Search

Berkeley Lab’s annual Tracking the Sun report describes trends among grid-connected, distributed solar photovoltaic (PV) and paired PV+storage systems in the United States. For the purpose of this report, distributed solar includes residential systems, roof-mounted non-residential systems, and ground-mounted systems up to 5 MW-AC. Ground-mounted systems larger than 5 MW-AC are covered in Berkeley Lab’s companion annual report, Utility-Scale Solar.The latest edition of the report is based on 3.7 million systems installed through year-end 2023, representing close to 80% of systems installed to date. The report describes and discusses key trends related to:-Project characteristics, including system size, module efficiencies, roof-coverage ratios, prevalence of paired PV with storage, use of module-level power electronics, third-party ownership, mounting configurations, panel orientation, and customer segmentation-Median installed-price trends, both nationally and by state-Variability in pricing according to system size, state, installer, equipment type, and other factors, relying on both descriptive analysis and a multi-variate regression to estimate the effects of key pricing drivers for residential systems installed in 2023.

The Inflation Reduction Act has created substantial new programs that support adoption of solar power by low-income households, including the $7 billion Solar For All program and the Low-Income Communities Bonus Credit Program, which increases the investment tax credit for certain types of deployment. In addition, a growing number of states are using solar programs to reduce energy burdens and create energy justice opportunities for low-income households and disadvantaged communities.Verifying the income of participating customers is an important component of these programs. Program managers are seeking strategies to verify a large number of subscribing customers in an accurate, timely, and cost-efficient manner.To help inform program managers, Berkeley Lab investigated how a number of energy and non-energy programs manage income verification. The most common approach is to require proof through tax documents, pay stubs, or other formal income documentation, which can pose an impediment to enrolling eligible customers and create a paperwork burden for administrators. In order to reduce the burden for both the applicant and the program manager, some programs use alternative methods. We identify three common alternative verification methods:-Categorical eligibility: Customers enrolled in other, similar income-verified assistance programs are automatically eligible for enrollment in other income-qualified programs.-Geographic eligibility: Eligibility is based on the customer’s location within a specified area, typically a low-income or disadvantaged community or census tract, and;-“Self-attestation”: The participant claims eligibility with or without further documentation.We describe these options, their pros and cons, give examples of how they are used, and explore how some low-income programs address administrative issues, audits, or other quality control measures. Finally, we explore the risk of mistaken verifications (finding a participant eligible when they are not) in the different strategies.While this memo was initiated by a request relating to income-based community solar programs, the methods are applicable to any program with income eligibility requirements in the energy or non-energy sector.Funding was provided for this research by the Solar Energy Technologies Office of the US Department of Energy, through the National Community Solar Partnership.

Policymakers at the federal and state level have begun to incorporate energy burden into equity goals and program evaluations, aiming to reduce energy burden below a high level of 6% for lower income households in the United States. Pairing an empirical household-level dataset spanning United States geographies together with modeled hourly energy demand curves, we show that rooftop solar reduces energy burden across a majority of adopters during our study period from a median of 3.3% to 2.6%. For low- and moderate-income adopters (at or below 80% and 120% of area median income, respectively), solar reduces median 2021 energy burden from 7.7% to 6.2%, and 4.1% to 3.3%, respectively. Importantly, solar reduces the rate of high or severe energy burden from 67% of all low-income households before adoption to 52% of households following adoption, and correspondingly from 21% to 13% for moderate-income households. Here, we show rooftop solar can support policy goals to reduce energy burden along with strategies such as weatherization and bill assistance.

The report describes income, demographic, and other socio-economic trends among U.S. residential rooftop solar adopters. The report is based on address-level data for roughly 3.4 million residential rooftop solar systems installed through 2022, representing 86% of all U.S. systems. With its unique size, geographic scope, and level of detail, this report is intended to serve as a foundational reference document for policy-makers, industry stakeholders, and researchers. Key findings include the following:•Median solar adopter income was about $117k/year in 2022, compared to a U.S. median of about $69k/year for all households and $86k/year for all owner-occupied households•The degree of income skew varies significantly across all states, but all exhibit some positive income skew relative to all households in the state, with median solar-adopter incomes ranging from 108-180% of the respective state-median income for all households•Roughly 45% of solar adopters in 2022 had incomes below 120% of their area median income (AMI), a threshold sometimes used to define “low-and-moderate income” (or LMI), while 23% were below 80% of AMI, often used to define “low-income”•Solar adoption continues to shift toward less affluent households, with the median current income of solar adopters dropping from $140k for households that installed systems in 2010 to $117k in 2022•PV systems installed in 2022 by households earning less than $50k had a median size of 6.1 kW, 34% were third-party owned, and 5% included battery storage, compared to corresponding values of 7.6%, 17%, and 15% for households earning more than $200k•Compared to all households in their respective state, solar adopters tend to be negligibly more rural; have higher home values; and are more likely to be college educated, identify as non-Hispanic white, live outside a disadvantaged community (DAC), be middle-aged, work in a business or financial occupation, and own a single-family homeIn conjunction with the report, Berkeley Lab has published an updated accompanying set of online data visualizations that allow users to further explore the underlying data. Berkeley Lab is also offering related analytical support to states, local agencies, and other organizations on issues related to solar adoption among low-to-moderate income households.

A sharp increase in federal funding to support the deployment of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) is now available and subject to federal and local policies to promote the equitable distribution of program dollars and impacts. As a result, there is an immediate need to center equity as a core objective for electric vehicle infrastructure deployment programs. This report summarizes and discusses common themes and strategies across 64 national, regional, and state-level reports on equity-focused EVSE deployment programs. Overall, three Key Activities and nine Supporting Processes serve as pathways to enhancing equity in deploying EVSE programs. These activities and processes reveal two nationwide practices common to equity-focused EVSE deployment programs: 1) customizing design and implementation strategies through community partnerships, and 2) prioritizing the participation and needs of those impacted directly by an EVSE project. Both practices underscore the significant effect policymakers can have on equity-focused EVSE deployment outcomes by cultivating trust and openness, aligning program goals with community needs, and continuously improving program effectiveness.

The report highlights key considerations for retail regulators in the footprints of the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) or Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) in states that previously opted out of allowing third-party aggregation participation under FERC Order 719 and that may want to explore reversing the decision due to a changing policy environment under new FERC orders (i.e., 2222) and/or tightening resource adequacy constraints.Through a document review and a series of 27 interviews with regulators, aggregators, and other industry professionals, this document provides a high-level policy overview of the retail regulator’s role in a selection of processes, rules, and regulations to better understand how states have treated and/or integrated aggregators into wholesale markets. The report summarizes findings in two sections: General Findings and Specific Policy Findings.The General Findings offer high level takeaways such as the fact that 17 of the 20 states in MISO and SPP footprints opted out of third party aggregations following Order 719. Additionally, there is only one state that is fully restructured in the MISO and SPP footprints whereas the rest are vertically integrated, and the majority of third-party aggregations in the U.S. take place in restructured states outside of these footprints. Even so, third-party aggregations do take place in MISO and SPP albeit in small numbers and in an ad hoc regulatory environment.The specific policy findings delve deeper into specific examples of state actions on the topics of jurisdiction, registration and licensing, data governance, dual participation, and dispute resolution. Tables in each category organize state actions into Tiers I-III, which roughly correspond to the possible level of involvement or possible change necessary by state regulators and/or legislators to implement these actions. The tier level does not indicate any value judgement, as each state has respective regulatory limitations and each decision comes with various tradeoffs. One main tradeoff is between simplicity and quick implementation versus comprehensive and prolonged implementation. In many cases, actions in Tier I could be implemented without significant changes by relying on the use of existing processes for an aggregator context. On the other hand, many actions in Tier III are more narrowly designed to address aggregators specifically, but often require more significant changes including the involvement of additional parties through stakeholder engagement or legislative action. In some cases, these tiers are discrete. However, state regulators may also choose to progress through these various tiers sequentially as they phase in aggregators while learning from their experience.With the ability to stack bulk system level services, distributed energy resource aggregations in MISO and SPP could provide various private benefits (e.g., increased value streams to the owner) as well as societally beneficial grid services (e.g., peaking capacity, ancillary services, and other services that increase the grid’s overall operational efficiency). In deciding how to best to enable these benefits, states and retail regulators must weigh various tradeoffs if considering reversing a previous opt out.

Berkeley Lab’s annual Tracking the Sun report describes trends among grid-connected, distributed solar photovoltaic (PV) and paired PV+storage systems in the United States. For the purpose of this report, distributed solar includes residential systems, roof-mounted non-residential systems, and ground-mounted systems up to 5 MW-AC. Ground-mounted systems larger than 5 MW-AC are covered in Berkeley Lab’s companion annual report, Utility-Scale Solar.The latest edition of the report is based on 3.2 million systems installed through year-end 2022, representing more than 80% of systems installed to date. The report describes and discusses key trends related to:-Project characteristics, including system size, module efficiencies, prevalence of paired PV with storage, use of module-level power electronics, third-party ownership, mounting configurations, panel orientation, and non-residential customer segmentation ownership-Median installed-price trends, both nationally and by state-Variability in pricing according to system size, state, installer, equipment type, and other factors, relying on both descriptive and econometric analysisThe report also includes a multi-variate regression analysis to estimate the effects of key pricing drivers for residential systems installed in 2022.

The report presents a framework for states that seek to incorporate equity into regulatory decision-making. Berkeley Lab contextualizes approaches and metrics from various states into example processes to exemplify how this may be done, including topics such as the development of equity goals and definitions, intervenor funding, community engagement, performance-based ratemaking, and utility resource planning. The report offers five takeaways and considerations, supported by these examples:1. Equity comprises multiple tenets and stages, all of which must be considered in parallel.2. At the start of designing new equity-related processes, it is critical to establish clear and actionable goals, definitions, roles, and responsibilities to ensure progress.3. Once goals are established, it is critical to align tools and metrics that bridge the gap between what an intervention may do and how it may impact communities and households.4. Processes should be stakeholder driven. It is important to not only increase education and outreach, but to actively seek out and incorporate feedback from inclusive public processes and build in accountability mechanisms.Processes should be iterative. Feedback loops between evaluations and program design provide the flexibility to better align existing interventions with community priorities and to incorporate equity into future decision-making.

Compensation structures for residential solar PV are evolving toward a model that incentivizes the use of battery storage to maximize solar self-consumption. Using metered data from 1,800 residential customers across six U.S. utilities, we show that batteries operated solely in this manner often provide no grid value, due to misalignment with market prices. Incentivizing customers to discharge storage in response to market prices, particularly on infrequent peak load days would greatly enhance storage dispatch value. However, doing so requires consideration of local distribution network impacts. We illustrate a net billing design that yields a storage dispatch value equal to 50-70% of its maximum potential market value, without materially degrading solar self-consumption levels or increasing local grid stress.

Rooftop solar photovoltaic systems on houses of worship can provide unique community benefits and can raise local awareness and acceptance of solar energy. Recognizing that potential, a stakeholder team selected under DOE’s Solar Energy Innovation Network is working to develop a scalable model for recruiting and installing solar PV on houses of worship in underserved communities. Berkeley Lab is providing analytical support to this stakeholder team through several work products, including this report, which provides a data-oriented overview of market activity and trends related to solar PV installations on U.S. houses of worship (HoW).Drawing on Berkeley Lab’s project-level dataset of U.S. solar PV installations, the report describes:-market size and growth trends for PV on HoW-demographic characteristics of the communities in which HoW with PV are located, including income, race and ethnicity, and educational levels-key characteristics of the PV systems installed on HoW, including system size, installed costs, prevalence of third-party ownership, and pairing with storage-characteristics of the installer network servicing PV installations on HoWThe purpose of the market overview is to inform business development and policy-making efforts aimed at supporting solar adoption by HoW.

Entrepreneurs in certain industries tend to locate new businesses in relatively affluent areas. Preferences to site businesses in affluent areas can reduce low-income household access to certain products. Some argue that business siting patterns could explain inequitable consumption patterns, though such causal claims are often empirically weak. Here, we explore whether business siting patterns partly explain inequitable adoption of rooftop solar photovoltaics in California. We show that solar business formation drives an immediate and sustained increase in local solar adoption, including in low-income areas. However, solar business siting patterns have only weak impacts on solar adoption equity. The data show how solar businesses headquartered in low-income areas nonetheless install solar for relatively affluent customers. Customer-level adoption inequity partly offsets the potential equity gains of siting more businesses in low-income areas. We discuss how the emergent nature and unique business model of rooftop solar help explain these nuanced results.

The report describes income, demographic, and other socio-economic trends among U.S. residential rooftop solar adopters. The report is based on address-level data for roughly 2.8 million residential rooftop solar systems installed through 2021, representing 86% of all U.S. systems. With its unique size, geographic scope, and level of detail, this report is intended to serve as a foundational reference document for policy-makers, industry stakeholders, and researchers.Key findings include the following:-Median solar adopter income was about $110k/year in 2021, compared to a U.S. median of about $63k/year for all households and $79k/year for all owner-occupied households-The degree of income skew varies significantly across all states, but all states exhibit some positive income skew, with median solar-adopter incomes ranging from 131-168% of the respective county-median income for all households-Notwithstanding the fact that solar adopter incomes skew high, a substantial share of adopters could be considered low-to-moderate income (LMI), with 22% of all 2021 adopters earning less than 80% of area median income, and an additional 21% between 80% and 120% of area median income.-Solar-adopter incomes are declining over time, with median incomes dropping from $129k in 2010 to $110k in 2021, as adoption becomes more proportionately distributed across the population and has started to broaden into low- and middle-income states since 2016.-Solar-adopter incomes are consistently higher for systems paired with battery storage, for host-owned systems, and for systems installed on single-family homes; higher income adopters also consistently install larger systems.-Solar adopters tend to live in Census Tracts not identified as “disadvantaged communities” (using the U.S. Department of Energy’s interim definitions developed March 2022), making up 11% of adopters compared to 18% of U.S. households.-Compared to the broader population, solar adopters tend to: identify as Non-Hispanic White, be primarily English-speaking, have higher education levels, be middle-aged, work in business and finance-related occupations, and live in higher-value homesIn conjunction with the report, Berkeley Lab has published an updated accompanying set of online data visualizations that allow users to further explore the underlying data. Berkeley Lab is also offering related analytical support to states, local agencies, and other organizations on issues related to solar adoption among low-to-moderate income households; requests for analytical support may be submitted through this online form.

Berkeley Lab’s annual Tracking the Sun report describes trends among grid-connected, distributed solar photovoltaic (PV) systems in the United States. The latest edition of the report focuses on systems installed through year-end 2021, and is based on data from roughly 2.5 million systems. New to the report this year is an expanded coverage of paired PV-plus-storage systems, including details on system design and pricing trends.The report describes trends related to:-Project characteristics, including system size, module efficiencies, prevalence of paired PV with storage, use of module-level power electronics, third-party ownership, mounting configurations, panel orientation, and non-residential customer segmentation ownership-Median installed-price trends, both nationally and by state, including preliminary data for first half of 2022-Variability in pricing according to system size, state, installer, equipment type, and other factors, relying on both descriptive and econometric analysis

Compensation structures for residential solar are evolving toward a model that incentivizes using battery storage to maximize solar self-consumption. Using metered data from 1,800 residential customers across six U.S. utilities, we show that batteries operated solely in this manner provide customer bill savings up to $20-30 per kWh of storage capacity annually, but virtually no grid value. Relative to market-based dispatch, this value gap remains across customers and will become more severe over time, insofar as increased renewable energy penetration leads to more volatile wholesale prices. This inefficiency primarily stems from residential batteries largely sitting idle on peak days. We show that incentivizing storage customers to respond to market prices, particularly on peak days, would enhance both private and public value. Unconstrained grid discharging increases exports to distribution networks, but 50-70% of the potential market value could be achieved without materially degrading solar self-consumption levels or increasing local grid stress.

One of the most important electric power system trends of the 2010s was the rapid deployment of wind turbines and photovoltaic arrays, but a twist for the 2020s may be the rapid deployment of ‘hybrid’ generation resources. Hybrid power plants typically combine solar or wind (or other energy sources) with co-located storage. While hybridization helps to ease the challenge of balancing variable supply and demand, its relative novelty means that research is needed to facilitate integration and promote innovation. Combining the characteristics of multiple energy, storage, and conversion technologies poses complex questions for grid operations and economics. Project developers, system operators, planners, and regulators would benefit from better data, methods, and tools to estimate the costs, values, and system impacts of hybrid projects. This publication showcases some of Berkeley Lab’s robust research program intended to support private- and public-sector decision-making about hybrid plants in the United States. Our short briefing summarizes articles that we published between 2020 and 2022, links to the in-depth reports, and provides contact details for further engagement on the specific research topics:Growth: Developer interest in hybrid power plants is strong and growingPrice vs. Value: PV+storage hybrids have low PPA prices and high value in some regionsMarket Drivers: Solar hybridization is driven by tax credits and other benefitsConfiguration Choices: Market prices have incentivized shorter duration batteries with PVCapacity Value: The capacity contribution of a hybrid is less than the sum of its partsAncillary Services: AS markets are a valuable yet fleeting option for hybridsMarket Participation: Hybrids can more flexibly engage with electricity marketsOperations: The power system value of hybrids depends on how they are operatedDistributed Hybrids: Growth of customer-sited PV+storage hybrids offers new opportunitiesFuture Research: Where next? Priority areas for hybrid power research

The report describes income, demographic, and other socio-economic trends among U.S. residential rooftop solar adopters. The report is based on data for roughly 1.9 million residential rooftop solar systems installed through 2019, representing 82% of all U.S. systems. With its unique size, geographic scope, and level of detail, this report is intended to serve as a foundational reference document for policy-makers, industry stakeholders, and researchers.Key findings include the following:Solar adopters generally skew towards higher incomes, though that trend continues to diminish over time.Solar adopter incomes vary considerably and encompass many low-to-moderate income (LMI) households.Solar-adopter incomes are consistently higher for systems paired with battery storage, for host-owned systems, and for systems installed on single-family homes.Solar adopters differ from the broader U.S. population in terms of a variety of other demographic and socioeconomic measures.State-level comparisons indicate that solar-adopters tend to live in neighborhoods with relatively high non-Hispanic White and Asian populations, and with relatively low Hispanic and Black populations.In conjunction with the report, Berkeley Lab has published an updated accompanying set of online data visualizations that allow users to further explore the underlying data. Berkeley Lab is also offering related analytical support to states, local agencies, and other organizations on issues related to solar adoption among low-to-moderate income households; requests for analytical support may be submitted through this online form.

Residential rooftop solar is slated to play a significant role in the changing US electric grid in the coming decades. However, concerns have emerged that the benefits of rooftop solar deployment are inequitably distributed across demographic groups. Previous work has highlighted inequity in national solar adopter deployment and income trends. We leverage a dataset of US solar adopter household income estimates - unique in its size and resolution - to analyze differences in adoption equity at the local level and identify those conditions that yield more equitable solar adoption, with implications for policy strategies to reduce inequities in solar adoption. The solar inequities observed at the national and state levels also exist at more granular levels, but not uniformly so; some US census tracts exhibit less solar inequity than others. Some demographic, solar system, and market characteristics robustly lead to more equitable solar adoption. Our findings suggest that while solar adoption inequity is frequently attributed to the relatively high costs of solar adoption, costs may become less relevant as solar prices decline. Results also indicate that racial diversity and education levels affect solar adoption patterns at a local level. Finally, we find that solar adoption is more equitable in census tracts served by specific types of installers. Future research and policy can explore ways to leverage these findings to accelerate the transition to equitable solar adoption.

The retail rate impacts of a number of emerging trends (e.g., rapid deployment of electric vehicles and storage, transmission build-out for large-scale renewables deployment, and grid modernization) are unknown. Importantly, decision-makers are concerned about the potential future rate impacts on energy affordability and equity. We disaggregate the key drivers of retail electricity rates and assess their impacts on future rate growth considering their interactions and uncertainty. Specifically, we develop ranges of future cost growth for a generic investor-owned and vertically-integrated electric utility representing typical cost and operating characteristics. The rate driver growth rate ranges are applied in isolation and jointly to quantify the uncertainty and variability in future retail electricity rates. The results identify what rate drivers and factors may minimize and/or decrease uncertainty in retail rate growth and their linkages to industry trends.

Distributed battery deployment is increasing with advanced metering, control, and communication technologies, leaving electric utilities with an under-utilized, flexible grid resource in aggregate. Rates can reflect locational and temporal prices while utility incentive-based programs allow DERs to provide direct grid services. However, utilities must balance accurately reflecting dynamic grid conditions versus simple and feasible design that encourages customer participation. Currently, most rates and incentive-based programs are simple, but as penetration of DER and advanced controls increase, dynamic designs could become prevalent.Utilities could encourage providing multiple services to optimize distributed battery dispatch and value streams, however, challenges persist when stacking services across distribution and bulk systems. A DER committed to multiple discrete services concurrently necessitates coordination between operators and a clear hierarchy of commitments. One way to address this is to separate commitments by time or capacity. For services that follow cyclic, predictable patterns, or those that are peak driven with predictability, an operator could ensure sufficient state of charge for participation, leaving time where a distributed battery could otherwise provide different services by segmenting participation temporally. To provide continuous or unexpected services, a battery operator may use state of charge management to reserve some percentage of the battery and segment participation by capacity.Macroeconomic trends, load patterns, generation profiles, and grid configurations drive variation in value and the subsequent implications for utility offerings and how a customer might participate. As distributed battery adoption increases, both regulators and utilities will need to ensure no adverse grid impacts and encourage provision of societal value beyond the customer domain.

As concerns about social equity and clean energy rise, state and local governments, utilities, and non-profit organizations are offering at least 41 active programs in 21 states to promote solar adoption as a way to reduce energy bills for low- and moderate-income (LMI) households while meeting other policy goals such as job creation and clean energy generation.A new study from Berkeley Lab looks at how those programs are being evaluated. The report provides background on how they seek to address LMI household energy burdens and gives a brief discussion of the art and science of program evaluation, drawn from decades of experience in energy efficiency programs. It then turns to how LMI solar programs are currently being evaluated, highlighting trends among evaluation methods, metrics tracked, and best practices employed. A few programs are explored in more depth to illustrate notable practices that could be applied to other program evaluations.These LMI solar programs are mostly young, operate on tight budgets, and vary considerably in their design and stated goals. Consequently, well-designed program evaluation is critical to better understand what works, what could be improved, and how to maximize program impacts under budget constraints.

Low- and moderate-income (LMI) households remain less likely to adopt rooftop solar photovoltaics (PV) than higher-income households. A transient period of inequitable adoption is common among emerging technologies but stakeholders are calling for an accelerated transition to equitable rooftop PV adoption. To date, researchers have focused on demand-side drivers of PV adoption inequity, but supply-side factors could also play a role. Here, we use quote data to explore whether PV installers implement income-targeted marketing and the extent to which such strategies drive adoption inequity. We find that installers submit fewer quotes to households in low-income areas and those households that receive fewer quotes are less likely to adopt. The data suggest that income-targeted marketing explains about one-quarter of the difference in PV adoption rates between LMI and higher-income households. Policymakers could explore a broader suite of interventions to address demand- and supply-side drivers of PV adoption inequity.

Berkeley Lab’s annual Tracking the Sun report describes trends among grid-connected, distributed solar photovoltaic (PV) systems in the United States. The latest edition of the report focuses on systems installed through year-end 2020, and is based on data from roughly 2.2 million systems, covering 79% of all distributed PV systems installed nationally through 2020.The report describes trends related to:-Project characteristics, including system size, module efficiencies, prevalence of paired PV with storage, use of module-level power electronics, third-party ownership, mounting configurations, panel orientation, and non-residential customer segmentation ownership-Median installed-price trends, including both long-term and more recent temporal trends at the national and state levels, with comparisons to other recent PV cost and pricing benchmarks as well as to prices reported for other countries-Variability in pricing across individual projects based on system size, state, installer, module efficiency, inverter technology, and non-residential customer typeThe report also includes an econometric analysis to estimate the effects of individual drivers on installed prices for host-owned residential systems installed in 2020.

Recent Berkeley Lab research found that modest retail rate increases over the past 10 years were mostly driven by large increases in capital expenditures (CapEx) that were offset in part by substantial wholesale price reductions. Decision-makers are increasingly concerned about the potential future rate impacts of a number of policies and industry trends that support rapid decarbonization, electrification, and grid modernization. Using historical FERC Form 1 data and the existing literature on policies and industry trends that are likely to affect utility-incurred costs and retail sales, Berkeley Lab researchers developed ranges of forecasted growth rates for cost-related rate drivers (i.e., fuel and purchased power; transmission, distribution, generation, and other categories of both non-fuel operations & maintenance and CapEx) and non-cost related rate drivers (i.e., retail sales, peak demand, and customers). These were then used as inputs to a pro-forma utility financial model (FINDER) that estimated the growth in retail electric rates between 2020 and 2030 for a prototypical vertically-integrated investor-owned utility in the United States. The analysis produced the following results:1. Assuming average growth rates in all rate drivers, future retail rate growth is driven by sizable increases in all CapEx costs, where fuel and purchased power costs are replaced by generation CapEx as the largest rate component between 2020 and 2030.2. Growth in sales/peak demand/customers, generation CapEx costs, and fuel and purchased power (FPP) costs, in isolation, produce the most uncertainty in rate growth. Specifically, a 1% increase in the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of retail sales, coincident peak demand (CP), and customers (Sales-CP-Cust) results in a 0.88-0.93% decrease in the CAGR of rates, in isolation. However, a 1% increase in the CAGR of generation CapEx budgets results in a 0.07-0.14% increase in the CAGR of rates, while a 1% increase in the CAGR of FPP costs causes a 0.10-0.14% increase in the CAGR of rates, all else being equal.3. Taking into account the correlation and variability of the growth in all rate drivers jointly, generation CapEx is expected to be both the largest and most uncertain rate component by 2030 (20-25% share of the retail rate). Transmission and distribution CapEx, along with fuel and purchased power costs are each expected to comprise between 12% and 17% of retail rates.

The report describes income, demographic, and other socio-economic trends among U.S. residential rooftop solar adopters. The report is based on data for roughly 1.9 million residential rooftop solar systems installed through 2019, representing 82% of all U.S. systems. With its unique size, geographic scope, and level of detail, this report is intended to serve as a foundational reference document for policy-makers, industry stakeholders, and researchers.Key findings include the following:-Solar adopters generally skew towards higher incomes, though that trend continues to diminish over time.-Solar adopter incomes vary considerably and encompass many low-to-moderate income (LMI) households.-Solar-adopter incomes are consistently higher for systems paired with battery storage, for host-owned systems, and for systems installed on single-family homes.-Solar adopters differ from the broader U.S. population in terms of a variety of other demographic and socioeconomic measures.-State-level comparisons indicate that solar-adopters tend to live in neighborhoods with relatively high non-Hispanic White and Asian populations, and with relatively low Hispanic and Black populations.

Low- and moderate-income (LMI) households are less likely to adopt rooftop solar photovoltaics (PVs) than higher-income households in the United States. As the existing literature has shown, this dynamic can decelerate rooftop PV deployment and has potential energy justice implications, in light of the cost-shifting between PV and non-PV households that can occur under typical rate structures and incentive programmes. Here we show that some state policy interventions and business models have expanded PV adoption among LMI households. We find evidence that LMI-specific financial incentives, PV leasing and property-assessed financing have increased the diffusion of PV adoption among LMI households in existing markets and have driven more installations into previously underserved low-income communities. By shifting deployment patterns, we posit that these interventions could catalyse peer effects to increase PV adoption in low-income communities even among households that do not directly benefit from the interventions.

Berkeley Lab’s Tracking the Sun report summarizes installed prices and other trends among grid-connected, distributed solar photovoltaic (PV) systems in the United States. This report is now being published on a biannual cycle. In 2020, Berkeley Lab has released a more limited Distributed Solar 2020 Data Update, which consists of the same data otherwise published in Tracking the Sun report. The update includes data on more than 1.9 million systems installed through 2019, covering 82% of all distributed PV systems installed nationally through that timeframe.As in prior years, the data update focuses to a large degree on installed prices reported for distributed PV projects, describing both historical trends and variability in pricing across projects.-With respect to the historical price trajectory, national median installed prices fell, from 2018 to 2019, by roughly 1% for residential systems, remained essentially flat for small non-residential systems, and fell by 4% for large non-residential systems. Across all three customer segments, these are the slowest annual percentage declines since 2006-2008.-Pricing continues to vary widely across individual projects, reflecting, among other things, differences in system sizing and design, installer-level pricing strategies, and local market conditions. For example, among residential systems installed in 2019, the lowest 20% were priced below $3.1/W, while the highest 20% were above $4.5/W. The distributions for non-residential systems exhibit similarly wide spreads.In addition to data on installed prices, the data update also covers a broad range of trends related to distributed PV system design, including: system sizing, module efficiency, module-level power electronics, inverter-loading ratios, solar+storage installations, mounting configuration, panel orientation, third-party ownership, and customer segmentation.

Energy efficiency (EE) and demand response (DR) resources provide important utility system and ratepayer benefits. At the same time, the rapid change in the amount and type of variable renewable energy, like solar and wind, is reshaping the role and economic value of EE and DR, and will likely affect time-dependent valuation of EE and DR measures. Utilities are increasingly interested in integrating EE and DR measures and technologies (as well as other distributed energy resources) as a strategic approach to improve their collective cost-effectiveness and performance. However, the specific EE and DR features that may be best integrated, the interplay between changing EE and DR resource potential, and the resulting utility system impacts, are not well understood.We develop a framework to identify the EE and DR attributes, system conditions, and technological factors that are likely to drive interactions between EE and DR. We apply the framework to example measures with different technology specifics (e.g., presence of controls, building type, and targeted end use) in the context of different system conditions (e.g., peak demand, load-building periods during high renewable generation output). Ultimately, the framework defines EE and DR interactions not only by the change in discretionary load (i.e., DR potential) but also by the change in likelihood of participation in EE and DR programs—as well as the change in system need for, and the overall availability of, EE and DR resources. The framework is intended to improve the integration of EE and DR in utility operational and planning activities.

Berkeley Lab tracks and analyzes solar-adopter demographic characteristics. A central element of this work is an annual report describing income trends of residential solar adopters over time and across geographies. The report is based on household-level income estimates for single-family residential solar adopters across the United States, and is intended to serve as a foundational reference document for policy-makers, industry stakeholders, and other researchers interested in demographic trends among residential solar adopters. The report is published with an accompanying interactive data visualization tool that allows users to further explore the underlying data.In addition to the annual report, Berkeley Lab also conducts targeted topical analyses on issues related to solar-adopter demographics and provides direct analytical support to organizations working to expand access to solar energy among low-to-moderate income households. Requests for analytical support may be submitted through this form: "https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfOauinm2NRF-9J39aDh3447F9FDTOsP3tpMHJLzH_orKoTpw/viewform" target="_blank">online form.