conditions allow.

Natural gas can be exported by pipeline as a gas, or by truck or ship as either compressed natural gas (CNG) or liquefied natural gas (LNG). Liquefying natural gas enables massive quantities of gas to be transported anywhere in the world, but requires the construction of expensive facilities to liquefy and regasify the fuel.  The federal Natural Gas Act gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission jurisdiction over the siting and construction of most LNG facilities in the U.S., and authorizes FERC to issue certificates of public convenience and necessity for LNG facilities engaged in interstate natural gas transportation by pipeline.  For example, Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP recently secured the FERC's approval for its Cove Point LNG export facility.

By comparison, compressing natural gas to high pressures is a relatively lower-cost way to improve the energy density of the fuel and reduce its transportation costs, albeit not to the degree of LNG.  CNG exports are already happening, and may soon increase.

Emera recently proposed to construct a CNG compression and truck-loading facility at the existing Port of Palm Beach in Riviera Beach, Florida, in order to export CNG to the Commonwealth of the Bahamas.  At the site, Emera would draw natural gas from the Riviera Lateral, a pipeline owned and operated by Peninsula Pipeline Company.  Emera would then dehydrate and compress the gas to fill containers that would be loaded onto trucks.  The proposed CNG facility would initially be capable of loading 6 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d) of CNG, with expansion capabilities up to 25 MMcf/d.  Once loaded onto trucks, Emera will haul the containers to a berth about a quarter mile away at the Port of Palm Beach.  At the port, the containers will be loaded onto a roll-on/roll-off ocean-going carrier and shipped to Freeport, Grand Bahama Island, where the containers would be unloaded, the CNG decompressed and injected into a pipeline for transport to electric generation plants owned and operated by Emera affiliate Grand Bahama Power Company and other customers on Grand Bahama Island.

To reduce regulatory uncertainty, Emera petitioned the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a declaratory order that its project will not be subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act.  Last month, a majority of the FERC Commissioners found that the construction and operation of the CNG facility described by Emera would not be subject to FERC's authority over natural gas exports under the Natural Gas Act.  In particular, the majority opinion held that Emera’s facilities to compress and load CNG onto trucks are not jurisdictional export facilities.

In reaching this conclusion, the majority found that the proposed CNG facilities were unlike the border-crossing pipelines and coastal LNG terminals that the Commission traditionally has regulated under section 3 as import/export facilities, and more like existing, unregulated facilities that deliver LNG into trucks which are subsequently driven across the border into Canada or Mexico.  Indeed, the opinion cites the example of Xpress Natural Gas, which has a CNG plant in Maine that receives gas from an interstate pipeline and loads CNG containers onto trucks for delivery to customers in Canada and in New England.  The Commission does not regulate the CNG facility under either section 3 or 7, nor does it exercise jurisdiction over the trucks’ passage across the border under section 3.

The majority opinion similarly found that because Emera said that all of the natural gas to be compressed at Emera’s planned facility will be exported in foreign commerce to the Commonwealth of the Bahamas, the Commission’s section 7 jurisdiction over transportation and sales of gas for resale in interstate commerce would not be implicated by Emera’s proposal.

Notably, new Commissioner Norman Bay dissented from the majority opinion.  Noting language in section 3 of the Natural Gas Act giving FERC jurisdiction over natural gas exports, Commissioner Bay's dissent describes the majority’s argument as that because the CNG will leave Emera’s facility by truck and travel a quarter of mile before being loaded onto ocean-going carriers for export – rather than by a pipeline running across a border or to a tanker – the facility is not an “export facility” under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act. In Commissioner Bay's words, "It cannot be that the Commission’s jurisdiction turns on this 440-yard truck journey."

With FERC regulation under the Natural Gas Act behind it, Emera will still need other approvals to export CNG; for example, Emera has filed an application with the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy for authorization under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act for export of natural gas.

What role will CNG exports play in the U.S.'s energy future?

June 1, 2010 - market theory of policy, and the madness of crowds; FPL's 75 MW solar thermal

BP shares are taking a hit today. One estimate suggests BP has lost $50 billion in market value based on share price. Meanwhile, another estimate suggests the true cost to BP of the massive oil release from its Deepwater Horizon well is on the order of $20 billion.

From the policy level, it's interesting to observe the market perform its assessment of BP's liabilities. If the large-cap stock market is the product of the "madness of crowds", what is the gap between share price and true value? How does the size of this gap vary with time and conditions?

This inquiry has implications for the policy world as well. What is the absolute value, in economic or preferential terms, of a given policy outcome -- for example, affordable electricity, or reduced CO2 emissions? How does society value that policy outcome? What is the size of the gap between the value we place on an outcome, and its true value? What choices should we as a society be making that we don't find "worth it", but that are truly the lowest-cost and best path forward?



More grid-scale solar: FPL is building a massive solar thermal plant near Lake Okeechobee, Florida. At up to 75 MW, FPL's Martin Next Generation Solar Energy Center is on track to be the second-largest solar plant in the world. This solar thermal plant has a unique design. The plant will use mirrors to concentrate the sunlight 80 times, and then heat water up to 700 degrees. To get over the limitations of Florida's humid and often cloudy weather, the Martin facility is unique because it is co-located with an energy campus that already has 13 oil and gas-fueled generators. The heat exhaust steam from four natural-gas generators will be combined with the solar plant's steam to spin an existing generator. This saves the significant capital cost of installing a new generator, and seems like an efficient use of existing untapped capacity.

What's the cost? About $420 million, or about 16 cents a month to the average FPL residential bill.