:jaf_af_qgmYhjgkh]jgmk^mlmj]

o`]j]]f]j_qak[d]Yf$YZmf\Yfl$

j]daYZd]$Yf\Y^^gj\YZd]

Laying the Foundation for a Solar America: 

The Million Solar Roofs Initiative

Final Report October 2006
G. Strahs

U.S. Department of Energy

C. Tombari

National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory

Laying the Foundation for a Solar America: 

The Million Solar Roofs Initiative

Final Report October 2006
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any 

warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or 

usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not 

infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by 

trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, 

recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions 

of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any 

agency thereof. 

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy 

and its contractors, in paper, from: 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Scientific and Technical Information 

P.O. Box 62 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 

phone: 865.576.8401 

fax: 865.576.5728 

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from: 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Technical Information Service 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

phone: 800.553.6847 

fax: 703.605.6900 

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste
Contents 

Page

1 Introduction and Background 1

2 Market Transformation and Distributed Solar Technology Diffusion: 

Best Practices 

3

3 Addressing Barriers to Technology Acceptance 5

4 Market Expansion Efforts 6

5 Million Solar Roofs: The Program 7

5.1 Program Design and Operational Approach 7

5.2 Partnerships 8

5.3 Best Programmatic Practices 11

6 Conclusions and Recommendations 15

Appendix A: Million Solar Roofs Products and Documents 18

Appendix B: Barriers and Million Solar Roofs Partnership Accomplishments 31

Appendix C: Categories of Million Solar Roofs Partners 33

Appendix D: Million Solar Roofs Partners 34

 iii
 iv
1 Introduction and Background 

As the U.S. Department of Energy’s Solar Energy Technology Program (SETP) embarks on 

the next phase of its technology acceptance efforts under the Solar America Initiative (SAI), 

there is merit to examining the program’s previous market transformation effort, the Million 

Solar Roofs Initiative (MSR). The goal of the MSR was to transform markets for distributed 

solar technologies by facilitating the installation of solar systems. This necessitated a diffuse, 

essentially grassroots, program approach. In contrast, SAI’s goal of achieving cost parity 

with conventional electricity generation by 2015 demands a distinctly different programmatic 

approach and an accelerated pace of marketplace acceptance. 

Nevertheless, lessons learned in MSR have relevance to SAI. Moreover, an important part of 

MSR’s legacy is the 971 partners nationwide that constitute advocates who are schooled in 

the technologies and knowledgeable about their local and regional markets. This marketplace 

expertise will be useful in SAI. 

The purposes of this report are to provide a retrospective on MSR and to summarize the best 

practices that emanated from it. MSR has established a foundation on which SAI can build to 

meet SETP’s goals. 

Investing in solar equipment directly would have required a large amount of funding to make 

an impact, so the Million Solar Roofs Initiative (MSR) invested in people instead. Between 

1997 and 2005, 94 coalitions across the country signed on with the U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) as official MSR partnerships. These partnerships comprised 971 private sector 

firms, electric utilities, builder-developers, nonprofit organizations, and governmental 

entities—all voluntarily committed to facilitate the installation of a specified number of 

“solar roofs.”1 This fundamental metric, embedded in the program name, gave the program 

an outcome-oriented focus. 

Key areas where MSR made significant contributions were in addressing barriers to 

technology acceptance and market expansion efforts, and developing best practices examples 

for market transformation. 

The national network of local partnerships imbued the program with a grassroots nature and 

exemplified successful public-private collaboration. DOE invested 68% of its program 

funding in competitively awarded grants to these partnerships, which focused on reducing 

barriers to technology acceptance and on expanding the market for solar technologies. 

The remaining funds supported the participation of the Interstate Renewable Energy Council 

(IREC), technical experts, and national laboratories in the core program team, providing 

expert underpinnings for the program, as well as a built-in feedback mechanism from the 

marketplace to the R&D community and solar industry. 

 

1

 Eligible technologies were not strictly relegated to roofs. They included distributed PV, solar water heating, 

transpired solar collectors, solar space heating and cooling, and pool heating. 

 1
When the program concluded, the federal government’s investment of $16 million had 

leveraged roughly $7.1 million in cash; it also leveraged in-kind resources and incentive 

programs throughout the country. This synergy has contributed to the following outcomes:2

• Installation of the equivalent of more than 377,000 solar water heating, photovoltaics 

(PV), and solar pool heating systems 

• Installation of 200 megawatts (MW) of grid-connected PV capacity and 200 MWth of 

solar water heating capacity3

• Dramatic growth in PV technology acceptance, from 8% of solar installations in 1997 

to 41% in 2005 

• Economic and environmental benefits that resulted from grid-connected PV installed 

between 1997 and 2005, including: 

o Health benefit savings of $90 million4

o Decreased CO2 emissions of 3.3 million tons 

o Cumulative GNP increase of $1.6−$2.6 billion, depending on installed cost (range 

of $8–$10/Watt) 

o Increase in job-years of 23,000 to 31,000. 

• MSR conducted more than 26 peer exchange workshops, attended by more than 650 

people. More than 79% of MSR’s partners attended at least one workshop. Between 

2003 and 2005, some 910 people participated in 10 interactive telephone seminars. 

(For more information on the seminars and workshops, see Appendix A.) 

In addition, MSR efforts contributed to the body of knowledge about best practices for 

facilitating market transformation and technology diffusion. (See Appendix A for a list of the 

many documents and publications produced for MSR, and instructions on how to locate 

them.) Also, MSR evolved as a best-practices program. 

As input to the Solar America Initiative (SAI) Technology Acceptance (TA) effort, this 

report will: 

• Summarize best practices for technology diffusion and market transformation. 

• Highlight selected partnership efforts to address market barriers. 

• Highlight selected partnership efforts to expand markets. 

• Describe the MSR program: design and operational approach, partnerships, 

programmatic best practices. 

• Draw conclusions and make recommendations. 

 

2

 Direct attribution is difficult to ascertain with specificity, as outcomes occurred in many local and regional 

markets across the country. Nevertheless, the efforts of MSR partners heightened consumer awareness of these 

technologies, assisted in the adoption of facilitating public policies, and in general helped condition markets to 

accept these technologies. Data cited are from L. Sherwood, Million Solar Roofs Initiative: Metrics, Interstate 

Renewable Energy Council, 2005. 

3

 1998−2005. L. Sherwood, U.S. Solar Market Trends, Proceedings of the Solar 2006 Conference, ASES, 2006. 

4 Calculations based on information in L. Gillette, C. Herig, and S. Gouchoe, “Analysis of State Solar 

Economic Trade-Offs (ASSET) Databank,” Proceedings of the 2005 Solar World Congress, International Solar 

Energy Society, 2005. 

 2
2 Market Transformation and Distributed Solar 

Technology Diffusion: Best Practices 

MSR partners were not the only marketplace participants working to transform the market 

for distributed solar technologies. Arguably, however, they were among the most effectively 

networked and supported. Consequently, they made significant contributions to the 

community of best practices for market transformation and distributed solar technology 

diffusion. Following are some examples. 

Value analysis: Simple payback is not the sole criterion for investments in new technologies. 

(If it were, the market for bottled water would be less robust.) Distributed solar technologies 

possess a wealth of values for different investors. For example, electric utilities value the 

peak load clipping value of PV and solar water heating, and their potential to improve 

distribution system reliability. Customers that depend on electricity for their businesses, like 

IT-and communications companies, value the reliability that distributed PV and storage can 

lend to their operations. Ratepayers value the fact that PV can diversify the generating 

portfolio, thus providing a hedge against the risk of price increases. Environmentalists value 

the lack of airborne emissions and low water use of solar technologies. 

Net metering rules and interconnection standards: These must be simplified and 

standardized for distributed generators. Rules and extensive paperwork that are appropriate 

for utility-scale generators are inappropriate for small ones. Poorly designed net metering and 

interconnection standards can create rather than remove barriers. 

Net metering must be capped at a level to allow a full policy cycle and result in full retail 

value to the customers. Under their net metering statutes, some states have capped the 

allowable amount of net metering. In some cases, however, this cap is reached before 

incentive funding for PV is fully expended. 

Financial incentives must be coupled with net metering, interconnection standards, public 

awareness campaigns, and tariffs that capture the value of solar. MSR partners have 

provided feedback to states and localities on their incentive programs that helped make them 

more effectively. If incentives are difficult for consumers and equipment manufacturers to 

understand and apply for, they won’t be used. Even the best incentives can be stymied by the 

“hassle factor” involved in interconnecting, inspecting, and learning about the program. 

Incentive funding for PV should be structured to reduce payment levels over time, as 

markets become established. This provides the impetus for PV suppliers, builders, utilities, 

and consumers to reduce dependence on incentives and move toward sustainable markets 

where PV’s real economic value is commensurate with its costs. 

Considerations of solar’s possible revenue impacts must be balanced with assessment of 

potential economic development impacts. Solar installations are likely to provide economic 

development boosts, although they could negatively affect taxes, sales, or general revenues. 

Utility partners with MSR are finding ways to make solar an effective part of their business 

plans, finding value to offset any reduction in electricity sales. Measures of economic health 

 3
such as gross regional product, jobs, health cost savings, and environmental quality are likely 

to benefit from solar installations. 

Programs intended to stimulate market transformation should remain in place for at least 

a decade. Customarily, it takes at least 10 years to realize the secondary and indirect 

economic development gains, as well as the primary ones, from market transformation 

efforts. It also takes that long for solar system suppliers and consumers to fully develop and 

accept the value of solar technology and build the institutional knowledge and market 

delivery mechanisms that will sustain solar growth. 

Permitting, insurance, and interconnection requirements should be related to system size. 

Smaller systems create less liability and exposure, and consequently should not be subject to 

the same requirements of larger systems. Their economics are also disproportionately 

influenced by one-time, fixed, up-front costs involved with permits and interconnection. 

Capacity building—a well-trained workforce, recognized and understandable equipment 

certification, and knowledgeable code officials and building inspectors—is an integral part 

of market transformation and technology diffusion. If these supporting factors are absent, 

new technologies will not take hold in the marketplace. Building codes and homeowner 

association covenants, in particular, should facilitate solar installations, or at least not pose 

obstacles. 

The marketplace must have informed consumers to function rationally. “Lack of 

knowledge” was cited as one of the most significant obstacles facing more than one MSR 

partnership.5 

 

5

 Pulaski and Sherwood, “Power Roofs: Seven Years On, The Million Solar Roofs Initiative is Fostering 

Adoption Nationwide,” Solar Today, July/August 2004.

 4
3 Addressing Barriers to Technology Acceptance 

Local and regional situations—and accordingly, barriers to technology acceptance—vary 

across the country. This was the rationale for MSR’s grassroots approach. Nevertheless, such 

barriers share many common characteristics; local and regional differences are merely 

variations on the theme. Consequently, efforts to address barriers in Washington State are of 

interest in Florida and vice versa. Following is a list of key barriers and a sampling of MSR’s 

efforts to address them. Many more MSR efforts are aimed at each barrier than can be 

recounted here. (For more detail, see Appendix B.)

High costs. Great Lakes (Michigan) reduced solar system costs in Ann Arbor through an 

aggregated purchasing program. Solar Boston (Massachusetts) purchased the green attributes 

of systems. Santa Barbara (California) created a “sunny day” fund to augment state and 

federal incentives.

 

Lack of consumer awareness and understanding. Arizona produced a video and 

documentary, “Sunrise,” which received local television play. Marin County (California) 

produced a technical assistance template that provides information to residents and 

businesses about the details of solar purchases (shading, system costs, etc.) Several 

partnerships installed PV at highly visible locations such as the National Aquarium in 

Baltimore.

Inhibiting interconnection standards and net metering policies. Several partnerships, 

including Philadelphia, Delaware, and Texas, conducted workshops for interested parties. 

With the help of partnerships, several states, including New Jersey and Kentucky, passed 

laws to facilitate net metering.

Lack of trained installers, inspectors, and manufacturing workforce. Several partnerships, 

including New York, Montana, Idaho, and Florida, conducted training. Oregon created solar 

electric and solar water heating licenses.

Lack of solar-friendly building practices, standards, and zoning. Arizona reached out to 

homeowner associations whose covenants had precluded rooftop solar in desert communities. 

Bay Area (California) worked to pre-certify small PV systems.

Lack of knowledge about integrating solar in building design. Alaska published the Alaska 

Solar Design Manual. Aspen (Colorado) held an architect-teach-architect workshop. Maui 

(Hawaii) works with contractors to ensure that solar water heating is incorporated in housing 

vacated by the military.

Minimal financing options. Tucson (Arizona) created third-party financing. Delta-Montrose 

(Colorado) launched financing for a limited number of grid-connected PV systems in its rural 

electric cooperative. It also developed a simplified economic analysis tool to compare 

monthly and annual cash flows of mortgages for standard versus zero energy homes (ZEHs), 

and the associated utility savings. 

 5
4 Market Expansion Efforts 

Attention to barriers to market penetration results in market expansion. In addition, however, 

MSR partnerships undertook a number of market expansion efforts unrelated to barrier 

reduction. Following are examples. 

• Encouraged production builders to incorporate solar in their developments, 

either voluntarily or through building codes. 

o San Diego (California), Aspen (Colorado), Tucson (Arizona) 

• Created demand for solar in government and other public entities (e.g., the 

military and schools). 

o The City of Anaheim (California) installed solar on carports for its fire 

department. 

o Oahu (Hawaii) encouraged the military to install solar water heating on military 

housing. 

• Installed solar on high profile, high traffic facilities. 

o San Francisco (California) installed PV on the Moscone Convention Center. 

o Philadelphia (Pennsylvania) helped its zoo assess the potential of solar. 

• Expanded the universe of applications for solar. 

o Montana employs PV in emergency operations, installing PV on fire stations to 

provide uninterruptible power. 

o Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia partnered with the poultry industry to evaluate 

the potential to incorporate solar thermal in their operations. 

o Brockton (Massachusetts) installed PV on a brownfield, converting it to a 

“brightfield.” 

o New Hampshire partnered with the Low-Income Weatherization program to 

provide solar water heating for eligible residences and conduct installer training. 

o Marin County (California) used infrared detection and geographic information 

systems tools to identify commercial roofs with potential for rooftop PV. 

o Maine reached out to the faith community to involve it in promoting and 

developing solar energy. 

 6
5 Million Solar Roofs: The Program 

5.1 Program Design and Operational Approach 

MSR’s goals were to overcome technology acceptance barriers for distributed solar 

technologies, especially PV, and to expand the market for the suite of distributed solar 

technologies. Because the program received relatively modest federal funding that was even 

less than originally planned, key strategies were to leverage resources and link to other 

federal, state, and local programs. 

DOE established the program framework and goals, and provided funding. Federal 

appropriations were received for six of the eight years of program operation, totaling $16 

million. Through its network of six Regional Offices (ROs), DOE enrolled partnerships; 

issued competitive solicitations; and disbursed modest grants, ranging from $10,000 to 

$50,000 per award. Over the years, grants totaling $9.2 million were awarded to partnerships, 

accounting for an estimated 68% of MSR funds disbursed. 

The market transformation and technology diffusion work of MSR was conducted by the 

partnerships. To succeed, they received multifaceted support from the core MSR team: 

DOE’s Solar Energy Technology Program (SETP) personnel at headquarters provided 

program direction and budgetary leadership. They also served as a critical conduit between 

Washington, D.C., and partnerships across the country. SETP’s systems-driven approach 

considered deployment an integral part of the R&D continuum, from fundamental science 

through technology acceptance. MSR’s program design provided opportunity for feedback 

from the real world of solar technology users, marketers and installers back to laboratory 

scientists and program professionals at DOE. 

DOE’s ROs, situated in the field and close to markets and MSR partners, were the primary 

points of contact for partnerships wishing to obtain information and technical assistance. ROs 

filtered assistance requests and referred those requiring expert technical or analytical support 

to the national laboratories. ROs also ran annual grant solicitations, made awards, monitored 

and reported on the progress of their partnerships, and hosted annual peer exchanges for 

partnerships in their regions. 

National laboratories: A hallmark of MSR was the technical and analytical support provided 

by two of DOE’s national laboratories, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

and Sandia National Laboratories. In addition, a private-sector contractor provided 

specialized economic and value analyses, as well as a suite of data-based tools for analysis of 

specific markets.6

 This expert assistance was provided free of charge to partnerships upon 

RO approval and provided critical intellectual and technical underpinnings for the program. 

Assistance ranged from troubleshooting hardware problems to analyzing the impact of public 

policies on local and regional markets. Technical support often was provided on a short 

turnaround basis and was not provided if the private sector could better meet the need. 

 

6

 Segue Energy Consulting, Christy Herig, Principal 

 7
Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC) supplied critical knowledge and 

communications support, including information sharing among partnerships, and tracking 

MSR program metrics. IREC performed the following services: 

• Arranged interactive telephone seminars on topics of interest to partnerships 

including tax exempt solar financing, energy surety, utility solar hot water programs, 

interconnection and net metering, federal resources for solar from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture and Housing and Urban Development, ZEHs, solar for 

disaster response and recovery, PV module supply issues, PV impacts on peak loads, 

inspector guidelines for PV systems, and solar affordable housing. 

• Produced a bi-weekly “news you can use” electronic newsletter. 

• Produced materials for and managed the MSR Web site, showcasing partnership 

success stories as well as informational materials presented at telephone seminars, 

regional and annual meetings, and technical papers produced by the laboratories and 

contractors. 

• Helped the ROs arrange regional peer exchanges. 

• Tracked and reported MSR’s metrics. 

• Helped plan and arrange the MSR annual meeting, held in conjunction with IREC’s 

annual meeting. 

• Helped disseminate information developed by IREC and other organizations on 

critical issues, including model interconnection and net metering policies, 

employment and local economic benefits of solar development, and 

information/analysis on certification and training issues. 

The core MSR support team provided essential, ongoing support to the many partners 

nationwide. This multifaceted support enabled partnerships to function as “honest 

brokers” in local markets—knowledgeable and without vested financial interest. 

“The Solar Boston Partnership has evolved into a trusted broker representing the industry to 

the public and the public to the industry – something no one else has done.” 

Richard Michaud, DOE7

5.2 Partnerships

By the time MSR concluded, 971 partners across the country had joined the 94 official MSR 

partnerships and were working to meet the specific goals of the individual partnerships. 

Figure 1 shows the diversity of MSR partners, but even within these groupings there is a 

broad spectrum of interested organizations, including: 

• Electric and gas utilities 

• Architects 

• Builders 

• Developers 

 

7

 Pulaski and Sherwood, “Power Roofs: Seven Years On, The Million Solar Roofs Initiative is Fostering 

Adoption Nationwide,” Solar Today, July/August 2004.

 8
• Solar equipment manufacturers (including inverters) 

• Aggregators, retailers, and distributors 

• Banks and financiers 

• A labor union 

• Municipalities and their associations, as well as mayors’ offices; government 

agencies such as housing authorities and planning departments 

• State energy offices, environmental regulators and economic development agencies 

• Federal government agencies 

• Non-governmental organizations 

• Agricultural agencies and associations; and a host of other organizations ranging from 

the Nez Perce tribe to Shea Stadium. 

Figure 1. MSR partner characteristics 

Distribution of MSR Partners by Sector

Private Sector

34%

Non-profit Orgs.

28%

Local Government

13%

Utilities

9%

Universities

7%

State Govt.

Agencies

7%

Other

2%

 9
Official partnerships consisted of organizations that shared a commitment to fulfilling the 

goal of the partnership; that is, facilitating the installation of a voluntarily chosen number of 

“solar roofs.” The customary commitment ranged between 500 and 100,000 roof 

equivalents.8 This commitment was made with the DOE ROs and was a prerequisite to 

official partnership status. Each partnership also developed an implementation plan to outline 

how it planned to achieve its goals. Eligibility to apply for competitive grants, free technical 

and analytical support, and peer exchange information were the incentives to attain official 

partnership status. Partnerships ranged in size from one affiliated organization (for example, 

the Department of Natural Resources in Iowa) to 63 affiliated organizations and companies 

(Bay Area Solar Consortium in California). As the SAI TA effort develops these 

partnerships, the roof commitments they made, and their implementation plans can be a 

starting point for new technology acceptance efforts. In locations where they worked 

effectively, new activities should go beyond previous efforts. If past experience is a selection 

criterion for involving organizations in the TA effort, performance as MSR partners can help 

demonstrate capabilities. The implementation plans developed by the partners in many cases 

provide useful insights to the barriers and market conditions in target locations. 

The private sector accounted for about a third of partnerships. Nonprofit organizations 

comprised more than a quarter, followed by local government entities with 13% and utilities 

at 9%. (For a detailed list of partner categories and types, see Appendix C; a list of MSR 

partners is included as Appendix D.) 

Understanding the different levels of sophistication and capability among the MSR 

partnerships can be useful to the new TA effort. The same types of partners are likely to 

come forward for the new program, and the TA effort will have to make similar tough 

decisions about where its resources will have the greatest impact in the short and long terms. 

There will always be a tension between investing in “sure bets” with very experienced 

partners where there is less risk, and also less direct impact, and investing in efforts with 

higher risk, but where federal resources are more critical to success. As MSR developed over 

time, it became apparent that three types of partners had emerged and constituted something 

of a “pipeline” in terms of best programmatic practices: 

Experienced partners with access to significant resources outside of DOE, substantial 

expertise and an established history of working with solar energy.9

 Experienced partners 

benefited MSR by leveraging MSR funds with access to substantial outside resources. They 

also shared their experience and successful methods with other partners. They joined other 

MSR partners to develop best practices on issues like net metering policies and 

interconnection standards. They used MSR funding mainly to fill gaps in their own 

resources. For example, MSR funds were used when system benefit funds failed to provide 

adequate resources to publicize rebates and incentives, or to inform customers about how to 

purchase solar equipment. 

 

8

 “Roof equivalents” was the metric devised to account for the difference in size between a small residential 

installation and one on a large commercial structure, such as a convention center or hotel. 9

 DeGroat, Kevin, Personal Communication, July 20, 2006. 

 10
Intermediate partners with financial or policy mechanisms to support solar, but with less 

experience with the technical aspects of solar energy or knowledge of how to organize a 

successful solar program. Intermediate partners also leveraged MSR funding to fill gaps in 

their own resources. However, they were even more engaged than the experienced partners in 

leveraging the network of experts and solar information that MSR helped sustain. This 

enabled them to expand their efforts and build more effective solar programs. 

Emerging partners with little experience in solar energy and limited resources, but 

motivated organizations and enthusiasm for solar energy. For emerging partners, MSR 

provided a small amount of seed money to help them organize and begin to assemble the 

components of an effective solar effort, based in part on what they learned from more 

experienced MSR partners. 

MSR’s multifaceted support, including grants, sustained all parts of this pipeline of 

solar deployment partners. MSR helped emerging partners grow to intermediate levels, 

and intermediate partners to become experienced. Moreover, it helped experienced 

partners move even further by helping them address new issues and opportunities. 

5.3 Best Programmatic Practices 

In addition to the emergence of a pipeline of partners, a suite of best practices evolved in 

actual program operations: 

• Minimize transaction costs. MSR’s operations have been described as “lean and 

functional” and “free from layers of bureaucracy.”10 This is key to minimizing 

transaction costs. Bi-weekly meetings of the core team were conducted via 

conference calls rather than incurring time and travel costs for face-to-face meetings. 

The annual meetings of IREC and MSR were combined to reduce travel costs. The 

electronic newsletters of MSR and IREC also were combined, which cut production 

costs by half. 

The MSR Web site was an enormously cost-effective information transfer 

mechanism. It included a broad array of materials, from success stories of MSR 

partnerships to the latest technical studies produced by national laboratories and the 

solar industry. In 2004, the Web site averaged 18,000 unique hits every month. 

Finally, even though partnership grants had low dollar amounts, transaction costs 

were optimized by running the grants through DOE’s ROs. The ROs were 

geographically dispersed and, consequently, close to partnerships and markets. Small, 

self-contained offices, the ROs incurred minimal bureaucracy and red tape. Applying 

this same “lean and functional” approach to larger investments would leverage 

federal resources even more, and the new TA effort should be able to reach new 

levels of “bang for the buck.” 

 

10 Pulaski and Sherwood, “Power Roofs: Seven Years On, The Million Solar Roofs Initiative is Fostering 

Adoption Nationwide,” Solar Today, July/August 2004.

 11
• Supply technical, analytical, and knowledge underpinnings for program actions. 

National laboratories and a contractor11 provided individualized expert assistance, 

free of charge, in response to requests forwarded by the ROs. Often requests for 

assistance required immediate response and swift turnaround. Information generated 

from this assistance was made available to all partnerships and was posted on the 

MSR Web site. In addition, the laboratories and contractors conducted technical and 

analytical studies, which also were placed on the Web site.12 

• IREC provided topical information through interactive telephone seminars, as well as 

speakers obtained for regional and national meetings. The telephone seminars 

informed participants about subjects pertinent to partnership success and were 

accompanied by power point presentations sent to participants in advance of the 

seminar. The new TA effort will find a substantial demand for analysis and 

information that could be a useful outlet for technology and knowledge transfer from 

the activities it supports. 

• Arrange opportunities for partners to learn best practices from one another and 

to inform others in the broader community of decision-makers outside of 

program parameters. Ongoing information exchange was created through the Web 

site, which showcased partnership successes, and the bi-weekly electronic 

newsletters, both managed by IREC. Opportunities for direct interaction were 

provided through yearly regional peer exchange meetings (which sometimes included 

more than one region) and the annual national meeting. Now that this network is in 

place, it is another potential outlet for the results of TA activities and projects. 

• Provide partner funding. The competitively awarded grants ranged in size from 

$10,000 to $50,000. This was sufficient to bridge gaps, but not much else for the 

experienced partners. However, if such funding were not available, efforts might have 

foundered. For emerging partners, the funding was often key to the development of a 

solar program. There were lessons learned in the way MSR structured and managed 

its grants that the TA effort can adapt to its needs. 

With modest funding from the DOE, the Million Solar Roofs Initiative 

has proven Malcolm Gladwell’s “Tipping Point” theory that “little 

things can make a big difference.”13 

• Leverage resources—financial, human, program, information, and in-kind. At 

the federal government level, MSR teamed with other federal programs to leverage 

knowledge and efforts. Among the federal programs leveraged were DOE’s TEAM-

 

11 Segue Energy Consulting 

12 Topics included, but were not limited to, analysis of how state and Federal incentives combine, and 

implications for taxation, analyses of program designs, approaches to incorporate solar into city planning and 

development, local economic benefit valuation, solar valuation for different customer applications, solar and 

RPS provisions, how to specify and solicit solar projects, and many other large and small analysis requests. 

13 Pulaski and Sherwood, “Power Roofs: Seven Years On, The Million Solar Roofs Initiative is Fostering 

Adoption Nationwide,” Solar Today, July/August 2004. 

 12
UP project,14 the Federal Energy Management Program, Rebuild America, 

Weatherization Assistance Program, and Zero Energy Homes. MSR’s San Diego 

Partnership became involved with Zero Energy Homes, to the benefit of all, including 

local production builders. The Wisconsin MSR Partnership published a report on the 

value of ZEHs in the Midwest.

Other federal agencies with which MSR partnered—either from DOE headquarters or 

through partnerships—included the Environmental Protection Agency, Housing and 

Urban Development, the Small Business Administration, the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, and the General Services Administration. 

In addition, MSR leveraged the resources of the partnerships, including state and 

local programs to which they had access. This included cash matches, in-kind 

matches, and leveraging of complementary resources. In 2003 alone, DOE’s 

investment of $2.6 million leveraged more than $100 million of state and utility 

incentives. 

These same resources are available for the new TA effort to leverage as well, and a 

lot can be learned from MSR’s successes and limited successes. For example, the 

federal market potential for solar was explored on a limited basis, and the new TA 

effort might be able to work with the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) 

to leverage it more effectively through concepts such as large-volume purchases, 

Energy Savings Performance Contract funding, and exploiting energy reliability and 

security benefits. 

State Incentives and MSR Budget

(1997-2005)

$-

$100,000,000

$200,000,000

$300,000,000

$400,000,000

$500,000,000

$600,000,000

$700,000,000

PV Incentives Hot Water

Incentives

Pool Incentives MSR Budget

Figure 2. State incentives and MSR budget 

 

14 A solar deployment effort managed by the predecessor of today’s Solar Electric Power Association 

 13
• Multiply program benefits by serving multiple objectives. Both DOE and individual 

partnerships leveraged MSR program success by serving other public policy 

objectives in the course of achieving MSR goals. For example, DOE advanced its 

Solar Schools program by assisting MSR partnerships that used schools as early 

adopters and models of solar leadership in their communities. The Nevada MSR 

partnership leveraged federal “No Child Left Behind” funding and the state’s Green 

Power program to introduce solar education into the professional development 

courses for middle school teachers. The Aspen (Colorado) and Mississippi 

partnerships used MSR to advance affordable housing. North Carolina and Salt Lake 

City (Utah) used MSR to provide a hedge against the price volatility of fossil fuelgenerated electricity. Boulder (Colorado) and New Jersey met environmental quality 

objectives, and the Greater Tucson Coalition strived for greater energy surety and 

Newton (Massachusetts) for reduced oil imports.15 Partnerships’ creative approaches 

to combining multiple programs with solar were sometimes surprising, which offers a 

valuable lesson to federal program developers: they should not try to overspecify 

what is expected from partners, to give them room for creative solutions. 

• Define and track meaningful metrics of program success. The original metric for 

program outcome, embedded in the program name, was the installation of one million 

solar energy systems throughout the United States by 2010. This proved to be a 

difficult metric to measure. The varying sizes of systems (residential versus 

commercial) had to be accommodated. Moreover, privacy and proprietary issues 

made obtaining information about installations difficult. Over time, the MSR core 

team determined that installed capacity and translation of that figure to roof 

equivalents were preferable outcome metrics. 

In terms of outputs, MSR conducted more than 26 peer exchange workshops, 

attended by more than 650 individuals. More than 79% of MSR’s partners attended at 

least one workshop. Between 2003 and 2005, some 910 individuals participated in 10 

interactive telephone seminars. 

Relating outputs (workshops, seminars, etc.) to outcomes (solar roofs installed) is 

quite difficult. The new TA effort should carefully consider its performance metrics 

and what it will measure to make sure that its outputs are clearly contributing to the 

outcomes it wants to achieve. 

• Provide consistent program leadership, informed by routine communication among 

those responsible for program direction and implementation. Routine bi-weekly 

phone calls were held among DOE headquarters program personnel, the ROs, IREC, 

the national laboratories, and the contractor. Information was exchanged, and 

opportunities or challenges were anticipated in timely fashion, even though the core 

team was widely dispersed geographically. This is good management practice that 

should apply to almost any activity the Solar Program supports. 

 

15 Some of New England’s electricity is generated with imported oil. 

 14
6 Conclusions and Recommendations 

In eight years of program operations, MSR established the foundation on which to create and 

grow markets for distributed solar technologies. Market barriers have been identified, along 

with best practices to address them. The grassroots and geographically diverse nature of 

MSR partners enabled all regions of the country to acquire fundamental experience with 

solar. MSR as a program also developed a suite of programmatic best practices. 

Now DOE’s SETP is initiating the next phase of its technology diffusion efforts. The 

changed nature of SETP’s goal (i.e., cost parity with conventional technologies by 2015) 

suggests the need for a different programmatic approach to technology diffusion and market 

transformation with less emphasis on a market application (solar roofs) and more on broadly 

incorporating solar into the planning and development infrastructure of key partners. 

Nevertheless, the MSR core team recommends that SETP take advantage of, and build on, 

the work that has gone before. In particular, we recommend that SETP use the 971 partners 

located around the country: they are advocates for solar and experts in their local and 

regional markets. In addition, we encourage SETP to keep in place the communication tools 

that were developed under MSR. These tools are low cost and are proven to be successful in 

communicating timely information that can be used and useful in the marketplace. 

We wish SETP well in the next phase, and offer our assistance and support. Following are 

some specific recommendations and suggestions based on lessons learned from the MSR 

Initiative: 

Retain communications and networking. Maintain and incorporate MSR’s distribution lists 

and some of its practices into a broad SETP distribution and communication strategy for 

disseminating program information and notices of updates in studies, Web information, etc. 

MSR’s contact lists are a ready addition to SETP’s network that can be maintained at a 

minimal cost to help disseminate the activities and results of the new TA effort. Although 

“seed money” grants for partners with emerging solar interests may not continue, 

maintaining an effective outreach effort can help retain some of the same beneficial 

“seeding” effect in the new program. 

Incorporate MSR Web site information and structure into the SETP Web site along with 

other TA materials. An organized collection of tools, studies, and information on the MSR 

Web site can be incorporated quickly into the new TA effort. Many users are already familiar 

with the MSR Web site and its material and it provides familiar paths for them to find what 

they want. 

Networking, at the management level of MSR, among the partners, and between the partners 

and management, was a key characteristic of MSR. This helped immensely in tracking 

results and performance and in sharing information and best practices. Similar networking 

through regular conference calls, teleconferences on targeted subjects, and focused meetings 

that coincide with other industry events should be considered in the new TA program to keep 

the effort on track and broadly engaged with SETP. 

 15
Employ MSR experience. As the new TA effort sets priorities for addressing barriers and 

opportunities, match the experience and best practices from MSR to those areas and be sure 

that follow-on efforts benefit from the baseline of experience MSR has in place. 

MSR created greater awareness and visibility for critical SETP tools like the DSIRE 

database, SETP analyses and analytical capabilities, IREC’s work on training, inspection, 

local energy security and environmental benefits, certification issues, and the ZEH effort 

supported by BT. The new TA activity should consider ways to keep these assets available 

and visible to the broad solar community when MSR is replaced. The fact that people were 

finding this information and using it on their own to advance solar was a free leveraging of 

SETP’s investment in these efforts that is worth sustaining. 

MSR partners were beginning to provide information on system performance, costs, and 

other data for use in the systems-driven approach. If that information is still a priority, the 

network of information providers and a structured approach for gathering and analyzing the 

information should continue in order to monitor whether problems are developing in fielded 

systems and what implications they have for research and technology. 

Avoid MSR limitations. MSR struggled with reaching beyond the partnerships and engaging 

other key stakeholders in PV manufacturing, in R&D, and other areas of SETP. The new 

program should strive to improve integration and communication of its activities across 

SETP and into supporting programs like BT and FEMP so that its results are more broadly 

appreciated and used. MSR should have influenced R&D, and R&D should have influenced 

MSR plans and approaches more. The new TA effort can more effectively integrate with the 

broader Solar and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) programs. 

MSR struggled with limited funds that were spread purposely across six geographic regions, 

which created more and smaller grants than ideal. The principle of geographic and partner 

diversity to avoid risking too many resources on one track is still valid, but there needs to be 

a better balance between the number and size of grants or cooperative agreements and the 

diversity of partners. National competition for DOE resources and substantial awards to the 

best proposals should be the rule, but with some balance to engage different types of partners 

and provide some geographic diversity. 

MSR partners were burdened by having to submit proposals annually and by the limited 

funds they could expect in return for their efforts. Larger awards, and if possible multiyear 

commitments or access to follow-on funds, would encourage continuity. Awards should be 

designed and managed in a way that reduces some of the administrative and management 

burden created by annual calls for proposals and management of awards that overlap because 

of delays in appropriations and awards. 

The definition of a roof, and the focus on roofs, limited the scope of projects MSR could 

support. This limitation does not apply to the new TA effort. The new effort should make the 

most of its broader focus to encourage partners that have ideas or opportunities that didn’t fit 

MSR. 

 16
Maintain best practices. One of the most useful features of MSR was its ability to respond 

quickly to opportunities or challenges as they arose by providing partners with access to 

NREL and Sandia expertise and the expertise of key service providers like Segue Consulting, 

IREC, and the staff who maintain the DSIRE database. The new TA effort should maintain 

that quick-response capability for new partners, and for seizing opportunities that naturally 

come from the fact that states, localities, utilities, and the solar industry are making things 

happen on their own initiative that create unexpected challenges and opportunities. 

Solar water heating technology opened communities, utilities, and other partners to the 

possibilities of solar energy. Solar water heating is comparatively cost effective, is a wellestablished technology, and produces benefits that are comparable to solar electric 

technologies. Especially considering the potential for ZEHs, the new TA effort should 

encourage all types of solar energy technology acceptance, especially where technologies can 

create an effective package of options for a particular locality, state, or region. New partners 

in TA should be encouraged to pursue solar development broadly, and use the best approach 

to technology for their situation. 

The most successful MSR partners institutionalized their solar efforts into state, local, or 

utility organizations by becoming integral parts of their overall planning and implementation 

efforts. Solar became more than an appendage or demonstration, it became part of the 

organizations’ core businesses. The new TA effort should look for similar opportunities to 

ensure that the activities it supports have staying power beyond the period of DOE funding 

and support, and produce replicable models for technology acceptance. The new TA effort 

does not have the application limitations (solar roofs) of MSR. It is not committed to having 

many small grants geographically dispersed around the country. It does not have established 

partnerships with expectations of recurring funding opportunities or charters designed for 

MSR. Therefore, the new TA effort can be flexible and seek out creative, effective 

approaches to “institutionalizing” solar technologies into key businesses. 

 17
Appendix A: Million Solar Roofs 

Products and Documents 

A large variety of outreach materials generated by and for MSR Partners, including, 

among other things, PowerPoint Presentations, papers from conferences, and reports from 

the national laboratories, can be found on the MSR Web site. From Quantifying 

Residential PV Economics: Payback v. Net Present Value 

(www.millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/1131461063_

1023713887.html) to the 2005 MSR Partnership Updates: Become One in a Million 

(www.millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/1127919645_

1023713887.html), partnerships and stakeholders can continue to take advantage of the 

technical expertise from the nation's leading solar experts. 

Presentations: 

www.millionsolarroofs.org/outreachtools_presentations/ 

Publications can be found at: www.millionsolarroofs.org/outreachtools_publications/

A list of titles is provided below to show the range of topics covered. 

In addition, from 2003 to 2006, the MSR Conference Call Seminars and Peer-to-Peer 

(P2P) workshops featured targeted services and tools available to all MSR partnerships 

and members of MSR partnerships. A list of titles is provided below to show the range of 

topics covered. 

The P2P workshop series began in 2002 with six workshops held in each of the six DOE 

regions. Relevant, timely issues were identified by each region and speakers were invited 

to address those issues. Partnerships shared successes and obstacles. In 2006, workshops 

have been held in Portland, Oregon, Atlanta, Boston, and Albuquerque. A list of titles is 

provided below to show the range of topics. 

The Conference Call Seminars were intensive 1- or 11⁄2-hour seminars on timely issues 

pertinent to MSR partnerships and their stakeholders. Expert speaker presentations were 

accompanied by PowerPoint presentations sent to all participants in advance of the call. 

In addition, both the PowerPoint and MP3 audio file were featured on the MSR Web site 

for those who were unable to attend. A list of titles is provided below to show the range 

of topics. 

Information from all of the 2003−2006 seminars is posted on the MSR Web site 

(www.millionsolarroofs.org/seminars/). 

 18
Publication Titles and Abstracts

Gillette, L., Herig, C., and Gouchoe, S. “Analysis of State Solar Economic Trade-Offs 

(ASSET) Databank,” Proceedings of the 2005 Solar World Congress, International Solar 

Energy Society, 2005. 

Midwest Zero Energy Homes: Overview, Options and Resources 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/MidwestZEH.pdf

The greatest challenge for ZEHs in the northern tier states is providing space and water 

heating during the cold and cloudy months of November, December, and January. This 

report focuses on eight Midwestern states: Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, 

Minnesota, Iowa, and Missouri. However, the findings are relevant to ZEHs located in 24 

states that have similar climates. 

Pulaski and Sherwood, “Power Roofs: Seven Years On, The Million Solar Roofs 

Initiative is Fostering Adoption Nationwide,” Solar Today, July/August 2004. 

Quantifying Residential PV Economics: Payback vs. Net Present Value 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/PerezFinal.pdf

State energy offices and utility efficiency programs have long used the measure of simple 

payback to determine economic feasibility. However, when purchasing a high capital cost 

item such as a solar system, which is likely financed, and will provide a revenue stream 

for up to 30 years, simple payback does not capture the full economic value. 

2005 MSR Partnership Updates: Become One in a Million 

www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/38587.pdf

Since 1997, when MSR was launched, some 94 partnerships from Massachusetts to Maui 

have constituted a significant force in promoting market acceptance of solar energy. As 

the program matures, capacity building in solar industries also has become a key 

objective. With limited government funding, MSR invests in people—its national 

network of official partnerships—by offering opportunities for them to compete for 

modest grants ($10,000−$50,000). 

Sherwood, L., Million Solar Roofs Initiative: Metrics, Interstate Renewable Energy 

Council, 2005. 

Sherwood, L. “U.S. Solar Market Trends,” Proceedings of the Solar 2006 Conference, 

ASES, 2006. 

Three New MSR Case Study Fact Sheets Feature New Jersey, Marin County and Florida 

NREL recently produced three case study fact sheets about the Florida, Marin County, 

and New Jersey MSR partnerships for DOE’s EERE. 

2004 MSR Partnership Updates: Become One in a Million 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/MSRNationalUpdates2004.pdf

 19
Through its many partners across the country, MSR is facilitating the sale and installation 

of solar systems in places where this might not otherwise have occurred. MSR helps to 

lower barriers through public-private collaborations and does not directly give grants or 

subsidies for solar equipment purchases. With a small expenditure, MSR has created 

extraordinary benefits across the country. 

Are Solar Rebates and Grants for Homeowners and Businesses Taxable?

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/ASESTaxAvailibility.pdf

Financial incentives for solar installations are available in a growing number of states. 

MSR partners have questioned whether or not such grants and rebates are taxable at the 

federal or state level. If these incentives are taxable, it could mean as much as a 42% 

increase in a PV system’s net cost for a homeowner relative to a case where the incentive 

is nontaxable. 

State-by-State Incentives for Residential and Non-Residential Solar Projects

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/NonResIncentivesAug04.pdf

These summary tables show state-by-state availability of income, sales and property tax 

incentives; net metering; loans; grants; buydowns; and production-based incentives for 

solar technologies. 

Technical Assistance Request: Quantifying Energy Production from Solar Water Heating 

Systems 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/1096993179_1023713887.html

There is growing interest by solar thermal industry stakeholders to develop metering and 

modeling protocols for quantifying energy from solar water heating systems. Dell Jones, 

director of Solar & Wind Technologies at Sterling Planet, a national green tag marketer 

and USH2O member, requested assistance from Dwight Bailey, MSR coordinator at 

DOE’s Southeast RO, to define low-cost hardware or methods to quantify the energy 

delivered to a solar storage tank. 

Solar Cities: Local Government and Utility Leaders in Solar Deployment 

www.millionsolarroofs.org/articles//static/1/binaries/Solar%20Cities%20Report_fnl%203

_22_04.pdf

Responding to concerns about increasing electricity costs, environmental quality, grid 

security, and disaster preparedness, many local governments have established policies 

and programs to foster renewable energy development. Some of these initiatives are 

directed at encouraging residents, businesses, and developers to install renewable energy 

systems; such initiatives include outreach and demonstration programs, solar access 

provisions in zoning and development guidelines, and top-of-the-stack permitting or 

other enticements for solar builders. In other cases, local governments have committed to 

using renewable energy resources for a portion of their own energy needs by participating 

in utility green pricing programs or issuing their own requests for service. And finally, a 

growing number of local governments are installing solar and other renewable energy 

projects on public buildings for their own use. 

S. Gouchoe, L. Gillette, C. Herig. March 15, 2004. 18 pages. 

 20
Solar Cities: Local Government and Utility Leaders in Solar Deployment: Solar Audit 

Assistance Tool 

This paper describes a software tool that was developed to assist with conducting solar 

energy audits. The Solar Audit Assistance Tool is a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet that 

includes macros and functions written in Visual Basic for Applications. It combines 

results from the Solar Pathfinder shading analysis tool and results from running the 

NREL PVWATTS simulation tool to estimate shading impacts and overall solar electric 

production for a PV system of given capacity. Electric billing data may also be entered 

and compared to the PV system production. Currently, the program is structured for the 

southeastern Pennsylvania area, but it can be modified to be used anywhere. 

Submitted by Ron Celentano, Celentano Energy Services. 

2003 MSR Partnership Updates: Become One in a Million 

www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/34009.pdf

Become One in a Million is the 2003 MSR partnership update publication, now available 

in PDF format. Also included in this issue is a two-page summary of MSR technical 

support opportunities provided to the partnerships by NREL and Sandia. 

Comparing the Risk Profiles of Renewable and Natural Gas Electricity Contracts: A 

Summary of the California Department of Water Resources Contracts 

http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/EMS/reports/50965.pdf

Devra Bachrach 

Different electricity generating technologies clearly impose different risks on electricity 

ratepayers. The purpose of this report is to look at a sizable and publicly available sample 

of electricity contracts, and to specifically compare how long-term contracts with natural 

gas-fired and renewable generators differentially allocate and mitigate certain risks. 

Our contract sample comes from the California Department of Water Resources’ 

electricity contracts. The risks that we consider include fuel price and supply risks, 

demand risk, performance risk, environmental compliance risk, and regulatory risk. 

The full report is quite detailed and involved, but the executive summary can easily be 

read without venturing into the full paper. Perhaps the greatest value of this report is 

educational in nature: those who are unfamiliar with the detailed contents of power 

purchase contracts, or how risks are treated differentially in renewable energy and natural 

gas-fired electricity contracts, may well find this useful. 

Ryan Wiser, Mark Bolinger, and William Golove, Lawrence Berkley Laboratory, report 

#50965. April 2003, 108 pages. 

PV in Commercial Buildings−Mapping the Breakeven Turn-Key Value of Commercial 

PV Systems in the US 

www.millionsolarroofs.org/articles//static/1/binaries/Commercial_CSPV_Paper_cph.pdf#

search=%22PV%20in%20Commercial%20Buildings%E2%88%92Mapping%20The%20

Breakeven%20TurnKey%20Value%20Of%20Commercial%20PV%20Systems%20In%20The%20U.S.%20

%22

 21
Rapid market growth for customer-sited photovoltaics (CSPV) is the direct result of new 

policy, program and tariff related incentives developed by a variety of energy industry 

stakeholders. In previous publications, the authors investigated the geographical 

distribution of the economic feasibility of customer-owned commercial PV systems in the 

United States to assess the commercial market value. The market value is presented as a 

breakeven turn-key cost (BTC) by analyzing the installed and operating costs relative to 

incentives, energy savings, and externality values over the life of the PV system. 

This paper provides an updated snapshot of the commercial BTC values for the United 

States. Included in the paper are: 

• Current federal, state, and local policies, programs, and tariffs (production 

incentives) 

• A tiered map of commercial BTC values 

• Representative commercial BTC, in a chart for the 50 states plus the District of 

Columbia, with stacked values of policy, energy, and externalities 

• A chart indicating the additional value of local government and utility policies. 

The paper provides a measure of both the market value for industry targeting and the 

potential for incentives to affect market growth. 

Christy Herig, Subcontractor, National Renewable Energy Laboratory; Richard Perez, 

ASRC, The University at Albany; Susan Gouchoe, North Carolina Solar Center; and Tom 

Hoff, Clean Power Research. 

Paper presented at ASES in Austin, June 2003. Six pages. 

The Role and Value of Utilities in Promoting PV 

www.millionsolarroofs.org/articles//static/1/binaries/The_Role_and_Value_of_Utilities_i

n_Promoting_PV.pdf 

Christy Herig, NREL

Invited paper PVSEC12, Proceedings of the 12th International Photovoltaic Science and 

Engineering Conference. Provides issues discussion and analysis to show the monetary 

benefits and minimum distribution system impact from PV to utilities. Three pages. 

Other Publications 

Credit Ratings and Photovoltaic Investments 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/Credit_Ratings_and_PV_Investm

ents.pdf

Barriers and Solutions for Connecting PV to the Grid 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/Barriers_and_Solutions_for_Conn

ecting_PV_to_the_Grid.pdf

Reduce, Reuse and Renew: One Possible Approach to Cut Carbon Emissions

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/Reduce_Reuse_and_Renew_One

_Possible_Approach_to_Cut_Carbon_Emissions.pdf

Managing Risk Using Renewable Energy Technologies

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/Managing_Risk_Using_Renewabl

e_Energy_Technologies.pdf

 22
A Microgrid with PV, Fuel Cells and Energy Efficiency 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/Microgrid_with_PV_Fuel_Cells_

and_Energy_Efficiency.pdf

Clean Distributed Resources on Block Island, Rhode Island 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/Clean_Distributed_Resources_on

_Block_Island_RI.pdf

Distributed PV’s Contribution to Energy Security: Tax Revenue Protection for the 

Federal Government 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/Distributed_PV_Contribution_to

_Energy_Security_2003.pdf

Connecting to the Grid: A Guide to PV Interconnection Issues 

www.irecusa.org/pdf/guide.pdf

Customer Sited PV: A State Market Analysis 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/Customer_Sited_PV_A_State_Ma

rket_Analysis.pdf 

Remote Monitoring of PV Performance Using Geostationary Satellites 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/Remote_Monitoring_of_PV_Perf

ormance_Using_Geostationary_Satellites.pdf

An Assessment of Renewable Electric Generating Technologies in Florida 

www.psc.state.fl.us/industry/electric_gas/Renewable_Energy_Assessment.pdf

A Consumer’s Guide to Buying a Solar Electric System 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/Consumers_Guide_to_Buying_a_

Solar_Electric_System_Template.pdf

Residential Solar Financing: Homeowners Save, Banks Profit 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/Residential%20Solar%20Financin

g%20Power%20Shift.pdf

Standard Technical Specification for PV Systems—John Wiles 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/The_Specification.pdf 

Bid Specifications for PV Power System for Chula Vista PD 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/Chula%20Vista%20PD%20PV%

20system.pdf

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Specifications for PV Power System 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/BLMSpecification.pdf

Florida Solar Energy Center: Technical and General Bid Requirements for Procuring 

PV Systems 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/Technical%20Bid%20Specificati

ons%2015%20Sept%202000.pdf

Technical Specifications for PV Lighting Systems—Virgin Islands Energy Office 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/VILightingSpecsRev3.pdf

Niche Markets for Grid-Connected Photovoltaics 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/Niche_Markets_for_Grid_Connec

ted_PV.pdf

 23
Antares Letter Report on Solar Hot Water Heating Metrics 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/Antares_Letter_Report_on_Solar

_Hot_Water_Heating_Metrics.pdf

Excel Spreadsheet on PV Production at Various Orientations 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/Excel_data_on_PV_Production_

At_Various_Orientations_Modeled_Using_Sandia_PV_FORM_Software_Algorithm.

pdf

Sustained Orderly Development and Commercialization of Grid-Connected 

Photovoltaics: SMUD as a Case Example 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/Sustained_Orderly_Development

_and_Commercialization_of_Grid_Connected_PV_Smud_as_a_Case_Example.pdf

Mid-Atlantic States Cost Curve Analysis; Analysis of PG&E’s Electric Distribution, 

Marginal Cost, Revenue Allocation and Rate Design 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/Mid_Atlantic_States_Cost_Curve

_Analysis.pdf

Investing in Renewables: Risk Accounting and the Value of New Technology 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/Investing_in_Renewables_Risk_

Accounting_and_the_Value_of_New_Technology.pdf

Allocating Risks: An Analysis of Insurance Requirements for Small-Scale PV Systems 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/Allocating_Risks_Analysis_of_In

surance_Requirements_for_Small_Scale_PV_Systems.pdf

Financing Solar Energy in the U.S.: An Introduction 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/Financing_Solar_Energy_in_the_

%20US.pdf

Final Report on Photovoltaic Valuation—Breakeven Turnkey Costs for PV 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/Final_Report_on_PV_Valuation_

Report_on_Breakeven_Turnkey_Costs_for_PV_for_Residential_and_Commercial_En

d_Users.pdf

PV and Grid Reliability: Availability of PV Power during Capacity Shortfalls 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/PV_Grid_Reliability_Availability

_of_PV_Power_During_Capacity_Shortfalls.pdf

An Assessment of Photovoltaic Energy Availability during Periods of Peak Power Prices 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/Assessment_of_PV_Energy_Avai

lability_During_Periods_of_Peak_Power_Prices.pdf

Mapping the Value of Commercial PV Systems in the U.S.—Accounting for Externalities 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/Mapping_the_Value_of_Commer

cial_PV_Systems_in_the_US_Accounting_for_Externalities.pdf

Valuation of Demand-Side Commercial Photovoltaic Systems in the United States 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/Valuation_of_Demand_Side_Co

mmercial_PV_Systems_in_the_US.pdf

Photovoltaics as a Long-Term Solution to Power Outages Case Study: The Great 1996 

WSCC Power Outage 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/PV_as_a_Long_Term_Solution_t

o_Power_Outages_Case_Study_The_Great_1996_WSCC_Power_%20Outage.pdf

 24
Quick Screen: A Distributed Resource Planning Tool 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/Quick_Screen_A_Distributed_Re

source_Planning_Tool.pdf

Arizona Solar Portfolio Standard Analysis 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/Solar_Portfolio_Standard_Analys

is_Arizona.pdf

Net Metering Brief for the State of Hawaii 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/Net_Metering_Brief_for_state_of

_Hawaii.pdf

Clean Distributed Resources in the U.S. Residential Market 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/Clean_Distributed_Resources_in_

the_US_Residential_Market.pdf

An Historic Opportunity for Photovoltaics and Other Distributed Resources in Rural 

Electric Cooperatives 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/An_Historic_Opportunity_for_P

V_and_Other_Distributed_Resources_in_Rural_Electric_Coops.pdf

Distributed Resources: A Potentially Economically Attractive Option to Satisfy Increased 

Demand on Okanogan County Electric Cooperative’s “Mazama Feeder” Line 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/Satisfying_Increased_Demand_o

n_Okanogan_County_Electric_Coop_Mazama_Feeder_with_Distributed_Resources.

pdf

The Benefits of Distributed Resources to Local Governments: An Introduction 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/Benefits_of_Distributed_Resourc

es_to_Local_Governments.pdf

Reliable, Sustainable and Affordable: Maintaining Public Benefits in Florida’s Electric 

System 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/Reliable_Sustainable_and_Afford

able_Maintaining_Public_Benefits_in_Florida_Electric_System.pdf

Residential Customer-Sited Photovoltaics Markets 1999 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/Residential_Customer_Sited_PV_

Markets_1999_with_Emissions_Data.pdf

Mini Grids, Big Opportunities 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/Mini_Grids_Big_Opportunities_P

age_3_EPRI_Signature_A_Power_Quality_Newsletter.PDF

Customer-Sited Photovoltaics: State Market Analysis 

http://millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/binaries/cspv2002final.doc

 25
Workshops 

2006 Workshops 

Southwest P2P in Features Albuquerque’s Successes

www.millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/1144885436_1137083769.html

The Albuquerque Balloon Museum was the backdrop for the Southwest P2P Workshop 

held April 4−5, 2006. Though representatives from seven partnerships attended, from 

Texas to Hawaii, some 17 members of the New Mexico team, from the Governor’s 

Office to the City’s Office of Facilities, made an impressive showing. 

Southeast P2P Workshop Focuses on Transitions

www.millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/1143569387_1137083769.html

The Southeast P2P workshop, held in Atlanta on March 21−22, 2006, focused on 

regional cooperation and transitions. About 16 people representing seven partnerships 

were at the P2P. 

Northeast P2P Workshop Draws Good Crowd; 14 Partnerships, 4 SBCs Represented 

www.millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/1142516461_1137083769.html

The Northeast P2P workshop, held on March 7 at the World Trade Center in Boston, 

drew a crowd of 30, representing 14 partnerships, four System Benefit Charge providers, 

and the new Executive Director of the New York Solar Energy Industries Association. 

P2P Workshop in Portland, Oregon for Western and Central Regional Partnerships 

Draws Good Crowd

www.millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/1141137864_1137083769.html

Portland, Oregon was the site of the first P2P for 2006. More than 20 people attended, 

representing partnerships from Oregon, Nevada, Marin County, Washington State, 

Anaheim, San Diego, and Boulder for the Western and Central Regions. 

2005 Workshops 

DOE’s Mid-Atlantic Region Hosts MSR Peer-to-Peer Workshop in December 2005 

www.millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/1133754516_1073553349.html

The Mid-Atlantic Region’s Solar P2P was held December 6−7, 2005 in Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania. 

Central and Western Region Host MSR P2P Workshop in Phoenix 

The Southwest Solar P2P Workshop was held May 18−19, 2995 in Phoenix. 29 people 

attended include representatives from 18 MSR Partners. 

2004 Workshops 

All Colorado Partnership Meeting 

www.millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/1101670359_1073553261.html

Colorado’s MSR partnerships met to discuss how their individual efforts could be 

combined and set a more cohesive direction for the program. Margie Bates, MSR 

 26
regional coordinator for DOE’s Central Region, coordinated the first meeting. Nine 

Colorado MSR partnerships attended. The presentations from that meeting are available. 

P2P Workshop in Vermont

www.millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/1101659106_1073553261.html

The P2P workshop in Burlington, Vermont on October 12−13, 2004 for DOE’s Northeast 

Region, provided information exchange between the partnerships, training, and briefings 

on important issues. More than 40 people from nearly all of the northeast MSR 

partnerships attended. 

Midwest P2P Workshop Focuses on Regional Approach to Problem Solving 

www.millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/1096389629_1073553261.html

The MSR P2P workshop held in Minneapolis on September 14−15, 2004 for DOE’s 

Midwest Region, provided information exchange between the partnerships, training, and 

briefings on important issues. 

Mid-Atlantic P2P Workshop 

www.millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/1088090991_1073553261.html

The 3rd annual P2P meeting of Mid-Atlantic MSR Partnerships was held on August 4−5, 

2004 at the University of Delaware in Newark, Delaware. The workshop focused on 

renewable portfolio standards, renewable energy credits, and net metering and 

interconnection standards. 

SF P2P Workshop 

www.millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/1084552079_1073553261.html

Thirty-nine people representing 16 MSR partnerships attended the Northwest P2P 

workshop in May, 2004 focused on solar home tours, solar on public buildings and solar 

in new home construction. The presentations from that P2P are available. 

Albuquerque P2P Workshop 

www.millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/1083237893_1073553261.html

Presentations from the March 24-25, 2004 P2P Workshop in Albuquerque, focusing on 

solar schools, renewable energy portfolio standards, and codes and standards issues, are 

now available. 

Southwest P2P in Albuquerque Focuses on Solar Schools; Attendees View “Sunrise” 

www.millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/1080682126_1073553261.html

Presentations from the Workshop in Albuquerque, which focused on solar schools, 

renewable energy portfolio standards, and codes and standards issues, are available. More 

than 20 people came to the first MSR P2P of 2004 in Albuquerque, New Mexico on 

March 24−25. For this P2P, the Denver and Seattle ROs combined efforts to focus on 

solar schools. Attendees were able to preview the Arizona MSR partnership’s production 

of “Sunrise,” a documentary that was aired on Arizona Public television. 

 27
2003 Workshops 

Southeast P2P Workshop 

www.millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/1068656635_1073553096.html

Weatherization, marketing, utility, and green power programs headlined the Southeast 

MSR P2P workshop on October 22−23, 2003 at the Florida Solar Energy Center in 

Cocoa, Florida. The workshop was organized by IREC for the MSR program. 

Northeast MSR P2P Workshop 

www.millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/1065461240_1073553096.html

On September 25−26, 2003, Maine hosted the annual Regional MSR P2P Conference at 

the stately Eastland Park Hotel in Portland. More than 40 people attended, representing 

Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, and Vermont, and Ontario, Canada. 

Portland P2P Workshop Highlights Public Awareness, Certification, Industry 

Perspective

www.millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/1063320743_1073553096.html

The Northwest P2P workshop, held September 4−5, 2003 in Portland, Oregon, attracted 

20 participants representing eight MSR partnerships. Presentations on certification of 

solar practitioners, public awareness strategies, an industry track, and impacts of local 

solar policies filled the day-and-a-half workshop. 

Seminars 

2006 Seminars

September 12, 2006 Telephone Call Seminar: Performance-Based Incentives 

www.millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/1155082768_1137083754.html

The next IREC Telephone Seminar will be Tuesday, September 12. The seminar will last 

for 1 hour and 15 minutes. 

June 27 Telephone Seminar: PV Impacts on Peak Loads 

www.millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/1149179899_1137083754.html

This MSR Telephone Seminar was held on Tuesday, June 27. Ninety-one people attended 

the seminar, led by Rob Hammon. 

May 3 Seminar, PV Module Supply Issues, Has Largest Attendance Yet 

www.millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/1147288047_1137083754.html

The May call seminar for the Solar Powers America program on “PV Module Supply 

Issues,” by Michael Rogol, drew one of the largest audiences ever to the seminar series. 

Some 110 people attended. 

May 3, 2006 Telephone Seminar: PV Module Supply Issues 

www.millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/1145316491_1137083754.html

The Solar Powers America (formerly Million Solar Roofs) Telephone Seminar lasted for 

1 hour and 15 minutes. 

 28
Financing for Public Sector Renewable Energy Projects, Tuesday, 2/14/06

www.millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/1138196910_1137083754.html

The Solar Powers America (formerly Million Solar Roofs) Telephone Seminar was held 

on Tuesday, February 14. 

2005 Seminars 

December 8th Telephone Seminar—Solar for Disaster Response and Recovery 

www.millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/1131554528_1073553284.html

Solar Powers America (formerly MSR) Telephone Seminar on Solar for Disaster 

Response and Recovery was held on December 8, 2005. Many solar energy applications 

are appropriate for the response and recovery operations. This seminar taught appropriate 

solar applications and how to work with disaster agencies. 

Telephone Seminar—Solar in the Energy Bill 

www.millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/1125585187_1073553284.html

The MSR Telephone Seminar, held on September 27, was one of the more heavily 

attended telephone seminars sponsored by MSR. More than 150 people attended the 

seminar, presented by the Solar Energy Industry Association’s President, Rhone Resch. 

March 23 Seminar on Local Code & Building Inspectors on Solar Electric PV Guidelines 

www.millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/1108514516_1073553284.html

The third MSR Phone Call Seminar of 2005 was held on March 23. The seminar, 

Inspector Guidelines for PV Systems, and a follow-up to a seminar held last November, 

lasted 1 hour and 15 minutes. Bill Brooks, of Brooks Solar Engineering, led the seminar. 

Telephone Seminar, Zero Energy Homes, February 16, 2005 

www.millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/1105727215_1073553284.html

The MSR Telephone Seminar had 130 attendees. ZEHs optimally combine renewable 

technologies with highly energy efficient building envelopes, appliances, lighting, 

automated controls, and HVAC systems. 

Telephone Seminar, PV Industry Roadmap, January 13, 2005 

www.millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/1102958141_1073553284.html

The MSR Telephone Seminar lasted for 1 hour and 15 minutes. The topic was PV 

Industry Roadmap. Rhone Resch, executive director of the Solar Energy Industries 

Association, led the seminar. The seminar was free for Million Solar Roof partners. 

2004 Seminars 

November 10 Phone Call Seminar on Inspector Guidelines 

www.millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/1097592491_1073553225.html

The MSR Phone Call Seminars resumed on November 10. The seminar was led by Bill 

Brooks, Endecon Engineering. More than 80 phone lines participated. 

February 26 Conference Call Seminar on USDA and HUD Assistance for Solar 

www.millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/1076611401_1073553225.html

 29
The second MSR Conference Call Seminar of 2004 Seminar was held on February 26. 

The topic was Federal Resources for Solar from USDA and HUD. 

January 29 Conference Call Seminar on Interconnection and Net Metering 

www.millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/1074006729_1073553225.html

Solar Roofs Conference Call Seminar was on interconnection and net metering. 

2003 Seminars 

The November 6 Conference Call Seminar Focused on Energy Surety 

www.millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/1066225738_1073552950.html

The MSR conference call seminar focused on using distributed energy resources to 

improve energy surety in communities. David Menicucci, Sandia National Laboratories, 

and Valerie Rauluk, Greater Tucson Coalition for Solar Energy, presented the seminar. 

July 31 MSR Seminar Addressed Utility Solar Hot Water Programs 

www.millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/1057240297_1073552950.html

The MSR program hosted the third in a six-part Conference Call Seminar series. The 

topic, Utility Solar Hot Water Programs, featured presentations from Maui Electric 

(Hawaii), Eugene Water and Electric Board (Oregon), and Sterling Energy. 

 

The MSR Conference Call Seminar on Solar for Affordable Housing was held on 

Wednesday, April 16, 2003

www.millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/1050326841_1073552950.html

February 19, 2003 MSR Conference Call Seminar—Tax Exempt Financing for Solar 

Projects for State and Local Governments 

www.millionsolarroofs.org/articles/static/1/1046965861_1073552950.html

This seminar, held on February 19, 2003, focused on the most common form of public 

sector financing—the tax-exempt lease from private sector finance companies. 

 30
Appendix B: Barriers and Million Solar Roofs 

Partnership Accomplishments 

Barrier to Solar Deployment Examples of MSR Partner Accomplishments 

High costs  Helped develop incentive programs 

 Launched Solar Projects Fund 

 Developed sample business plan for utilities 

considering green power marketing strategies 

 Prepared report on new funding mechanism for 

residential solar 

Lack of consumer awareness 

and understanding 

 Implemented Solar in Schools programs 

 Organized teacher training workshops 

 Conducted solar home tours 

 Created videos 

 Created displays to go with solar installations in 

public places 

 Published directories and consumer guides 

 Conducted workshops 

 Worked with the media 

 Ran solar hot lines and responded to inquiries 

 Developed Web sites 

 Created displays and traveling exhibits 

 Conducted annual solar events and fairs 

Interconnection standards that 

inhibit solar electric 

development and disincentives 

against net metering 

 Organized interconnection and net metering 

workshops for utilities 

 Worked to develop interconnection and net metering 

standards 

Lack of trained installers and 

inspectors and manufacturing 

workforce 

 Conducted training for code officials, building 

inspectors, installers, contractors, and electricians 

 Established solar licenses 

 Launched 2-year renewable energy degree at 

community college 

Lack of solar-friendly building 

practices, standards, and 

zoning 

 Worked with homeowner associations on codes, 

covenants, and restrictions 

 Worked on revisions to building codes 

 Worked to pre-certify small PV systems 

 Worked with government agencies to change 

permitting and licensing rules 

 Published directory of local building codes, fees, and 

permits required for solar installations 

Lack of knowledge and best 

practices to architecturally 

integrate solar into overall 

designs 

 Organized technical workshops for architects, 

contractors, engineers, and real estate professionals 

 Created solar potential map 

 Provided technical assistance for pilot ZEH 

 Surveyed builders on ZEH concept 

 Worked with privatization contractors to ensure that 

privatized military housing includes solar hot water 

 31
Barrier to Solar Deployment Examples of MSR Partner Accomplishments 

Lack of financing options and 

no well-defined value analysis 

 Created third-party financing mechanism for 

institutional solar thermal projects 

 Launched financing of grid-connected PV systems 

 Created low or zero interest loan programs 

 Analyzed PV energy forecasts compared with actual 

kWh output 

Inconsistent government policy 

related to PV and lack of 

access to System Benefit 

Funds for Solar Thermal. 

 Commissioned CPA review of tax incentives 

 Worked with local and state governments to develop 

policy initiatives 

Lack of Energy Star® and other 

validations of performance 

 Resolved technical difficulties with early systems 

 Developed model ZEHs for affordable housing 

Consumer accessibility issues: 

lack of standard products and 

purchasing channels 

 Conducted market study on selling solar to 

commercial customers 

 Investigated co-op to aggregate purchases 

 Funded PV installers and dealers to develop 

innovative marketing materials 

 32
Appendix C: Categories of Million Solar Roofs Partners 

Following are examples of the kinds of partners enrolled in MSR Partnerships: 

Electric and Gas Utilities: investor-owned utilities, rural electric cooperatives, 

municipal utilities, and other energy providers 

Private Sector Partners, Building Trades: construction firms, builders and developers, 

plumbers, electricians, architectural and design firms, builder associations, individuals 

Private Sector Partners, Solar Energy Industry: solar equipment manufacturers and 

aggregators, inverter manufacturer, distributors, retailers, installers, corporations, 

individuals, solar contractors 

Private Sector Partners, General: banks, financiers, trade associations, property 

management, graphics 

Labor: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 

Government, Local: municipalities and associations; mayors’ offices’ housing 

authorities; departments of parks and recreation, planning, natural resources, brownfields 

agencies 

Government, State: energy offices, economic and community development agencies, 

consumer advocates, departments of environmental quality; NY Board of Fire 

Underwriters 

Government, Federal: Environmental Protection Agency, Western Area Power 

Administration, USDA Forest Service, national laboratories 

Nonprofit Organizations: Chambers of Commerce, Habitat for Humanity, Low-Income 

Weatherization providers, environmental groups 

Agricultural: resource conservation and development districts, poultry associations 

Academia: colleges and universities, community colleges, science centers, schools and 

school districts 

High Visibility: National Aquarium, Baltimore; Shea Stadium, New York City 

 33
Appendix D: Million Solar Roofs Partners 

Alabama Alabama 

Alaska Alaska Sun 

American Samoa American Samoa 

Arizona Arizona Solar Initiative 

Greater Tucson Coalition for Solar Energy 

North East Arizona 

Salt River Project 

Arkansas Little Rock 

California Alameda County Solar Partnership 

Bay Area Solar Consortium 

California Clean Energy Partnership 

City and County of San Francisco 

City of Anaheim 

City of Los Angeles 

Great Valley Solar Partnership 

 Humboldt County 

Marin Solar Program 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District 

San Diego Regional Energy Office 

Santa Barbara County 

Santa Monica Solar Potential Study 

 Tahoe-Nevada Area 

 Ventura County 

Colorado Boulder Community Partnership 

Colorado Renewable Energy Society 

Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association 

Colorado Western Slope 

Community Office for Resource Efficiency 

Denver Front Range Area – IBEW 

 Farm Focus Colorado 

Northern Colorado SolarBound 

Northwest Colorado Partnership 

 San Luis Valley 

Southeast Colorado Solar Energy Coalition 

Connecticut Solar Connecticut North 

Solar Connecticut South 

Delaware Delaware Million Solar Roofs Coalition 

District of Columbia District of Columbia Solar Initiative 

Florida Florida SunSmart 

Georgia Georgia 

 34
Hawaii Island of Hawaii 

Island of Kauai 

Island of Maui 

Island of Oahu 

Idaho Idaho PV4You Solar Working Group 

Illinois Chicago Solar Partnership 

Iowa State of Iowa 

Kentucky Kentucky Solar Partnership 

Maine State of Maine 

Maryland State of Maryland 

Massachusetts Brockton Solar Champions Partnership 

 Cape Cod 

 Massachusetts 

National Grid USA 

 Newton SUNERGY 

 Solar Boston 

Vineyard Energy Project 

Michigan Great Lakes Renewable Energy Association 

Minnesota Solar Minnesota 

Mississippi Mississippi 

Missouri Missouri 

Montana Montana 

Nebraska Farm Focus Nebraska 

Nevada Nevada 

New Hampshire New Hampshire 

New Jersey New Jersey 

New Mexico Neighborhood Solar 

State of New Mexico 

New York Big Apple Solar Installation Commitment 

City University of New York MSR Collaborative 

 Long Island 

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority 

North Carolina North Carolina 

Ohio Solarize Ohio 

Oregon Oregon Million Solar Roofs Coalition 

Pennsylvania Pennsylvania 

 Philadelphia 

Puerto Rico Island of Puerto Rico 

Rhode Island State of Rhode Island 

South Carolina South Carolina 

 35
Tennessee Big Frog Mountain Corporation 

 Tennessee 

Texas Solar San Antonio 

 Texas 

Utah ONASI Solar Partnership 

 Salt Lake City 

Utah Energy Office 

Vermont Vermont 

Virgin Islands Virgin Islands 

Virginia Virginia 

Washington Washington 

 Whatcom County 

West Virginia West Virginia Solar Energy Initiative 

Wisconsin Wisconsin 

 36
F1147-E(12/2004) 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). Respondents 

should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

October 2006 

2. REPORT TYPE

Technical Report 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

DE-AC36-99-GO10337 

5b. GRANT NUMBER

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Laying the Foundation for a Solar America: The Million Solar Roofs 

Initiative 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

NREL/TP-710-40483 

5e. TASK NUMBER

PVC61701 

6. AUTHOR(S)

G. Strahs and C. Tombari 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

1617 Cole Blvd. 

Golden, CO 80401-3393 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER

NREL/TP-710-40383 

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

DOE 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20585 11. SPONSORING/MONITORING 

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

DOE/GO-102006-2371 

12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

National Technical Information Service 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words)

As the U.S. Department of Energy’s Solar Energy Technology Program embarks on the next phase of its technology 

acceptance efforts under the Solar America Initiative, there is merit to examining the program’s previous market 

transformation effort, the Million Solar Roofs Initiative. Its goal was to transform markets for distributed solar 

technologies by facilitating the installation of solar systems. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

million solar roofs; msr; solar america initiative; sai 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON 

a. REPORT 

Unclassified 

b. ABSTRACT 

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE 

Unclassified

17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT

UL 

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
For more information contact: 

EERE Information Center

1-877-EERE-INF (1-877-337-3463)

www.eere.energy .gov

Produced for the

Printed with renewable source ink on paper containing at 

least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post consumer waste.

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue S.W.,Washington, DC 20585

by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory

a DOE National laboratory

DOE/GO-102006-2371

October 2006

A Strong Energy Portfolio 

for a Strong America

Energy effi ciency and clean, renewable 

energy will mean a stronger economy, 

a cleaner environment, and greater 

energy independence for America. 

Working with a wide array of state, 

community, industry, and university 

partners, the U.S. Department of 

Energy’s Offi ce of Energy Effi ciency and 

Renewable Energy invests in a diverse 

portfolio of energy technologies.