NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Cost-Reduction Roadmap for 

Residential Solar Photovoltaics 

(PV), 2017–2030

Kristen Ardani, Jeffrey J. Cook, Ran Fu, 

and Robert Margolis

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Technical Report

NREL/TP-6A20-70748

January 2018
NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

15013 Denver West Parkway

Golden, CO 80401

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

Cost-Reduction Roadmap for 

Residential Solar 

Photovoltaics (PV), 2017–2030

Kristen Ardani, Jeffrey J. Cook, Ran Fu, 

and Robert Margolis

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Suggested Citation

Kristen Ardani, Jeffrey J. Cook, Ran Fu, and Robert Margolis. 2018. CostReduction Roadmap for Residential Solar Photovoltaics (PV), 2017–2030. 

Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-6A20-

70748.

Technical Report

NREL/TP-6A20-70748

January 2018
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither 

the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or 

implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any 

information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned 

rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, 

manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring 

by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do 

not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Available electronically at SciTech Connect http:/www.osti.gov/scitech

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

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

OSTI http://www.osti.gov

Phone: 865.576.8401

Fax: 865.576.5728

Email: reports@osti.gov

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

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5301 Shawnee Road

Alexandria, VA 22312

NTIS http://www.ntis.gov

Phone: 800.553.6847 or 703.605.6000

Fax: 703.605.6900

Email: orders@ntis.gov

Cover Photos by Dennis Schroeder: (left to right) NREL 26173, NREL 18302, NREL 19758, NREL 29642, NREL 19795.

NREL prints on paper that contains recycled content.
iv

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Solar Energy Technologies 

Office. The authors would like to thank all the interviewees for contributing their expertise to 

this study. We also would like to thank the following individuals and organizations for their 

review of this work: Casey Canfield (Department of Energy), Chris Fisher (CertainTeed), Kelsey 

Horowitz (National Renewable Energy Laboratory), Daniel Margolis (Lennar Corporation), 

Aaron Nitzkin (Solar Roof Dynamics), Eric O’Shaughnessy (National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory), Carolyn Pino (Lennar Corporation), and Brian Warshay (Tesla). Finally, we would 

like to thank Nick Gilroy, Jarett Zuboy, Christina Komeshian, and Harrison Dreves for their 

editing and graphics support. 
v

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

¢/kWh Cents per kilowatt-hour

($/Wdc) Dollars per watt direct current

AHJ Authority having jurisdiction

ASP Average selling price

ATB Annual Technology Baseline

BOS Balance of system

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

EIA U.S. Energy Information Administration

EPC Engineering, procurement, and construction

GW Gigawatts

LCOE Levelized cost of energy

kW Kilowatts

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory

O&M Operations and maintenance

PII Permitting, inspection, and interconnection

PV Photovoltaic(s)

Q1 Quarter one

RECS Residential Energy Consumption Survey

SETO Solar Energies Technologies Office

USD U.S. dollars
vi

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Executive Summary

The installed cost of solar photovoltaics (PV) has fallen rapidly in recent years and is expected to 

continue declining in the future. In this report, we focus on the potential for continued PV cost 

reductions in the residential market. From 2010 to 2017, the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for 

residential PV declined from 52 cents per kilowatt-hour (¢/kWh) to 15.1 ¢/kWh (Fu et al. 2017). 

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Solar Energy Technologies Office (SETO) recently 

set new LCOE targets for 2030, including a target of 5 ¢/kWh for residential PV. We present a 

roadmap for achieving the SETO 2030 residential PV target.

Because the 2030 target likely will not be achieved under business-as-usual trends (NREL 2017),

we examine two key market segments that demonstrate significant opportunities for cost savings

and market growth: installing PV at the time of roof replacement and installing PV as part of the 

new home construction process. We estimate that, between 2017 and 2030, an average of 3.3

million homes per year will be built or require roof replacement. This translates into a residential 

PV technical potential of roughly 30 gigawatts (GW) per year (Figure ES-1). Capturing even a 

relatively small fraction of this technical potential could have a significant impact on the 

evolution of the U.S. electricity system.

Figure ES-1. Annual average technical potential for residential rooftop PV at time of roof 

replacement and new construction projected between 2017 and 2030

Within both market segments, we identify four key cost-reduction opportunities: market 

maturation, business model integration, product innovation, and economies of scale. To assess 

the potential impact of these cost reductions, we compare modeled residential PV system prices 

in 2030 to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL’s) quarter one 2017 (Q1 2017) 
vii

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

residential PV system price benchmark (Fu et al. 2017). We use a bottom-up accounting 

framework to model all component and project-development costs incurred when installing a PV 

system. The result is a granular accounting for 11 direct and indirect costs associated with 

installing a residential PV system in 2030.

It is unlikely that all PV installers in these two market segments will pursue the same costreduction strategies, so we model four pathways that could be pursued to achieve low-cost 

residential PV in 2030 (Table ES-1). The two less-aggressive pathways represent a more 

conservative shift from current technologies and business practices, whereas the two visionary 

pathways represent a higher level of innovation. We assume that market maturation and 

subsequent supply chain efficiencies will yield cost reductions across all four modeled pathways

by 2030.

Table ES-1. Four Modeled Pathways by Market and Magnitude of Cost Reductions

Pathway

Roof Replacement Market New Construction Market

Cost-Reduction Opportunity Less Aggressive Visionary Less Aggressive Visionary

Market Maturation High High High High

Business Model Integration Low High Low High

Product Innovation Low High Low High

Economies of Scale NA NA Low High

All four modeled pathways demonstrate significant installed-system price savings over the Q1 

2017 benchmark, with the visionary pathways yielding the greatest price benefits (Figure ES-2). 

The largest modeled cost savings are in the supply chain, sales and marketing, overhead, and 

installation labor cost categories.

Figure ES-2. Modeled installed residential PV system prices at time of roof replacement and new 

construction in 2030, compared with a weighted average of the Q1 2017 benchmark
viii

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

When we translate these installed-system costs into LCOE, we find that the less-aggressive

pathways achieve significant cost reductions, but may not achieve the 2030 LCOE target (Figure 

ES-3). On the other hand, both visionary pathways could result in PV system prices that get very 

close to (for roof replacement) or achieve (for new construction) the 2030 target in each market 

segment. 

Figure ES-3. Modeled residential PV LCOE at time of roof replacement and new construction in 

2030, compared with the LCOE for a weighted average of the Q1 2017 benchmark

Figure ES-4 compares the LCOE impacts of our modeled installed-system cost reductions with 

the impacts of improvements in other parameters, for the new construction visionary pathway. 

The results indicate that savings associated with installed-system soft costs account for about 

65% of the total savings. Therefore, reducing these soft costs likely will be critical for achieving 

the 2030 residential PV target.

Although we identify pathways toward the 2030 residential PV target, various barriers and 

considerations must be addressed to realize this future. First, all four pathways benefit from 

anticipated market maturation that could significantly reduce supply chain costs. This analysis 

assumes that PV installers can procure modules at or near spot market prices in 2030. This future 

is likely to require significant innovation in business models as well as the proliferation of 

efficient procurement processes.

Second, the two visionary pathways assume that a low-cost integrated PV and roofing product is 

available by 2030, which could significantly reduce supply chain, installation labor, and 

permitting costs. Although integrated PV products have been or are being developed, achieving 

low-cost residential PV with an integrated product is very challenging and will likely require 

significant investments in research and development.
ix

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure ES-4. Modeled residential PV LCOE reductions for the new home construction market 

visionary pathway in 2030, compared with the Q1 2017 benchmark

Third, business model integration could provide significant sales, marketing, overhead, and labor 

savings that reduce installed PV system prices. Although there have been efforts to collaborate 

across the solar and roofing industries—and across the solar and housing industries—fully 

integrating across these types of businesses will require significant changes to existing practices. 

In addition, regulatory challenges such as variation in PV permitting requirements across more 

than 18,000 authorities having jurisdiction across the United States could serve as another barrier 

to increasing business model integration.

Fourth, economies of scale yield considerable cost savings, especially for the new construction 

market. However, the benefits of scale may be less than those assumed in our analysis, resulting 

from construction timelines, project sizes, and workforce management. In addition, those 

homebuilders that construct comparatively few homes (e.g., 20 or fewer homes annually), are 

unlikely to experience the same process efficiencies as those that construct hundreds of homes.

In addition, potential permitting challenges and delays associated with deploying PV on new 

homes could result in additional costs that offset the savings benefits of economies of scale. 

Overall, the results of our analysis suggest that it will be challenging but possible to achieve the 

SETO 2030 residential PV target. We identify two pathways that could play a transformative 

role in the residential PV sector: one by installing PV at the time of roof replacement, and the 

other by installing PV as part of the new home construction process. Achieving the SETO target 

via either pathway will require very aggressive reductions in hardware and soft costs driven by 

the development of new technologies, services, and business practices. 
x

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table of Contents

1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 1

2 Technical Potential for Residential PV at Time of Roof Replacement and New Home 

Construction ......................................................................................................................................... 2

3 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 4

4 Pathways to Low-Cost Residential PV............................................................................................... 7

4.1 Key Plausible Cost-Reduction Opportunities through 2030 ......................................................... 7

4.1.1 Market Maturation............................................................................................................ 7

4.1.2 Business Model Integration.............................................................................................. 7

4.1.3 Product Innovation ........................................................................................................... 8

4.1.4 Economies of Scale .......................................................................................................... 8

4.2 Modeled Cost-Reduction Pathways .............................................................................................. 8

4.2.1 Roof Replacement Market ............................................................................................... 9

4.2.2 New Construction Market ................................................................................................ 9

5 Cost-Reduction Results by Pathway................................................................................................ 10

5.1 Roof Replacement Market .......................................................................................................... 10

5.2 New Construction Market ........................................................................................................... 12

5.3 Achieving the SETO 2030 LCOE Target.................................................................................... 13

6 Barriers and Considerations Related to Achieving the SETO 2030 Targets................................ 16

6.1 Market Maturation....................................................................................................................... 16

6.2 Product Innovation ...................................................................................................................... 16

6.3 Business Model Integration......................................................................................................... 17

6.3.1 Roof Replacement Market ............................................................................................. 17

6.3.2 New Construction Market .............................................................................................. 18

6.4 Economies of Scale ..................................................................................................................... 19

7 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 20

References................................................................................................................................................. 21

Appendix A: Quantifying Residential PV Potential from 2017–2030 ................................................... 24

Appendix B: Detailed Cost Modeling Results and Assumptions......................................................... 31
xi

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

List of Figures

Figure ES-1. Annual average technical potential for residential rooftop PV at time of roof replacement 

and new construction projected between 2017 and 2030........................................................ vi

Figure ES-2. Modeled installed residential PV system prices at time of roof replacement and new 

construction in 2030, compared with a weighted average of the Q1 2017 benchmark..........vii

Figure ES-3. Modeled residential PV LCOE at time of roof replacement and new construction in 2030, 

compared with the LCOE for a weighted average of the Q1 2017 benchmark ....................viii

Figure ES-4. Modeled residential PV LCOE reductions for the new home construction market visionary 

pathway in 2030, compared with the Q1 2017 benchmark..................................................... ix

Figure 1. Annual average technical potential for residential rooftop PV at time of roof replacement and 

new construction projected between 2017 and 2030 (assuming the maximum suitable system 

size installed on all homes in these markets) ........................................................................... 3

Figure 2. Modeled installed residential PV system prices at time of roof replacement and new 

construction in 2030, compared with a weighted average of the Q1 2017 benchmark.......... 10

Figure 3. Cost reductions achieved by the roof replacement visionary pathway in 2030........................... 12

Figure 4. Cost reductions achieved by the new construction visionary pathway in 2030 .......................... 13

Figure 5. Modeled residential PV LCOE at time of roof replacement and new construction in 2030, 

compared with the LCOE for a weighted average of the Q1 2017 benchmark ..................... 14

Figure 6. Modeled residential PV LCOE reductions for the roof replacement market visionary pathway in 

2030, compared with the Q1 2017 benchmark ...................................................................... 15

Figure 7. Modeled residential PV LCOE reductions for the new home construction market visionary 

pathway in 2030, compared with the Q1 2017 benchmark.................................................... 15

Figure 8. Residential roofing material market penetration nationally and by census region, 2015 (adapted 

from EIA 2017b).................................................................................................................... 25

List of Tables

Table ES-1. Four Modeled Pathways by Market and Magnitude of Cost Reductions ...............................vii

Table 1. National Weighted-Average Q1 2017 System Cost Benchmark for Residential Retrofit PV 

Installation by Cost Category (adapted from Fu et al. 2017)................................................... 5

Table 2. Four Modeled Pathways by Market and Magnitude of Cost Reductions ....................................... 9

Table 3. Assumptions for Calculating Residential PV LCOE .................................................................... 14

Table 4. Vetted Estimates of Roofing Material Lifetimes by Type and, in Some Instances, Region......... 26

Table 5. Key Assumptions for the Roof Replacement Market by State (2017–2030)................................ 27

Table 6. Key Assumptions for the New Construction Market by State (2017–2030) ................................ 29

Table 7. Comparison of Modeled Costs by Category and Pathway in $/Wdc (Percentage Reduction from 

Q1 2017 Benchmark)............................................................................................................. 33
1

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

1 Introduction

In 2011, the U.S. Department of Energy launched the SunShot Initiative to reduce residential, 

commercial, and utility-scale photovoltaic (PV) costs by 75% between 2010 and 2020 (DOE 

2016). For residential PV systems, this meant reducing the average levelized cost of energy 

(LCOE) from 52 cents per kilowatt-hour (¢/kWh) to 10 ¢/kWh in 2020 (in 2017 dollars).1 In 

2016, DOE set even more aggressive targets to be achieved by 2030, including a residential PV 

LCOE of 5 ¢/kWh. This report outlines potential pathways for achieving the 5 ¢/kWh residential 

PV target by 2030.

Achieving the SETO 2030 target will require significant cost reductions beyond a business-asusual scenario. In 2017, the average residential PV LCOE in the United States reached 15.1

¢/kWh (Fu et al. 2017). Based on projections in the “mid” case of the NREL’s Annual 

Technology Baseline (ATB), residential PV would reach an LCOE of 9 ¢/kWh in 2030 (NREL 

2017).2 Thus an additional reduction of 4 ¢/kWh would be required to achieve the SETO 2030 

target.

To envision feasible pathways to realizing this aggressive 2030 target, we focus on two 

particularly promising residential PV markets: installing PV at the time of roof replacement and 

installing PV as part of the new construction process. We provide detailed component-level cost 

and system-level price projections for residential PV in these markets in 2030 based on four 

specific and plausible cost-reduction opportunities: market maturation, business model 

integration, product innovation, and economies of scale. We then convert the system price 

projections into LCOE values and analyze the potential of our modeled pathways to achieve the 

SETO 2030 target, along with the barriers that must be overcome to do so.

The remainder of this report is structured as follows: Section 2 describes the residential market 

opportunities for PV at time of roof replacement and on new home construction from 2017–

2030. Section 3 describes the cost-accounting method we use to assess cost-reduction 

opportunities. Section 4 discusses our modeled cost-reduction opportunities and pathways. 

Section 5 shows our results, including the installed-system cost and LCOE reductions enabled by 

each pathway. Section 6 describes potential barriers to achieving the projected cost-reduction

opportunities, and Section 7 discusses conclusions, study limitations, and directions for future 

research. Appendix A contains our underlying assumptions used to calculate the market potential 

for residential PV. Appendix B provides additional data and assumptions used in our modeling.

 1 LCOE is calculated by summing the cost to build and operate a PV system over the system’s assumed financial life

and dividing that total cost by the estimated lifetime electricity generation, yielding a value in cents per kilowatthour (EIA 2017a).

2 This estimate is based on the ATB’s mid-level cost projection in 2030 for residential PV with a 16.1% capacity 

factor (NREL 2017). 
2

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

2 Technical Potential for Residential PV at Time of 

Roof Replacement and New Home Construction

From 2010 through 2016, cumulative installed residential PV capacity in the United States 

increased from 0.6 GW to 8.3 GW (GTM and SEIA 2016). Gagnon et al. (2016) estimate the

continental U.S. technical potential for residential PV at 731 GW.

3 Thus residential PV installed 

through 2016 accounted for about 1% of the technical potential, suggesting opportunities for 

large-scale expansion.

We focus on two key market segments that offer significant opportunities for reducing costs and 

expanding the residential PV market: installing PV at the time of roof replacement and installing 

PV as part of the new home construction process. In the roof replacement market—after 

accounting for solar suitability and rooftop-replacement schedules—we project that an average

of 2.3 million single-family detached homes per year could install PV between 2017 and 2030 in 

the continental United States (for detailed analysis assumptions see Appendix A). Assuming an 

average installed-system size of 5 kilowatts (kW) (roughly the average for residential systems

installed in 2016), this would represent a potential of 11.5 GW per year. Installing the maximum

suitable system size on all these homes would yield a potential of 22 GW per year.

In the new home construction market—taking into account historical suitability and construction 

rates—we project that an average of one million new single-family homes per year could install 

PV between 2017 and 2030 across the continental United States.

4 Assuming an average 

installed-system size of 5 kW, this would represent a potential of 4.8 GW per year. Installing the 

maximum suitable system size on all these homes would yield a potential of 9.3 GW per year

(see Appendix A).

Summing these two potential markets together yields an average market size of 3.3 million 

homes per year. At an average system size of 5 kW, this would represent a potential of 16.3 GW 

per year. Installing the maximum suitable system size would yield a potential of 31.4 GW per 

year (Figure 1). The five states with the largest combined potential are Texas, California, Florida, 

New York, and Illinois. Capturing even a relatively small fraction of this potential could have a 

significant impact on the evolution of the U.S. electricity system.

 3 Gagnon et al. (2016) estimate the national technical potential of rooftop PV at 1,118 GW, with residential 

buildings—defined as those with a footprint of less than 5,000 square feet—accounting for 731 GW. 4 It is possible that all new homes could be designed to avoid shading and other suitability barriers, which would 

increase the potential for rooftop PV.
3

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure 1. Annual average technical potential for residential rooftop PV at time of roof replacement 

and new construction projected between 2017 and 2030 (assuming the maximum suitable system 

size installed on all homes in these markets)
4

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

3 Methodology

To assess the potential impact of specific cost-reduction opportunities, we compare modeled 

residential PV system costs in 2030 to NREL’s quarter one 2017 (Q1 2017) residential PV

system price benchmark (Fu et al. 2017). Since 2010, NREL has benchmarked current PV 

system prices for the residential, commercial, and utility-scale sectors (Goodrich et al. 2012, 

Ardani et al. 2012, Chung et al. 2015, Fu et al. 2016, Fu et al. 2017). These benchmarks are 

generated using a bottom-up accounting framework for all component and project-development 

costs incurred when installing PV systems. The residential benchmark models the cash purchase 

price for systems excluding the federal investment tax credit.

All modeled costs represent the typical average selling price (ASP) between Tier 1 equipment 

suppliers and first buyers in the global market.5 Generally, first buyers of equipment from the 

factory can be developers, engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors, 

installers, distributors, retailers, or other end users. Specifically, in our model, costs are 

represented from the perspective of the installer; thus all hardware benchmarks represent the 

ASP at which components are purchased by the installer. Importantly, we also apply a 17% fixed 

margin to all direct costs to model the sales price paid by the end user to the installer. This 17% 

fixed margin is referred to as “net profit” and is added to total installed costs as a separate 

category. Although we include assumptions for indirect costs such as business overhead, supply

chain costs, and permitting costs, we do not include any additional end-user price gross-up, 

which is common in the marketplace. We use this approach owing to the wide variation in 

installer profits in the residential sector, where project pricing is highly dependent on region and 

project specifics such as local retail electricity rate structures, local rebate and incentive 

structures, competitive environment, and overall project or deal structures.

In general, the model captures typical installation techniques and business operations within a 

detailed bottom-up accounting framework. The result is a granular accounting for direct and 

indirect costs associated with installing a PV system. These cost categories include hardware 

costs, such as module and inverter prices, as well as “soft costs,” such as costs related to the 

supply chain, labor, and sales and marketing (see Table 1). 

For comparison to our 2030 modeled PV system prices, we use the benchmarked national 

weighted-average Q1 2017 system price for a retrofitted PV installation consisting of a 5.7kW 

system using 60-cell, multicrystalline, 16.2%-efficient modules from a Tier 1 supplier and a 

standard flush mount, pitched-roof racking system. The modeled costs of such a system, by 

category, are displayed in dollars per watt direct current ($/Wdc) in Table 1. In the Q1 2017 

benchmark, the highest costs are related to the supply chain, modules, and sales and marketing. 

 5 A Tier 1 supplier refers to an established company with its own branded solar panels and at least six projects with 

non-recourse financing from six different institutions. For more information on these firms, see BNEF (2017). 
5

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table 1. National Weighted-Average Q1 2017 System Cost Benchmark for Residential Retrofit PV 

Installation by Cost Category (adapted from Fu et al. 2017)

Category Modeled 

Value

Description

Module price $0.35/Wdc Ex-factory gate (first buyer) price, Tier 1 modules

Inverter price $0.13/Wdc Single-phase string inverter, ex-factory gate (first buyer) prices, 

Tier 1 inverter

Structural 

balance of 

system (BOS)

$0.11/Wdc Includes racking and flashing for roof penetrations

Electrical BOS $0.20/Wdc

Conductors, switches, combiners, and transition boxes, as well as 

conduit, grounding equipment, monitoring system or production 

meters, fuses, and breakers

Supply chain 

costs $0.39/Wdc

Includes shipping and handling of equipment, historical inventory 

and small-scale procurement expenses for both modules and 

inverters 

Sales tax $0.08/Wdc Sales tax on the equipment; national benchmark applies an 

average (by state) weighted by 2016 installed capacities

Direct 

installation 

labor 

$0.32/Wdc Modeled labor rate uses weighted average of state rates 

Permitting, 

inspection, and 

interconnection 

(PII)

$0.10/Wdc

Includes assumed building permitting and interconnection 

application fees of $400 and six office staff hours for building permit 

preparation and submission, and interconnection application 

preparation and submission

Sales and

marketing 

(customer 

acquisition) 

$0.34/Wdc

Total cost of sales and marketing activities over the last year—

including system engineering, marketing and advertising, sales 

calls, site visits, bid preparation, and contract negotiation; adjusted 

based on state “cost of doing business” index

Overhead 

(general and

administrative)

$0.31/Wdc

General and administrative expenses—including fixed overhead 

expenses covering payroll (excluding permitting payroll), facilities, 

administrative, finance, legal, information technology, and other 

corporate functions as well as office expenses; adjusted based on 

state “cost of doing business” index

Profit $0.32/Wdc

Applies a fixed 17% margin to all direct costs including hardware, 

installation labor, direct sales and marketing, design, installation, 

and permitting fees 

We use the same cost-accounting framework to model residential PV system costs in 2030 for 

the roof replacement and new construction markets. Section 4 describes our specific costreduction opportunities and pathways.

Consistent with previous benchmarking efforts (Goodrich et al. 2012, Ardani et al. 2012, Chung 

et al. 2015, Fu et al. 2016, Ardani et al. 2017, Fu et al. 2017), we derived inputs for our model 

and validated our draft results via interviews with industry and other subject-matter experts. We 

interviewed 16 representatives from 13 leading organizations closely involved with PV product 

development and installation, roofing, and new home construction, including PV manufacturers, 
6

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

PV and roofing installation companies, project developers, and industry associations. In these 

interviews, we focused on gaining a deeper understanding of future trends related to PV product 

integration, new business models that enhance collaboration across the PV, roofing, and new 

construction industries, deployment challenges, future cost-reduction opportunities, and costmodel refinement and validation. Our results highlight common themes from interviews. Finally, 

we also gathered information and data through a review of the published literature.
7

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

4 Pathways to Low-Cost Residential PV

The residential PV market is likely to evolve substantially between 2017 and 2030. Although the 

system cost reductions required to achieve the SETO 2030 target may seem very challenging

today, we identify pathways to this goal that are plausible if significant and sustained technology 

and business-model innovations are realized. We model a total of four pathways, which are

characterized by market (roof replacement vs. new construction) and magnitude of cost

reductions achieved via four specific cost-reduction opportunities. Section 4.1 describes the costreduction opportunities, and Section 4.2 describes the pathways.

4.1 Key Plausible Cost-Reduction Opportunities through 2030

Although there are various opportunities to reduce residential PV costs through 2030, we identify 

four key opportunities—market maturation, business model integration, product innovation, and 

economies of scale—and their potential impacts on PV system cost categories.

4.1.1 Market Maturation

Since 2014, the top five residential PV installers captured between 39%–57% of the U.S. market 

on a quarterly basis (Shiao et al. 2017). The remaining market has been served by a wide array of 

midsize and small installers. In recent years, there has also been a rapidly evolving set of back 

office support, software, and other types of firms that serve midsize and small installers. Today,

high-volume installers typically have the purchasing power to negotiate lower module and 

component prices compared with lower-volume installers, especially when bulk purchasing 

modules and other components from suppliers. With increased PV market maturation, these 

pricing differentials could be significantly reduced through the development of a mature supply

chain, distribution channels, and support services aimed at small, medium, and large companies.

Our analysis assumes that, between 2017 and 2030, the market matures such that small, medium, 

and large installers can procure modules and other components at or near the spot market prices

modeled in Woodhouse et al. (2016). This significantly reduces supply chain costs. 

4.1.2 Business Model Integration

Currently, most solar companies operate independently from roofing companies and 

homebuilders, and they often do not coordinate with these traditionally separate businesses.

However, some solar companies have begun to collaborate with roofing companies and/or 

homebuilders to offer PV to prospective customers. For example, SunPower, a PV manufacturer 

and installer, currently partners with 10 of the 13 largest homebuilders in California to deploy 

PV on new construction (SunPower 2017). In addition, some roofing companies have begun to

integrate PV into their product offerings and businesses more broadly (Solar Power World 2017).

Business model integration is less common in the housing industry, but this market segment is

quickly evolving. For example, Lennar—the second-largest U.S. housing company—deploys PV 

on its new homes via its subsidiary SunStreet (Professional Builder 2016, Lennar 2017).

Increased business model integration can offer cost savings over a PV-only approach, including 

lower customer-acquisition costs, labor time, and overhead expenses. For example, PV can be 

integrated into existing sales and marketing programs from roofing and housing companies, with 

reduced added costs. Similarly, overhead expenses and installation labor costs could be reduced 

by eliminating duplicate back office expenses and integrating installation crews.
8

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

4.1.3 Product Innovation

Product innovation could take a variety of forms, such as reduced PV racking and mounting, 

preassembled PV, and low-cost PV roofing tiles. An integrated PV and roofing product, in 

particular, could yield significant cost savings, especially if the roof and PV system could be 

shipped and installed in unison. Although integrated products have low market share today, it is 

plausible that they could reach the mass market by 2030. For example, several companies have 

recently introduced or are developing integrated PV products (CertainTeed 2017, GAF 2017,

Tesla 2017). Product innovation along these lines could influence the labor, supply chain, and 

structural BOS cost categories. 

Our analysis is limited to standalone PV and does not examine product innovation related to PV 

plus storage. However, there is a growing interest among homeowners in bundled PV systems 

that include dispatchable load, batteries, and electric vehicles. Previous NREL analysis shows

that bundled PV product offerings allow homeowners to increase PV self-consumption and 

realize greater value from PV generation by temporally shifting customer load under the PV 

production curve (O’Shaughnessy et al. 2017). Given the cost declines and the potential benefits 

of PV plus storage solutions, by 2030 solar homebuilders and roofing companies are likely to 

expand their offerings beyond standalone PV systems to include storage as well. Early signs of 

this trend can be seen in the United States, with limited examples of battery manufacturers

announcing partnerships with homebuilders to install batteries alongside PV on new construction 

(Tech Home Builder 2017).

4.1.4 Economies of Scale

Economies of scale are likely to be most accessible to the new housing market, because the cost 

of individual systems could be reduced by spreading fixed costs across multiple installations. 

Homebuilders often construct an entire subdivision (averaging 60 housing units), so a combined, 

or closely related homebuilder/PV installer could achieve cost savings by installing multiple PV 

systems simultaneously.

6 For example, combining installations could reduce labor costs by 

requiring the work crew to go to a subdivision only once to complete multiple installations. The 

overall benefit of economies of scale varies by the quantity of PV systems installed in a 

particular area, but the key cost categories affected include labor, sales and marketing, and PII 

costs. Achieving economies of scale in the roof replacement market is more difficult because, 

with the exception of major storms, rarely does an entire neighborhood require roof replacement 

at the same time. 

4.2 Modeled Cost-Reduction Pathways

Our four modeled pathways explore the impact the cost-reduction opportunities from Section 4.1

could have on residential PV system costs compared with the Q1 2017 benchmark. For each 

market (roof replacement and new construction), a less-aggressive pathway represents savings 

due to an incremental shift from current market practices, and a visionary pathway represents

savings due to a more dramatic shift. Table 2 characterizes each of the four modeled pathways 

 6 The average number of housing units in a subdivision is from a 2014 National Association of Home Builders 

survey (Emrath 2014). 
9

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

by market and magnitude of cost reductions realized (i.e., low and high). The remainder of this 

section discusses the pathways in more detail. 

Table 2. Four Modeled Pathways by Market and Magnitude of Cost Reductions

Pathway

Roof Replacement Market New Construction Market

Cost-Reduction Opportunity Less Aggressive Visionary Less Aggressive Visionary

Market Maturation High High High High

Business Model Integration Low High Low High

Product Innovation Low High Low High

Economies of Scale NA NA Low High

4.2.1 Roof Replacement Market

In the roof replacement market, the less-aggressive pathway models a solar company that

maintains its own separate business but loosely partners with a roofing company. These two 

separate companies may share business leads and office space, but they are not fully integrated 

into a single company. In addition, the solar company continues to install traditional racked and 

mounted rooftop PV. Finally, this pathway does not yield a benefit from economies of scale, 

because PV installed during roof replacement is typically on a project-by-project basis. 

In contrast, the visionary pathway represents a company that realizes the available cost-reduction 

opportunities more fully. A completely integrated roofing and solar company incorporates a lowcost integrated PV and roofing product (a low-cost roofing tile or some other innovative product) 

into all roof offerings. As with the less-aggressive pathway, economies of scale provide no 

savings in this pathway.

4.2.2 New Construction Market

In the new construction market, the less-aggressive pathway is similar to its counterpart in the 

roof replacement market. The PV installer is only loosely affiliated with a homebuilder and may 

share office space with the homebuilder or roofing company (when the homebuilder subcontracts 

the roofing portion of new homes). The PV installer may also establish a formal partnership with 

a homebuilder, but it is not fully integrated into the construction process/business. The PV 

installer continues to install a traditional racked and mounted PV product and realizes some 

economies of scale; we assume the installer can leverage its partnerships with the housing 

industry to install PV on at least 25% of homes in a typical subdivision (i.e., 60 housing units, 

per Emrath 2014).

The visionary pathway, in contrast, assumes PV is fully integrated with the home design-build 

process from the start. It also assumes use of a low-cost integrated PV and roofing product as 

well as significant economies of scale due to installing PV on all new homes within a 

subdivision.
10

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

5 Cost-Reduction Results by Pathway

Figure 2 shows installed residential PV system prices for each of our modeled pathways in 2030, 

which all provide significant savings over the Q1 2017 benchmark (see Appendix B for detailed 

cost breakdowns and assumptions). Savings are largest in the supply chain, sales and marketing, 

overhead, and installation labor cost categories. Much of the supply chain savings result from the 

assumed market maturation that eliminates module price premiums related to historical inventory 

and small-scale procurement (potential savings of $0.27/Wdc); these savings are consistent 

across each of the pathways. The remaining three cost-reduction opportunities (business model 

integration, product innovation, and economies of scale) influence the PV system prices in each 

modeled pathway differently.

Because the two visionary pathways provide substantially larger cost savings compared with 

their less-aggressive counterparts, we present detailed cost-modeling results for these two 

pathways in Sections 5.1 and 5.2. 

USD = U.S. dollars

Figure 2. Modeled installed residential PV system prices at time of roof replacement and new 

construction in 2030, compared with a weighted average of the Q1 2017 benchmark

5.1 Roof Replacement Market 

The 2030 residential installed PV system price in our roof replacement visionary pathway is 55%

lower than the Q1 2017 benchmark system price. Figure 3 breaks out the savings by cost 

category. The greatest savings are derived from the supply chain, sales and marketing, overhead, 

and installation labor categories.

Most supply chain efficiencies arise from market maturation (see Section 4.1.1). However, 

additional supply chain savings are realized under the visionary pathway relative to the lessaggressive pathway, because PV is integrated into the roofing material in the visionary pathway. 

This product integration would allow the PV and roofing material to be shipped together, thereby 

eliminating additional shipping costs. In contrast, the less-aggressive pathway assumes that 

companies continue to install traditional racked and mounted PV that is shipped and installed 

separately from the roof.
11

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

The full integration of a PV installer with a roofing company offers a significant sales and 

marketing benefit. Individuals invest in retrofitted PV systems voluntarily, but they typically 

replace their roofs owing to a specific requirement. Therefore, prospective customers may be 

more inclined to respond positively to PV marketing that is incorporated with a roof purchase, 

compared with the marketing of PV alone. At the same time, PV marketing could be integrated 

into existing roofing customer outreach, marketing, and advertising efforts at little or no 

additional cost. As a result, in the visionary pathway the fully integrated firm has a single sales 

and marketing budget to sell an integrated PV roofing product, which eliminates most customer 

acquisition costs (except for system design). In the less-aggressive pathway, we assume a solar 

company only loosely partners with a roofing company by, for example, sharing customer leads. 

In return for successful leads, the partner might receive a sales commission.7 The savings

achieved through this approach are substantially lower than the savings in the visionary case.

Similarly, fully integrating a PV installer with a roofing company yields significant overhead 

savings. A standalone solar company incurs typical overhead costs such as rent, office expenses, 

professional services, and software/information technology. Because the visionary pathway 

models an integrated solar and roofing business, these costs would be significantly reduced. 

Nevertheless, some additional costs would be associated with integration including acquiring PV 

or roofing expertise. In our model, we account for the costs of a roofing company acquiring PV 

expertise in the overhead category.

Installation labor costs are also reduced, owing to business model and product integration. Most 

conventional, racked and mounted rooftop PV systems can be installed by the same class of labor 

already employed by a roofing company,

8 and we assume that same labor class can be employed 

to install an integrated PV and roofing product. Combining roofing and PV installation activities 

creates synergies and logistic efficiencies that reduce truck rolls, crew-hours spent on site, and 

other direct transportation costs, such as fuel. The use of an integrated PV and roofing product in 

the visionary pathway also eliminates the labor required for racking and mounting installation, 

which provides additional labor cost savings over the less-aggressive pathway.

The roof replacement visionary pathway also benefits from savings in other cost categories. For 

example, the PII cost is reduced because we assume the PV permit cost declines to a standard 

$200 per system. Structural BOS savings are realized owing to the elimination of racking and 

mounting, in favor of the integrated product.

 7 Interview findings suggest a broad range of typical sales commissions, from $0.25/W to $1/W, in the current 

market, depending on the geographic region and pricing structure. For this analysis, we assume the commission is 

less than the cost of customer acquisition the solar company would otherwise incur working independently. 

8 Interviewees noted that, with appropriate training, many roofing installation crews today retain the level of 

expertise required to install the components of a PV system that are above the roof (e.g., racking, mounting, 

modules). However, most roofing companies would likely need to subcontract, or hire, an electrician to install PV 

system components such as electrical wiring and conduit. 
12

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure 3. Cost reductions achieved by the roof replacement visionary pathway in 2030

5.2 New Construction Market

The 2030 residential installed PV system price in our new construction visionary pathway is 59% 

lower than the Q1 2017 benchmark system price (Figure 4), suggesting that installing PV on new 

homes could yield greater cost savings than installing it during roof replacement. The supply 

chain savings are the same for the two visionary pathways,9 but the new construction visionary 

pathway achieves greater sales and marketing, installation labor, and PII savings, in part by 

leveraging economies of scale.

Sales and marketing costs are reduced in the new construction visionary pathway, because 

installing PV on every new home in a development eliminates customer acquisition costs that are 

currently typical for a retrofitted PV system, such as sales calls, site visits, customer outreach, 

and bid/pro-forma preparation. The roof replacement visionary pathway provides similar 

savings. However, installing PV on new homes provides additional savings via design and 

engineering standardization. Including standard PV system designs and sizes for each home floor 

plan reduces upfront engineering and design costs that would be incurred when completing a 

retrofitted PV installation of any kind.

Coordination and collaboration across construction and PV installation crews provides labor 

savings in both visionary pathways. However, the labor savings in the new construction pathway 

are greater, owing to economies of scale and the ability of PV installation crews to move readily 

across multiple co-located housing units.

PII savings are also greater in the new construction visionary pathway compared with the roof 

replacement visionary pathway, because integrating PV into the building permitting process 

 9 Supply chain savings are the same in both visionary pathways because both pathways benefit from market 

maturation, as outlined in Section 4.1.1, and both incorporate installation of an integrated PV and roofing product. 
13

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

required for the entire subdivision reduces PII costs per system. In addition, completing multiple

new construction PV permits in succession results in savings associated with economies of scale.

Figure 4. Cost reductions achieved by the new construction visionary pathway in 2030

5.3 Achieving the SETO 2030 LCOE Target

Installed-system prices are a key input for calculating residential PV’s LCOE. Other 

parameters—such as lower operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, more favorable financing

terms, and improved PV module performance—are also expected to contribute to declining 

LCOE through 2030 (Woodhouse et al. 2016). Here we combine our system price results with 

the other expected improvements to determine whether the SETO 2030 LCOE target can be 

achieved via our modeled pathways. We model an LCOE for the Q1 2017 benchmark based on 

the assumptions in Fu et al. (2017), and we model LCOEs for our four pathways based on our 

modeled system prices and key assumptions from Woodhouse et al. (2016) (Table 3).

As Figure 5 shows, the less-aggressive pathways could progress about 70%–80% toward the 

SETO 2030 LCOE target of 5 ¢/kWh. In contrast, the new construction visionary pathway 

achieves the target, and the roof replacement visionary pathway is slightly higher. Thus, our 

analysis suggests that moving toward a fully integrated roofing product and a fully integrated 

business model may be critical to achieving the SETO 2030 residential PV target.
14

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table 3. Assumptions for Calculating Residential PV LCOE

LCOE Cost Input (2017 USD/Wdc) Q1 2017 Benchmark 2030 Pathways

Installed cost ($/W) $2.66 Varies by pathway

Annual degradation (%) 0.75% 0.20%

Inverter replacement price ($/W) $0.13 $0.10

Inverter lifetime (years) 15 30

O&M expenses ($/kw-year) $21 $7

Pre-inverter derate (%) 90.50% 90.50%

Inverter efficiency (%) 98.00% 98.00%

System size (kWdc) 5.7 5.7

Inverter loading ratio 1.15 1.15

Real discount rate 6.9% 3.4%

Inflation rate 2.5% 2.5%

Debt interest rate 4.80% 4.80%

Debt fraction 40% 0%

Analysis period (years) 30 30

Figure 5. Modeled residential PV LCOE at time of roof replacement and new construction in 2030, 

compared with the LCOE for a weighted average of the Q1 2017 benchmark

In addition, reducing installed-system costs—particularly soft costs—likely will be critical to

achieving the SETO 2030 target in either market. Figure 6 (roof replacement visionary pathway)
15

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

and Figure 7 (new construction visionary pathway) compare the LCOE impacts of installedsystem cost reductions with the impacts of improvements in other parameters. In both pathways, 

installed-system soft cost reductions account for roughly 65% of the savings in 2030. None of 

the other individual parameters account for more than 9% of the LCOE reductions.

Figure 6. Modeled residential PV LCOE reductions for the roof replacement market visionary 

pathway in 2030, compared with the Q1 2017 benchmark

Figure 7. Modeled residential PV LCOE reductions for the new home construction market 

visionary pathway in 2030, compared with the Q1 2017 benchmark
16

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

6 Barriers and Considerations Related to Achieving 

the SETO 2030 Targets

Although we envision pathways toward ultra-low-cost residential PV in Section 5, our 

interviewees identified barriers and considerations that must be addressed to achieve these

pathways. Here we examine these barriers and considerations in terms of the key cost-reduction

opportunities. For two of these opportunities—market maturation and product innovation—the 

barriers and considerations are consistent across the roof replacement and new construction 

markets. For the other two opportunities—business model integration and economies of scale—

barriers and considerations may differ between the markets.

6.1 Market Maturation

A significant portion of the supply chain cost reductions identified in our analysis is due to 

market maturation and a resulting narrowing of the gap between spot prices and wholesale 

prices. In part, this gap is an artifact of rapidly changing prices in a market with significant 

historical inventories and multiple transactions prior to the end user. As the U.S. PV market 

matures, we expect installers will be able to procure modules and other components more

efficiently, thereby eliminating additional supply chain costs.

Interviewees suggested that the PV industry may reach maturity, as other commodity industries 

have, through a mix of consolidation and innovation in supply chain service. Some market 

consolidation is underway, and interviewees believed this trend will continue through 2030,

particularly for equipment providers. At the same time, interviewees suggested the development 

of a diverse set of supply chain service providers that support PV installers will drive down 

procurement costs further, while increasing PV’s value proposition. Interviewees pointed to 

existing service providers that partner with installers to reduce customer acquisition costs as a 

model for what is possible. In addition, various third-party service providers seeded by the DOE 

SETO Incubator Program (DOE 2017) already exist in the market. 

If the PV industry reaches maturity, its practices could come to resemble those in other trades,

with a robust installer market supported by more regional product dealer and service providers. 

However, realizing this future likely will require investment in developing new services and 

bringing them to market at sufficient scale to ensure profit and mass market appeal and to 

mitigate the procurement disadvantages of smaller purchasers. Currently, it is unclear whether 

the industry will mature enough to enable a wide variety of installers to procure modules at 

comparatively low markups. If the required maturation does not occur, the deep supply chain 

cost reductions we assume across all four pathways may not be achieved.

6.2 Product Innovation

Our two visionary pathways assume a low-cost integrated PV and roofing product is available by

2030, which would significantly reduce supply chain, installation labor, and permitting costs as

the PV and roofing materials are shipped, installed, and permitted in unison. Whether integrated 

PV products can achieve lower costs and greater market share is uncertain at this time. If such a 

low-cost product does not materialize by 2030, our cost-reduction pathways would change.
17

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Research and development of integrated PV products has been ongoing for years (James et al.

2011), and today there is renewed interest in integrated PV as new products come to market.

Interviewees noted that early technology adopters are being drawn to new, integrated PV roofing 

materials at a price premium for the aesthetic value they provide. However, although many noncost considerations affect the consumer decision-making process, integrated products must also 

be low-cost to appeal to a broad market.

Innovation will be required to develop low-cost integrated PV products. Interviewees noted that

these custom products currently are produced on a smaller scale, require manufacturing process 

changes, and require more skill and time to install—all of which add costs. The lower efficiency 

of current integrated products also makes these products more expensive than conventional PV 

modules, because more integrated product is required to generate an equivalent amount of 

electricity. Robust design innovation that addresses these issues likely will be critical if 

integrated products are to capture significant market share through 2030. 

6.3 Business Model Integration

Across both visionary pathways, business model integration is assumed to provide significant 

sales and marketing, overhead, labor, and PII cost savings that result in lower installed PV 

system prices. However, business model integration presents unique challenges for PV installed 

at the time of roof replacement and PV installed on new home construction.

6.3.1 Roof Replacement Market

Interviewees noted that the business models of solar and roofing companies are well aligned and

that collaboration between these types of companies likely will increase. However, the need to 

have experienced solar sales professionals on staff can pose a barrier to roofing companies that 

want to sell PV directly to consumers. Several interviewees noted that the expertise required to 

sell PV effectively is significantly different from the expertise required to sell roofs. For 

example, solar sales professionals may be trained in residential utility rate structures and 

consumer load profiles, whereas roofers may not be trained in these areas. Therefore, roofing 

companies must train existing sales staff, or hire solar sales professionals, to sell PV and roofing 

products together effectively. At the same time, incorporating PV into a roof replacement may 

cost more than a roof replacement alone. Therefore, PV sales are not guaranteed, despite these 

investments.

Interviewees also suggested that improved PII processes are needed for solar-roofing companies 

to realize the full cost savings of business model integration. For example, under most authorities 

having jurisdiction (AHJs), a new roof and accompanying PV installation are treated as two 

individual projects for the purposes of permitting and inspection (even for integrated products). 

AHJs commonly require that, before commencement of PV installation, all permitting and 

inspection requirements for the new roof be completed, resulting in two distinct permitting 

packages and inspections. Combining the permitting and inspection processes for the new roof 

and PV installation would enable more timely and cost-efficient project completion. In addition, 

the lack of standardization in PV permitting, interconnection requirements, and fees across more 

than 18,000 AHJs and 3,000 utilities impedes installers’ ability to deploy PV rapidly across 

numerous jurisdictions and utility territories (Grow Solar 2017, APPA 2017). Some states, 

including Vermont and Rhode Island, have adopted standardized PV permitting processes. 
18

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Others, such as New York and California, have directed AHJs to enact model standards. Despite 

this state-level progress, interviewees suggested that roofing companies may consider the lack of 

PV PII standardization as a financial risk, thereby deterring the expansion of product offerings to 

include PV.

6.3.2 New Construction Market

For solar companies that install PV on new housing developments, the target customer is the 

homebuilder, rather than the end user. This can result in significant sales and marketing savings 

over current business practices, because homebuilders likely will retain the same solar contractor 

across multiple developments. To date, most homebuilders do not incorporate PV into all new 

housing developments. Interviewees suggested that increased business model integration could

be spurred by consumer interest, positing that, as homebuyers become familiar with PV’s 

benefits, market demand for PV on new construction will increase. The effectiveness of this 

approach may be limited, however, because PV might compete with other home upgrades that 

provide higher revenue to homebuilders.

Interviewees suggested that favorable policy could enhance customer demand and foster more 

business model integration, highlighting various policy options that could achieve this goal. One 

common example was California’s amended energy efficiency regulations under Title 24, which 

requires every new home be built to net-zero energy standards by 2020. Effective January 1, 

2017, this amendment provided a compliance credit for PV that homebuilders can use to meet 

Title 24 net-zero energy requirements. Interviewees cited California’s Title 24 amendment as a 

catalyst for PV on new construction, because PV can be more cost-effective than certain energy 

efficiency measures.

The presence of favorable policy alone, however, is unlikely to capture the full savings potential 

of business model integration. In California, when homebuilders incorporate PV into new 

construction as a Title 24 compliance measure, the PV can be included in the master building 

permit. Interviewees cited PII challenges with this approach. In this scenario, the master building 

permit serves as an umbrella permit for the entire house, so delays in PV PII can slow 

construction of the entire project. Similarly, changes made to the PV system design after the 

master building permit has been submitted would require revision and resubmittal of the entire 

permitting package. Interviewees suggested that allowing more flexibility for PV systems in the 

master building permit could address these concerns.

In addition, interviewees noted that solar partners often are not involved in the design of housing 

developments, which can impede the solar and new construction industries from realizing the full 

potential of collaboration. For example, when the PV installer is excluded from the housing 

development planning process, it has limited ability to co-optimize system design and roof 

layout, or take advantage of streamlined wiring and conduit with PV-ready housing designs. As 

PV becomes more common on new housing developments and consumers request maximum 

solar benefits, builders may be more inclined to consider solar exposure in building designs.

Finally, in the new construction market, PV engineers must design and size systems without the 

benefit of homeowner electricity-use data, which could result in standard system designs that are 
19

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

smaller than would otherwise be installed for a residential retrofit.

10 These smaller system sizes 

may not maximize consumer benefits, but they may enable PV installers to meet strict building 

construction and permitting timelines. Interviewees suggested that the development and 

widespread use of software to model plug loads may help engineers size systems more 

effectively.

11 This and other innovations in the new construction market will likely be necessary 

to capture all of the cost savings associated with business model integration.

6.4 Economies of Scale

Although our pathways consider cost reductions associated with economies of scale only for the 

new construction market, the roof replacement market might see some benefits from this 

approach by 2030. For example, some interviewees suggested that a company could offer 

customers the option to defer a PV installation and roof replacement for several weeks at a 

reduced price to enable the pooling of customers in a particular area, thus maximizing the

efficiency of crew logistics and truck rolls. However, many individuals requiring roof 

maintenance may not be able to wait for roof replacement, which limits this option.

In the new construction market, the modeled cost savings from economies of scale are highly 

uncertain. Alternative business models, construction timelines, project sizes, and workforce 

management may diminish or enhance our projected cost savings. Furthermore, company size 

can greatly influence a homebuilder’s ability to maximize the benefits of economies of scale. For 

example, companies that construct fewer than 20 homes annually are unlikely to achieve the 

same level of process and pricing efficiencies as a company that builds hundreds of homes each 

year. There may also be increased costs associated with permitting challenges and delays when 

adopting PV on multiple properties, which would impact modeled savings. Conversely, 

economies of scale could influence more cost categories than installation labor, sales and 

marketing, and PII costs as modeled in this analysis (see Appendix B). Therefore, although the 

industry is likely to experience some benefit from economies of scale, the scope and timeline of 

these savings are unclear. 

 10 Interviewees cited PV system sizes of 2kW–3 kW as common for new housing construction, smaller than NREL’s 

assumed average U.S. residential retrofit size of 5.7 kW. 11 Future home energy demand may be influenced by increasing energy efficiency and electrification. Given the 

uncertainty surrounding these countervailing trends, optimizing PV systems according to a standard size will likely 

pose a challenge through 2030.
20

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

7 Conclusion

We project that 3.3 million residential roofs will be replaced or built each year in the continental 

United States from 2017–2030, representing a significant market opportunity for residential 

rooftop PV installers. These two market segments also present considerable rooftop PV costreduction opportunities, including four key opportunities that we analyze: market maturation, 

product innovation, business model integration, and economies of scale.

We apply various combinations of these cost-reduction opportunities to model four pathways to 

low-cost residential PV in 2030: less-aggressive and visionary pathways in the roof replacement 

market, and less-aggressive and visionary pathways in the new home construction market. We 

find that the two visionary pathways—which maximize the savings potential from the four costreduction opportunities—could meet or nearly meet the SETO 2030 residential PV target. 

Specifically, the new construction visionary pathway achieves the 5 ¢/kWh LCOE target, and the 

roof replacement visionary pathway almost achieves it.

Our analysis has two key implications. First, because installed-system soft cost reductions 

account for about 65% of the LCOE reductions in 2030 for both visionary pathways, residential 

PV stakeholders may need to emphasize these soft cost reductions to achieve the 2030 target. 

Second, capturing these savings will likely require considerable innovation in the technologies

and business practices employed by the PV industry.

There are various challenges to achieving the necessary innovations. For example, business 

model integration, particularly across solar and roofing companies, is critical to reducing the 

significant sales, marketing, labor, and overhead costs associated with the current PV retrofit 

business model. This type of business model integration will likely require increased education

and cross-training for PV installers, roofers, and homebuilders. At the same time, homebuilders, 

PV installers, and roofing companies will likely require clear examples of the benefits of 

business model integration before embracing it widely.

Extensive use of fully integrated PV and roofing products is also crucial to our modeled 

pathways. However, although integrated products have been, or are being developed, significant 

investments in research, development, time, and effort will be required to produce the type of 

low-cost integrated product envisioned in our analysis.

Finally, achieving economies of scale throughout the PV supply-installation chain is important 

for achieving our pathways. Additional research is needed to clarify the cost savings that 

economies of scale could provide, especially because of the considerable PII hurdles that must be 

addressed to realize these benefits.
21

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

References

APPA (American Public Power Association). 2017. “Stats and Facts.” Accessed December 

2017. https://www.publicpower.org/public-power/stats-and-facts. 

Ardani, K., G. Barbose, R. Margolis, R. Wiser, D. Feldman, and S. Ong. 2012. Benchmarking 

Non-Hardware Balance of System (Soft) Costs for U.S. Photovoltaic Systems Using a Data

Driven Analysis from PV Installer Survey Results. NREL/TP-7A20-56806. Golden, CO: 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56806.pdf. 

Ardani, K., E. O’Shaughnessy, R. Fu, C. McClurg, J. Huneycutt, and R. Margolis. 2017. 

Installed Cost Benchmarks and Deployment Barriers for Residential Solar Photovoltaics with 

Energy Storage: Q1 2016. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP7A40-67474. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/67474.pdf. 

BNEF (Bloomberg New Energy Finance). 2017. Bloomberg New Energy Finance PV Module 

Maker Tiering System. New York: BNEF.

https://data.bloomberglp.com/bnef/sites/4/2012/12/bnef_2012-12-03_PVModuleTiering.pdf. 

CertainTeed. 2017. “Apollo II.” Accessed December 2017. 

https://www.certainteed.com/solar/products/apollo-ii/. 

Chung, D., C. Davidson, R. Fu, K. Ardani, and R. Margolis. 2015. U.S. Photovoltaic Prices and 

Cost Breakdowns: Q1 2015 Benchmarks for Residential, Commercial, and Utility-Scale Systems. 

NREL/TP-6A20-64746. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/64746.pdf. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2016. The SunShot Initiative’s 2030 Goal: 3¢ per Kilowatt 

Hour for Solar Electricity. DOE/EE-1501. Washington, DC: DOE.

https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/12/f34/SunShot%202030%20Fact%20Sheet-12_16.pdf. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2017. “SunShot Incubator Program.” Accessed December 

2017. https://energy.gov/eere/sunshot/sunshot-incubator-program. 

EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration). 2015. Annual Energy Outlook 2015.

Washington, DC: EIA. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/archive/aeo15/. 

EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration). 2017a. Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided 

Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2017. Washington, DC: EIA. 

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf. 

EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration). 2017b. “2015 RECS Survey Data.” Accessed 

December 2017. https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2015/. 

Emrath, P. 2014. Typical American Subdivisions. Washington, DC: National Association of 

Home Builders. https://www.nahb.org/-

/media/Sites/NAHB/SupportingFiles/8/Typ/TypicalAmericanSubdivisionFINAL_201409020806

12.ashx?la=en&hash=A722B42C2C0FBB51BF30DCCD78C458EA6B179FE0. 
22

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Feldman, D., and M. Bolinger. 2016. On the Path to SunShot: Emerging Opportunities and 

Challenges in Financing Solar. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 

NREL/TP-6A20-65638. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/65638.pdf.

Fu, R., D. Chung, T. Lowder, D. Feldman, K. Ardani, and R. Margolis. 2016. U.S. Solar 

Photovoltaic System Cost Benchmark: Q1 2016. NREL/TP-6A20-66532. Golden, CO: National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/66532.pdf. 

Fu, R., D. Feldman, R. Margolis, M. Woodhouse, and K. Ardani. 2017. U.S. Solar Photovoltaics 

System Cost Benchmark: Q1 2017. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 

NREL/TP-6A20-68925. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68925.pdf. 

GAF. 2017. “DecoTech Roof-Integrated Solar System.” Accessed December 2017. 

https://www.gaf.com/roofing/residential/solar. 

Gagnon, P., R. Margolis, J. Melius, C. Phillips, and R. Elmore. 2016. Rooftop Solar Photovoltaic 

Technical Potential in the United States: A Detailed Assessment. NREL/TP-6A20-65298. 

Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/65298.pdf. 

Goodrich, A., T. James, and M. Woodhouse. 2012. Residential, Commercial, and Utility-Scale 

Photovoltaic System Prices in the United States: Current Drivers and Cost Reduction 

Opportunities. NREL/TP-6A20-53347. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/53347.pdf. 

Grow Solar. 2017. “Permitting.” Accessed December 2017. 

http://www.growsolar.org/permitting/. 

GTM and SEIA (Greentech Media Research and Solar Energy Industries Association). 2016.

U.S. Solar Markets Insights. Washington, DC: SEIA. https://www.seia.org/researchresources/solar-market-insight-report-2016-year-review. 

InterNACHI (International Association of Certified Home Inspectors). 2017. “InterNACHI's 

Standard Estimated Life Expectancy Chart for Homes.” Accessed December 2017. 

https://www.nachi.org/life-expectancy.htm. 

James, T., A. Goodrich, M. Woodhouse, R. Margolis, and S. Ong. 2011. Building-Integrated 

Photovoltaics (BIPV) in the Residential Sector: An Analysis of Installed Rooftop System Prices. 

NREL/TP-6A20-53103. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/53103.pdf

Lennar. 2017. “New Home Solar Systems.” Accessed December 2017. 

https://www.lennar.com/mylennar/resource-center/article/benefits-of-solar. 

NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 2017. “Annual Technology Baseline and 

Standard Scenarios.” Accessed December 2017. 

http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/data_tech_baseline.html.
23

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

O’Shaughnessy, E., K. Ardani, D. Cutler, and R. Margolis. 2017. Solar Plus: A Holistic 

Approach to Distributed Solar PV. NREL/TP-6A20-68497. Golden, CO: National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68371.pdf. 

Professional Builder. 2016. “2016 Housing Giants Rankings.” Professional Builder, May 4, 

2016. https://www.probuilder.com/2016-housing-giants-rankings. 

Shiao, M.J., C. Honeyman, T. Heggarty, J. Jones, N. Litvak, S. Moskowitz, B. Attia, B. 

Gallagher, A. Mond, M. Parikh, A. Perea, C. Smith, and T. Zin. 2017. Q1 2017 Solar Executive 

Briefing. Boston: Greentech Media Research.

Solar Power World. 2017. “2017 Top Solar Rooftop Contractors.” Accessed December 2017. 

https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2017-top-solar-rooftop-contractors/.

SunPower. 2017. Top New Home Builders Choose SunPower to Advance California's Net Zero 

Compliance Goals Before 2020: SunPower Installs Solar at 1,000th New Home Community.

Press release, June 27, 2017. http://newsroom.sunpower.com/2017-06-27-Top-New-HomeBuilders-Choose-SunPower-to-Advance-Californias-Net-Zero-Compliance-Goals-Before-2020. 

Tech Home Builder. “Mandalay Homes and sonnen Partner for World-Class Community.” Tech 

Home Builder, November 2, 2017. http://techomebuilder.com/emagazine-articles-1/mandalayhomes-and-sonnen-partner-for-world-class-community.

Tesla. 2017. “Solar Roof.” Accessed December 2017. https://www.tesla.com/solarroof. 

Woodhouse, M., R. Jones-Albertus, D. Feldman, R. Fu, K. Horowitz, D. Chung, D. Jordan, and 

S. Kurtz. 2016. On the Path to SunShot: The Role of Advancements in Solar Photovoltaic 

Efficiency, Reliability, and Costs. NREL/TP-6A20-65872. Golden, CO: National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/65872.pdf.
24

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Appendix A: Quantifying Residential PV Potential from 

2017–2030

The technical potential for residential rooftop PV from 2017–2030 in the rooftop replacement 

and new construction markets will be influenced by a wide variety of factors, such as population 

growth and consumer decisions. Our analysis is meant to generate plausible estimates of PV 

potential for the two segments by state, but we acknowledge the uncertainties related to market 

development over the analysis period.

Determining the technical potential of the roof replacement market is the most challenging

owing to the impacts of roofing materials and climate on roof replacement timelines. For 

example, asphalt and composite shingles have an average lifetime of 25 years, whereas a 

properly maintained ceramic tile roof may last 70 years in a dryer climate, or 35 years in a wetter 

climate, before needing substantial maintenance (Table 4). 

As a result, quantifying rooftop PV potential in this segment requires attention to the age of the 

home, its roofing material, and its location. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA

2017b) tracks the type and age of residential housing stock by census region in the 2015 

Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS). The focus of this analysis is on the singlefamily detached home market, which represents 73.9 million homes or about 63% of residential

buildings in the United States (EIA 2017b). RECS tracks the age of this housing stock by census 

sub-region and decade from 1950–2015. These data are disaggregated into yearly builds using a 

time-series approach. There are 20.8 million homes, or about 28% of single-family detached 

housing, built before 1950. To incorporate this housing stock into our analysis, we assume that 

all these older houses were built between 1940 and 1949; much of this housing was likely built 

earlier than 1940, but this assumption enables us to consider older homes in our analysis of roof 

replacement schedules. 

RECS tracks the market penetration of certain residential roofing materials by census region, and 

we use these data and the age of housing stock to estimate roof replacement schedules. Overall, 

shingles (composite or asphalt) are the most common residential roofing material used in the 

United States, followed by metal, wood, and ceramic or clay tiles (Figure 8). The percentage of 

the market captured by each roofing material varies regionally, and this variation relates to the 

impact different climates can have on roofing materials. For example, in very hot and dry

climates, clay tiles perform better and can last much longer than asphalt or composition shingles. 

Thus, although ceramic or clay tiles cost more than traditional shingles do, they capture a larger 

market share in the West than in other regions (Figure 8).
25

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure 8. Residential roofing material market penetration nationally and by census region, 2015 

(adapted from EIA 2017b)

Although RECS tracks roofing material penetrations regionally, it does not break out roofing 

material by housing type (single-family homes vs. apartment buildings, etc.). Thus, we apply the 

regional roofing material market penetrations (as reflected in Figure 8) proportionally to all 

single-family detached homes by state. In addition, RECS does not track roofing material 

penetrations based on building stock age. Finally, EIA does not have historical data on roofing 

material composition prior to 2009. This is problematic because roofing material composition 

and lifetimes have evolved over time, which can impact when existing homes are likely to 

require roof replacement. Nevertheless, to provide an estimated timetable for roof replacement, 

we assume that every home has had the same roofing material composition reflected in the 2015 

RECS survey throughout its life. We then assume each roof is replaced in accordance with the 

current roofing material lifetimes listed in Table 4, which are based on InterNACHI (2017) and

interviewee input.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Roofing Material Market Share

US

Northeast

Midwest

South

West
26

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table 4. Vetted Estimates of Roofing Material Lifetimes by Type and, in Some Instances, Region

Roofing Material Vetted Lifetime (years) Regional Variation

Shingles (Asphalt or 

Composition)

25

Metal 60

Wood 25

Ceramic or Clay 35 or 70 In wet climates (Northeast, South, and Midwest), 

underlayment likely needs to be replaced about every 

35 years; in dryer climates (West), 70 years. 

Concrete 35 or 70 In wet climates (Northeast, South, and Midwest), 

underlayment likely needs to be replaced about every 

35 years; in dryer climates (West), 70 years.

Slate 100+

Synthetic Slate 70

Other Material* 25

* “Other material” roof lifetimes can vary by region. For this analysis, roofs on all homes with this material 

are assumed to last 25 years. In general, roofing lifetimes can vary significantly based on installation 

quality, material quality, proper maintenance, climate, and homeowner decision-making.

We use this method to estimate a roof replacement schedule for each single-family detached 

home by state. Not all existing homes are suitable for PV owing to shading or lack of sufficient

roof space, among other barriers. Gagnon et al. (2016) estimate the percentage of unsuitable 

homes by state, and we remove these homes from our analysis accordingly. We then tally the 

remaining homes expected to require a roof replacement from 2017–2030 and average them to 

provide an annual estimate by state.

We apply two approaches to translate roof replacements into residential PV technical potential 

by state. The first is the most aggressive and assumes that each roof replacement maximizes PV 

deployment; for this we use the estimates of maximum residential PV potential by state made by 

Gagnon et al. (2016). Although maximizing PV capacity and thus generation may become more 

common in the future, today residential PV system sizes are smaller, at about 5 kW. Therefore, 

we include a second estimate based on this smaller system size to offer a more conservative 

estimate of PV potential. We average the estimated potential capacities across the study period to 

calculate an annual average market potential in GW. To estimate generation, we apply average 

PV capacity factors by state. 

Because our analysis makes several important assumptions that likely do not reflect the true roof 

replacement market, the results should only be considered a rough approximation. Table 5 shows 

our key assumptions for the roof replacement market by state.
27

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table 5. Key Assumptions for the Roof Replacement Market by State (2017–2030) 

State Potential 

Retrofits

PV 

Suitability

Suitable 

Retrofits

Annual 

Average 

Retrofits

Annual 

Capacity 

(GW)

Conservative

Annual 

Capacity 

(GW)

Aggressive

AK*

AL 608,912 83% 507,630 36,259 0.18 0.36

AR 341,961 83% 284,902 20,350 0.10 0.20

AZ 738,185 81% 599,087 42,792 0.21 0.42

CA 3,862,123 88% 3,391,722 242,266 1.21 2.44

CO 691,011 74% 510,763 36,483 0.18 0.27

CT 466,030 75% 350,999 25,071 0.13 0.23

DC 79,004 81% 63,699 4,550 0.02 0.04

DE 110,424 79% 86,936 6,210 0.03 0.06

FL 2,390,697 91% 2,174,105 155,293 0.78 1.69

GA 1,195,830 80% 956,628 68,331 0.34 0.64

HI*

IA 510,506 82% 419,613 29,972 0.15 0.28

ID 209,919 74% 154,377 11,027 0.06 0.10

IL 2,005,142 83% 1,655,400 118,243 0.59 1.09

IN 1,038,954 83% 859,804 61,415 0.31 0.59

KS 473,472 83% 393,260 28,090 0.14 0.26

KY 555,533 80% 445,691 31,835 0.16 0.29

LA 535,747 89% 477,248 34,089 0.17 0.36

MA 887,611 73% 648,125 46,295 0.23 0.47

MD 697,807 82% 570,428 40,745 0.20 0.36

ME 173,499 73% 126,369 9,026 0.05 0.10

MI 1,555,098 79% 1,225,989 87,571 0.44 0.80

MN 898,962 76% 682,085 48,720 0.24 0.41

MO 992,286 83% 823,450 58,818 0.29 0.54

MS 374,205 85% 317,710 22,694 0.11 0.22

MT 130,022 72% 94,250 6,732 0.03 0.07

NC 1,176,857 80% 946,927 67,638 0.34 0.64

ND 123,438 75% 92,841 6,632 0.03 0.07

NE 310,587 82% 254,375 18,170 0.09 0.16

NH 173,931 73% 126,429 9,031 0.05 0.10

NJ 979,361 78% 762,692 54,478 0.27 0.49
28

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

NM 221,636 84% 186,465 13,319 0.07 0.13

NV 313,127 73% 228,637 16,331 0.08 0.12

NY 2,161,981 79% 1,714,884 122,492 0.61 1.17

OH 1,819,193 81% 1,472,236 105,160 0.53 0.95

OK 448,993 87% 392,149 28,011 0.14 0.29

OR 402,789 80% 322,603 23,043 0.12 0.23

PA 1,399,790 80% 1,125,999 80,429 0.40 0.78

RI 137,658 77% 106,555 7,611 0.04 0.06

SC 575,406 83% 477,911 34,137 0.17 0.33

SD 140,945 81% 113,771 8,127 0.04 0.08

TN 832,766 81% 675,044 48,217 0.24 0.47

TX 3,188,461 89% 2,852,544 203,753 1.02 2.04

UT 380,544 72% 275,728 19,695 0.10 0.18

VA 975,628 80% 776,724 55,480 0.28 0.51

VT 81,388 74% 60,446 4,318 0.02 0.05

WA 717,125 75% 535,318 38,237 0.19 0.38

WI 905,136 79% 719,496 51,393 0.26 0.48

WV 212,377 76% 160,544 11,467 0.06 0.11

WY 73,023 79% 57,610 4,115 0.02 0.04

Total 39,275,078 32,258,199 2,304,157 11.52 22.13

* Alaska and Hawaii are not included in this analysis, because there were insufficient data to determine 

PV capacity potential in the Gagnon et al. (2016) data set. 

Estimating the PV potential for the new construction market relies on a different methodology. 

EIA (2015) models new single-family detached housing builds by census region across five 

scenarios in the 2015 Annual Energy Outlook. Of the five scenarios, the reference case is 

considered the base case, and we use this case to determine the total new, single-family detached 

homes built across each state.12

As we do for the roof replacement market, we assume that not all new homes will be suitable for 

PV,

13 and we use the same suitability rates for the existing housing market to determine PV 

potential through 2030. We sum the total suitable homes by state and average them to calculate 

yearly builds. Then we apply the same capacity and generation methods used in the roof 

replacement analysis. Table 6 shows our key assumptions for the new construction market by 

state.

 12 The Annual Energy Outlook reference case data were disaggregated to each state using the University of 

Virginia’s state population projections http://demographics.coopercenter.org/national-population-projections/, and 

then the growth was projected through 2030 using a time-series approach. 13 It is possible that all new homes could be designed to maximize PV access, thereby increasing the market estimate 

for this sector.
29

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table 6. Key Assumptions for the New Construction Market by State (2017–2030)

State New 

Homes

PV 

Suitability 

(%)

Suitable 

Homes

Annual 

Average 

Builds

Annual 

Capacity 

(GW)

Conservative

Annual 

Capacity 

(GW)

Aggressive

AK*

AL 294,539 83% 245,547 17,539 0.09 0.17

AR 255,608 83% 212,958 15,211 0.08 0.15

AZ 505,167 81% 409,977 29,284 0.15 0.29

CA 1,358,154 88% 1,192,733 85,195 0.43 0.86

CO 378,232 74% 279,571 19,969 0.10 0.15

CT 117,358 75% 88,390 6,314 0.03 0.06

DC 37,286 81% 30,062 2,147 0.01 0.02

DE 64,885 79% 51,084 3,649 0.02 0.04

FL 1,428,220 91% 1,298,827 92,773 0.46 1.01

GA 724,527 80% 579,600 41,400 0.21 0.39

HI*

IA 143,830 82% 118,222 8,444 0.04 0.08

ID 116,789 74% 85,888 6,135 0.03 0.06

IL 394,359 83% 325,574 23,255 0.12 0.21

IN 202,878 83% 167,895 11,992 0.06 0.11

KS 141,906 83% 117,866 8,419 0.04 0.08

KY 264,373 80% 212,100 15,150 0.08 0.14

LA 375,928 89% 334,880 23,920 0.12 0.25

MA 214,412 73% 156,562 11,183 0.06 0.11

MD 406,993 82% 332,700 23,764 0.12 0.21

ME 44,019 73% 32,062 2,290 0.01 0.02

MI 297,961 79% 234,902 16,779 0.08 0.15

MN 270,072 76% 204,917 14,637 0.07 0.12

MO 298,758 83% 247,924 17,709 0.09 0.16

MS 180,362 85% 153,132 10,938 0.05 0.11

MT 68,828 72% 49,892 3,564 0.02 0.03

NC 700,127 80% 563,339 40,239 0.20 0.38

ND 31,571 75% 23,745 1,696 0.01 0.02

NE 89,718 82% 73,480 5,249 0.03 0.05

NH 46,194 73% 33,578 2,398 0.01 0.03

NJ 205,013 78% 159,657 11,404 0.06 0.10
30

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

NM 151,803 84% 127,714 9,122 0.05 0.09

NV 222,332 73% 162,341 11,596 0.06 0.09

NY 439,413 79% 348,542 24,896 0.12 0.24

OH 347,958 81% 281,596 20,114 0.10 0.18

OK 326,080 87% 284,797 20,343 0.10 0.21

OR 137,101 80% 109,808 7,843 0.04 0.08

PA 284,704 80% 229,018 16,358 0.08 0.16

RI 34,138 77% 26,425 1,888 0.01 0.02

SC 332,674 83% 276,307 19,736 0.10 0.19

SD 40,175 81% 32,429 2,316 0.01 0.02

TN 405,016 81% 328,308 23,451 0.12 0.23

TX 2,385,145 89% 2,133,861 152,419 0.76 1.53

UT 211,120 72% 152,969 10,926 0.05 0.10

VA 576,842 80% 459,239 32,803 0.16 0.30

VT 20,978 74% 15,580 1,113 0.01 0.01

WA 246,959 75% 184,349 13,168 0.07 0.13

WI 179,334 79% 142,553 10,182 0.05 0.09

WV 115,236 76% 87,111 6,222 0.03 0.06

WY 38,660 79% 30,500 2,179 0.01 0.02

Total 16,228,560 13,430,512 959,322 4.80 9.31

* Alaska and Hawaii are not included in this analysis, because there were insufficient data to determine 

PV capacity potential in the Gagnon et al. (2016) data set. 
31

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Appendix B: Detailed Cost Modeling Results and 

Assumptions

To understand the opportunity for achieving ultra-low PV system costs by 2030, we model four 

cost-reduction pathways. Each pathway was developed by adjusting system cost inputs based on 

the four key cost-reduction opportunities. Table 7 compares the system costs for each of the four 

modeled pathways in relation to the Q1 2017 benchmark.

Three of the 11 categories are not impacted by the cost-reduction pathways referenced in this 

study, including module, inverter, and electrical BOS. Nevertheless, we model savings from the 

Q1 2017 benchmark in 2030 for each of these categories. The cost savings for hardware (i.e.,

module and inverter price reductions) are driven by expected savings from technology advances 

through 2030 as outlined in Woodhouse et al. (2016). Electrical BOS is also reduced 15% to 

represent assumed incremental savings in wiring and electrical equipment needed for PV through 

2030.

Six of the 11 categories are influenced directly by the cost-reduction opportunities envisioned in 

this report, and the key assumptions behind these modeled savings are discussed in turn here.

Structural BOS costs for both less-aggressive pathways see a 10% reduction from current costs 

due to incremental improvements in racking. In contrast, the visionary pathways see a 64% 

reduction in these costs, because racking costs are eliminated with use of an integrated product. 

Supply chain costs are reduced by 69% in both less-aggressive scenarios due to eliminating 

module price and inventory markups. The visionary pathways provide additional savings totaling 

87% lower than the Q1 2017 benchmark due to removing shipping costs associated with PV, 

which are expected to be absorbed by shipping an integrated roofing and PV product. 

Direct labor installation costs are reduced by 28%–59% from the Q1 2017 benchmark. The lower 

end of the savings spectrum is based on incremental installation labor savings paired with 

collaboration between roofing and PV contractors. The higher end assumes that a PV division is 

integrated with a homebuilder, enabling one team to install PV and roofs on new construction, 

with additional savings from economies of scale. 

PII cost savings for the roof replacement market result from streamlining permitting fees from 

$400 in the Q1 2017 Benchmark to $200 in 2030. Economies of scale savings further reduce PII 

costs for both pathways in the new construction market; these two pathways see slight variation 

in savings resulting from the assumption that, in the visionary case, a company installs PV on all 

new homes and thereby maximizes economies of scale, whereas, in the less-aggressive case, a 

company distributes PII costs across fewer installations. Even so, this savings is so small it is lost 

in rounding. 

The sales and marketing category is most heavily influenced by the business model integration 

opportunity. In the roof replacement market, the less-aggressive pathway represents a scenario in 

which a solar company partners with a roofing company to conduct some sales and marketing. 

For the visionary pathway, the expectation is that all sales and marketing costs are integrated 

with an existing marketing budget from the roofing company. The new construction market is

generally similar. In the less-aggressive pathway, savings are associated with a solar company 
32

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

partnering with a homebuilder. In the visionary pathway, PV is integrated, or closely aligned 

with, a homebuilder’s core business. However, the sales and marketing costs for both new 

construction pathways are lower than the costs for both roof replacement pathways, because the 

new construction market pathways benefit from reduced design costs due to PV installers having

upfront involvement in new home design. The cost variation between the two new construction

pathways reflects the higher economies of scale benefit in the visionary pathway compared with 

the less-aggressive pathway. 

The overhead category is predominantly influenced by business model integration. The two lessaggressive pathways leverage the benefit of partnerships with roofing companies as well as 

incremental cost savings. The two visionary pathways realize the largest overhead savings, 

because PV is integrated into or closely aligned with a roofing or housing company, requiring 

little additional overhead.

Finally, the sales tax and profit categories vary by pathway. These values are fixed percentages 

of the previous cost categories. Thus, this variation results from the method employed as 

opposed to any direct impact from the cost-reduction pathways.
33

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table 7. Comparison of Modeled Costs by Category and Pathway in $/Wdc (Percentage Reduction 

from Q1 2017 Benchmark)

Cost 

Category

Q1 2017 

Benchmark

Roof Replacement Market New Construction Market

Less Aggressive Visionary

Less 

Aggressive Visionary

Module price $0.35

$0.30

(-14%)

$0.30

(-14%)

$0.30

(-14%)

$0.30

(-14%)

Inverter price $0.13

$0.10

(-23%)

$0.10

(-23%)

$0.10

(-23%)

$0.10

(-23%)

Structural BOS $0.11

$0.10

(-10%)

$0.04

(-64%)

$0.10

(-10%)

$0.04

(-64%)

Electrical BOS $0.20

$0.17

(-15%)

$0.17

(-15%)

$0.17

(-15%)

$0.17

(-15%)

Supply chain 

costs $0.39

$0.12

(-69%)

$0.05

(-87%)

$0.12

(-69%)

$0.05

(-87%)

Sales tax $0.08

$0.06

(-25%)

$0.05

(-38%)

$0.06

(-25%)

$0.05

(-38%)

Direct 

installation 

labor $0.32

$0.23

(-28%)

$0.16

(-50%)

$0.22

(-31%)

$0.13

(-59%)

Permitting, 

inspection, and 

interconnection 

(PII) $0.10

$0.05

(-50%)

$0.05

(-50%)

$0.04

(-60%)

$0.04

(-60%)

Sales & 

marketing 

(customer 

acquisition) $0.34

$0.26

(-24%)

$0.09

(-74%)

$0.07

(-79%)

$0.01

(-97%)

Overhead 

(general & 

administrative) $0.31

$0.22

(-29%)

$0.04

(-87%)

$0.22

(-29%)

$0.04

(-87%)

Profit (%) $0.32

$0.22

(-31%)

$0.18

(-44%)

$0.22

(-31%)

$0.18

(-44%)

Total $2.66

$1.82

(-32%)

$1.21

(-55%)

$1.62

(-39%)

$1.10

(-59%)