Different situations and circumstances are going to apply in different places. My reason for being positive about leasing, even though I grant it isn’t the cheapest way to get solar, is what I saw happen a couple of years ago with three single mothers that definitely qualify as low income. They all ended up owning their homes and were still paying for them, and were unable to get any further credit towards getting a loan for solar systems. However with having good records on paying their utility bills were able to get solar leases that locked in their payments at less than what they had been paying the power company for the next 25 years. So with a little help in the efficiency department (led’s and weatherproofing) they know that their power bills are locked into a set payment just like the house payment and life has become much less stressful for them.
No leasing isn’t always the best cost over a long term, but as the article points out it may be the only option for low income households, and it does help to get more solar installed which is the main priority for our society.

Don’t you have to have a higher income and credit score to qualify for a lease? Loans are far easier to qualify for than a lease and a purchased system costs a hell of a lot less than a leased system for those people with lower income.

So for singles or families making less than 40-50K$ per year (ie fifty percent of the population) that end up not having any federal income tax liability so this rebate doesn’t do them any good, and can’t afford to finance a solar system on their own, they just aren’t allowed to have solar? It’s wonderful to see that you want to continue the trend that the savings from having a solar power system are only for those with higher incomes.