# Tracking the Sun V II

An Historical Summary of the Installed Price

of Photovoltaics in the United States from

1 998 to 2013

Galen Barbose, Samantha Weaver, Na ï m Darghouth

September 2014

# Tracking the Sun V II

Environmental Energy Technologies Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

## Primary Authors: Galen Barbose, Samantha Weaver, Na ï m Darghouth

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 1

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 5

2. Data Summary .......................................................................................................... 8

3. Installed Price Trends: Residential and Commercial PV.............................................. 13

Appendix A: Data Cleaning, Coding, and Standardization .............................................. 46

Appendix B: Residential and Commercial PV Data Sample Summaries ......................... 49 4. Installed Price Trends: Utility-Scale PV ..................................................................... 39

The Installed Price of Utility-Scale PV Has Declined over Time, Though Considerable Variation Exists

across Projects ............................................................................................................... ................................. 40

Installed Price Trends Differ Across System Configurations ............................................................................. 41

Larger Utility-Scale PV Projects Tend to Exhibit More-Uniform Pricing ........................................................... 42



## 5. Conclusions and Policy Implications ......................................................................... 43 Data Sources ..................................................................................................................

.................................. Data Standardization and Cleaning .............................................................................................

...................... Sample Description ............................................................................................................

.............................. 8

8

9 

# Contents

Installed Prices Continued Their Precipitous Decline in 2013 and 2014 ......................................................... 13

Installed Price Reductions Have Persisted, Even as Module Prices Flattened ................................................... 15

Installed Price Declines Have Occurred in Concert with Falling State/Utility Incentives ................................... 16

Installed Prices in the United States Are Higher than in Many Other Major International PV Markets .............. 19

Installed Prices Vary Widely Across Individual Projects .................................................................................. 20

Installed Prices Exhibit Clear Economies of Scale ............................................................................. .............. 22

Installed Prices Differ Significantly Among States ............................................................................ ............... 22

Installed Prices for Third Party Owned Systems Retained in the Data Sample Are Similar to Those for Host

Customer Owned Systems ........................................................................................................ ....................... 25

Microinverters Are Associated with Higher Installed Prices for Small Systems but Lower Installed Prices for

Medium-Sized System ........................................................................................................... .......................... 28

Installed Prices Are Higher for Systems with High Efficiency Modules .......................................................... ... 29

Installed Prices for Systems with Chinese-Brand Modules Have Generally Been Slightly Lower than for

Other Systems with Comparable Module Efficiency ............................................................................... .......... 31

Installed Prices Are Higher for Tax-Exempt Customers than for Other Customer Segments ............................. 32

Residential New Construction Offers Significant Installed Price Advantages Compared to Retrofit

Applications .................................................................................................................. ................................... 34

Within the Residential New Construction Market, BIPV Systems Have Shown Substantially Higher Installed

Prices than Rack-Mounted Systems .............................................................................................. ................... 35

The Relative Installed Price of Ground-Mounted to Roof-Mounted Systems Depends on System Size ............. 36

Residential and Commercial Systems with Tracking Have Higher Installed Prices than Fixed-Tilt Systems ...... 37 LBNL-68 5 8E

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 1 

# Executive Summary

As the deployment of grid -connected solar photovoltaic (PV) systems has incre ased , so too has the

desire to track the cost and price of these systems. This report helps to fill this need by

summarizing trends in the installed price of grid

- connected PV systems in the United States from

1998 through 2013, with partial data for the first half of 2014 . The analysis is based on project

level data for more than 300,000 individual residential, commercial , and utility- scale PV systems

installed across 3 3 states and representing 80 % of all grid

- connected PV capacity installed in the

U nited States through 2013.

It is essential to note at the outset what the data presented within this report represent

. First,

the data c onsist of prices paid to project developers or installers (prior to receipt of any incentives),

and f or a variety of reasons, th o se prices may differ from the underlying costs borne by project

developers/installers. Second, the data are historical, focusi ng primarily on projects installed

through the end of 2013, and therefore do not reflect the price of projects installed more recently

(with the exception of the limited set of results presented for systems installed in the first half of

2014 ); nor are the data indicative of prices currently being quoted for prospective projects to be

installed at a later date. For these reasons and others (see Text Box 1 , within the main body), the

results presented in this report may differ from current PV price or cost benchmarks. Third, by

focusing on the up-front price paid by the PV system owner prior, the report does not capture trends

associated with PV performance or other factors that impact the levelized cost of electricity for PV.

Finally, the underlying data collected for this report include third party owned (TPO) projects where

either the system is leased to the site -host or the generation output is sold to the site-host under a

power purchase agreement. For a subset of TPO systems, the installed price data represent

appraised values rather than transaction prices , and th o se projects were removed from the data

sample in order to eliminate any associated bias (see Section 2 and Appendix A for further details).

The report presents one set of installed price trends for residential and commercial PV systems , and

another set for utility

- scale PV

. In all cases, installed prices are identified in terms of real 201 3

dollars per installed watt (DC

- STC)

, prior to receipt of any direct financial incentives or tax cre dits.

K ey findings for residential and commercial PV 1 

## are as follows:

• Installed prices continued their precipitous decline in 2013 , falling year

- over

- year by

$0.7 /W , or 12-15% depending on system size r ange . Among projects installed in 2013,

median installed price s were $4.7 /W for systems ≤10 kW, $ 4.3 /W for systems 10 -100 kW,

and $3.9/W for systems >100 kW.

• D ata for the fi rst six months of 2014 indicate that installed prices have continued to fall,

with the median installed price of systems in a number of the larger state markets declining

by an additional $0.2 /W to $0.5 /W (5-12 %) depending on system size, relative to the price

of systems installed throughout all of 2013.

• The decline in installed system prices since 2008 is largely attributable to module price

reductions, whic h fell by $2 .7/W from 2008 through 2013 and represented 67 % of the total

drop in installed prices for ≤10 kW systems over that period. That said, module prices

remained relatively flat from 2012 to 2013, yet installed price reductions continued. This

1 

### For the purpose of this report, residential and commercial PV are defined to consist of roof

- mounted systems of any

size and ground

- mounted systems up to 5 MW AC 

### in size.

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 2 

## may signify the lagged effect of module price reductions from the preceding year , but is also

consist ent with reductions in non

- module costs

.

• Over the long

- term, non

- module costs

– including such items as inverters, mounting

hardware, labor, permitting and fees, customer acquisition, overhead, taxes, and installer

profit

– have fallen substantially

. For ≤10 kW systems , non

- module costs declined by

approximately $ 3.0 /W from 1998 to 2013

, constituting 4 2 % of the reduction in total

installed s ystem prices over that period.

• Cash incentives provided through state and utility PV incentive programs (i.e., rebate s and

performance based incentives) have fallen by 85% to 95% since their peak a decade ago

, offsetting much of the installed price reductions from the perspective of customer

economics. From 201 2 to 201 3 , the median pre

- tax value of cash incentives provi ded

through the PV incentive programs in the data sample declined by an amount equivalent to

4 0% to 5 0% of the corresponding drop in installed prices, depending on system size.

• International experience suggests that greater near

- term price reductions in the United States

are possible, as the median installed price of residential PV installations in 201 3 (excluding

sales/value

- added tax) was just $ 2. 1 /W in Germa ny, $ 2.7 /W in the United Kingdom , $ 2.9 /W

in Italy, and $4. 0 /W in France, compared to $ 4.4 /W in t he United States.

• T he distribution of installed prices across projects has narrowed somewhat over time, but

has remained relatively stable in recent years , and significant pricing variability persists

. For example, among ≤10 kW systems installed in 201 3 , roughly 20 % had an installed price

less than $3.9/W, while a similar percentage was priced above $5. 6 /W . Such variability

likely reflects differences in project and installer characteristics, as well as regional and local

market and regulatory conditions.

• Installed prices exhibit significant economies of scale, wit h a median installed price of

$4.8 /W for systems ≤2 kW completed in 201 3 , compared to $ 3. 1 /W for commercial systems

>1,000 kW. The install ed price of utility

- scale systems is even lower, as discussed further

below.

• Installed prices vary widely across states. Among ≤10 kW systems completed in 2013

, median installed prices range d from a low of $3. 3 /W in Florida to a high of $5. 3 /W in North

Carolina

. California, which constitutes a large fraction of the data sample and therefore

heavily impacts the aggregate price trends, is a relatively high

- priced state, with a median

price of $4.9/W for ≤10 kW systems in 2013

.

• I nstalled price s for TPO syst ems retained in the data sample , which represent sale s price s

paid to installation contractor s

, have generally been similar to or slightly less than prices

reported for cust omer

- owned systems

. The growing prominence of TPO thus does not

appear to have had a significant direct impact on the overall price trends presented within

this report (given that appraised value systems have been removed from the data sample)

.

• Small PV systems with microinverters have generally had slightly higher installed prices

than those with standard inverters, though that differential shrank in 2013 to just $0. 1 /W

( 2 %)

. The increasing penetration of microinverters has thus modestly dampened the

installed price decline for small systems. In contrast, among larger systems sizes, sy stems

with microinverters have generally had lower installed prices, with a difference in median

installed price equal to $0. 4 /W (10%) for 10

- 100 kW systems installed in 2013.

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 3 

## • Installed prices have been significantly higher for systems with high

- efficiency modules

than for those with standard efficiency modules . Among systems installed in 201 3, the

median installed price of systems with module efficiencies >18% was $0.5/W to $1.0/W

higher than for those with module efficiencies of 14

- 16% , depending on syst em size

.

• Systems with Chinese

- brand modules generally have had slightly lower installed prices than

those with Non

- Chinese brand modules, when comparing within a given module efficiency

class. A mong systems installed in 2013 with module efficiencies rangin g from 14

- 16%,

systems w ith Chinese

- brand modules had a median installed price $0.1/W to $0.3/W less

than those with non

- Chinese modules , depending on system size

.

• Installed prices for systems installed at tax

- exempt customer sites are typically higher tha n

for similarly sized systems at residential and for

- profit commercial customer sites. The

differential was greatest among systems >100 kW in 201 3 , for which the median price of

tax

- exempt systems was $0. 9 /W higher than for similarly sized commercial syst ems

, potentially reflecting greater incidence of prevailing wage requirements

, carport or parking

structures , and other factors.

• The r esidential new construction market appears to offer significant price advantages

relative to residential retrofits

. Among 1

- 4 kW systems (the size range typical of PV in

residential new construction) installed in California in 2013, the median installed price of

rack

- mounted systems in new construction was $0. 9 /W lower than for comparably sized

retrofit systems

.

• Within the n ew construction market, BIPV systems exhibit significantly higher prices than

rack

- mounted systems, with a $2.1/W difference in median installed prices for systems

installed in 2013 . That comparison, however, does not account for any avoided roofing

mater ials cost associated with BIPV.

• G round

- mounted systems are generally higher priced than roof

- mounted systems for small

system sizes, but lower priced for larger systems. In 201 3 for example , the median installed

price of ground

- mounted systems was $0. 7 / W higher than roof

- mounted systems among ≤10

kW systems but $0. 7 /W lower for >1,000 kW commercial systems

.

• The installed price of residential and commercial systems with tracking is, not surprisingly,

higher than for fixed

- tilt , ground

- mounted systems , tho ugh the differential appears to have

diminished considerably over time

. Among systems installed in 2013, the premium for

systems with tracking ranged from $0.2/W to $0.8/W (4% to 20%), depending on system

size

.

T his report separately summarizes installed price data for utility

- scale PV projects, drawing upon

data also presented in LBNL’s companion report, Utility Scale Solar 2013: An Empirical Analysis

of Project Cost, Performance, and Pricing Trends in the United States

. For our purposes, utility

scale P V is defined to consist of ground

- mounted projects larger than 5 MW . The sample of

installed price data includes 100 projects with commercial operation dates spanning the period

2007

- 2013. Several important features of the utility

- scale data are worth no ting, in addition to those

noted earlier for the dataset as a whole. First, the sample includes only fully operational projects for

which all individual phases are in operation and treats all ph ases as a single project with a

commercial operation date bas ed on the final phase

. Second, i nstalled prices reported for utility

scale proje cts often reflect transactions that occurred several years before project completion ; the

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 4 

## prices reported for some of these projects may not fully capture recent reductions in module costs or

other changes in market conditions , and thus may exhibit a relatively large “temporal lag”

.

With th o se considerations in mind, key findings for utility

- scale PV are as follows :

• Over the full timeframe of the utility

- scale data sample, ca pacity

- weighted average installed

price s fell by 40 %, from $ 5.0 /W for the 5 systems installed during the 2007

- 2009 period to

$3. 0 /W for the 25 systems completed in 2013. Year

- over

- year, however, capacity

- weighted

average prices in 2013 remained virtually unchanged from 2012, though that apparent

flattening may be partly an artifact of a preponderance of large (>100 MW) projects

com pleted in 2013, some with tracking and/or premium efficiency modules, and that may

have been contracted 3

- 4 years earlier

.

• I ns talled prices have fallen much more substantially over time for systems with crystalline

silicon (c

- Si) modules than for those with thin

- film modules . For example, among c

- Si

systems with tracking, average installed prices fell by $3. 4 /W (5 2 %) between the 2007

- 2009

period and 2013. By comparison, the average price of thin

- film projects remained virtually

unchanged over that span, leading to a marked convergence in pricing between the two

technology classes

.

• I nstalled price s vary considerably across indivi dual utility

- scale PV projects , ranging from

$1.9/W to $4.9/W across the 25 projects completed in 2013, with most projects ranging from

$2.6/W to $3.5/W (the 20 th 

## and 80 th 

## percentiles, resp ectively)

, and similar or greater levels

of variability in prior years

. This variation partly reflects differenc es in project

configuration and size , though other factors are also clearly important.

• Among utility

- scale projects completed in 2013, the capacity

- weighted average installed

price was $3. 1 /W for systems with c

- Si modules and tracking, $3. 0 /W for fixed

- til t, c

- Si

systems, and $2.7/W for fixed

- tilt, thin

- film systems. Aside from differences in underlying

technology costs (i.e., the incremental cost of tracking equipment and the relative cost of c

Si vs. thin

- film modules) , differences in pricing among these technology classes may also

indirectly reflect project characteristics associated with particular configuration s (e.g.,

higher DC / AC ratios in c

- Si, fixed

- tilt applications and large r project sizes for systems with

tracking or thin

- film modules).

• Economie s of scale are not readily apparent within the utility

- scale dataset, presumably

because they are obscured by o ther confounding factors ; however

, l arger utility

- scal e

projects do tend to exhibit more

- uniform pricing. For example, a mong projects completed

in 2012 and 2013, systems >5 0 MW are clustered within a relativel y narrow band from

$2.6/W to $3. 2 /W, while the price distribution for projects < 50 MW has a longer tail and a

number of projects priced well above $4.0/W.

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 5 

# 1. Introduction

Installations of solar photovoltaic (PV) systems have been growing at a rapid pac e in recent

years. In 201 3

, approximately 3 8

, 0 00 megawatts ( MW ) of PV were installed globally, up from

30,000 MW installed in both 201 2 and 2011 and 1 7, 0 00 MW in 20 10

. 2

, 3 

## With roughly 4

, 8 0 0 MW

of grid

- connected PV capacity added in 20 1 3 , t he United State s was the world’s third

- largest PV

market in that year , behind China and Japan

. 4 

## Solar energy (most of which being solar PV) was the

second

- largest source of new electric generation capacity added in the United States in 2013,

representing 26% of all new capacity added in that year. Despite this significant growth, however,

the share of global and U.S. electricity supply met with PV still remains relatively small.

The market for PV in the United States is , to a significant extent, driven by national, sta te, and

local government incentives, including up

- front cash rebates, production

- based incentives,

renewables portfolio standards , an d f ederal and state tax benefits. These programs are, in part,

motivated by the popular appeal of solar energy, and by the positive attributes of PV

– modest

environmental impacts, mitigation of fuel price risks, coincidence with peak electrical demand, and

the ability to deploy PV at the point of use. Given the relatively high historical cost of PV, a key

goal of these poli cies is to encourage cost reductions over time. Complementing th o se deployment

focused incentive policies are various research and development efforts, including t he U.S.

Department of Energy (DOE) ’s SunShot Initiative, which aims to reduce the cost of PV

- generated

electricity by 75% between 2010 and 2020. A s these various policies and initiatives have become

more prevalent

, and as PV deployment has accelerated, an increasing need has emerged for

comprehensive and reliable data on the cost and price of PV systems

. Such data may serve to track

progress towards cost reduction targets and identify opportunities for further cost reductions, as well

as to better understand pricing dynamics with the PV markets and identify opportunities for

improving transparen cy and competition

.

To address these need s , Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) initiated this annual

report series focused on describing historical trends in the installed price (that is, the up

- front cost

borne by the system owner) of grid

- conn ected PV systems in the United States . The present report,

the seventh in the series, describes installed price trends for projects installed from 1998 through

201 3

, with some limited and preliminary results presented for projects installed in the first h alf of

201 4

. The analysis is based on project

- level data from more than 3 00

, 0 00 residential, commercial

, and utility

- scale PV systems in the United States. T he raw data sample represents 80 % of all grid

connected PV capacity installed in the United State s through 201 3 , comprising one of the most

comprehensive and detailed sources of installed PV price data. Based on this dataset , the report

describes historical installed price trends over time, and by location, market segment, and

technology and applicat ion type . The report also briefly compares recent PV installed prices in the

United States to those in other major international markets , and describes trends in customer

incentives for PV installations

.

It is essential to note at the outset what the d ata presented within this report represent

. First, the data consist of prices paid to project developers or installers (prior to receipt of any

incentives), and for a variety of reasons, those prices may differ from the underlying costs borne by

project d evelopers/installers. Second, the data are historical, focusing primarily on projects

2 

### Throughout this report, all capacity numbers represent rated direct current (DC) module power output.

3 

### Data source: EPIA (2014).

4 

### Data sources: SEIA/GTM Research (2014a) and REN21 (2014).

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 6 

## installed through the end of 2013, and therefore do not reflect the price of projects installed more

recently (with the exception of the limited set of results presented for systems installed in the first

half of 2014); nor are the data indicative of prices currently being quoted for prospective projects to

be installed at a later date. For these reasons and others (see Text Box 1), the results presented in

this report m ay differ from current PV price benchmarks. Third, by focusing on the up

- front price

paid by the PV system owner prior, the report does not capture trends associated with PV

performance or other factors that affect the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for PV

.

A lso important to note is that t he data sample includes many third party owned (TPO) projects

where either the system is leased to the site

- host or the generation output is sold to the site

- host

under a power purchase agreement. For a subset o f TPO systems

– namely, those installed by

integrated companies that both perform the installation and customer financing

– the installed price

data initially compiled for this analysis represents an appraised value

. In order to avoid any bias

that such d ata would otherwise introduce into the trends described herein (see Text Box 3 for

further discussion)

, projects for which reported installed price s were deemed likely to represent

appraised value s were excluded from the analysis ; all other TPO systems wer e retained. 5



## This report is produced in conjunction with a number of other related studies and ongoing

research activities. First, t he data for this report are collected in concert with the National

Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) ’s OpenPV project, a n online data

- visualization tool that

includes most of the data contained within the present report as well additional data contributed by

individual PV system owners and installers. 6 

## Second, select results from each edition of Tracking

the Sun are incorp orated into an annual briefing issued jointly by LBNL and NREL titled,

Photovoltaic System Pricing Trends: Historical, Recent, and Near

- Term Projections , which also

draws upon ongoing NREL

- led research activities to model PV installed price s and synthesize

industry projections for component and system pricing. 7 

## Third , LBNL has launched a separate

annual report series

, Utility

- Scale Solar

, focusing exclusively on utility

- scale solar projects and

presenting data and trends related to not only installed price s but also operating costs, cap acity

factor s, and power purchase agreement prices. 8 

## Finally, several parallel analyse s have been recently

completed or are underway , which analyze th e underlying data within this report using more

sophisticated statistical techniques. 9



## The remainder of the report is organized as follows. Section 2 summarizes the data collection

methodology and resultant data sample . Section 3 presents installed price trends for residential and

commercial PV , including trends over time and by system size, state, system ownership model ( host

customer

- owned vs. third party owned), host customer segment (residential vs. commercial vs. tax

exempt )

, application (new construction vs. retrofit and ground

- mounted vs. roof

- mounted ), and

technology c haracteristics ( micro

- inverter vs. central inverter, module country

- of

- origin and

efficiency level, building

- integrated vs. rack

- mounted

, and tracking vs. fixed

- tilt ). Section 3 also

compares installed prices between the Unite d States and other major inte rnational markets and

5 

### TPO systems retained in the analysis are financed by non

- integrated companies that purchase PV syste ms from

installation contractors ; installed prices reported for these systems are purchase prices paid to installation contractors.

6 

### See: https://openpv.nrel.gov

7 

### See Feldman et al. (2014) for the 2014 edition of t he joint NREL

- LBNL briefing.

8 

### See Bo linger and Weaver (2014) for the 2014 edition of LBNL’s Utility

- Scale Solar report.

9 

### These in

- depth statistical analyses include Dong and Wiser (2013) and Burkhardt et al. (2014), both of which analyze

the impact of pe rmitting and local regulatory processes on residential PV prices and/or development times. Additional

forthcoming publications in 2014 and 2015 will examine other drivers for variability in system pricing, including the

impact of incentives (i.e., value

- b ased pricing) and the degree to which incentives and reductions in hardware costs are

passed through to customers

.

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 7 

## summarizes trends in PV incentive levels over time, focusing specifically on incentives provided

through state and utility programs

. Section 4 then summarizes trends in the installed price of utility

scale PV systems. Brief conclusi ons a re offered in the final section, and several appendices provide

additional details on the analysis methodology and additional tabular summaries of the data.

Text Box 1. Reasons for Deviations between Market Price Data and Current Price Benchmarks

Th e installed prices presented in this report are based on data from a large number of market transactions.

Various other entities publish benchmarks for the cost or price of PV systems in the United States, often

based on bottom

- up modeling of individual c ost components and processes, and t he data presented in this

report may differ from those ben chmarks for a number of reasons.

• Timing : This report focuses on systems installed through the end of 2013

, with some limited data for

systems installed in the firs t half of 2014. I nstalled prices for those systems generally reflect module

and other component pricing at the time that ins tallation contracts were signed, which may precede

installation dates by up to a year for large r commercial projects and by as much as four years for some

of the largest utility

- scale projects

. PV cost or price benchmarks issued near the same time as this

report may instead be based on recent system price quotes or on contemporaneous component pricing,

which has fallen significantly in recent years.

• Price versus cost : The data summarized in this report represent reported prices paid to installers or

project developers. In contrast, other published benchmarks may represent the costs borne by

installers or developers, which may differ (for a variety of reasons) from the ultimate sale price.

• Inefficient pricing : Even where benchmarks refer to system prices rather than costs, they may be based

on stipulated developer/ installer profit margins. The reported market price data, in contrast, are based

on whatever profit margin developers are able to capture or willing to accept. In markets with

relatively high incentives and/or barriers to entry, developers may be able to price projects above the

theoretically “efficient” level. Conversely, in other markets, developers may be willing to accept

“below

- market” margins . In either case, the underlying profit margin s embedded in the reported

market price data may differ from the assumptions within current PV system pricing benchmarks.

• Project si ze, location, and other characteristics : The market price data summarized in this report

reflect the particular characteristics of the projects in the data sample, including their size,

geographical location, and component selection. Of particular note, p erhaps, is that the residential and

commercial sample is weighted heavily towards systems installed in California , which is a relatively

expensive market, and the utility

- scale systems in the sample include many systems with high

efficiency (and relatively high

- cost) modules

. These project characteristics may differ from the

prototypical system characteristics used to construct published cost or pricing benchmarks

.

• Utility

- scale PV definition and sample scope : This report defines utility

- scale PV to cons ist of ground

mounted systems greater than 5 MW and includes only fully operational projects for which all

individual phases were in operation at the end of 2013 . Other published price benchmarks for utility

scale PV may instead be based on larger, protot ypical “central station” PV systems, or conversely

, as

in the case of SEIA /GTM ( 2014a)

, may be based on systems connected to the utility

- side of the meter

, which may include systems considerably smaller than 5 MW.

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 8 

# 2. Data Summary

The analysis present ed in this report derives from p roject

- level data for residential, commercial,

and utility

- scale PV systems collected from a variety of sources (see note on terminology below for

definitions of these market sectors)

. This section describes the data source s and the procedures used

to standardize and clean the data, and then summarizes the basic characteristics of the data sample

, including: the number of systems and installed capacity; the sample size relative to the total U.S.

grid

- connected PV market; and the distribution of PV systems in the sample by year, state, and

project size.



# Data Sources

D ata for residential and commercial systems were

sourced primarily from state and utility PV incentive

program administrators

. Ultimately, project

- level install ed

price data were provided by 60 PV incentive programs (see

Table B

- 1 in the Appendix for a list of these programs and

the associated sample sizes)

. 10 

## Data for utility

- scale

systems were collected from a diverse set of sources,

including the Section 1603 Grant Program 11 

## , FERC Form 1

filings, SEC filings, company presentations, and trade press

articles; data from the same set of sources were also used

for a limited number of large commercial PV systems that

were not already included within the data provided by state

and utility PV incentive programs.



# Data Standardization and Cleaning

To the extent possible, this report presents the data as provided directly by the aforementioned

sources ; however , several steps were taken to clean and standardize the raw dat a, as briefly

summarized here and described in greater detail in Appendix A. T wo key conventions used

throughout this report and applicable to all systems deserve specific mention:

1. All price and incentiv e data are presented in real 201 3 dollars (20 1 3 $), which required

inflation adjustments to the nominal

- dollar data provided by PV programs.

2. All capacity and dollars

- per

- watt ($/W) data are presented in terms of rated direct current

module power output under Standard Test Conditions (DC

- STC), requi ring tha t capacity

data provided by several PV incentive programs be translated to DC

- STC.

10 

### In addition, one utility (Xcel Energy) provided aggregate program

- level summary data for its PV incentive programs

in Colorado and Minnesot a; those data are included in the state

- level comparisons in Figure 19 through Figure 21 , but

otherwise are not used within this report and are not counted as part of the data sample.

11 

### Section 1603 grant data were used to estimate installed prices for 1 ,776 MW (56%) of utility

- scale PV capacity in the

data sample . In these cases, i nstalled prices were estimated based on reported Section 1603 grant amounts by assuming

that the grant is equal to 30% of the installed price , subject to take

- back provisions for grants issued after March 1,

2013

. This is a simplified assumption and ignores that (a) some project costs may be deemed ineligible for the grant and

that (b) the grant amount for some projects may be based on an appraised “fair market value” that diff ers from the price

actually paid to the developer. 

## A Note on Termin ology

Throughout this repor t, R esidential

and Commercial PV includes rooftop

systems of any size and ground

mounted systems up to 5 MW AC 

## in

size

. Utility

- S cale PV refers to ground

mounted systems larger than 5 MW AC



## . These distinctions are independent of

w hether electricity is delivered to the

customer

- side or utility

- side of the

electrical meter. Note that prior

editions of this report used 2 MW as

the threshold for utility

- scale PV.

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 9 

## A number of additional steps were then undertaken to clean and standardize the raw data. First,

projects with missing data for installed price

, system size , or installatio n date were eliminated from

the data sample. R emaining data were then cleaned by correcting text fields with obvious errors

and by standardizing the spelling of module and inverter manufacturers and models. T o the extent

possible, each PV system was then classified as building

- integrated PV or rack

- mounted , the

module efficiency was determined, and the system was classified as using either crystalline or thin

film modules, Chinese

- made or non

- Chinese made modules, and a micro

- inverter or central or

string inverter, based on a combination of information sources.

Aside from the removal of incomplete observations from the data sample, various categories of

systems w ere excluded from the analysis . The most significant group of excluded systems are those

fo r which the reported installed prices were deemed likely to represent appraised value s , rather than

purchase price s paid to installer s. Those systems are a subs et of TPO systems

– namely, systems

financed and installed by integrated companies that provide both the installation service and the

customer financing

– representing 3 8 % of all TPO systems in the data sample. Further details on

the number of excluded appraised

- value systems are provided below, and details on the procedure

used to identify those s ystems are described in Appendix A. Also excluded from the data analysis

are a relatively small number of systems with batter y

- back up, self

- installed systems, and systems

with installed prices less than $1/W or greater than $20/W ( assumed to be data entr y errors ).



# Sample Description

T he raw data sample

, prior to removal of appraised value systems and others ultimately excluded

from the analysis

, consists of more than 300,000 individual systems and a combined 8, 9 00 MW

across all market segments (resident ial, commercial, and utility

- scale) , including 3,1 00 MW

installed in 2013

. Th is represents 80 % of all grid

- connected PV capacity installed in the United

States through 201 3 and 7 8 % of capacity additions in 2013 (see Figure 1 ). Sample c overage for the

utility

- scale sector is relatively high, comprising 8 8 % of all utility

- scale PV capacity and 8 1 % of

2013 capacity additions

. 12 

## Coverage for the residential and commercial segments is somewhat

lower, and has declined o ver time as PV incentive programs in several large state markets have

phase d out 13 

## ; the raw sample includes data for 7 6 % of all U.S. residential and commercial PV

capacity and 75 % of 2013 capacity additions

.

Removal of appraised

- value and other excluded sy stems reduce s the residential and commercial

PV sample capacity by roughly 1 8 % overall and by 33 % among systems installed in 2013. The

resulting final sample used for the data analysis , summarized in Table 1

, cons ists of roughly

260,000 residential and commercial PV systems totaling 4, 700 MW, and 100 utility

- scale systems

totaling 3, 200 MW. Unless otherwise noted, this is the sample frame used as the basis for all

summary statistics presented in this report. See Tables B

- 1 through B

- 3 in the Appendix for further

detail on the residential and commercial sample disaggregated by system size range and state. Note

that the utility

- scale PV sample consists of only fully operational projects for which all individual

pha ses are in operation; separate project phases are not treated as individual projects.

12 

### When comparing our sample to the total U.S. PV market, we count large multi

- phase utility

- scale projects as single

project s (rather than counting each phase as a separate, individual project ), and assign the entire project to the year in

which the final phase was completed

. 13 

### Of particular note, incentives within the California Solar Initiative (CSI) program began to phase out in 2013. The

raw data sample includes roughly 375 MW of residential and commer cial PV capacity installed through the CSI

program in 2013 (as well as roughly 50 MW installed through other incentive program), but does not include the

roughly 200 MW of residential and commercial PV capacity installed in 2013 without any state or utilit y incentives.

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 10 Data source s for U.S. total grid

- connected PV capacity additions: Sherwood (201 4 ) and SEIA/GTM (2014a) . LBNL

modified those values by re

- assigning the capacity assoc iated with individual phases of large

, multi

- phase utility

- scale

projects to the year in which the final project phase was (or is scheduled to be) completed

. 

## Figure 1

. Comparison of Raw Data Sample to Total U.S. Grid

- Connected PV Capacity

Table 1

. Final Data Sample by Installation Year and Market Segment

Installation

Year No. of Systems Capacity (MW DC 

### )

Residential &

Commercial Utility

- Scale Total Residential &

Commercial Utility

- Scale Total

1998 33 0 33 0 .2 0 0.2



### 1999 162 0 162 0.8 0 0.8



### 2000 180 0 180 0.8 0 0.8



### 2001 1,302 0 1,302 5.8 0 5.8



### 2002 2,441 0 2,441 18 0 18



### 2003 3,480 0 3,480 31 0 31



### 2004 5,657 0 5,657 44 0 44



### 2005 5,797 0 5,797 64 0 64



### 2006 8,943 0 8,943 92 0 92



### 2007 12,764 2 12,766 132 22 154



### 2008 13,686 1 13,687 238 12 250



### 2009 24,319 2 24,321 303 53 356



### 2010 36,455 10 36,465 506 204 710



### 2011 42,360 26 42,386 981 482 1463



### 2012 51,753 34 51,787 1174 1019 2193



### 2013 50,614 25 50,639 1098 1441 2539



### Total 259,946 100 260,046 4,688 3, 234 7,922



# Residential and Commercial PV Sample

The final data sample for residential and commercial PV includes syst ems spanning 3 3 s tates.

As is the case for the entirety of the U.S. PV market

, this sample is heavily weighted towards

California and New Jersey , with Arizona

, Massachusetts , and North Carolina each constituting the

next largest shares (see the right

- most bar in Figure 2 )

. 14 

## As shown though , t he sample has

14 

### The distribution of the residential and commercial PV data sample comports reasonably well with the overall U.S. PV

market, though two relatively significant state markets (Colorado and Hawaii) are largely absent from the sample.

Colorad o is u nder

- represented , because the utility administering the state’s primary PV incentive program did not 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013



### Installation Year U.S. Cumulative Capacity

Raw Data Sample Cumulative Capacity

U.S. Annual Capacity Additions

Raw Data Sample Annual Capacity AdditionsAnnual Capacity Additions(MWDC)Cumulative Capacity(MWDC) 

### Grid

- Connected PV

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 11 

## diversified considerably over time, consist ent with trends in the broader U.S. market . Although

California has remained by far the largest individual state, its share has declined substantially over

the course of the analysis period , representing 3 2 % of 2013 capacity additions in the sample

. The

remaining 2013 capacity additions were spread among North Carolina (19%), Massachusetts (1 6 %),

New Jersey (1 6 %), Arizona (9%), and all other states (9 %).

Figure 2 . Residential & Commercial PV Sample Distribution among States



## The residential and commercial PV systems in the data sample span a wide size range, from as

small as 100 W to as large as 10 MW (given that this class of systems is defined to include all roof

mounted systems, regardless of size ) . In terms of the number of projects, the vast majority are

relatively small systems, with roughly 85 % consisting of systems ≤10 kW in size (see Figure 3 ). In

terms of installed capacity, however, the sample is considerably more evenly distributed across

system size ranges, split roughly into thirds among systems ≤30 kW, 3 0

- 1,0 00 kW, an d > 1,0 00 kW.

Figure 3

. Residential & Commercial PV Sample Distribution by System Size

contribute project

- level data, though it did provide aggregate summary statistics that are incorporated in the state

- level

comparisons in Figure 19 through Figure 21 . Hawaii is under

- represented, because system

- level installed

- price data is

not collected as part of th at state’s incentive program. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Percent of Sample Capacity



### Installation Year Other States

PA

MA

NC

AZ

NJ

CA 

### Residential &

Commercial PV

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%≤22-55-1010-3030-100100-250250-500500-1000>1000Percent of Sample



### System Size Range (kW DC 

### ) No. Systems

Capacity 

### Residential &

Commercial PV

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 12 

# Utility

- Scale PV Sample

The 100 utility

- scale PV systems in the data sample are spread across 1 7 states . T he vast

majority of that capacity

, however, is located in just three states

– California, Arizona, and Nevada

– with most of the remaining capacity in New Mexico, Texas , New Jersey , Colorado, and Florida

(see Figure 4 )

. This geographical distributi on reflects the locus of large projects centered in and

around the desert Southwest. The utility

- scale PV data sample also includes projects in Maryland,

New York, Illinois, North Carolina, Delaware, Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.

As indic ated previously, utility

- scale PV is defined for the purposes of this report to include any

ground

- mounted system with a nameplate capacity of 5 MW or larger. As such, t he size of projects

in the utility

- scale PV data sample ranges widely, from 5 MW up to 320 MW. Note again that large

multi

- phase projects that become operational in phases are considered, for our analysis, as single

projects. As indicated in Figure 5

, most systems in the utility

- scale PV data samp le fall within the

mid

- size ranges of either 10

- 20 MW or 20

- 50 MW. Not surprisingly, however, the distribution in

terms of capacity is quite heavily skewed towards relatively large systems, with almost half of the

sample capacity consisting of projects >5 0 MW

. These distributions have potential implications for

the installed price data presented in Section 4, where we summarize certain data in terms of

capacity

- weighted averages.

Figure 4

. Utility

- Scale PV Sample Capacity

Di stribution among States Figure 5

. Utility

- Scale PV Sample Distribution by

System Size CA

(48%) AZ

(20%)

NV

(11%)

CO (3%)

NM (3%)

TX (3%)

NJ (3%)

FL (2%)

Other (7%) 

### 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%5-1010-2020-50>50Percent of Sample



### System Size Range (MW DC 

### ) No. Systems

Capacity Utility

- Scale PV

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 13 

# 3. Installed Price Trends : Residential and Commercial PV

This section describes trends in the inst alled price of grid

- connected, residential and commercial

PV systems, based on the data sample and cleaning methods described in Section 2 . T he installed

price data represent reported installed price s , prior to receipt of any financial incentives (e.g.,

rebates, tax credits, etc.) . As indicated previously, the data sample excludes systems for which the

reported price was deemed likely to represent an appraised value, rather than a purchase price paid

to an installer (see Appendix A for further details)

.

The present section begins by describing trends in installed price over time , decomposing those

trends into underlying module and non

- module costs, and presenting temporal trends related to cash

incentives provided through state and utility programs. The section then compares installed prices

b etween the United States and other international markets

. It then examines the wide variability in

installed prices across projects, describing trends by system size

, among individual states

, between

third party

- owned and customer

- owned systems

, across ho st customer sector s , and between various

types of applications and technologies , including : microinverters vs. central inverters, systems with

varying module efficiencies, Chinese

- brand vs. non

- Chinese

- brand modules, residential new

construction vs. reside ntial retrofit, BIPV vs. rack

- mounted systems, rooftop vs. ground

- mounted

systems , and tracking vs. fixed

- tilt systems

.



# Installed Prices Continued Their Precipitous Decline in 201 3 and 2014

Figure 6 presents t he median installed price of all residential and commercial projects within the

sample, segmented into three system size groupings, from 1998 through 201 3

. Among the roughly

50 ,000 residential and commercial PV systems in the sample installed in 201 3 , t he median installed

price was $ 4. 7 /W for systems ≤ 10 kW, $ 4. 3 /W for systems 10

- 100 kW in size , and $ 3.9 /W for

systems > 100 kW. Importantly, though, t hese median values represent central tendencies , and

considerable spread exists among the data , as will be summarized in subsequent figures

. Also o f

parti cular note is that the national price trends in Figure 6 are dominated by trends within

California, which constitutes a large fraction of the total U.S. market and, as will be shown later, is

relatively high

- pr iced compared to other states

.

Notes: See Table 1 and Table B

- 2 for residential and commercial PV sample size s by installation year

. Median

installed prices are shown only if 1 5 or more observations are available fo r the individual size range.



## Figure 6 . Installed Price of Residential & Commercial PV over Time $0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013



### Installation Year ≤10 kW

10-100 kW

>100 kW 

### Residential & Commercial PV

(Median Values)Installed Price (2013$/WDC)

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 14 

## Over the entirety of the historical period depicted in Figure 6 , inst alled prices have dec lined by

about $0.5/W (6

- 8 % ) per year, on average, depending on system size range

. P rice declines,

however, have not occurred at a steady pace over that period

. In particular, i nstalled prices declined

markedly until 2005, but then stagnated through roug hly 2009

, while the PV supply chain struggled

to keep pace with surging worldwide demand. Since 2009, installed prices have fallen precipitously

as upstream cost reductions

– principally PV module cost reductions

– worked their way through to

end consumer s, and as state and utility PV incentive programs continued to ramp down their

incentives. From 201 2 to 201 3 , installed prices fell by $0. 7 /W ( or 1 2

- 15 % , depending on system

size range )

.

Early evidence suggests that installed price decline s in 201 4 are keeping pace with those in

recent years . As an indication of this trend, Figure 7 compares the installed price of systems in

2013 and the first half (H1) of 2014, based on data from a subset of the PV incentive pr ograms and

states covered elsewhere in this report (including most of the larger programs )

. Although the data

should be considered provisional

– both because they are drawn from a limited pool of programs

and because they may be impacted by seasonal trend s

– they show that installed price declines have

persisted into 2014. Specifically, t he median installed price of systems installed in H1 201 4 fell by

roughly $0. 2 /W ( 5 %) for systems ≤10 kW

, $0. 4 /W ( 9 %) for systems 10

- 100 kW , and $0. 5 /W ( 12 %)

for systems >100 kW , relative to median installed price s for systems installed in 201 3 (from the

same set of programs)

. If the same price reductions observed within the se states transpire more

broadly and continue on the same trajectory as in the first half of the ye ar, then national price

reductions in 201 4 will be even greater than those witnessed in 201 3 (at least for systems >10 kW,

which have thus far witnessed the steepest price declines in 2014)

. As discussed further in the next

section, the prospect continued installed price declines in the latter half of 2014 (and beyond) will

depend, in large measure, on continued declines in non

- module costs, given the flattening or slight

rise in global module prices since 2012

.

Notes: Given the reduced sample of PV inc entive programs and states represented within the figure, the 2013 median

installed prices shown here differ from national median values cited elsewhere.



## Figure 7

. Installed Prices for Systems Installed in 201 3 and the First Half o f 201 4 $4.7 $4.4 $4.0 $4.5 $4.0 $3.5 

### $0 $2 $4 $6 $8

≤10 kW

n=32,517 (2013)

n=12,902 (H1 2014) 10-100 kW

n=5,851 (2013)

n=2,372 (H1 2014) >100 kW

n=912 (2013)

n=314 (H1 2014)Installed Price (2013$/WDC)



### 2013 2014 (H1)



### ≤10 kW 10

- 100 kW >100 kW Residential & Commercial PV: AZ, CA, MA, MD, NJ, NY



## (Median Values)

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 15 

# Installed Price Reductions Have Persisted

, Even as Module Prices Flattened

Figure 8 , which focuses specifically on ≤10 kW systems, illustrates the close but imperfect

historical linkages between installe d system prices and PV module prices . As shown, module prices

began a steep descent in 2008, falling by $2. 7 /W in real 201 3 dollars from 2008 to 2013 and

constituting 67 % of the total $ 4.0 /W decline in the installed price of ≤10 kW systems over that

perio d

. I nstalled price declines since 2008 are thus , in large measure, the result of falling module

prices.

It is evident, however, that year

- by

- year installed price declines have not proceed ed in perfect

lock

- step with module prices

. For example, module pr ices dropped by $1.1/W from 2008 to 2009

, while total installed prices fell by only $0. 4 /W over that year . I nstalled prices then began their

dramatic descent a year later , suggestive of a lag between movements in module prices and installed

system prices

. 15 

## Conversely, i n the last year of the historical period, from 201 2 to 201 3

, total

installed prices fell by $0. 7 /W while module prices slightly rose (by less than $0.1/W) , and as noted

in the previous section have continued to decline through the first hal f of 2014, despite further

modest increases in module pricing. 16 

## Th is continued decline in installed system prices may partly

reflect some residual lagged effect of module price reductions in preceding year s, though it may

also be indicative of reductions in non

- module costs

, as discussed further below

.

Notes: The Global Module Price Index is the SPV Market Research index for large

- quantity buyers (Mints 201 4 )

.

" Implied Non

- Module Cost s" are calculated as the Total Installed Price minus the Global Modul e Price Index.



## Figure 8 . Installed Price , Module Price Index, and Implied Non

- Module Costs over Time for

Residential & Commercial PV Systems ≤10 kW



## Over the long

- term, it is clear that non

- module cost s (which include such items a s inverters,

mounting hardware, labor, permitting and fees, overhead, taxes, and installer profit) have also fallen

15 

### The fact that moveme nts in the global module price index are not immediately reflected in total installed price may

reflect any number of underlying dynamics, including: differences in time between when installation contracts are

signed and when systems are actually installed , excess module inventory by system installers, supply and delivery

constraints among installers or component manufacturers, a lack of competitive pressure in particular markets resulting

in value

- based rather than cost

- based pricing, a divergence between global and domestic module prices, or differences

between module prices paid by large

- quantity buyers (the basis for this index) and installers more generally (which may

face a larger distributer mark

- up).

16 

### The average price of poly

- silicon modules sold i n the United States rose by $0.09/W from its nadir at the start of 2013

through the second quarter of 2014 (SEIA/GTM 2014a and 2014b). $0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013



### Installation Year Total Installed Price (Median)

Global Module Price Index

Implied Non-Module Costs 

### Residential & Commercial PV Systems ≤10 kW2013$/WDC

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 16 

## and have contributed significantly to the overall decline in installed system prices

. 17 

## The “implied

non

- module costs” presented in Figure 8 are a residual term, calculated as the difference between

the total installed price for systems ≤10 kW and the module price index in each year, and provide a

rough proxy for non

- module costs over time for this system size range. 18 

## Given the manner in

which this residual term is calculated and the possible confounding influences of lags in module

price reductions

, it is not a particularly reliable indicator for short

- term movements in non

- module

costs; it does , however, provide a reasonable approximation for long er term trends. 19 

## Specifically,

over the full 1 6

- year period shown in Figure 8 , implied non

- modul e costs fell by approximately

$3

. 0 /W ( 44 %), from $ 6.9 /W in 1998 to $ 3.9 /W in 201 3 . This represents 42 % of the declin e in the

total installed price for ≤10 kW systems over that period, clearly signifying a significant impact

from non

- module cost reductions over the long

- term.

In recent years, module prices have fallen much more rapidly than non

- module costs, and as a

result, non

- module costs have grown in terms of their relative share of total system costs. This shift

in the cost structure of PV systems has heightened emphasis within the industry and among

policymakers on reducing non

- module costs

– particularly the v ariety of business process or “soft”

costs

, including such things as marketing and customer acquisition, system design, installation

labor, and costs associated with permitting and inspection processes

. As shown in Figure 8 , implied

non

- module costs fell by $0.7/W (1 6 %) from 2012 to 2013. Although that decline may not provide

an accurate estimate of the true reduction in non

- module costs over that timeframe, the size of the

reduction in this residual term , in comb ination with the continued drop in installed prices during the

first half of 2014

– all while module prices have remained flat or rose

– collectively suggest that

recent efforts to target PV soft costs may have begun to bear fruit.



# Installed Price Declines Have Occur red in Concert with Falling State/Utility

Incentives

Financial incentives provided through utility, state, and federal programs have been a driving

force for the PV market in the United States. For residential and commercial PV systems, those

incentives have potentially included some combination of cash incentives provided through state

and/or utility PV programs (rebates, grants, and performance

- based incentives) , the federal

investment tax credit (ITC) or U.S. Treasury grant in lieu of the IT C, state ITCs, revenues from the

sale of renewable energy certificates (RECs) or solar renewable energy certificates (SRECs), and

accelerated depreciation of capital investments in solar energy systems.

Focusing solely on cash incentives provided throug h state/utility programs, Figure 9 shows the

median cash incentive over time provided by those PV incentive programs within the data sample

that provide either up

- front rebates or performance

- based incentives

. 20 

## Th ese data are presented on

17 

### The line between module costs and non

- module costs can become somewhat blurred, such as for modules with

integrated rac king and AC modules with micro

- inverters, which also impact design and installation costs.

18 

### Inverters and mounting structures represent the largest hardware costs within the residual non

- module costs term, and

based on data from SEIA/GTM (2014a), constit uted roughly $0.50/W

, on average

, for residential systems in 2013.

Much of the remaining residual non

- module cost term therefore consists of various soft costs.

19 

### In effect, the calculated implied non

- module costs reflect both actual non

- module costs as w ell as any divergence

between the module price index and the module prices actually paid by installers for system s installed in any given year.

20 

### Most PV incentive programs i n the data sample provide an up

- fron t cash incentive (i.e., rebate) based on syst em

capacity, in some cases adjusted for expected performance . Several programs instead provide performance

- based

incentives (PBIs), paid out over time based on actual energy production; for the purpose of constructing Figure 10 , PBI

payments are translated into an up

- front incentive of equivalent net present value (see Appendix A). SREC payments

are not included in Figure 10 , but their potential valu e is discussed within T ext Box 2

.

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 17 

## a pre

- tax basis

– that is, prior to assessment of state or federal taxes that may be levied if the

incentive is treated as taxable income. Note also that the figure presents data based on the year in

which systems are installed; as such, it does not necessarily provide an accurate depiction of the size

of cash incentives offered in each year, as there is typically a lag between the time that a project

reserves its incentive and its installation date

.

As shown in Figure 9 , cash incentives (in the form of rebates and performance

- based incentives)

have declined steadily and significantly over the past decade (on a per

- kW basis)

. Among systems

installed in 201 3 , median cash incentives ranged from $0. 2 /W to $ 0.7 /W across the three system

size categories shown, having fallen by roughly $3.5/W to $4. 5 /W ( 8 5% to 9 5 % ) from their

historical peak in 2001/2002 . Within just the last year of the analysis period, median cash

incentives fell by $0. 3 /W to $0. 4 /W across the size ranges shown. Although the incentive levels

depicted in Figure 9 are, to some extent, do minated by trends within California’s programs, which

comprise a large portion of the data sample, in centives within nearly all of the PV incentive

programs in the sample have declined over time.

Notes: The figure depicts the pre

- tax value of rebates and PBI payments provided through state/utility PV incentive

programs, among those systems that received such incentives . The high median incentive for >100 kW systems in 2002

reflects the large percentage of systems that received an incentive through LADWP’s PV incentive program, which

provided especially lucrative incentives in that year

. 

### Results are excl uded if fewer than 15 observations are available.



## Figure 9 . State/Utility Cash Incentives for Residential & Commercial PV



## From the perspective of the customer

- economics of PV

, the steady decline in cash incentives has

, at least pa rtially, offset the reductions in installed price s , and thus the customer

- economics of PV

has not necessarily improved to the extent that might be inferred from the installed price reductions

alone . Over the course of the past decade

, the median pre

- tax v alue of cash incentives provided

through state and utility programs has declined by an amount equivalent to roughly 8 0% of the

corresponding drop in i nstalled prices . Within just the last year of the analysis period, reduction s in

cash incentives equaled 40% to 50% of the installed price decline , depending on system size range

.

The continued ratcheting down of cash incentives provided through state and utility PV incentive

programs reflects a combination of drivers

. Over the long

- term

, program administra tors have

reduced these incentives as other sources of financial support for PV projects

– most notably,

increases in the federal ITC and the emergence of SREC markets in a number of states (see Text

Box 2 )

– have become more widely available or lucrative. PV incentive program administrators

have also reduced incentives over time both in response to installed price declines and to encourage $0 $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Pre-Tax Rebate or PBI(2013$/WDC)



### Installation Year ≤ 10 kW

10-100 kW

> 100 kW 

### Residential & Commercial PV

(Median Values)

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 18 

## further declines. The premise behind the latter is that regular and scheduled incentive reductions

can provide a lon g

- term signal to the industry to reduce costs and improve installation efficiencies.

In addition, to the extent that value

- based pricing exists

– where installers are able to price their

systems based on the value provided to the customer rather than on t he underlying cost borne by the

installer

– incentive reductions may force installers to reduce installed prices, in order to maintain

the targeted level of returns for system owners.

Text Box 2 . SREC Price Trends

Seventeen states plus the District of Columbia have enacted renewables portfolio standards with either a

solar or distributed generation set

- aside (also known as a “carve

- out”), and many of those states have

established solar renewable energy certificate (SREC) markets to facilitate compliance . PV system owners

in these (and in some cases neighboring) states may sell SRECs generated by their systems, either in addition

to or in lieu of direct cash incentives received from state/utility PV incentive programs. Many solar set

- aside

states have t ransitioned away from standard

- offer based incentives , particularly for medium and large

commercial systems, and towards SREC

- based financing models with SREC prices that vary over time. For

small residential and commercial systems, traditional rebate pro grams (and/or SREC payments provided on

an up

- front basis) may still be offered.

A s illustrated in Figure 10



## , SREC spot

- market prices in most markets declined significantly over the

2011

- 201 2 period

, falling below $1 50/MWh in most states , and with the exception of Washington, D.C.,

remained level throughout much of 201 3

. Long

- term ( multi

- year) S REC contract prices have also fallen in

recent years, although the availability of such contracts and visibility into the ir pricing is limited. In general,

however, these recent declines in SREC prices reflect a surplus of available SRECs relative to solar set

- aside

compliance obligations , which is both a result of reductions in the installed price of PV as well as a source of

continuing downward pressure on installed price s

.

Notes : Data sourced from Spectron, SRECTrade, and Flett Exchange (data avera ged across available sources).

Plotted values represent SREC prices for the current or nearest future compliance year tr aded in each month. Data

for Ohio are for in

- state SRECs.



## Figure 10 . Monthly Average SREC Prices for Current or Nearest Future Compliance Year $0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Avg. Monthly SREC Price($2013/MWh)



### Trading Date DC

DE

MA

MD

NH

NJ

OH

PA

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 19 

# Installed Prices in the United States Are Higher than in Many Other Major

Internati onal PV Markets

Notwithstanding the significant installed price reductions that have already occurred in the

United States, international experience suggests that greater near

- term reductions may be possible.

Figu re 11 compares 2013 installed price s

, excluding sales or value

- added tax (VAT) , across many of

the major national markets for residential and commercial PV (Germany, Italy, France, Japan, the

United Kingdom , and the United States). Although the data acro ss countries may not be perfectly

comparable , the figure nevertheless suggests that installed price s in the United States remain

relatively high compared to most other major markets. 21 

## In particular, all of the other countries

shown in Figure 11 except for Japan had lower prices than the United States within the ≤10 kW

range, and all had lower prices for 10

- 100 kW systems

. The pricing disparity was greatest in

comparison to Germany, where median installed prices we re more than 50% lower than in the

United States, for both of the size ranges shown.

Notes: Installed price d ata for Germany are based on price quotes issued for individual systems throughout 2013

( EuPD 201 4 ). I nstalled price s for all other countries (w ith the exception of the U.S.) are based on data reported by

individual country members to the IEA Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme (IEA

- PVPS 2014)

. Data for

cumulative grid

- connected PV capacity through 2013 are from REN21 (2014).



## Figure 11 . Comparison of the Installed Price for Residential PV Systems in 201 3 across Major

National Markets (Pre

- Sales Tax/VAT)



## Given that modules and other hardware items are effectively global commodities with only

marginal price differences acr oss countries, much of the pricing variation across countries can be

attribute d to differences in soft costs

. 22 

## Th o se differences in soft costs may, in turn, be partly

attributable to differences in the size of each market, on the theory that larger market s facilitate

price reductions through learning

- by

- doing and economies of scale. This theory is partially borne

out by Figure 11

, in the case of Germany and Italy , which had amassed roughly 3 6 GW and 1 8 GW

21 

### Limited information is available about the underlying sources for the price data reported to the IEA

- PVPS, so the

comparison to U.S. data may be imperfect. For example, several countries report installed prices as of December 2013,

while the U.S. data are based on systems installed over the course of the entire year. System sizes may also not be

perfectly aligned, as the installed price data from IEA

- PVPS are identified as referring to “Residential

– 10 kW” and

“Commercial

– 100 kW” systems. In addition, d ata for some countries, including Germany, may be based on price

quotes, rather than on actual invoiced prices for installed projects.

22 

### See Seel et al. (2012) $2.1 $2.9 $4.4 $4.4 $4.0

$2.7

$1.9 $2.3 $3.7 $4.1

$2.7 $2.3

0 10 20 30 40

$0 $2 $4 $6 $8

Germany Italy Japan U.S. France U.K. ≤10 kW

10-100 kW

Cumulative PV CapacityCumulative Grid-ConnectedCapacity through 2013 (GWDC)Installed Price, Excluding SalesTax/VAT (2013$/WDC) 

## Installed Price Data for 2013

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 20 

## of grid

- connected PV capacity through 201 3

, compared to roughly 12 GW in the United States

. That said, the fact that the U.K.

– a relatively small market in absolute terms

– also had relatively

low installed prices suggests that larger absolute market size, alone , does not account for the

entirety of installed price differences among countries. 23



# Installed Prices Vary Widely Across Individual Projects

The preceding figures have focused on median installed prices. Considerable spread exists

within the data, howev er, as illustrated in Figure 12 through Figure 14 , which present frequency

distributions of installed prices for systems ≤10 kW

, 10

- 100 kW, and >100 kW

. As shown, the

installed price distributions have , over time, both shifted to the left, reflecting the long term decline

in installed prices, and also narrowed . This convergence of prices, with high

- priced outl iers

becoming increasingly infrequent, is consistent with a maturing market characterized by increased

competition among installers and module manufacturers and by better

- informed consumers.

That said, the narrowing trend was most evident within the ear ly years of the historical period,

i.e., when comparing the distributions for 1998

- 200 5 and 200 6

- 20 10 . Since then, the spread in the

installed price distribution s ha s remai ned seemingly stable, with si gnificant variability in pricing

persisting across sys tems

. For example, a mong ≤10 kW systems installed in 201 3

, which had a

median installed price of $ 4. 7 /W, roughly 20 % of systems had an installed price less than $ 3.9 /W,

while a similar percentage was priced above $ 5. 6 /W. The remaining 6 0% of systems were spread

within the relatively wide range between those two prices . The installed price distribution s for 10

-

100 kW and >100 kW systems exhibit comparable spread.

The potential underlying causes for such pricing variability are numerous . These may incl ude

project characteristics (e.g., related to system size, technology type, or configuration ) as well as

attributes of individual installer s. Installed price variation likely also reflects differences in regional

or local market and regulatory conditions. For example, markets with less competition among

installers, higher incentives, and/or higher electricity rates for net metering may have higher

installed prices if installers are able to “value

- price” their systems (i.e., price their systems based on

th e value they provide to the customer, rather than based on th e cost borne by the installer).

Variability in prices also likely derives from differences in administrative and regulatory

compliance costs (e.g., permitting and interconnection) as well as dif ferences in labor wages and

taxes

. Many of these potential pricing drivers are explored througho ut the remainder of this report

, and a s noted previously

, LBNL also is engaged in a series of separate analys e s, using more

sophisticated statistical methods, to further explain the sources of PV pricing variability. 24



## Regardless of its cause s

, however, t he fact that such variability exists underscores the need for

caution and specificity when referring to the installed price of PV, as clearly there is no single

“price” that characterizes the U.S. market, or even particular market segments, as a whole

.

23 

### For example, installed prices may also differ among countries as a result of (a mong other things) differences in

incentive levels; building architecture; component country

- of

- origin; interconnection standards; labor costs; incentive,

permitting, and interconnection processes; foreign exchange rates; and average system size.

24 

### In stud ies already completed, Dong and Wiser (2013) found that cities in California with the most

- favorable

permitting practices had installed prices $0.27/W to $0.77/W lower than in cities with the most

- onerous practices.

Examining a broader geographical footpri nt, Burkhardt et al. (2014) found that variations in local permitting procedures

lead to differences in average residential PV prices of approximately $0.18/W across jurisdictions; when considering

variations not only in permitting practices, but also in o ther local regulatory procedures, price differences grew to

$0.64/W to $0.93/W between the most

- onerous and most

- favorable jurisdictions.

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 21 

## Figure 12 . Installed Price Distribution for Residential & Commercial PV ( ≤10 kW Systems)

Figure 13

. Installe d Price Distribution for Residential & Commercial PV ( 10

- 100 kW Systems)

Figure 14

. Installed Price Distribution for Residential & Commercial PV ( >100 kW Systems) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%1-22-33-44-55-66-77-88-99-1010-1111-1212-1313-1414-1515-1616-1717-1818-1919-20Frequency



### Installed Price (2013$/W

DC 

### ) 1998-2005 (n=17,136)

2006-2010 (n=83,525)

2011 (n=35,128)

2012 (n=42,956)

2013 (n=42,392) 

### Residential & Commercial PV

≤10 kW DC 

### Installed In:



### 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%1-22-33-44-55-66-77-88-99-1010-1111-1212-1313-1414-1515-1616-1717-1818-1919-20Frequency



### Installed Price (2013$/W

DC 

### ) 1998-2005 (n=1,697)

2006-2010 (n=11,057)

2011 (n=6,027)

2012 (n=7,263)

2013 (n=7,102) 

### Residential & Commercial PV

10

- 100 kW DC 

### Installed In:

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%1-22-33-44-55-66-77-88-99-1010-1111-1212-1313-1414-1515-1616-1717-1818-1919-20Frequency



### Installed Price (2013$/W

DC 

### ) 1998-2005 (n=219)

2006-2010 (n=1,585)

2011 (n=1,205)

2012 (n=1,534)

2013 (n=1,120) 

### Residential & Commercial PV

>100 kW DC 

### Installed In:

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 22 

# Installed Prices Exhibit Clear Economies of Scale

Large r PV insta llations benefit from economies of scale by spread ing fixed project and overhead

costs over a larger number of installed watts and, depending on the installer , through price

reductions on volume purchases of materials . This trend was evident previously in Figure 6 , which

distinguished among three broad system size categories over time

, and can be observed with greater

precision in Figure 15 , which focuses on ly on systems in stalled in 201 3 and distinguishes among

narrower systems size ranges

. Across the two extremes (excluding utility

- scale systems, which are

addressed in Section 4), the median installed pric e for large commercial systems >1,000 kW is 3 5 %

lower than for syst ems ≤2 kW , and 27% below the median price of systems in the 100

- 250 kW

range

. Some portion of the installed price variation observed in Figure 12 through Figure 14 can

thu s be attributed to variation in system sizes within each of the three size groupings (particularly

among >100 kW systems , as the group spans a particularly wide range of system sizes ) . That said,

as the percentile bands in Figure 15 suggest , even within relatively narrow system size bins

, significant pricing variability remains.

Figure 15 . Installed Price of Residential & Commercial PV According to System Size



# Installed Prices Differ Sign ificantly Among States

The U.S. PV market is fragmented into a large number of quasi

- regional, state, and even local

markets. Focusing specifically on the potential influence of state

- level conditions, Figure 16

through Figure 18 compare median installed prices across the states represented within the data

sample

, focusing on systems installed in 201 3 (see Table B

- 3 in the Appendix for time series data

on median installed prices by state )

. 25 

## T he figures include only those states with at least 15 systems

installed in 201 3 within the respective size grouping . S ome caution is nevertheless warranted in

generalizing from results for those states with relatively small sample siz es ( as identified within the

x

- axis labels in the figures), as the installed price differences relative to other states may simply

reflect idiosyncrasies of the particular systems or installers in the sample for those state s , rather than

fundamental underl ying state or local conditions.

Within all three system size ranges, substantial differences in median installed prices can be

observed across states

. For systems ≤ 10 kW in size , median installed prices range from a low of

25 

### Data for CO and MN are based on aggregate statistics provided by Xcel Energy for its programs in those two states;

t hose data are included in Figure 19 through Figure 21 , as well as in Table B

- 3 in the appendix, but are not otherwise

included within this document. $4.8 $4.8 $4.6 $4.3 $4.4 $4.2 $4.1 $3.8 $3.1 

### $0 $2 $4 $6 $8

≤2 kW

n=1,734

3 MW 2-5 kW

n=15,590

59 MW 5-10 kW

n=25,068

178 MW 10-30 kW

n=6,191

85 MW 30-100 kW

n=911

51 MW 100-250 kW

n=503

83 MW 250-500 kW

n=264

93 MW 500-1000 kW

n=157

103 MW >1000 kW

n=196

442 MWInstalled Price (2013$/WDC)



### System Size Range (kW DC 

### ) Residential & Commercial

PV Systems Installed in 2013

(Median and 20 th 

### /80 th 

### Percentiles)

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 23 

## $ 3

. 3 /W in Florida to a high of $ 5. 3 /W in North Carolina

. Within the 10

- 100 kW size range , median

installed prices range from $ 3.0 /W in Florida to $5. 1 /W in Minnesota

. Finally, for systems >100

kW, median installed prices range from $ 2. 5 /W in North Carolina to $ 5.3 /W in Arizona (though the

ordering of states within this size range is arguably less meaningful, given the relatively small

sample sizes for many states and the greater potential for variation in project characteristics)

.

Importantly, w ithin all three size categories, Calif ornia is a relatively high

- cost state, thereby

pulling the installed price statistics for the entire country upward by virtue of its large fractional

share of the market

. In general, one might anticipate that l arger or more mature state markets would

have lower prices as a result of greater competition and efficiency, as well as perhaps more

extensive bulk purchasing and better access to low

- cost products. Even beyond California,

however, a strong correlation is not readily apparent between state market s ize and installed system

prices . Among other large state markets, Massachusetts

, New York , Arizona, Colorado, and New

Jersey generally reside near the middle, or in several cases the upper

- end, of the pricing spectrum

for ≤10 kW and 10

- 100 kW size d systems . On their face, these results therefore suggest that other

factors , beyond market size, also strongly impact PV system pricing

.

These o ther factors may include many of the potential drivers mentioned with respect to o verall

variability in system pricing across the dataset as a whole

. For example, installed prices may be

higher in states as a result of higher labor costs or more onerous permitting and administrative

processes. States with higher incentives and/or higher electricity rates may have higher installed

prices as a result of value

- based pricing. State

- level price variation can also arise from differences

in the characteristics of systems installed in each state, such as typical system size and

configuration , as well as differences in the compo sition of the PV customer base. For example, in

both California and Arizona

, a large fraction systems >100 kW were at government, school, or non

profit facilities, which tend to have high installed prices relative to systems at for

- profit commercial

facil ities (as shown and discussed in a later section). Conversely, most of the North Carolina

systems in this size range were 2

- 5 MW commercial, ground

- mounted systems , which are relatively

low

- cost

. Finally, differing sales tax rates and the fact that rough ly half of the states shown in the

figures exempt PV systems from state sales tax can lead to installed price differences of as much as

$0. 4/W between states with relatively high sales tax for PV systems and those that exempt PV from

sales tax (or that sim ply do not have sales taxes)

.

Notwithstanding the potential significance of these cross

- state differences, it is again also

important to observe the substantial pricing variation within each state . I n many states , that

variability is at least as wide as cross

- state differences

, potentially reflecting more local ized

jurisdictional conditions

, as well as intra

- state variations in installer

- and system

- level price drivers

.

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 24 Notes: Median installed prices are shown only if 15 or more observations were avai lable for a given state.



## Figure 16 . Installed Price of Residential & Commercial PV Systems by State (≤10 kW Systems)

Notes: Median installed prices are shown only if 15 or more observations were available for a given state.



## Figur e 17 . Installed Price of Residential & Commercial PV Systems by State (10

- 100 kW Systems)

Notes: Median installed prices are shown only if 15 or more observations were available for a given state.



## Figure 18 . Installed Price of Residential & Commercial PV Systems by State (>100 kW Systems)$3.3$3.5$3.5$3.7$3.8$3.8$4.0$4.0$4.0$4.1$4.2$4.2$4.4$4.5$4.5$4.5$4.6$4.7$4.7$4.7$4.8$4.9$5.0$5.2$5.3



### $0 $2 $4 $6 $8

FL

19 TX

796 ME

258 DC

104 NH

241 UT

68 NJ

3156 CO

2330 CT

626 AZ

4633 DE

20 NV

141 PA

91 MA

2697 NM

833 RI

24 NY

1455 MD

56 VT

756 OR

349 WI

144 CA

25273 IL

146 MN

60 NC

480Installed Price (2013$/WDC)



### State andSample Size Systems ≤10 kW DC 

### Installed in 2013

(Median and 20 th 

### /80 th 

### Percentiles)$3.0$3.3$3.3$3.4$3.6$3.6$3.7$3.7$3.8$3.8$3.9$4.0$4.0$4.0$4.0$4.1$4.2$4.2$4.7$4.9$5.1



### $0 $2 $4 $6 $8

FL

24 ME

25 NH

36 TX

93 NV

83 UT

35 WI

24 CO

205 AZ

1111 IL

34 NJ

1230 NC

39 OR

16 NM

75 CT

110 MA

375 PA

59 VT

98 CA

3087 NY

519 MN

34Installed Price (2013$/WDC)



### State and Sample Size Systems 10

- 100 kW DC 

### Installed in 2013

(Median and 20 th 

### /80 th 

### Percentiles)

$2.5 $2.7 $3.4 $3.5 $3.8 $4.3 $5.3 

### $0 $2 $4 $6 $8

NC

79 CO

37 MA

117 NJ

261 NY

29 CA

404 AZ

186Installed Price (2013$/WDC)



### State and Sample Size Systems >100 kW DC 

### Installed in 2013

(Median and 20 th 

### /80 th 

### Percentiles)

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 25 

# Installed Prices for Third Party Owned Systems Retained in the Data Sample Are

Similar to Those for Host Customer

- Owned Systems

Third party ownership of customer

- sited P V systems through power purchase agreements and

leases has become increasingly common for PV systems of all sizes , representing 6 7 % of all

systems installed in 201 3 within our raw data sample

. 26 

## Under these arrangements, the owner of the

PV system is an en tity other than the host customer, and the cash outlay by the host customer

typically consists of a series of payments over time, rather than a single up

- front payment for the

purchase of the PV system. As such, the installed price data reported to state and utility PV

incentive programs for third

- party owned (TPO) systems may represent something differ ent than it

would under a standard cash sale transaction, depending on the type of third party finance provider.

In particular, for systems financed by n on

- integrated third party providers (i.e., companies that

provide customer financing but purchase the system from an engineering, procurement, and

construction [EPC] contractor), the installed price data reported to PV incentive programs generally

represen t the actual price paid to the EPC contractor by the customer finance provider, and are

roughly (though not perfectly) comparable to what the reported installed price would be under a

cash sale transaction. 27 

## Accordingly, these systems were retained in the data sample. In contrast,

for systems financed by integrated third party providers (i.e., companies that provide both the

installation service and customer financing), the installed price data reported to PV incentive

program administrators generally rep resents an appraised value, as there is no intermediate

transaction to report. To the extent that systems installed by integrated third party finance providers

could be identified, they were removed from the data sample and are excluded from the summary

s tatistics presented in this report (with the exception of Text Box 3 , which demonstrates the

importance of having removed appraised value systems ). In total, roughly 4 0,000 appraised value

systems were removed from the data sample , including almost 20,000 systems installed in 2013 (see

Appendix A for details on the screening method )

.

Focusing on TPO systems retained in the data sample, Figure 19 and Table 2 compare repor ted

installed price s between those systems and customer

- owned systems. In principle, i nstalled price s

for retained TPO systems might be either higher or lower than for similar customer

- owned systems.

For example, an installer selling a system to a financ e provider might bear higher transaction costs

associated with arranging financing, but may bear lower customer acquisition costs (either because

the availability of customer financing makes for an easier sale or because the finance provider,

itself, perfo rms some portion of the customer acquisition function).

As the data show, the difference in installed price s between TPO and customer

- owned systems

ha s generally been small , though the size and direction of that gap has varied somewhat over time

and acr oss different size groups . In 2013

, median prices for retained TPO systems were between

$0. 2 /W higher and $0.1/W lower than for customer

- owned systems , depending on the system size

range . In years prior to 2013 , median installed prices for retained TPO s ystems have generally been

lower than for customer

- owned systems , particularly among systems ≤10 kW

, though the

differences have generally been no more than $0. 5 /W

. The growing prominence of TPO thus does

26 

### The penetration of th ird

- party ownership varies somewhat across customer segments. Among 2013 installations in

the raw data sample (i.e., prior to removing appraised

- value systems), 68% of residential systems, 45% of systems

hosted by tax

- exempt customers, and 61% of systems hosted by for

- profit commercial customers were TPO.

27 

### Some non

- integrated finance providers may assist the EPC contractor with lead generation and/or may be responsible

for filling out incentive paperwork and other back

- office functions, in which case tho se soft costs would not be reflected

in the sale price between the EPC contractor and finance provider.

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 26 

## not appear to have had a significant direct impact on the overall price trends presented within this

report (given that appraised value systems have been removed from the data sample) , though

increasing shares of TPO systems may have contributed modestly to temporal decline s in median

installed price s for smaller systems in some years prior to 2013

.

Separate from a ny comparison of median values, t he distribution of installed prices for TPO

systems in 2013 wa s somewhat narrower than for customer

- owned systems, as reflected in the

percentile bands in Figure 19 . Th e narrower d istribution results from the fact that customer

- finance

providers often purchase bundles of systems at a standard price from EPC contractors , and thus

large numbers of such systems have an identical installed price within the dataset. In addition,

finance providers are relatively well

- informed buyers

, which would also tend to compress the

distribution of installed prices for TPO systems

.

Notes: As is the case throughout the report, data from TPO systems for which reported installed prices were deemed

l ikely to represent an appraised value were excluded from the sample. The values shown here for TPO systems are

based only on systems for which the installed price s reported to state/utility PV incentive programs were deemed likely

to represent an actual t ransaction price between an EPC contractor and a customer finance provider.



## Figure 19 . Installed Pr ices Reported for Host Customer

- Owned vs. Third Party Owned PV Systems

Table 2 . Median Installed Price of Customer

- Owned vs. Third Party Owned PV (2013$/W)

Installation Year ≤ 10 kW 10

- 100 kW >100 kW

Customer

Owned Third Party

Owned Customer

Owned Third Party

Owned Customer

Owned Third Party

Owned

2009 $8.4 (n=16314) $7.9 (n=826) $8.0 (n=1739) $7.9 (n=150) $ 7.7 (n=129) $7.9 (n=94)

2010 $7.2 (n=19129) $6.7 (n=3085) $6.8 (n=2496) $6.6 (n=405) $6.2 (n=291) $5.7 (n=90)

2011 $6.5 (n=19052) $6.1 (n=8968) $5.9 (n=2639) $5.7 (n=1159) $5.1 (n=597) $5.0 (n=347)

2012 $5.4 (n=17801) $5.3 (n=20873) $5.0 (n=2811) $5.0 ( n=3126) $4.6 (n=931) $4.7 (n=503)

2013 $4.7 (n=18567) $4.8 (n=20895) $4.2 (n=2668) $4.4 (n=3834) $3.9 (n=692) $3.8 (n=363) $4.7 $4.8 $4.2 $4.4 $3.9 $3.8 

### $0 $2 $4 $6 $8

Customer

Owned

n=18567

96 MW Third Party

Owned

n=20895

128 MW Customer

Owned

n=2668

60 MW Third Party

Owned

n=3834

63 MW Customer

Owned

n=692

519 MW Third Party

Owned

n=363

147 MW

1 2 3Installed Price (2013$/WDC) 

### Residential & Commercial PV Installed in 2013

(Median and 20 th 

### /80 th 

### Percentile)

≤10 kW DC 

### 10

- 100 kW DC 

### >100 kW DC

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 27 

## Text Box 3 . Appraised Value Price Reporting for TPO Systems

As noted previously, for certain types of TPO systems

– namely tho se installed by integrated TPO

providers

– the installed price data reported to PV incenti ve programs typically represent some form of

appraised value. To the extent possible, t hose data have been eliminated from the data sample , in order to

eliminate any distortion they might introduce into the historical trends presented in this report. T o provide

some insight into the potential significance of this distinction

, Figure 20 compare s reported installed price s

betwe en TPO systems that were financed by integrated providers and thus excluded from the data sample

and TPO those systems that were financed by non

- integrated providers and retained in the sample . For

simplicity, the figure focuses on systems ≤10 kW , for the period from 200 9 onward

.

As shown

, through 2011, installed prices reported for the excluded TPO systems installed by integrated

finance providers we re dramatically higher than for non

- integrated TPO systems. For many integrated TPO

systems, the apprai sed value s used as the basis for reported installed price s were the assessed “fair market

value” used by the project owner when applying for a Section 1603 Treasury Grant or federal investment tax

credit. That fair market value is often based on a discoun ted cash flow from the project, which can be

substantially higher than the price that would be paid under a cash sale transaction (such as those reported for

non

- integrated TPO systems)

. 28

, 29 

## Starting in 2012, however, at least one major integrated TPO prov ider

changed its installed price reporting method ology for PV incentive programs

, and is now reporting a standard

appraised cost rather than an appraised fair market value. As a result, the disparity between installed prices

reported for integrated and no n

- integrated TPO systems has since largely dis appeared

.

Notes: The data for integrated TPO systems are included in this figure but excluded throughout all other elements of

this report. The data presented here for both t ypes of TPO systems represent installed prices reported to state and

utility PV incentive programs, which may differ from those reported to other entities (e.g., to the U.S. Treasury Dept.

or the IRS, for the purposes of the 1603 Grant or federal I TC).



## Figure 20

. Installed Prices Reported for Integrated and Non

- Integrated TPO PV Systems

28 

### The Treasury Department’s guidelines for assessing the cost basis of solar properties identifies three allowable

methods for assessing fair market v alue: the cost approach, based on the actual cost to install the project; the market

approach, based on the sale price of comparable properties; or the income approach, based on the discounted value of

future cash flows generated by and appropriately alloc able to the eligible property. For additional information, see:

http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/recovery/Documents/N%20 Evaluating_Cost_Basis_for_Solar_PV_Properties%20fi

nal.pdf

. 29 

### Integrated and non

- integrated TPO providers both follow similar reporting conventions when reporting fair market

value for tax incentives ; the difference is simply in what is reported to state/ utility PV incentive program administrators,

where non

- integrated providers may report the intermediate transaction price with the EPC contractor. $7.9 $6.7 $6.1 $5.3 $4.8 $11.7 $9.0 $8.2 $5.1 $5.0 

### $0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12

2009

n=826 (Non-Int.)

n=922 (Integ'td) 2010

n=3,085 (Non-Int.)

n=1,548 (Integ'td) 2011

n=8,968 (Non-Int.)

n=5,178 (Integ'td) 2012

n=20,873 (Non-Int.)

n=11,200 (Integ'td) 2013

n=20,895 (Non-Int.)

n=18,300 (Integ'td)



### Installation Year Non-Integrated TPO (Retained)

Integrated TPO (Excluded) 

### Residential & Commercial PV Systems ≤10 kWInstalled Price (2013$/WDC)

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 28 

# Microinverters Are Associated with Higher Installed Prices for Small Systems but

Lower Installed Prices for Medium

- Sized Systems

Microinver ters have made significant gains in market share in recent years

, owing in part to their

performance advantages relative to standard central or string inverters. 30 

## Those performance gains,

however, come at some cost, with microinverter prices in 201 3 excee ding standard residential

inverter prices by roughly $0.3 2 /W and standard commercial inverter prices by $0. 38 /W

(SEIA/GTM 201 4 a)

. Separate from the direct cost of the inverter, m icroinverters may also impact,

either positively or negatively, certain balan ce of systems (BOS) or soft costs , such as installation

labor and system design.

In order to understand the net effect of these underlying cost drivers

, Figure 21 compares the

installed price of systems with micro inverters to those with standard inverters, focusing on 201 3

installations, and Table 3 presents time series data for the five

- year period through 201 3

. The figure

and table focus only on systems ≤10 kW and 10

- 100 kW, for which sample sizes of systems with

microinverter are sufficient. Again, we note that the comparison here focuses on installed price,

and therefore ignores the reduction in LCOE associated with increased performance from the use of

microinverters.

As shown

, the differences in installed price between systems with microinverters and those with

standard inverters have varied both over time and also across system size classes. Among systems

≤10 kW in size (for which microinverters are most common), installed prices for systems with

microinverters have generally been higher than for those with standard inverters. That gap,

however, shrank considerably over the past several years of the analysis period , with the premium

for microinverter systems decl ining from $0.6/W (10%) in 2011 to $0. 1 /W ( 2 %) in 2013

. In

contrast, within the 10

- 100 kW size range

, systems with microinverter s have generally had lower

installed prices than those with standard inverter s. In 2013, this gap was relatively large, with a

difference in median installed price equal to $0. 4 /W ( 10%) between systems with microinverters

and those with standard inverters. In previous years, that gap was considerably smaller, typically on the order of $0.1/W to $0.2/W, but directionally consiste nt.

These differences in total installed prices allow for some provisional conclusions about how

aggregate non

- inverter BOS and soft costs may differ with the choice of inverter technology . For

≤10 kW systems, the differential in total installed price ($0. 1 /W in 2013) is slightly less than the

price premium for microinverter s ($0.3/W), suggesting that aggregate non

- inverter BOS and soft

costs might be slightly less for systems with microin verters, partially offsetting the higher inverter

costs. For 10

- 100 kW systems, however, the fact that systems with microinverters ha d lower total

installed prices, despite higher inverter s costs , suggests that microinverters in those applications

may hav e deliver ed fairly significant net BOS/soft cost savings. 31



## Differences in the installed price of systems with microinverters and standard inverters also have

implications for overall temporal trends in the installed price of PV systems in the dataset. As

30 

### Deline et al. ( 2012) estimate 4

- 12% greater annual energy production from systems with microinverters. Suc h

performance gains are associated primarily with the ability to control the operation of each panel independently, thereby

eliminating losses that would otherwise occur on panels in a string when the output of a subset of panels is

compromised (e.g., due to shading or orientation) or when mismatch exists among modules in the string.

31 

### Although the data do not permit exploration of this question, it is conceivable that installers tend to choose

microinverters for more

- complex installations (e.g., systems o n multiple roof planes), especially for small systems

where space constraints are often binding. To the extent that this is the case, the differences in total installed prices

shown here would suggest greater net savings on non

- inverter BOS and soft costs for systems with microinverters

.

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 29 

## indicated in Table 3

, the penetration of microinverters has increased substantially in recent years

, rising from 2 % in 2009 to 3 1 % in 2013 for ≤10 kW systems in the data sample , and from 2% to

22% for 10

- 100 kW sy stems over that period

. Given the price differentials observed here, that

growth in penetration would appear to have put some modest degree of upward pressure on the

installed price of systems ≤10 kW , though any impact in 2013 would have been quite small

. Conversely, for systems 10

- 100 kW, the relatively low price of systems with microinverters has

helped to aid the overall decline in installed prices, though likely by only a modest amount.

Figure 21 . Installed Price Difference s between Systems with Microinverters and Standard Inverters

Table 3

. Median Installed Price of Microinverter vs. Standard Inverter PV Systems (201 3 $/W)

Installation Year ≤ 10 kW 10

- 100 kW

Microinverter Standard Inverter Microinverter Standard Inverter

2009 $8.3 (n=326) $8.3 (n=15026) $7.5 (n=36) $8.0 (n=1788)

2010 $7.3 (n=1022) $7.1 (n=21199) $6.5 (n=154) $6.7 (n=3522)

2011 $6.8 (n=5653) $6.2 (n=22455) $5.7 (n=475) $5. 8 (n=4034)

2012 $5.8 (n=9140) $5.3 (n=27645) $4.9 (n=807) $5.0 (n=4984)

2013 $4.8 (n=11359) $4.7 (n=25241) $4.0 (n=1346) $4.5 (n=4884)



### Notes: Results are omitted (*) if fewer than 15 observations are available.



# Installed Prices Are Higher for Systems wi th High Efficiency Modules

The conversion efficiency of commercially available PV modules varies considerably, from less

than 12% for amorphous silicon and certain other types of thin

- film modules to greater than 20%

for high

- performance monocrystalline s ilicon modules. Within the data sample for this report,

roughly half of the systems have module efficiencies of 14

- 16%, typical of current poly

- silicon

modules, though the distribution of module efficiency levels has shifted over time as efficiencies

have increased across all module technologies

.

Module efficiency impact s the installed price of PV system s in countervailing ways. On the one

hand, increased module efficiency reduce s area

- related balance of systems costs , while on the other

hand , high

- effic iency modules are typically more expensive. To examine the net effect of these

opposing cost drivers, Figure 22 compares installed prices according to module efficiency for

systems installed in 201 3 , and Table 4 presents corresponding time series data. The figure and table $4.8 $4.7 $4.0 $4.5 

### $0 $2 $4 $6 $8

Microinverter

n=11,359 Standard

Inverter

n=25,241 Microinverter

n=1,346 Standard

Inverter

n=4,884Installed Price (2013$/WDC) 

### Residential & Commercial PV Installed in 2013

(Median and 20 th 

### /80 th 

### Percentile)

≤10 kW DC 

### 10

- 100 kW DC

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 30 

## focus only on systems ≤10 kW and 10

- 100 kW, for which the sample sizes are sufficient within

each of the module efficiency ranges shown.

The figure and table indicate that syste ms with high

- efficiency modules generally have a higher

installed price than systems with lower efficiency modules

. Within the ≤10 kW system size range,

t he price differential between systems with >18% efficiency modules and those with efficiencies in

the 14

- 16% range was roughly $0.5/W in 2013; similar or somewhat larger differences occurred in

prior years. For 10

- 100 kW systems, the gap wa s even larger, with a difference in median installed

prices of roughly $1.0/W in 2013 , and $0.6/W to $1.2/W in previous years.

T hese trend s suggest that the cost premium for high

- efficiency modules has, thus far at least,

generally outweighed any corresponding reduction in balance of systems costs, though high

efficiency modules may entail other benefits (financial and otherwise) n ot reflected directly in the

installed price of the system. One potential explanation for the lower installed price of systems with

lower efficiency modules is that those systems disproportionately use Chinese

- made modules,

which are less expensive than m odules made elsewhere (or alternatively, that price competition

from Chinese

- made models has most directly affected modules within a comparable efficiency

class)

. These potential drivers are explored more directly in the following section.

Notes: The fi gure excludes building

- integrated PV ( BIPV ) systems, in order to avoid any bias associated with a higher

incidence of BIPV systems with particular module efficiency levels.



## Figure 22 . Installed Price Variation with Module Efficienc y

Table 4 . Median Installed Price According to Module Efficiency (201 3 $/W)

Installation

Year ≤10 kW 10

- 100 kW

≤14% 14

- 16% 16

- 18% >18% ≤14% 14

- 16% 16

- 18% >18%

2009 $8.0

n=5,291 $8.0

n=1,281 $8.7

n=2,114 $8.8

n=3,098 $7.7

n=512 $7.3

n=184 $8.4

n=211 $8.5

n=385

2010 $7.0

n=7,583 $6.6

n=7,324 $7.6

n=2,073 $7.8

n=2,948 $6.6

n=1,139 $6.4

n=1,158 $7. 4

n=256 $7.5

n=437

2011 $6.3

n=4,477 $6.1

n=14,426 $7.0

n=781 $7.0

n=4,672 $5.8

n=815 $5.7

n=1,981 $6.7

n=123 $6.3

n=495

2012 $5.4

n=1,148 $5.3

n=20,925 $5.7

n=567 $5.8

n=8,734 $5.1

n=369 $4.8

n=2,566 $5.1

n=106 $5.4

n=1,413

2013 $3.6

n=402 $4.6

n=20,85 9 $4.5

n=3,863 $5.1

n=8,707 $4.0

n=154 $4.0

n=3,039 $3.9

n=544 $5.0

n=1,600 $3.6 $4.6 $4.5 $5.1 $4.0 $4.0 $3.9 $5.0 

### $0 $2 $4 $6 $8

≤14%

n=402 14-16%

n=20859 16-18%

n=3863 >18%

n=8707 ≤14%

n=154 14-16%

n=3039 16-18%

n=544 >18%

n=1600

≤ 10 kW 10-100 kWInstalled Price (2013$/WDC)



### Module Efficiency ≤10 kW DC 

### 10

- 100 kW DC 

### Residential & Commercial PV Installed in 2013

(Median and 20 th 

### /80 th 

### Percentile)

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 31 

# Installed Prices for Systems with C hinese

- Brand Modules Have Generally Been

Slightly Lower than for Other Systems with Comparable Module Efficiency

The rapid expansion of the Chi nese photovoltaic industry has transformed the global PV market

and had significant impacts on installed price trends. These impacts are, in part, associated with the

large over

- supply of PV manufacturing capacity that has persisted in recent years, contr ibuting to

steep reductions in global module selling prices (which also reflect underlying cost reductions and

scale economies)

. Aside from the broader impacts on the global PV module market supply

- demand

balance, Chinese

- brand modules also tend to be low er

- price d than modules manufactured in

Europe, the United States, or Japan. In particular, f or modules shipped in 2013, the average sales

price (ASP) of Chinese

- brand modules was roughly $0.50/W lower than the weighted

- average ASP

of modules from Europe, Japan, and the United States (Mints, 2014). 32 

## One might therefore

suppose that some portion of the recent reduction in the installed price of PV in the United States is

attributable directly to the increasing market share of Chinese modules (in addition to the indirect

effect via downward pressure on the price of non

- Chinese modules )

.

To examine this supposition, Figure 23 compares the installed price of systems with Chinese and

Non

- Chinese modules installed in 201 3 , and Table 5 presents the corresponding time series data.

As shown, the differences in median installed prices depend critically on whether one controls for

module efficiency. Across all module efficiencies

, me dian installed price s were $0.5/W to $0.6/W

lower for systems with Chinese

- brand modules in 2013 , depending on system size, with somewhat

smaller differences in prior years (generally in the range of $0.2/W to $0 .5/W) . This gap in system

installed prices is somewhat larger than the differential in spot market prices for Chinese and non

Chinese modules , and it largely mirrors the installed price differential noted previously between

systems with standard

- efficiency and premium

- efficiency modules

.

F ocusin g more narrowly on systems with module efficiencies of 14

- 16%

– the range within

which most Chinese

- brand modules fall

– the installed price differential between systems with

Chinese and non

- Chinese modules is considerably smaller (and of somewhat inconsis tent direction)

. In 2013, for example, median installed prices differed by only $0.1/W to $0. 4 /W between systems

with Chinese and Non

- Chinese modules in the 14

- 16% efficiency range. In prior years, however,

the installed price gap has generally remained within $0.2/W. Collectively, t hese results suggest

that the increasing prevalence of Chinese

- brand modules within the U.S. market has perhaps had

some modest direct and downward effect on the long

- term trajectory of instal led prices in the

United States ( though the size of that effect depends on the extent to which Chinese

- brand modules

displaced high efficiency vs. standard efficiency non

- Chinese brands). That proximate effect,

however, is separate from the broader effect of the Chinese PV module industr y on the global

module market and module pricing

.

32 

### Pricing differences in the spot market are much narrower, with Bloomberg New Energy Finance reporting only a

$0.05/W difference between average monthly spot market prices for Chinese

- brand vs. European

- and American

- bran d

modules in 2013 (BNEF 2014).

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 32 

## Figure 23 . Installed Price of PV Systems with Chinese vs. Non

- Chinese Modules

Table 5 . Median Installed Price of PV Systems with Chinese vs. Non

- Chinese Mo dules (201 3 $/W)

Installation

Year All Module Efficiencies 14

- 16% Module Efficiencies

<10 kW 10

- 100 kW <10 kW 10

- 100 kW

Chinese Non

Chinese Chinese Non

Chinese Chinese Non

Chinese Chinese Non

Chinese

2009 $7.9

(n=3491) $8.4

(n=12795) $7.6

(n=382) $8.0

(n=1569) $8.0

(n=339) $8.1

(n=921) $7.4

(n=70) $7.2

(n=111)

2010 $6.7

(n=5904) $7.1

(n=18431) $6.4

(n=1078) $6.8

(n=2743) $6.5

(n=1901) $6.7

(n=5352) $6.2

(n=387) $6.5

(n=759)

2011 $6.1

(n=8204) $6.3

(n=20304) $5.6

(n=1453) $6.0

(n=3048) $6.2

(n=5270) $6 .1

(n=9056) $5.6

(n=760) $5.8

(n=1198)

2012 $5.2

(n=9672) $5.5

(n=24295) $4.8

(n=1613) $5.1

(n=3876) $5.3

(n=7473) $5.4

(n=10993) $4.8

(n=1021) $4.9

(n=1378)

2013 $4.4

(n=12889) $5.0

(n=22288) $4.0

(n=2038) $4.6

(n=3729) $4.4

(n=9955) $4.8

(n=8742) $4.0

(n=1526) $4.1

(n=1127)



# Installed Prices Are Higher for Tax

- Exempt Customers than for Other Customer

Segments

Figure 24 and Table 6 compare median installed prices across three host

- customer sectors:

residential, commercial (for

- profit), and tax

- exempt (i.e., government, schools, and non

- profit).

This distinction between commercial/for

- profit host customers and tax

- exempt host customers is

made in this section only ; elsewh ere both are included within the general “commercial” designation.

The most consistent trend, both across system sizes and over time, is that tax

- exempt systems

generally have had higher installed prices than similarly sized commercial (and to a lesser ex tent,

residential) systems. Among systems installed 201 3 , the median price of systems hosted by tax

exempt customers was $0. 1 /W to $0.2/W higher than residential and $0.3/W to $0.9/W higher than

commercial systems within each size range , with the most sub stantial disparity in the >100 kW size

class

. S imilarly sized installed price differences occurred in prior years as well , suggesting some

continuity in this trend over time

. H igher installed prices for tax

- exempt customers may reflect a

number of underl ying drivers, including prevailing wage/union labor requirements, preferences for

domestically manufactured components, a high incidence of shade and parking structure PV arrays

at schools and other public buildings, additional permitting requirements for government facilities, $4.4 $4.0 $4.4 $4.0 $5.0 $4.6 $4.8 $4.1 

### $0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10

≤10 kW

n=12,889 (Chinese)

n=22,288 (Non

- Chinese) 10-100 kW

n=2,038 (Chinese)

n=3,729 (Non-Chinese) ≤10 kW

n=9,955 (Chinese)

n=8,742 (Non

- Chinese) 10-100 kW

n=1,526 (Chinese)

n=1,127 (Non-Chinese)

All Module Efficiencies 14-16% Module Efficiencies 

### Chinese Non-ChineseInstalled Price (2013$/WDC) 

### Residential & Commercial PV Installed in 2013

(Median & 20 th 

### /80 th 

### Percentile)

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 33 

## more complex government procurement processes , and higher incentives

. In addition, a relatively

high proportion of 201 3 systems hosted by tax

- exempt customers were installed in California

( 53 %), compared to the California

- share of c ommercial systems (1 8 %) , and as previously noted,

installed prices are generally higher in California

. 33



## Comparing residential to commercial systems within each size range, the trends over time are

inconsistent, and differences in median prices between the two segments are small. Among systems

installed in 2013, the median installed price of commercial systems was $0.3/W lower than for

residential systems in the 5

- 10 kW size range, and $0.1/W lower in the 10

- 100 kW size range. In

various years prior to 20 13, however, residential systems have at times exhibited slightly lower

median prices.

Figure 24 . Installed Price Variation across Host Customer Sectors

Table 6 . Median Installed Price by Host Customer Sec tor (2013 $/W)

Installation

Year 5

- 10 kW 10

- 100 kW >100 kW

Residential Commercial Tax

- Exempt Residential Commercial Tax

- Exempt Commercial Tax

- Exempt

2009 $8.0

(n=8632) $8.6

(n=258) $8.8

(n=51) $7.9

(n=1535) $8.2

(n=710) $8.5

(n=164) $7.6

(n=205) $ 8.1

(n=105)

2010 $6.7

(n=14405) $7.0

(n=387) $7.5

(n=76) $6.6

(n=3076) $6.8

(n=1353) $7.1

(n=406) $5.8

(n=378) $6.0

(n=139)

2011 $6.0

(n=16060) $5.8

(n=532) $6.3

(n=97) $5.8

(n=3445) $5.8

(n=1719) $6.1

(n=548) $4.8

(n=640) $5.5

(n=330)

2012 $5.2

(n=20774) $5.0

(n=1155) $5.9

(n=81) $5.0

(n=4607) $5.0

(n=1805) $5.3

(n=578) $4.3

(n=773) $5.1

(n=565)

2013 $4.6

(n=23870) $4.3

(n=877) $4.7

(n=37) $4.3

(n=5422) $4.2

(n=1131) $4.5

(n=345) $3.5

(n=543) $4.4

(n=402)

33 

### The fact that the installed prices of commercial

- scale systems is higher in California than elsewhere may of course

partly be due to the prevalence of tax

- exempt systems there; however, other state

- specific conditions in Ca lifornia are

invariably also responsible for relatively high prices across all market segments. $4.6 $4.3 $4.7 $4.3 $4.2 $4.5 $3.5 $4.4 

### $0 $2 $4 $6 $8

Res.

n=23870

169 MW Com.

n=877

6 MW Tax-Exempt

n=37

0.3 MW Res.

n=5422

74.3 MW Com.

n=1131

39 MW Tax-Exempt

n=345

15.5 MW Com.

n=543

420 MW Tax-Exempt

n=402

195 MW

1 2 3Installed Price (2013$/WDC)



### 5

- 10 kW DC 

### 10

- 100 kW DC 

### >100 kW DC 

### Residential & Commercial PV

Installed in 2013

(Median and 20 th 

### /80 th 

### Percentile)

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 34 

# Residentia l New Construction Offer s Significant Installed Price Advantages

Compared to Retrofit Applications

PV systems installed in residential new construction may enjoy cost advantages relative to

systems installed as retrofits to existing homes, as a result of economies of scale (in the case of new

housing developments with multiple PV homes) and economies of scope (where certain labor or

materials costs can be shared between the PV installation and other elements of home construction)

. To examine the extent to which these potential cost advantages have materialized

, Figure 25

compare s the installed price of PV systems in residential retrofit and residential new construction

applications, based on systems funded through two companion incentive programs in California: the

California Solar Initiative (CSI ) program and the New Solar Homes Partnership (NSHP) program

, which respectively fund PV systems in residential retrofit and new construction applications

. For

the purpos e of comparability, t he figure focus es solely on 1

- 4 kW systems ( the most typical size

range for PV systems installed in residential new construction ) and includes only rack

- mounted

systems . The next section will discuss differences in installed price bet ween rack

- mounted and

building

- integrated PV within residential new construction

.

As evident within Figure 25 , rack

- mounted PV systems in residential new construction have

consistently exhibited lower installed pr ices than comparably sized residential retrofits , though the

magnitude of the price differential has varied over the five

- year period shown, with a difference of

$ 0. 9 /W in 201 3

. A certain degree of caution is warranted in interpreting these trends, both b ecause

of the small sample size of new construction systems (particularly in 2009 and 2010) and because of

potential idiosyncrasies in how data are reported for PV in new construction

. In particular

, a

temporal lag in the data for residential new construc tion may exist if PV modules are being held in

inventory by housing developers as they slowly complete new developments and/or if PV system

prices are being reported only after home sales occur. In addition, there may be some uncertainty in

how installed prices are reported for PV in residential new construction in cases where the system is

installed by an electrical or roofing contractor as part of a larger job.

Figure 25 . Installed Price of Residential Retrofit vs. New Construc tion $6.0 $7.2 $6.2 $4.9 $4.4 $9.0 $8.0 $7.0 $6.3 $5.3 

### $0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12

2009

n=160 (new const)

n=3,483 (retrofit) 2010

n=157 (new const)

n=4,820 (retrofit) 2011

n=805 (new const)

n=5,803 (retrofit) 2012

n=1,891 (new const)

n=6,007 (retrofit) 2013

n=1,832 (new const)

n=4,336 (retrofit)



### Installation Year Residential New Construction (NSHP)

Residential Retrofit (CSI)Installed Price (2013$/WDC) 

### 1

- 4 kW DC 

### Rack

- Mounted Systems in NSHP and CSI Programs

(Median & 20 th 

### /80 th 

### Percentile)

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 35 

# Within the Residential New Construction Market, BIPV Systems Have Shown

Substantially Higher Installed Prices than Rack

- Mounted Systems

Building

- integrated PV (BIPV) technologies offer the potential for more aesthetically pleasing

designs, but have attained relatively modest market shares to

- date. Compared to traditional rack

mounted systems, BIPV also holds the prospect of lower costs associated with reduced mounting

hardware and labor costs, as well as the ability to potentially offset roofing ma terials (James et al.

2011). At the same time, however, BIPV products may be sold at a premium relative to rack

mounted modules due to their additional structural features and functional requirements, and BIPV

panel efficiencies are generally lower than t ypical crystalline module efficiencies in rack

- mounted

applications, leading to increased area

- related balance of systems costs. 34



## As a measure of the net impact of these countervailing factors, Figure 26 compare s the installed

price of BIPV and rack

- mounted systems in residential new construction , focusing on 1

- 4 kW

systems funded through the California NSHP program . Though based on a relatively small sample

size , the figure shows that the median installed price of BIPV systems has consistently been higher

than that of rack

- mounted systems, with a premium of $2. 1 /W for systems installed in 2013

. Note,

though

, that by focusing on installed price s , these data do not account for avoided roofing material

costs, and thus do not necessarily provide a comprehensive comparison of the relative installed

price of BIPV vs. rack

- mounted systems , nor do they account for performance differences between

BIPV and rack

- mounted systems that may impact LCOE

.

Figure 26 . Installed Price of BIPV vs. Rack

- Mounted Systems in Residential New Construction

34 

### BIPV systems may also experience lower performance than rack

- mounted systems as a result of higher operating

temperatures and faster thermal degradation rates

, most directly affecting LCOE but perhaps also put ting downward

pressure on installed prices. $8.9 $8.5 $8.1 $7.1 $6.5 $6.0 $7.2 $6.2 $4.9 $4.4 

### $0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12

2009

n=314 (BIPV)

n=160 (rack-mount) 2010

n=355 (BIPV)

n=157 (rack-mount) 2011

n=232 (BIPV)

n=805 (rack-mount) 2012

n=247 (BIPV)

n=1,891 (rack-mount) 2013

n=95 (BIPV)

n=1,832 (rack-mount)



### Installation Year BIPV Rack-MountedInstalled Price (2013$/WDC) 

### 1

- 4 kW DC 

### Residential New Construction Systems in NSHP

(Median & 20 th 

### /80 th 

### Percentile)

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 36 

# The Relative Installed Price of Ground

- Mounted to Roof

- Mounted Systems

Depends on System Size

While residential and commercial PV systems are primarily roof

- mounted, ground

- mounting is

prevalent among the largest commercial projects in the dataset, particularly those >1,000 kW.

Residential and smaller commercial systems may also be ground

- mounted in specific cases, for

example, where roof

- space is inadequate due to size, orientation, or structural considerations, or

where easy access to panels is needed for maintenance. In such cases, ground

- mounting may enable

improved system performance over time.

Information on whether systems in the dataset were roof

- or ground

- mounted was available for

only a small subsample of systems (e.g., 18% of all 2013 installations, consisting primarily of

systems installed in New Jersey, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Vermont). Figure 27 and

Table 7 compare installed prices among this limited set of systems, focusing only on those with

fixed

- tilt (i.e., excluding systems with tracking). As elsewhere, ground

- mounted systems >5 MW

are considere d to be utility

- scale and are excluded from the comparison.

At relatively small system sizes, ground

- mounted systems have consistently higher installed

prices than roof

- mounted systems. That differential, however, tends to recede and then invert at

pro gressively larger system sizes. In 2013, for example, the median installed price of ground

mounted systems exceeded that of roof

- mounted systems by $0.7/W for systems ≤10 kW, $0.2/W

for systems 10

- 100 kW, and $0.4/W for systems 100

- 1,000 kW. Within the > 1,000 kW size range,

however, ground

- mounted systems were $0.7/W less than roof

- mounted systems. The same general

pattern across system size ranges is evident in earlier years as well, suggestive that economies of

scale may be somewhat greater for ground

- mounted systems.

The higher installed price of ground

- mounted systems, at least among smaller system sizes, may

reflect the additional costs associated with foundations and land preparation. In addition, some

portion of the ground

- mounted systems are l ikely installed on carports or shade structures within

parking lots, and the cost of these additional structural elements may, to some degree, be included

within the reported installed price. Finally, to the extent that the performance of ground

- mounted

s ystems is higher, that may itself lead to higher installed prices, where value

- based pricing exists.

Notes: The figure is derived from the relatively small subsample of systems for which data were available indicating

whether the system is roof

- or grou nd

- mounted , and excludes s ystems with tracking or BIPV

. 

## Figure 27

. Installed Price of Ground

- vs. Roof

- Mounted Systems $4.8 $4.0 $4.2 $3.9 $3.9 $3.5 $2.8 $3.5 

### $0 $2 $4 $6 $8

Ground

n=225

1 MW Roof

n=5597

35 MW Ground

n=170

4 MW Roof

n=1572

32 MW Ground

n=46

18 MW Roof

n=254

76MW Ground

n=124

319 MW Roof

n=24

46MWInstalled Price (2013$/WDC) 

### Residential & Commercial PV Systems Installed in 2013

Excludes Systems with Tracking

(Median and 20 th 

### /80 th 

### Percentile)

≤10 kW DC 

### 10

- 100 kW DC 

### 100

- 1,000 kW DC 

### >1,000 kW DC

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 37 

## Table 7

. Median Installed Price of Ground

- vs. Roof

- Mounted Systems (2013 $/W)

Installati on

Year ≤ 10 kW 10

- 100 kW 10 0

- 1 ,0 00 kW >1 ,0 00 kW

Ground

Mounted Roof

Mounted Ground

Mounted Roof

Mounted Ground

Mounted Roof

Mounted Ground

Mounted Roof

Mounted

2009 $9.1

(n=62) $8.6

(n=1109) $8.6

(n=34) $8.3

(n=240) *

(n=6) $7.7

(n=56) *

(n=4 ) *

(n=5)

2010 $8.0

(n=128) $7.2

(n=2840) $7.4

(n=75) $6.7

(n=735) $5.2

(n=15) $5.5

(n=161) *

(n=6) *

(n=9)

2011 $6.5

(n=189) $6.1

(n=5205) $5.7

(n=197) $5.7

(n=1332) $5.1

(n=34) $4.9

(n=367) $4.2

(n=33) $4.2

(n=47)

2012 $5.5

(n=209) $ 4.8

(n=5995) $5.2

(n=242) $4.6

(n=1525) $4.6

(n=81) $4.4

(n=541) $3.6

(n=76) $4.4

(n=33)

2013 $4.8

(n=225) $4.0

(n=5597) $4.2

(n=170) $3.9

(n=1572) $3.9

(n=46) $3.5

(n=254) $2.8

(n=124) $3.5

(n=24)



### Notes: The table is derived from the rela tively small subsample of systems for which data were available indicating

whether the system is roof

- or ground

- mounted, and excludes systems with tracking or BIPV

. Results are omitted (*) if

fewer than 15 data points are available.



# Residential and Comme rcial Systems with Tracking Have Higher Installed Prices

than Fixed

- Tilt Systems

Although tracking equipment is most typically associated with large utility

- scale PV projects, a

small portion of residential and commercial PV systems within the data sample include tracking

equipment. Figure 28 and Table 8 compare the installed price of residential and commercial PV

systems with tracking to fixed

- tilt, ground

- mounted systems

. Only ground

- mounted systems are

included in this comparison, and thus the sample sizes are again limited due to the paucity of data

on whether systems are roof

- or ground

- mounted

.

As to be expected, systems with tracking equipment exhibit consistently higher installed prices

than their fixed

- tilt counterparts. Among systems installed in 201 3 , the median installed price

premium for tracking systems range d from $0. 2 /W to $ 0

. 8 /W ( 4 % to 20 %) higher than fixed

- tilt,

ground

- mounted systems, across the size r anges shown

. I nstalled price differences in previous

years were generally larger, especially for smaller systems, whe n the median installed price of

systems with tracking was typically $ 0.5 /W to $1.5/W higher than simil arly sized fixed

- tilt systems,

sugge stive of a potential decline in the incremental cost of tracking equipment

.

As mentioned previously, this report focuses solely on the up

- front installed price and therefore

does not consider the net impact of tracking equipment on the LCOE of PV. As a simple

benchmark, however, one can compare the installed price premium for tracking equipment to the

increase in annual energy yield; for example, Drury et al. (2013) estimate a 12

- 25% increase in

annual electricity generation for single

- axis tracking and a 30

- 45% increase for dual

- axis tracking.

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 38 Notes: The results for fixed

- tilt systems are based on only those systems for which data were available indicating that

the system is ground

- mounted

. Results for systems >1,000 kW are omitted due to insufficien t sample size but are

included in Table 8 for preceding years.



## Figure 28 . Installed Price of Tracking vs. Fixed

- Tilt

, Ground

- Mounted Systems

Table 8 . Median Installed Price of Track ing vs. Fixed

- Tilt

, Ground

- Mounted Systems (2013 $/W)

Installation

Year ≤ 10 kW 10

- 100 kW 10 0

- 1 ,0 00 kW >1 ,0 00 kW

Tracking Fixed

- Tilt Tracking Fixed

- Tilt Tracking Fixed

- Tilt Tracking Fixed

- Tilt

2009 $10.4

(n=73) $9.1

(n=62) *

(n=7) $8.6

(n=34) $7.9

(n =18) *

(n=6) $7.5

(n=22) *

(n=4)

2010 $9.5

(n=87) $8.0

(n=128) $8.3

(n=19) $7.4

(n=75) *

(n=13) $5.2

(n=15) $6.1

(n=16) *

(n=6)

2011 $8.2

(n=115) $6.5

(n=189) $7.2

(n=30) $5.7

(n=197) $5.5

(n=18) $5.1

(n=34) $4.7

(n=21) $4.2

(n=33)

20 12 $6.8

(n=63) $5.5

(n=209) $6.7

(n=33) $5.2

(n=242) $5.1

(n=40) $4.6

(n=81) $4.5

(n=33) $3.6

(n=76)

2013 $5.0

(n=68) $4.8

(n=225) $5.0

(n=15) $4.2

(n=170) $4.1

(n=22) $3.9

(n=46) *

(n=9) $2.8

(n=124)



### Notes: The results for fixed

- tilt sys tems are based on only those systems for which data were available indicating that

the system is ground

- mounted. Results are omitted (*) if fewer than 15 data points are available. $5.0 $4.8 $5.0 $4.2 $4.1 $3.9 

### $0 $2 $4 $6 $8

Tracking

n=68

0.4 MW Fixed-Tilt

n=225

1 MW Tracking

n=15

0 MW Fixed-Tilt

n=170

4 MW Tracking

n=22

11 MW Fixed-Tilt

n=46

18 MWInstalled Price (2013$/WDC) 

### Residential & Commercial PV Systems Installed in 2013

Ground

- Mounted Systems Only

(Median and 20 th 

### /80 th 

### Percentile)

≤10 kW DC 

### 10

- 100 kW DC 

### 100

- 1,000 kW DC

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 39 

# 4 . Installed Price Trends: Utility

- S cale PV

This section describes tren ds in the installed price of utility

- scale PV systems, based on the data

sample described in Section 2, consisting of 100 projects installed from 2007 through 2013 and

representing 88 % of all utility

- scale PV project capacity installed in the United States through 2013

. The data presented here are a subset of the data presented within the companion LBNL annual

report, Utility Scale Solar 2013: An Empirical Analysis of Project Cost, Performance, and Pricing

Trends in the United States

. In addition to insta lled price s , that report also describes trends in

operating costs, capacity factors, and power purchase agreement prices , and covers not only utility

scale PV projects, but concentrating solar power (CSP) projects as well.

As indicated previously, utility

- scale PV is defined in this report to consist of ground

- mounted

systems >5 MW , irrespective of whether they are interconnected on the utility

- side or customer

- side

of the meter. In addition, the utility

- scale PV project sample includes only fully operati onal

projects for which all individual phases are in operation; separate project phases are not treated as

individual projects , given the possibility that some costs may be shared across phases

.

The section begins by describing the installed price of util ity

- scale projects over time

, highlighting the wide range in pricing across individual projects. The section then describes

installed price differences acc ording to system configuration and project size , noting the potential

contributions of these factors to the overall level of observed variation in pricing

. Compared to the

preceding section on residential and commercial PV, the cross

- sectional comparisons for utility

scale PV are more limited, due to the relatively small underlying data sample; however, as the data

sample grows over time, a broader set of comparisons may be possible.

A few key points are worth bearing in mind with respect to t he utility

- scale installed price

data presented in this section :

• Lag in component pricing and market conditions

. I nstalled price data for many projects may

reflect transactions that occurred several or more years prior to project completion. In some

cases, those transactions may have been based on component pricing at that time, or a

conservative projection of com ponent pricing , in which case the installed price may not fully

capture reductions in component costs or oth er changes in market conditions that occurred in

the intervening period

. F or this reason and others (see Text Box 1), the data presented here

may n ot correspond to recent price benchmarks for utility

- scale PV.

• DC versus AC capacity ratings

. AC units may be more appropriate than DC for describing

the installed price of utility

- scale PV

, given that other forms of utility

- scale generation are

also typic ally denoted in AC terms. However, f or comparability to the residential and

commercial data in the preceding section, we present installed price data for utility

- scale PV

in DC units as well (with the exception of Figure 29 , wh ich includes both DC and AC).

LBNL’s Utility Scale Solar 2013 report provides all installed price trends in AC terms.

• Reliability of data sources . The installed price data for utility

- scale PV projects are derived

from varied sources and, in some instances, may be less reliable or consistently defined than

the data presented for residential and commercial systems.

• Focus on installed price rather than levelized cost . It bears repeating that our focus on

upfront installed price trends ignore s performance

- related differences and other factors

influencing the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), which is arguably the more meaningful

metric for comparing the cost of utility

- scale PV systems.

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 40 

# The Installed Price of Utility

- Scale PV Has Declined over Time, Though

Considerable Variation Exists across Projects

Figure 29 presents the installed price of each individual project in the data sample

, based on the

year of commercial operation. (Note that this figure deviates fro m the normal convention in this

report, by providing i nstalled price data in both DC and AC units , the latter included for comparison

to other forms of utility

- scale generation

. ) Discerning a time trend in th ese data is challenging,

given the relatively s mall and diverse sample of projects, and the changing composition of projects

over time. Over the full duration of the timeframe shown in Figure 29

, the capacity

- weighted

average installed pr ice fell by 40 %, from $ 5

. 0 /W DC 

## for the 5 projects installed during the 2007

- 2009

period to $3. 0 /W DC 

## for the 25 systems completed in 2013 (or by 3 7 % in AC terms, from $5.8/W AC 

## to $3. 7 /W AC 

## )

. Most of that decline, however, occurred through 2012, and capacity

- weighted

average prices remained virt ually unchanged from 2012 to 2013. To some extent, the apparent

flattening of installed price s in the last year of the analysis period may be an artifact of the

particular projects in the data sample

– e.g., a preponderance of large (>100 MW) projects

com pleted in 2013, some with tracking and/or premium efficiency modules, and that may have been

contracted 3

- 4 years earlier

. 35



## Importantly, capacity

- weighted average prices re present only central tendencies, and installed

prices for utility

- scale PV systems vary substantially from project to project. Among projects

completed in 2013, for example, installed prices ranged from $1.9/W DC 

## to $4.9/W DC 

## , with most

projects falling within a narrower range from $2.6/W DC 

## to $3.5/W DC 

## (the 20 th 

## and 80 th 

## percentiles,

resp ectively) , and similar or greater levels of variability in prior years . In part, the wide distribution

in pricing reflects differences in project size and configuration, both of which are examined further

in the following section s , as well as other projec t

- specific details (e.g., whether projects are built on

public vs. private land, whether land is leased or owned, design requirements associated with

specific climatic conditions , etc. ).

Figure 29 . Installed Price of Utility

- Scal e PV over Time

35 

### Some utility

- scale projects currently under development have been quoted well below the average price of projects

completed in 2013; for example, Public Servic e Company of New Mexico recently filed for regulatory approval of two

projects , to be completed in 2015, each with a turnkey price of roughly $1.6/W DC 

### (O’Connell 2014). $0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10

n=5 (88 MW) n=10 (204 MW) n=26 (482 MW) n=34 (1019 MW) n=25 (1441 MW)Installed Price (2013$/W)



### Installation Year Individual Projects (DC)

Individual Projects (AC)

Cap-Wtd. Averages 

### Utility

- Scale PV

2007

- 2009 2010 2012 2011 2013

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 41 

# Installed Price Trends Differ Across System Configuration s

The utility

- scale PV data sample includes projects with either crystalline silicon (c

- Si)

, thin

- film

(largely Cadmium Telluride, CdTe) , or concentrating photovoltaic (CPV) modules, and with either

tracking equipment (typically single

- axis) or fixed

- tilt

. As shown in Figure 30 , t hese varying

system configurations contribute , to some extent, to the overall pricing variability of the dataset as a

whole , though clearly substantial variability also exists within each technology class

. Among

projects completed in 201 3

, for example, the capacity

- weighted average installed price for systems

with c

- Si modules and tracking was $3. 1 / W (with a range of $2. 5 /W to $3. 0 /W )

, compared to

$3. 0 /W for c

- Si , fixed

- tilt systems ( with a $2. 6 /W to $3. 7 /W range, excluding an outlying

project 36 

## ) , and $2.7/W for thin

- film, fixed tilt systems ( with a $1. 7 /W to $3.1/W range )

. 37



## Differences in pricing among the se groups of systems most di rectly reflect underlying

technology costs , such as the incremental cost for tracking equipment or the relative cost of c

- Si vs.

thin

- film modules

. However, p ricing differences among tech nology classes is also likely impacted

by project characteristics in directly associated with particular configuration s, for example, higher

DC/AC ratios in c

- Si, fixed

- tilt applications and larger project sizes for systems with tracking or

thin

- film modules

.

Also evident in Figure 30 are the diff ering temporal trends for systems with c

- Si vs. thin

- film

modules. Though sample sizes are small for early years of the sample frame , installed prices for c

Si systems clearly declined substantially over time, coinciding with the drop in c

- Si module price s

(though, as with residential and commercial PV, the system price and module price trajectories did

not progress in lock

- step). For example, among c

- Si systems with tracking, average installed prices

fell by $3. 4 /W (5 2 %) between the 2007

- 2009 period and 2013. By comparison, the average price of

thin

- film projects remained virtually unchanged over that span , leading to a marked convergence in

pricing between the two classes.

Figure 30 . Installed Price of Utility

- Scale PV over T ime and by System Configuration

36 

### This is Los Angeles Department of Water and Power’s Pine Tree Solar project, a roughl y 10 MW system contracted

in 2010 and owned by the utility. Excluding this project from the sample would reduce the capacity

- weighted average

installed price to $2.7/W for the four other c

- Si, fixed

- tilt systems installed in 2013.

37 

### Several of the 2013 th in

- film projects are similarly priced, and thus the markers for those projects are thus not readily

distinguishable from one another in the figure. $0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10

n=5 (88 MW) n=10 (204 MW) n=26 (482 MW) n=34 (1019 MW) n=25 (1441 MW)Installed Price (2013$/WDC)



### Installation Year Crystalline, Fixed-Tilt Crystalline, Tracking

Thin-Film, Fixed-Tilt Thin-Film, Tracking

CPV, Tracking Cap-Wtd. Averages 

### Utility

- Scale PV

2007

- 2009 2010 2012 2011 2013

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 42 

# Larger Utility

- Scale PV Projects Tend to Exhibit More

- Uniform Pricin g

V ariability in pricing, both across the utility

- scale sample as a whole and within each technology

class, is likely also attributable , in part, to differ ences in project size

. S cale economies are not

readily discernible within the utility

- scale data in Figure 31

– which includes projects completed in

2012 and 2013

– given many other unobserved drivers that introdu ce noise into the small sample

frame

. In addition

, scale economies may be obscured to some extent by a longer temporal lag in the

pricing data for the large st projects.

T he effect of project size is perhaps most apparent in terms of the spread within the data. In

particular, utility

- scale projects > 5 0 MW are clustered within a relatively narrow band, from

roughly $2.6/W to $3. 2 /W (the 20 th 

## and 80 th 

## percentile values). In contrast, the distribution for

projects < 5 0 MW has a longer tail, with a number of projects priced well above $4. 0 /W. These

differences in pricing spread may reflect underlying scale economies, though other factors may also

contribute , for example, if larger projects tend to be developed by more experienced and/or

vertically integrated companies

.

Figure 31 also serves to illustrate the relative pricing across s ystem con figurations within a given

project size range (thus perhaps controlling to some extent for differing scale economies and

tempora l lags associated with project size )

. Focusing on utility

- scale projects <50 MW, the

capacity

- weighted average price of c

- Si systems with tracking was $0. 4 /W higher than for fixed

- tilt,

c

- Si systems ($3.2/W vs. $2. 8 /W). Comparing fixed

- tilt thin

- film and c

- Si systems within that size

range, average installed prices were slightly higher for thin

- film than c

- Si ($2.9/W vs. $2.8/W )

, suggesting perhaps a more severe narrowing of the price differential between c

- Si and thin

- film

systems than suggested by the c omparison in the preceding section across all system sizes

.

Figure 31

. Installed Price of Utility

- S cale PV According to System Size and Configuration $0 $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6

0 50 100 150 200 250 300Installed Price (2013$/WDC)



### System Size (MW DC 

### ) Crystalline, Fixed-Tilt Crystalline, Tracking

Thin-Film, Fixed-Tilt Thin-Film, Tracking

CPV 

### Utility

- Scale PV Installed in 2012 and 2013

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 43 

# 5 . Conclusions and Policy Implications

The number of PV systems installed in the United States has grown at a rapid pace in recent

years, driven in large measure by government incentives. Given the relatively high historical cost

of PV, a key goal of these policies has been to encourage cost reductions over time through

increased deployment

. Key research and development e fforts to drive cost reductions have also

been led by the U.S. DOE’s SunShot Initiative , which aims to reduce the cost of PV

- generated

electricity by ab out 75% between 2010 and 2020.

Available evidence confirms t hat the installed price of PV systems (i.e., the up

- front cost borne

by the PV system owner , prior to any incentives ) has declined substantially since 1998

, though both

the pace and source of those cost reductions ha ve varied over time

. Following a period of relatively

steady and sizeable declines, installed price reductions began to stall around 2005 , as the supply

chain and delivery infrastructure struggled to keep pace with rapidly expanding global demand.

Beginning i n 2008, however, global module pric es began a steep downward trajectory

, which has

been the driving force behind the roughly 5 0 % reduction in the installed price of PV from 2008

through 201 3

. Those modul e price declines ceased in 2013, and given the limits to further

reductions in module p rices

, continued deep reductions in installed prices will necessarily require

significant reductions in non

- module costs.

To date, n on

- module costs have yet to exhibit dramatic declines, though certainly they have

fallen over the long

- run and show signs o f more recent reductions. Unlike module prices, which are

primarily established through global markets, non

- module costs consist of a variety of soft cost s that

may be more readily affected by local policies

– including deployment programs aimed at

increa sing demand (and thereby increasing competition and efficiency among installers) as well as

more

- targeted efforts, such as training and education programs. The heightened focus on cost

reductions within the solar industry and among policymakers , and recog nition of the importance of

soft costs for achieving further price reductions , has spurred a flurry of initiatives and activity in

recent years, aimed at driving reductions in soft costs

. The fact that installed prices fell

substantially in 2013 and conti nued to fall through the first half of 2014

– despite level or slightly

rising module prices

– suggests that these efforts may have begun to bear fruit.

Nevertheless, l ower installed prices in other major international markets suggest that deep er

near

- ter m soft cost reductions in United States are possible . Although such reductions may

accompany increased market scale , i t is also evident that market size alone is insufficient to fully

captur e potential near

- term cost reductions ( as suggested by the fact t hat many of t he U.S. state s

with the lowest installed prices are relatively small PV market s )

. Achieving deep reductions in soft

cost thus likely require s a broad mix of strategies, including: incentive policy designs that provide a

stable and straightfor ward value proposition to foster efficiency and competition within the delivery

infrastructure , t argeted policies aimed at specific soft costs (for example, permitting and

interconnection)

, and basic and a pplied research and development

.

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 44 

# References

BNEF . 2014. Solar Spot Price Index . Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF).

Bolinger, M., G . Barbose, and R. Wiser. 2008. Shaking Up the Residential PV Market: Implications

of Recent Changes to the ITC . Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. LBNL

1 204E

.

Bolinger, M. and S. Weaver. 201 4

. Utility

- Scale Solar 201 3 : An Empirical Analysis of Project Cost,

Performance, and Pricing Trends in the United States . Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley

National Laboratory (forthcoming)

.

Bur k h ardt, J., R. Wiser, N. Da rghouth, C. Dong, and J. Huneycutt. 2014. Do Local Regulations

Matter? Exploring the Impact of Permitting and Local Regulatory Processes on PV Prices in the

United States. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Deline, C., J. Meydbray, M. Do novan, and J. Forrest. 2012. Partial Shade Evaluation of Distributed

Power Electronics for Photovoltaic Systems . Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy

Laboratory. NREL/CP

- 5200

- 54039.

Dong, C. and R. Wiser. 2013. The Impact of City

- level Permitting Processe s on Residential

Photovoltaic Installation Prices and Development Times: An Empirical Analysis of Solar

Systems in California Cities

. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. LBNL

6 140 E

.

Drury, E., A. Lopez, P. Denholm, and R. Margolis. 2013. Relative performance of tracking versus

fixed tilt photovoltaic systems in the USA. Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and

Applications. Early View (Online Version of Record published before inclusion in an issue).

DSIRE (Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency)

. 201 3

. “State Sales Tax

Incentives for Solar Projects.” Accessed June 3 0, 201 3

. http://www.dsireusa.org/documents/summarymaps/Solar_Sales_Tax_M ap.pdf

EPIA (European Photovoltaic Industry Association). 201 4

. Global Market Outlook for

Photovoltaics 201 4

- 201 7 . Brussels, Belgium.

EuPD. 201 4 . Personal communication (price quotes collected by EuPD via quarterly surveys of

German PV installers).

Feldma n D., G. Barbose, R. Margolis, T. James, S. Weaver, N. Darghouth, R. Fu, C. Davidson, and

R. Wiser

. 2014

. Photovoltaic System Pricing Trends: Historical, Recent, and Near

- Term

Projections. 201 4 Edition. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

IE A

- PVPS. 2014. PV Cost Data Collected by the IEA in January 2014 (provided via personal

communication). International Energy Agency

– Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme.

James, T., A. Goodrich, M. Woodhouse, R. Margolis, and S. Ong. 2011. Building

- Integra ted

Photovoltaics (BIPV) in the Residential Sector: An Analysis of Installed Rooftop System Prices

. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP

- 6A20

- 53103.

Mints , P

. 2014. "Photovoltaic Manufacturer Shipments: Capacity, Price & Revenues 20 13/ 2014".

SPV Market Research.

O’Connell, P. 2014. “Direct Testimony of Patrick J. O’Connell” in Case No. 14

- 00158

- UT, In The

Matter Of Public Service Company Of New Mexico’s Renewable Energy Portfolio Procurement

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 45 

## Plan For 2015 And Proposed 2015 Rider Rate U nder Rate Rider No. 36 , filed before the Public

Regulation Commission of New Mexico on June 2, 2014.

REN21 (201 4 ). Renewables 201 4 Global Status Report . Paris: REN21 Secretariat.

Seel , J., G. Barbose, and R. Wiser. 2012

. Why Are Residential PV Prices in Ge rmany So Much

Lower Than in the United States? A Scoping Analysis . Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley

National Laboratory

.

SEIA/GTM Research. 201 4 a. U.S. Solar Market Insight 201 3 Year

- in

- Review . Washington, DC:

Solar Energy Industries Association /GTM Researc h

.

SEIA/GTM Research. 201 4 b U.S. Solar Market Insight Q 2 201 4 . Washington, DC: Solar Energy

Industries Association /GTM Research

.

Sherwood , L. 201 4

. U.S. Solar Market Trends 201 3 . Latham, NY: Interstate Renewable Energy

Council, Inc.

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 46 

# Appendix A: Data Clea ning, Coding, and Standardization

To the extent possible, this report presents data as provided directly by PV inc entive program administrators

and other data sources ; however , several steps were taken to clean and standardize the data, as described

below.

Residential and Commercial PV Projects Removed from the Data Sample: The raw data received from

all PV incentive program administrators was initially cleaned to remove systems with missing data for

installation date, system size, or installed price, as well as any utility

- scale systems and duplicate systems

participating in multiple programs. The se initial cleaning steps yielded a raw data sample consisting of

30 4

, 307 residential and commercial PV systems installed through 201 3

. The raw sample was then further

cleaned by removing projects under any of the following conditions:

• installed price less than $1. 0 /W ( 314 systems) or greater than $20/W ( 710 systems)

• systems with battery back

- up ( 48 systems)

• self

- installed systems (2, 654 systems)

• systems for wh ich the reported installed price was deemed likely to be an appraised value ( 40,635

systems).

In total, 44

, 361 systems from the initial sample were removed from the dataset as a result of the

aforementioned screens , yielding a final data sample of 259,946 residential and commercial PV systems

. Additional details on several of the cleaning steps are provided below.

Systems in Multiple PV Incentive Programs : In order to eliminate double

- counting of individual systems, an

effort was made to identify systems that received incentives from multiple PV incentive programs in the data

sample. Where these systems could be identified (either using data fields that explicitly indicated

participation in other programs or by matching addresses or other system characte ristics across programs),

duplicate entries were eliminated, and records associated with those programs were consolidated under a

single program. Based on this process, records were consolidated for systems in both ETO ’s and OR DOE ’s

programs

, systems in both the Massachusetts DOER’s and the MassCEC’s program s

, systems in both the

Florida Energy & Climate Commission’s program and either GRU’s or OPUC’s programs, and systems in

both California ’s SGIP and either SMUD’s or LADWP’s programs.

Identification an d Removal of Appraised Value Systems : S ystems were removed from the data sample if the

reported installed price within the raw data was deemed likely to represent an appraised value . As discussed

further within the main body of the report, appraised

- value reporting occurs for a particular type of third

party owned (TPO) systems

– namely, for TPO systems financed by integrated third party providers that

provide both the installation service and customer financing. In order to eliminate any bias that such d ata

could introduce into the summary statistics presented in this report, an effort was made to identify and

remove appraised

- value systems from the data sample.

Appraised

- value systems were identified based on the reported installer name and system owner ship type

(i.e., host customer

- owned vs. TPO). Both data fields were provided for 7 3 % of all systems in the raw data

sample and for 94 % of systems installed in 2013 , including most of the major TPO markets. For this subset

of systems , all TPO systems ins talled by the three known integrated third

- party installers (SolarCity,

Sungevity, and Vivint) were deemed likely to be appraised

- value systems and were removed from the data

sample . Known c ustomer

- owned systems installed by those entities, however, were retained within the

sample.

Where only one of the two data fields

– installer name and system ownership type

– was available, appraised

value systems were identified using a “price clustering” approach. The logic for the price clustering

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 47 

## approach is foun ded on the observation that systems installed by integrated TPO providers are typically

clustered with an identical price reported for a large group of systems (which may reflect, for example, the

average per

- kW assessed fair market value of a bundle of sy stems sold to tax equity investors).

The first step in the price clustering analysis was to identify the price clusters among the systems explicitly

identified within the dataset as being TPO and installed by an integrated TPO provider. Then, among the set

of systems for which either installer name or system ownership type were provided (but not both), systems

were identified as appraised value if they fell within any of those price clusters and either of the following

two conditions were also met: (1) t he installer name identified in the raw data is an integrated TPO provider

and the system is located in a state/utility service territory that allows TPO

, or (2) t he raw data indicated that

the system is third party owned. The price clustering analysis r esulted in an additional 7 09 systems being

identified as likely appraised value systems, which were then removed from the data sample.

Thus, a total of 40,635 systems were removed from the data sample on the basis that the reported installed

price was l ikely an appraised value ( 39,926 systems based solely on the combination of installer name and

system ownership status , plus 709 systems based on either the installer name or system ownership status plus

the fact that it was grouped within a known appraise d value price cluster).

Proxies for Completion Date: The data provided by several PV incentive programs did not identify

installation dates. In lieu of this information, the best available proxy was used (e.g., the date of the

incentive payment or the post

- installation site inspection).

Incorporation of Data on Module and Inverter Characteristics. A number of analyses within this report

distinguish between systems based on characteristics of the module or inverters, including distinctions

between buil ding

- integrated PV vs. rack

- mounted systems, crystalline vs. thin

- film modules, module

efficiency, and microinverters vs. central inverters. The raw data provided by PV incentive program

administrators generally included module and inverter manufacturer a nd model names, but did not include

any further information about the cha racteristics of the components

. The aforementioned i nformation about

component characteristics was therefore appended to the dataset by cross

- referencing reported module

manufacturer and model data against existing databases of PV component specification data, including

SolarHub 38 

## and the California Solar Initiative’s List of Eligible Modules. 39



## Distinction between Chinese and non

- C hinese M odules : The analysis in Section 3 distinguishe s between

systems with Chinese and non

- Chinese mod u l es . This determination was made based on the location of the

headquarters of the module manufacturer, where data on module manufacturer were provided.

Conversion to 20 1 3 Real Dollars: Installed price a n d incentive data are expressed throughout this report in

real 201 3 dollars (201 3 $). Data provided by PV program administrators in nomina l dollars were converted

to 201 3 $ using the “Monthly Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers,” published by the U

. S.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 40



## Conversion of Capacity Data to Direct Current (DC) Watts at Standard Test Conditions (DC

- STC):

Throughout this report, all capacity and dollars

- per

- watt ($/W) data are expressed using DC

- STC capacity

ratings. Most PV incen tive programs directly provided data in units of DC

- STC; however, several programs

provided capacity data only in terms of the California Energy Commission Alternating Current (CEC

- AC)

rating convention , which represents peak AC power output at PVUSA Test Conditions (PTC). DC

- STC

c apacity ratings for systems funded through these programs were calculated according to the procedures

described below

.

38 

### http://www.solarhub.com/

39 

### http://www.gosolarcalifornia.org/equipment/pv_modules.php

40 

### ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt

### Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 48 

## CEC Em erging Renewables Program (ERP) and CEC New Solar Home Partnership (NSHP) Program : The

data provided f or these programs included data fields identifying the module manufacturer, model, and

number of modules for most PV systems. DC

- STC ratings were identified for most modules by cross

referencing the information provided about the module type with the CSI’ s List of Eligible Photovoltaic

Modules, which identifies DC

- STC ratings for most of the modules employed in the systems funded through

these programs. For modules not in this list, the DC

- STC rating was found in the modules’ specification

sheets from the manufacturer. The DC

- STC rating for each module was then multiplied by the number of

modules to determine the total DC

- STC rating for the system, as a whole. This approach was used to

determine the DC

- STC capacity rating for all of the systems in the NSH P dataset , and for 86% of the systems

in the ERP dataset. For the remaining systems in the ERP dataset, either the module data fields were

incomplete, or the module could not be cross

- referenced with the CSI list, or the estimated DC

- STC rating

for the sy stem was grossly inconsistent with the reported CEC

- AC rating. In these cases, an average

conversion factor of 1.200 W DC

- STC 

## /W CEC

- AC 

## was used, which was derived based on the averages for other

systems in the ERP dataset.

CPUC Self

- Generation Incentive P rogram (SGIP) : The data provided for SGIP included data fields

identifying module manufacturer and model (but not number of modules), and inverter manufacturer and

model. DC

- STC module ratings and DC

- PTC module ratings (i.e., DC watts at PVUSA Test Condit ions)

were identified by cross

- referencing the reported module type with the CSI’s List of Eligible Photovoltaic

Modules. Similarly, the rated inverter efficiency for each project was identified by cross referencing the

reported inverter type with the CSI ’s List of Eligible Inverters, which identifies inverter efficiency ratings for

most of the inverters used within the systems funded through SGIP. 41 

## These pieces of information (module

DC

- STC rating, module DC

- PTC rating, and inverter efficiency rating), a long with the reported CEC

- AC

rating for the system, were used to estimate the system DC

- STC rating according to the following:

System DC

- STC 

## = (System CEC

- AC 

## / Inverter Eff.) * (Module DC

- STC 

## / Module DC

- PTC 

## )

In cases where data on module manufacturer and m odel either was not provided or could not be matched

with the CSI module list, then the DC

- STC rating was calculated using the median ratio of module DC

- STC

to DC

- PTC ratings for systems installed in the same year (0.88

- 0.90 W DC

- STC 

## /W DC

- PTC 

## ). In cases whe re data

on inverter manufacturer and model either was not provided or could not be matched with the CSI’s inverter

list, the inverter efficiency was stipulated based on the average inverter efficiency of systems in the SGIP

dataset installed in the same ye ar and for which inverter efficiency ratings could be identified. If neither the

module nor inverter data were provided, then the DC

- STC rating was calculated directly from the reported

CEC

- AC rating, using the median annual ratio of module DC

- STC rating to system CEC

- AC rating (1.19

-

1.22 W DC

- STC 

## /W CEC

- AC 

## ).

41 

### http://www.gosolarcalifornia.org/equipment/inverters.php49Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 

# Appendix B: Residential and Commercial PV Data Sample Summarie s

Table B

- 1. Residential and Commercial PV System Sample by PV Incentive Program

State PV Incentive Program Administrator and Program Name No . of

Systems Total

MW DC 

### % of Total

MW DC 

### Size Range

(kW DC 

### ) Year Range

AR State Energy Office

- Renewable Technology Rebate Fund 97 0.7 0.0% 0.5

- 25 2010

- 2011

AZ Arizona Public Service

- UFI and PBI programs 15,760 293.4 6.3% 0.3

- 3,903 2002

- 2013

D uncan Valley Electric Coop.

- SunWatts Rebate Program 4 0.0 0.0% 0.5

- 11 2006

- 2009

Graham County Electric Coop.

- SunWatts Rebate Program 96 0.5 0.0% 0.1

- 25 2005

- 2010

Mohave Electric Coop.

- SunWatts Rebate Program 258 1.9 0.0% 0.7

- 47 2005

- 20 13

Morenci Water & Electric

- UFI and PBI programs 3 0.0 0.0% 5.8

- 20 2010

- 2011

Navopache Electric Coop.

- Renewable Energy Incentive Program 130 0.9 0.0% 1.0

- 55 2003

- 2012

Sulpher Valley Electric Coop.

- SunWatts Rebate Program 822 5.7 0.1% 0. 1

- 984 2009

- 2013

Salt River Project

- EarthWise Solar Energy Program 5,368 47.2 1.0% 0.5

- 999 2005

- 2013

Tucscon Electric Power

- UFI andPBI programs 3,393 49.4 1.1% 0.1

- 3,375 2008

- 2013

Trico Electric Coop.

- SunWatts Rebate Program 469 3.2 0.1% 0.4

- 346 2006

- 2013

UniSource Electric Services

- UFI and PBI programs 634 5.6 0.1% 0.5

- 98 2010

- 2012

CA CA Center for Sustainable Energy

- Rebuild a Greener San Diego Program 154 0.8 0.0% 1.9

- 7.1 2004

- 2008

CA Energy Commission

- Emergin g Renewables Program 27,489 145.2 3.1% 0.1

- 670 1998

- 2008

CA Energy Commission

- New Solar Homes Partnership 8,327 32.2 0.7% 1.2

- 295 1999

- 2013

CA Public Utilities Commission

- California Solar Initiative 103,513 1413.2 30.1% 0.9

- 4,726 2007

- 2 013

CA Public Utilities Commission

- Self Generation Incentive Program 855 159.9 3.4% 34

- 1,266 2002

- 2009

Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power

- Solar Incentive Program 7,902 85.3 1.8% 0.3

- 3,966 1999

- 2013

PacifiCorp

- California Solar Incentive Program 51 0.9 0.0% 2.0

- 257 2011

- 2013

Sacramento Municipal Utility District

- PV incentive programs (various) 2,275 35.4 0.8% 0.7

- 2,840 2005

- 2013

CO Xcel Energy

- SolarRewards Program (a) 

### 14,472 144.8 n/a n/a 2006

- 2013

Colorado Springs Utilit ies

- Renewable Energy Rebate Program 45 0.3 0.0% 1.3

- 12 2011

- 2013

CT Clean Energy Finance Investment Authority

- PV incentive programs (various) 3,100 39.6 0.8% 0.7

- 570 2004

- 2013

DC Dept. of Env. Protection

- Renewable Energy Incentive Program 7 64 3.8 0.1% 0.9

- 101 2009

- 2013

DE Dept. of Natural Resources & Env. Control

- Electric Coop. PV rebate program 309 2.1 0.0% 1.1

- 88 2007

- 2013

Dept. of Natural Resources & Env. Control

- Municipal PV rebate program 121 0.8 0.0% 1.8

- 151 2007

- 201 3

Dept. of Natural Resources & Env. Control

- Delmarva PV rebate program 575 4.0 0.1% 0.9

- 64 2002

- 201350Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 

### State PV Incentive Program Administrator and Program Name No . of

Systems Total

MW DC 

### % of Total

MW DC 

### Size Range

(kW DC 

### ) Year Range

FL Gainesville Regional Utilities

- Solar Feed

- In Tariff (b) 

### 245 18.1 0.4% 2.3

- 1,040 2009

- 2013

Gainesville Regional Utilities

- Solar

- Electri c System Rebate Program (b) 

### 166 1.9 0.0% 1.9

- 100 2006

- 2013

Orlando Utilities Commission

- Pilot Solar Program (b) 

### 57 2.7 0.1% 1.1

- 1,040 2008

- 2012

Energy & Climate Commision

- Solar Rebate Program (b) 

### 1,170 9.7 0.2% 2.0

- 1,016 2006

- 2012

IL Dept . Commerce and Econ. Opp.

- Solar and Wind Energy Rebate Program 788 7.6 0.2% 0.8

- 700 1999

- 2013

MA Clean Energy Center

- PV incentive programs (various) (c) 

### 9,474 286.4 6.1% 0.2

- 4,730 2001

- 2013

Dept. of Energy Resources

- SREC Registration (c) 

### 203 46.7 1.0% 0.7

- 4,800 2010

- 2013

MD Maryland Energy Administration

- Solar Energy Grant Program 3,710 29.1 0.6% 0.7

- 200 2001

- 2013

ME Efficiency Maine

- Renewable System Rebates Program 550 3.5 0.1% 0.9

- 171 2011

- 2013

MN Xcel Energy

- SolarRewar ds Program (a) 

### 513 4.6 n/a n/a 2010

- 2013

State Energy Office

- Solar Electric Rebate Program 354 1.9 0.0% 0.5

- 40 2003

- 2011

MO Columbia Water & Light

- Solar Rebates 9 0.0 0.0% 1.2

- 4.8 2007

- 2012

NC NC Sustainable Energy Association

- NCUC docke ts (d) 

### 1,461 371.5 7.9% 0.7

- 5,903 2007

- 2013

NH NH Public Utilities Commission

- Renewable Energy Rebate Program 1,036 6.0 0.1% 0.4

- 100 2002

- 2013

NJ NJ Board of Public Utilities

- Customer Onsite Renewable Energy Program 4,104 86.3 1.8% 0.8

- 2,372 2001

- 2012

NJ Board of Public Utilities

- Renewable Energy Incentive Program 3,644 36.2 0.8% 0.7

- 51 2009

- 2013

NJ Board of Public Utilities

- SREC Registration Program 14,751 753.5 16.1% 0.4

- 8,135 2007

- 2013

NM Energy, Minerals & Nat. Res. Dep t.

- Solar Market Development Tax Credit 3,781 19.3 0.4% 0.4

- 249 2009

- 2013

NV NVEnergy

- Renewable Generations Rebate Program 1,605 44.5 0.9% 0.4

- 1,145 2004

- 2013

NY NYSERDA

- PV incentive programs (various) 7,925 95.3 2.0% 0.5

- 254 2003

- 2013

OH Dept. of Development

- PV incentive programs (various) 226 9.2 0.2% 1.0

- 1,121 2005

- 2012

OR Dept. of Energy

- Personal and Business Tax Credit Programs (e) 

### 1,685 27.6 0.6% 0.1

- 3,000 1999

- 2013

Energy Trust of Oregon

- Solar Electric Buy

- Down Pro gram (e) 

### 4,484 34.2 0.7% 0.5

- 2,568 2003

- 2013

PacifiCorp

- Solar Volumetric Incentive and Payments Program 502 6.9 0.1% 1.5

- 500 2010

- 2013

PA Dept. Community and Econ. Dev.

- Grant programs (various) 47 32.5 0.7% 8.0

- 3,252 2010

- 2012

Dept. Env . Protection

- Sunshine Solar PV Program 6,667 93.3 2.0% 1.0

- 922 2009

- 2013

Sust. Dev. Fund

- Solar PV Grant Program 200 0.7 0.0% 1.1

- 12 2002

- 2008

RI Commerce RI

- Solar and Renewable Energy Grant Programs 24 0.1 0.0% 1.0

- 9.8 2013

- 2013

TX Au stin Energy

- Power Saver Program 3,056 19.0 0.4% 0.2

- 300 1999

- 2013

Clean Energy Assoc.

- IOU PV incentive programs 1,236 13.9 0.3% 0.4

- 300 2001

- 2013

UT PacifiCorp

- Solar Incentive Program 167 1.5 0.0% 1.4

- 52 2011

- 201351Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 

### State PV Incentive Program Administrator and Program Name No . of

Systems Total

MW DC 

### % of Total

MW DC 

### Size Range

(kW DC 

### ) Year Range

VT Renew. Energy Res . Ctr.

- Small Scale Renewable Energy Incentive Program 2,572 18.1 0.4% 0.2

- 389 2003

- 2013

WI Focus on Energy

- Renewable Energy Cash

- Back Rewards Program 1,438 11.2 0.2% 0.2

- 273 2002

- 2013

Non PV Incentive Program Data (other sources) 95 267.7 5.7% 770

- 10,150 2008

- 2013

Total (a) 

### 259,946 4,688 100% 0.1

- 10,150 1998

- 2013

(a) 

### Xcel Energy provided only aggregate program

- level data for its PV incentive programs in Colorado and Minnesota. Those data are used only in limited instances within this report

(in particular, in state

- level comparison figures). The Xcel data is not included in the totals included at the bottom of this table.

( b ) 

### Florida systems that received incentives through both the Florida Energy & Climate Commission (FECC)'s So lar Rebate Program and one of the Florida utility programs were

retaine d in the data sample for FECC and removed from the data sample for the utility program.

( c ) 

### Massachusetts systems that received incentives through both the Massachusetts Clean Energy Ce nter (MassCEC) and the Dept. of Energy Resources (DOER) programs were

retained in the data sample for the MassCEC and removed from sample for the DOER.

( d ) 

### Data provided by the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association is not associated with a PV incen tive program, but rather was compiled from regulatory filings submitted to the

North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC) for a Report of Proposed Construction or for a Certificate of Public Convenience a nd Necessity

. ( e ) 

### Oregon systems that received incen tives through both the Oregon Dept. of Energy's tax incentive program and the Energy Trust of Oregon (ETO) were retained in t he data sample

for ETO and removed from sample for the Dept. of Energy

.52Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 

## Table B

- 2

. Residential and Commercial PV System Sample by Installation Year and System Size Range

System Size

Range Installation Year

Total

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

No. Systems

≤10 kW 28 150 168 1,257 2,247 3,128 5,102 5,056 7,936 11 ,383 11,866 21,471 30,869 35,128 42,956 42,392 221,137

10

- 100 kW 5 11 11 38 166 316 514 636 893 1,228 1,424 2,509 5,003 6,027 7,263 7,102 33,146

>100 kW 0 1 1 7 28 36 41 105 114 153 396 339 583 1,205 1,534 1,120 5,663

Total 33 162 180 1,302 2,441 3, 480 5,657 5,797 8,943 12,764 13,686 24,319 36,455 42,360 51,753 50,614 259,946

Capacity (MW)

≤10 kW 0.1 0.4 0.5 4.0 8 12 20 22 35 52 53 102 156 180 226 240 1,111

10

- 100 kW 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.6 3 7 12 15 18 25 34 53 107 142 162 136 716

>100 kW 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.1 7 12 12 27 38 55 151 148 243 659 786 721 2,861

Total 0.2 0.8 0.8 6 18 31 44 64 92 132 238 303 506 981 1174 1098 4,68853Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 

## Table B

- 3

. Residential and Commercial PV System Sample and Median Installed Price ($/W

dc 

## ) by State and System Size

State Size Range 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

AR ≤10 k W No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - 45 30

- -

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - - 3.5 4.3

- -

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - - 6.5 6.9

- -

10

- 100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - 8 1 4

- -

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - - * *

- -

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - - * *

- -

>100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

AZ ≤10 kW No. Systems

- - - - 5 14 40 88 307 342 602 2495 4299 4225 5295 4633

Median Size

- - - - * * 2.8 2.9 3.9 4.4 4.3 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.5 5.9

Median Price

- - - - * * 8.2 8.1 8.5 7.9 7.6 7.5 6.3 5.5 4.8 4.1

10

- 100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - 2 2 3 14 17 67 267 563 706 1320 1111

Median Size

- - - - - * * * * 10.5 14.8 13.2 12.9 13.3 12.7 12.5

Median Price

- - - - - * * * * 8.3 7.4 7.3 6.4 5.2 4.8 3.8

>100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - 3 8 11 46 132 139 186

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - * * * 352.9 436.5 295.7 264.2

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - * * * 6.3 6.4 5.8 5.3

CA ≤10 kW No. Systems 28 147 164 1225 2159 2744 4209 3630 5697 8806 8327 12480 15839 18749 24520 25273

Median Size 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.6 3.9 4.2 4.1 4.3 4.6 4.4 4.7 5.4

Median Price 12.0 12.2 11.3 11.0 10.9 9.9 9.2 8.7 8.8 9.0 8.7 8.4 7.2 6.6 5.7 4.9

10

- 100 kW No. Systems 5 11 11 35 156 286 467 461 705 1014 922 1249 1756 1650 2392 3087

Median Size * * * 11.6 11.9 12.0 14.4 17.2 14.0 13.7 14.4 13.8 13.3 14.1 12.9 12.4

Median Price * * * 10.7 10.7 9.5 8.8 8.3 8.3 8.6 8.3 7.9 6.7 6.1 5.4 4 .7

>100 kW No. Systems

- 1 1 7 27 35 40 89 75 120 314 182 176 378 550 404

Median Size

- * * * 191.1 230.0 239.6 178.7 230.6 246.4 272.6 359.0 377.2 395.8 252.0 242.6

Median Price

- * * * 9.5 8.4 8.3 8.1 8.1 7.7 7.6 7.8 6.2 5.0 5.0 4.354Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 State Size Range 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

CO (a) ≤10 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - 323 1009 1448 2196 2260 1530 2431 2330

Median Size

- - - - - - - - 3.4 4.0 4.3 5.0 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.8

Median Price

- - - - - - - - 8.3 8.1 7.7 6.6 5.5 5.1 4.1 4.0

10

- 100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - 6 23 55 148 197 81 205

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - * 47.4 39.1 22.6 38.9 34.6 12.5

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - * 7.3 5.7 5.1 4.6 3.7 3.7

>100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - 9 11 64 90 19 37

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - * * 101.7 101.6 209.3 181.0

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - * 4.6 4.2 3.2 2.7

CT ≤10 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - 1 32 89 164 252 401 389 322 242 626

Median Size

- - - - - - * 4.5 4.8 5.2 5.5 6.3 6.3 6.7 5.8 6.5

Median Price

- - - - - - * 9.5 9.8 9.9 9.2 8.7 7.8 6.5 5.1 4.0

10

- 100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - 1 1 6 14 52 98 100 77 57 110

Median Size

- - - - - - * * * * 11.1 10.9 10.8 10.8 10.8 11.0

Median Price

- - - - - - * * * * 8.9 8.5 7.4 6.2 5.3 4.0

>100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - 1 4 21 22 7 9 2

-

Median Size

- - - - - - - - * * 264.2 225.1 * * *

-

Median Price

- - - - - - - - * * 8.2 8.0 * * *

-

DC ≤10 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - 87 204 92 241 104

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - 3.0 4.1 4.3 4.2 3.4

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - 9.6 7.1 6.5 4.8 3.7

10

- 100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - 3 5 8 13 6

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - * * * * *

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - * * * * *

>100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

- -

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - - - *

- -

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - - - *

- -55Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 State Size Range 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

DE ≤10 kW No. Systems

- - - - 1 3 3 2 27 49 125 171 162 224 116 20

Median Size

- - - - * * * * 4.8 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.8

Median Price

- - - - * * * * 8.0 8.0 7.8 7.8 6.9 5.6 5.6 4.2

10

- 100 kW No. Systems

- - - - 1 1 1

- 2 1 8 9 8 46 16 8

Median Size

- - - - * * *

- * * * * * 13.0 17.4 *

Median Price

- - - - * * *

- * * * * * 5.0 4.7 *

>100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

- -

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - - - *

- -

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - - - *

- -

FL ≤10 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - 17 41 27 594 504 64 37 19

Median Size

- - - - - - - - 3.4 4.8 5.0 5.0 5.1 6.8 5.0 7.0

Median Price

- - - - - - - - 11.0 10.6 8.9 8.0 7.6 6.1 4.6 3.3

10

- 100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - 6 13 68 107 37 35 24

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - * * 25.0 25.1 27.7 25.8 27.6

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - * * 7.3 7.2 5.2 5.0 3.0

>100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - 2 8 12 13 11

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - * * * * *

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - * * * * *

GA ≤10 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

10

- 100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

>100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *56Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 State Size Range 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

HI ≤10 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

10

- 100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

>100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 2

- -

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - - - *

- -

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - - - *

- -

IL ≤10 kW No. Systems

- 1 2 6 3 5 2 5 42 61 72 64 102 53 105 146

Median Size

- * * * * * * * 1.9 2.0 2.8 3.2 3.4 4.3 4.8 5.0

Median Price

- * * * * * * * 10.7 10.4 9.7 9.3 8.5 6.7 5.9 5.0

10

- 100 kW No. Systems

- - - 1 2 11 4 2

- 3

- 1 23 5 28 34

Median Size

- - - * * * * *

- *

- * 14.0 * 19.9 16.1

Median Price

- - - * * * * *

- *

- * 8.5 * 5.7 3.8

>100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1

- 2 2

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - - *

- * *

Med ian Price

- - - - - - - - - - - - *

- * *

KY ≤10 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

10

- 100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

>100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

- -

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - - - *

- -

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - - - *

- -57Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 State Size Range 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

MA ≤10 kW No. Systems

- - - 1

- 65 118 75 243 202 336 705 559 1017 2044 2697

Median Size

- - - *

- 2.2 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.6 4.2 5.0 5.2 5.8 5.8

Median Price

- - - *

- 10.9 9.3 9.7 10.0 9.6 9.1 8.8 7.3 6.2 5.0 4.5

10

- 100 kW No. Systems

- - - - 1 5 9 18 13 13 39 89 167 191 281 375

Median Size

- - - - * * * 27.1 * * 17.8 30.2 30.0 32.3 16.9 13.8

Median Price

- - - - * * * 10.2 * * 9.3 8.7 6.7 6.0 4.9 4.1

>100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - 3 2 8 18 57 79 134 117

M edian Size

- - - - - - - - * * * 152.1 128.8 198.0 264.1 799.5

Median Price

- - - - - - - - * * * 7.8 5.8 5.1 4.0 3.4

MD ≤10 kW No. Systems

- - - 1

- - - 19 40 46 168 710 661 758 720 56

Median Size

- - - *

- - - 2.3 2.2 2.4 3.2 4.1 4.9 5.2 5.2 6.2

Median Price

- - - *

- - - 12.6 11.4 10.9 9.7 9.1 6.9 6.3 5.2 4.7

10

- 100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - 1 1 6 28 91 157 209 14

Median Size

- - - - - - - - * * * 11.4 12.0 13.1 14.0 *

Median Price

- - - - - - - - * * * 7.7 6.0 5.4 4.3 *

>100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - 2 8 13 3

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - - * * * *

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - - * * * *

ME ≤10 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 244 258

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - - - * 4.3 4.6

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - - - * 4.0 3.5

10

- 100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 17 25

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - - - * 11.8 12.2

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - - - * 3.9 3.3

>100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2

-

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - *

-

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - *

-58Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 State Size Range 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

MN (b) ≤10 kW No. Systems

- - - - - 8 12 10 18 29 15 58 135 95 112 60

Median Size

- - - - - * * * 2.7 2.6 3.2 3.8 4.1 4.0 4.7 4.2

Median Price

- - - - - * * * 9.4 10.1 10.1 9.4 7.3 6.6 5.7 5.2

10

- 100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - 2 3 1 18 20 39 34

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - * * * 11.3 12.4 34.7 39.4

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - * * * 6.2 4.9 4.8 5.1

>100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MO ≤10 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - 1 1 1

- 2 4

-

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - * * *

- * *

-

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - * * *

- * *

-

10

- 100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Me dian Size

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

>100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

NC ≤10 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - 1

- - 1 333 313 480

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - *

- - * 4.4 4.8 4.8

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - *

- - * 6.7 5.8 5.3

10

- 100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 67 27 39

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 20.2 22.1 17.3

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 5.4 5.0 4.0

>100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 37 85 79

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 625.0 1181.8 2354.2

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 4.4 3.6 2.559Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 State Size Range 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

NH ≤10 kW No. Systems

- - - - 1

- - - - - 34 167 238 89 196 241

Median Size

- - - - *

- - - - - 2.2 2.7 3.2 4.2 4.7 4.9

Median Price

- - - - *

- - - - - 9.6 8.3 6.4 5.7 4.6 3.8

10

- 100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1 13 20 36

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - - * * 21.3 27.6

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - - * * 4.6 3.3

>100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

NJ ≤10 kW No. Systems

- - - 3 29 85 254 578 689 567 601 931 2117 3555 3335 3156

Median Size

- - - * 2.7 4.6 5.5 6.8 6.8 7.4 7.2 7.4 7.2 6.9 6.8 6.9

Median Price

- - - * 11.1 10.1 9.8 9.4 9.3 9.2 8.8 8.6 7.4 6.1 4.6 4.0

10

- 100 kW No. Systems

- - - - 6 5 17 116 110 80 148 247 672 1168 1333 1230

Median Size

- - - - * * 12.6 11.8 12.1 18.0 16.1 15.2 18.1 15.2 14.7 13.0

Median Price

- - - - * * 10.0 9.3 9.2 9.1 8.6 8.5 6.9 5.7 4.8 3.9

>100 kW No. Systems

- - - - 1 1 1 16 35 24 38 82 154 353 509 261

Median Size

- - - - * * * 215.2 255.4 290.5 270.6 227.7 250.5 273.9 257.1 254.8

Median Price

- - - - * * * 8.1 7.8 7.6 8.1 7.7 5.3 4.9 4.5 3.5

NM ≤10 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - 226 705 771 1023 833

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.3 4.9

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - 8.5 7.4 6.4 5.3 4.5

10

- 100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - 9 27 37 73 75

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - * 11.0 11.4 12.0 11.7

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - * 6.4 5.9 4.7 4.0

>100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 2 2 1

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - * * * * *

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - * * * * *60Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 State Size Range 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

NV ≤10 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - 3 55 69 90 77 166 211 134 53 141

Median Size

- - - - - - * 4.6 5.8 5.9 5.6 5.7 5.6 6.0 5.5 5.9

Median Price

- - - - - - * 8.3 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.0 6.7 5.7 5.0 4.2

10

- 100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - 4 4 5 7 17 109 200 75 83

Median Size

- - - - - - - * * * * 34.9 34.1 37.0 38.0 18.0

Median Price

- - - - - - - * * * * 6.0 6.0 5.2 4.5 3.6

>100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - 1 5 67 17 12

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - * * 118.7 150.9 *

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - * * 5.1 4.2 *

NY ≤10 kW No. Systems

- - - - - 38 112 103 182 333 374 655 716 709 1233 1455

Median Size

- - - - - 3.0 2.8 3.1 4.2 4.6 4.7 5.1 5.0 5.2 6.4 6 .8

Median Price

- - - - - 10.5 10.4 10.0 9.9 9.9 9.3 9.3 7.7 6.5 5.4 4.6

10

- 100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - 6 9 15 22 28 48 125 254 321 633 519

Median Size

- - - - - * * 14.9 13.4 12.2 19.4 20.3 25.4 25.4 24.4 20.6

Median Price

- - - - - * * 8.9 9.2 9.5 9.2 8.9 7.7 6.9 5.3 4.9

>100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1 2 10 29

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - - * * * 166.4

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - - * * * 3.8

OH ≤10 kW No . Systems

- - - - - - - 20 19 30 26 3 6 3

- -

Median Size

- - - - - - - 3.1 2.6 3.3 3.1 * * *

- -

Median Price

- - - - - - - 11.2 13.0 10.4 9.4 * * *

- -

10

- 100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - 1 2 2 7 22 46 21 1

-

Median Size

- - - - - - - * * * * 17.5 44.8 50.0 *

-

Median Price

- - - - - - - * * * * 8.5 7.2 6.6 *

-

>100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - 1 11 5 2 2

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - * * * * *

Media n Price

- - - - - - - - - - - * * * * *61Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 State Size Range 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

OR ≤10 kW No. Systems

- 1 2 18 28 109 167 139 183 279 327 555 1313 1237 1237 349

Median Size

- * * 1.3 0.5 2.6 2.9 2.9 2.6 2.5 2.9 2.8 2.6 3.2 3.3 4.2

Median Price

- * * 11.3 12.2 8.4 8.2 8.4 9.2 9.7 9.1 8.5 6.8 6.1 5.3 4.7

10

- 100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - 1 3 6 17 59 110 117 139 181 16

Median Size

- - - - - - * * * 23.8 21.6 27.7 21.8 19.6 29.6 22.6

Median Price

- - - - - - * * * 9.3 8.8 8.3 7.2 6.1 5.8 4.0

>100 kW No . Systems

- - - - - - - - - - 7 17 27 10 16 1

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - * 143.6 135.5 * 310.7 *

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - * 7.9 7.8 * 4.9 *

PA ≤10 kW No. Systems

- - - - 7 33 26 96 12 10 13 307 1943 162 4 510 91

Median Size

- - - - * 4.1 4.7 2.7 * * * 5.3 5.8 6.1 6.5 6.7

Median Price

- - - - * 10.7 11.2 10.0 * * * 8.2 7.2 6.2 5.0 4.4

10

- 100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - 1 1 1

- 66 716 880 330 59

Median Size

- - - - - - - * * *

- 10.8 10.6 11.5 12.9 13.3

Median Price

- - - - - - - * * *

- 8.1 6.6 5.6 4.6 4.2

>100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - 1 73 93 26

-

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - * 191.4 203.3 208.9

-

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - * 5.9 4.7 3.8

-

RI ≤10 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 24

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4.5

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4.5

10

- 10 0 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

>100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *62Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 State Size Range 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

SC ≤10 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

10

- 100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

>100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

- -

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - - - *

- -

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - - - *

- -

TN ≤10 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

10

- 100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

>100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - 2

- - -

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - - *

- - -

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - - *

- - -

TX ≤10 kW No. Systems

- 1

- 3

- 1 50 136 161 170 247 312 455 583 828 796

Median Size

- *

- *

- * 3.0 3.0 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.5 4.5 5.4 5.8 6.0

Median Price

- *

- *

- * 7.9 7.6 7.8 7.7 7.9 7.2 6.2 4.9 3.9 3.5

10

- 1 00 kW No. Systems

- - - 2

- - 2 10 4 9 21 50 115 121 94 93

Median Size

- - - *

- - * * * * 23.1 13.6 10.8 10.8 11.8 12.0

Median Price

- - - *

- - * * * * 7.9 6.4 5.9 6.5 4.6 3.4

>100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - 1 9 9 3 6

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - * * * * *

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - * * * * *63Tracking the Sun VII: The Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013 State Size Range 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

UT ≤10 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 23 32 68

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 2.9 3. 0 4.5

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 6.1 5.2 3.8

10

- 100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 6 35

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - - - * * 23.3

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - - - * * 3.6

>100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

VT ≤10 kW No. Systems

- - - - - 1 70 33 62 70 102 158 190 387 468 756

Median Size

- - - - - * 1.8 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.9 3.3 4.0 4.2 5.0 5.3

Median Price

- - - - - * 10.6 11.7 11.1 10.2 9.7 8.6 6.9 6.1 5.0 4.7

10

- 100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - 1

- 4 3 6 18 57 78 98

Median Size

- - - - - - - *

- * * * 21.6 15.5 16.1 12.5

Median Price

- - - - - - - *

- * * * 5.5 6.1 4.8 4.2

>100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 9 3

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - - - * * *

Medi an Price

- - - - - - - - - - - - - * * *

WI ≤10 kW No. Systems

- - - - 14 22 35 35 79 92 140 225 51 131 147 144

Median Size

- - - - * 1.1 1.8 2.5 2.7 2.8 3.1 4.1 5.1 5.5 3.7 3.6

Median Price

- - - - * 11.5 10.6 9.8 9.1 10.0 9.6 9.5 8.9 6.5 5.5 4.8

10

- 100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - 1

- 3 11 21 44 73 105 40 24

Median Size

- - - - - - *

- * * 15.4 14.6 19.3 20.0 19.0 13.9

Median Price

- - - - - - *

- * * 9.6 8.5 7.7 6.7 5.5 3.7

>100 kW No. Systems

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1

- - -

Median Size

- - - - - - - - - - - - *

- - -

Median Price

- - - - - - - - - - - - *

- - -

( a) 

### The summary statistics for CO are based on aggregate program

- level statistics provided by Xcel Energy, rather than on project

- level data; those data are also included in Figure 16

through Figure 18, but are not otherwise included within this document.

(b) 

### The summary statistics for MN are derived from two different sources. Through 2010, the statistics are based on project

- level data from MN SEO’s PV incentive program, at which

point the program largely ceased funding new systems. From 2011 onward, the statistics are instead based on aggregate program

- level statistics provided by X cel Energy; those

data are also included in Figure 16 through Figure 18 , but are not otherwise included within this document.

* Median system size and median price are omitted if fewer than 15 data points available

.

# Acknowledgments Key Report Contacts

For their support of this project, the authors thank Minh Le, Elaine Ulrich, and

Christina Nichols of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Solar Energy Technologies

Office.

For providing data and/or reviewing elements of this paper, the authors thank:

Ben Airth (California Center for Sustainable Energy), Erik Anderson (PacifiCorp),

Justin Baca (Solar Energy Industries Association), David Bane (Sulphur

Springs Valley Electric Cooperative), Jim Barnett (Sacramento Municipal Utility

District), Shauna Beland (Rhode Island Commerce Corporation), Mark Bolinger

(Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory), Richard Brewer (SunPower),

Ted Burhans (Tucson Electric Power), Javier Camarillo (Imperial Irrigation

District), Jerry Carey (North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association),

Lucy Charpentier (Connecticut Clean Energy Fund), Carolyn Davidson

(National Renewable Energy Laboratory), Walt Dinda (Pennsylvania Dept. of

Environmental Protection), Suzanne Elowson (Vermont Renewable Energy

Resource Center), Thomas Elzinga (Consumers Power, Inc.), David Feldman

(National Renewable Energy Laboratory), Dana Fischer (Efficiency Maine Trust),

Pauline Furfaro (Orlando Public Utilities), Douglas Gagne (National Renewable

Energy Laboratory), Charlie Garrison (Honeywell), Wayne Hartel (Illinois Dept.

Commerce and Economic Opportunity), Tim Harvey (Austin Energy),

Brooke Holman (Columbia Water & Light), Jeff Johnson (Gainesville Regional

Utilities), Michael Judge (Massachusetts Dept. of Energy Resources),

Kate Kennedy (Salt River Project), James Loewen (California Public Utilities

Commission), Jason Martin (NV Energy), Deborah Mathis (Colorado Springs

Utilities), David McClelland (Energy Trust of Oregon), Tanya Mitchell (Trico

Electric Cooperative), Le-Quyen Nguyen (California Energy Commission),

Jon Osgood (New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission), Susannah Pedigo

(Xcel Energy), Jason Perkins (California Public Utilities Commission),

Kenneth Pritchett (Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power), James Quirk

(New York State Energy Research and Development Authority), Eric Ramras

(Massachusetts Clean Energy Center), Tigh Savercool (Pennsylvania Dept. of

Community and Economic Development), Kelli Schauffele (Arizona Public

Service), Scott Schlossman (Gainesville Regional Utilities), Suzanne Sebastian

(Delaware Division of Energy & Climate), Larry Sherwood (Interstate Renewable

Energy Council), Rex Stepp (Arizona Public Service), Jennifer Szaro (Orlando

Utilities Commission), Edward Trujillo (New Mexico Energy, Minerals and

Natural Resources Department), Cliff Voliva (Oregon Department of Energy),

Jaclyn Webb (Xcel Energy), Steve Weise (Clean Energy Associates),

Laura Williams (California Center for Sustainable Energy), Caitlin Williamson

(Wisconsin Focus on Energy), Ryan Wiser (Lawrence Berkeley National

Laboratory), Daniel White (Washington D.C. Dept. of the Environment), and

John Wold (Xcel Energy). We also thank Anthony Ma for assistance with cover

design, formatting, and production. Of course, the authors are solely

responsible for any remaining omissions or errors.

Berkeley Lab’s contributions to this report were funded by the Office of Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy (Solar Energy Technologies Office) of the U.S.

Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. 

### Galen Barbose, Berkeley Lab

510-495-2593; glbarbose@lbl.gov

Samantha Weaver, Berkeley Lab

510-486-6375; slweaver@lbl.gov

Naïm Darghouth, Berkeley Lab

510-486-4570; ndarghouth@lbl.gov



# Download the Report

http://emp.lbl.gov/publications



# Disclaimer

This document was prepared as an account of work

sponsored by the United States Government. While this

document is believed to contain correct information,

neither the United States Government nor any agency

thereof, nor The Regents of the University of California,

nor any of their employees, makes any warranty,

express or implied, or assumes any legal 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 its 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, or The Regents of

the University of California. The views and opinions of

authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or

reflect those of the United States Government or any

agency thereof, or The Regents of the University of

California.

Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

is an equal opportunity employer.

LBNL-68 5 8E/September 2014