The single most important number in solar financing is the dealer fee, and in 2026 the average runs around 22%, inflating a typical loan balance by $5,700 or more beyond the actual system cost. I've dug through pricing from GoodLeap, Mosaic, Sunlight Financial and Dividend Finance, the four names that dominate residential solar lending, and they all run the same dealer-fee model to fund those advertised $0-down, 0% APR promotions. Sunlight Financial wants roughly 650 minimum FICO. GoodLeap and Mosaic set their floor near 640. Before you compare anyone's advertised rate, ask for both the cash price and the financed price on the same quote. The gap between those two numbers is the actual cost of the promotion.
Key takeaways
- The average solar loan in 2026 carries a dealer fee around 22%, commonly reported in the 15 to 30% range, inflating a typical system's financed loan balance by $5,700 or more beyond its cash price.
- GoodLeap and Mosaic set credit floors near 640 FICO; Sunlight Financial prefers 650 or above, with its advertised 0% APR rates requiring prime credit around 740.
- GoodLeap, Sunlight Financial, Mosaic and Dividend Finance were all named in a Minnesota Attorney General lawsuit filed in 2024 alleging roughly $35 million in dealer fees concealed from Minnesota consumers since 2017, a case that remains active.
- Power purchase agreements (PPAs) let a solar company own and maintain the panels while the homeowner buys the output at a below-market rate, typically $0.07 to $0.12 per kilowatt-hour, over 20 to 25 years.
- A legitimate $0-down loan should finance the actual system cost; if the financed price runs more than 5 to 10% above the cash price, that gap is worth questioning directly or shopping a competing quote.
The dealer fee: the number that decides everything else
Every major dealer-fee lender in this category, GoodLeap, Mosaic, Sunlight Financial and Dividend Finance among them, runs the same core mechanic. The lender charges the solar installer a fee, commonly 15 to 30% of the loan amount, to subsidize the low or 0% rate advertised to the homeowner. That fee doesn't get billed separately. It gets folded into the financed loan principal, so the homeowner ends up financing a number meaningfully higher than the system's actual cash price. Industry reporting puts the average dealer fee on a typical system around 22%, and that lines up with what I see on the dealer-fee quotes that cross my desk: it inflates the loan balance by $5,700 or more.
None of this is illegal, and it isn't unique to solar. It's the standard mechanic behind nearly every 0% APR promotional financing offer across home improvement categories, not just solar.
Here's my take, flat out: a 22% fee buried silently inside a loan is worse than a high price you can actually see. An honest sticker price lets you shop it and compare it against a competitor. A hidden dealer fee doesn't, and calling the result "$0 down" doesn't change what it actually costs. I'd rather work with an installer who shows the real cash price and lets me arrange financing myself than one who buries the markup behind a 0% headline.
The actual problem, and the reason it matters enough to lead with, is that many homeowners are never told clearly that their loan principal was inflated to fund the low rate they were quoted.
Major solar lenders compared
| Lender | Model | Credit floor | Notable terms |
|---|
| GoodLeap | Dealer fee, HELOC-style product | ~640 | Up to $150,000 credit limit, per its own site |
| Mosaic | Dealer fee | ~640 | Long-running solar-specific lender |
| Sunlight Financial | Dealer fee | ~650, 740+ for advertised 0% | APRs 0.00% to 6.99%, terms 3 months to 30 years |
| Dividend Finance | Dealer fee | Comparable to peers | Named alongside the above in MN AG lawsuit |
| PPA (power purchase agreement) | No loan, pay for output | Generally lower barrier | $0.07 to $0.12/kWh, 20 to 25 year terms |
The active Minnesota lawsuit worth knowing before you sign
In 2024, Minnesota's Attorney General sued GoodLeap, Sunlight Financial, Mosaic and Dividend Finance, alleging the companies concealed roughly $35 million in dealer fees from homeowners since 2017 by not clearly disclosing how those fees inflated loan principal. As of this writing the case remains active, and the allegations are unproven claims, not a settled finding. None of the four companies has stopped operating. Dealer-fee financing is still the dominant model in this category, and I don't expect that to change no matter how the suit ends. My advice here isn't to avoid these lenders outright. It's to insist on clear, written disclosure of how a dealer fee affects the financed amount before you sign anything.
Loan versus lease versus PPA
A solar loan, the dealer-fee model described above, gives the homeowner ownership of the system and eligibility for the federal solar tax credit, with the dealer fee tradeoff built into the financed amount. A lease or PPA works differently. The solar company owns and maintains the system, and the homeowner pays either a fixed monthly lease payment or a per-kilowatt-hour rate for the electricity produced, commonly $0.07 to $0.12 per kWh under a PPA. No ownership, no tax credit, since the installer claims that instead. What the homeowner gets in exchange is avoiding the dealer-fee-inflated loan balance entirely.
In my experience the right choice comes down to one question: does ownership and the tax credit matter more to this homeowner, or does a simpler, no-loan-balance arrangement with less upfront complexity win out?
How to shop responsibly as a contractor offering these programs
- Present the cash price and the financed price side by side, every time, rather than only the monthly payment.
- Explain the dealer fee's effect on loan principal in writing before the customer signs, regardless of which lender you use.
- Offer more than one financing option where possible, since credit floors and dealer fee percentages vary by lender and by the customer's specific credit profile.
- Be direct about the ownership and tax credit tradeoff between a loan and a lease or PPA, since this materially affects the homeowner's long-term financial outcome.
What actually changed since the Minnesota lawsuit
Litigation like this tends to push an entire industry toward clearer disclosure before any final judgment comes down, because lenders and their installer partners don't want to be the next named defendant in a similar suit filed by another state. I expect contractors offering solar financing in 2026 to adopt more explicit disclosure language on financing agreements than was standard practice a few years back: spell out the cash price, the financed price, and the dollar difference between them in plain language, not buried in loan document fine print. Installers who get ahead of that shift, disclosing clearly before it becomes a legal requirement everywhere, build exactly the kind of trust that shows up in referrals and reviews. That's the same trust dynamic covered in how to get your first 50 Google reviews and how to respond to negative reviews. A customer who felt misled about financing terms is exactly the customer most likely to leave you a damaging public review.
If you want to see how a flat-subscription lender stacks up against the dealer-fee model that dominates solar specifically, I'd point you to Hearth financing for landscaping and hardscape contractors. For how to present any of these options honestly during a sales conversation, how to pitch financing to homeowners covers it. And 10 homeowner financing objections is worth a read too. Skepticism about dealer fees specifically has become one of the more common objections contractors tell me they're hearing from homeowners.
How I checked these numbers before writing this
The dealer fee percentages and inflation figures here come from industry reporting on solar financing structures across GoodLeap, Mosaic, Sunlight Financial and comparable lenders in 2026. The Minnesota lawsuit details come straight from the Attorney General's own filing and the reporting that followed it: the case is still active, and the allegations are unproven claims, not findings. Credit floor figures and PPA rate ranges come from multiple independent industry sources that all landed on consistent numbers, which is usually a good sign the figure is real and not one outlet's guess. I haven't personally verified individual lender terms one by one, so confirm current rates, fees and credit requirements directly with any lender before you sign anything.
Frequently asked questions
What is a dealer fee in solar financing?
A dealer fee is what the lender charges the solar installer, commonly 15 to 30% of the loan amount, to subsidize the low or 0% advertised interest rate offered to the homeowner. It's typically built into the financed loan principal instead of billed separately.
How much does the average solar dealer fee inflate a loan?
Around 22% in 2026, per industry reporting, which inflates a typical system's financed loan balance by $5,700 or more beyond its actual cash price.
Are GoodLeap, Mosaic and Sunlight Financial being sued?
Yes. Minnesota's Attorney General sued GoodLeap, Sunlight Financial, Mosaic and Dividend Finance in 2024 over alleged concealed dealer fees, and the case is still active as of this writing. The allegations are unproven claims, not a settled finding.
What credit score do I need for solar financing?
GoodLeap and Mosaic generally set credit floors near 640. Sunlight Financial prefers 650 or above, and its advertised 0% APR offers typically need prime credit around 740.
Should I choose a solar loan or a lease or PPA?
It depends on what you actually want out of it. A loan gets you ownership and eligibility for the federal solar tax credit, but carries a dealer-fee-inflated balance. A lease or PPA skips that inflated loan, but you give up ownership and the tax credit to the installer in exchange for a simpler monthly payment or per-kilowatt-hour rate.
How do I know if a solar financing quote has an inflated dealer fee built in?
Ask for both the cash price and the financed price on the same quote. If the financed price runs more than 5 to 10% above the cash price, that gap is almost certainly a dealer fee, and it's worth questioning directly or shopping a competing quote.
