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.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Market Barriers to Solar in 

Michigan

Emily Miller, Erin Nobler, Christopher Wolf, and 

Elizabeth Doris

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Technical Report

NREL/TP-7A30-54574

August 2012
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.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

15013 Denver West Parkway

Golden, Colorado 80401

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Market Barriers to Solar in 

Michigan

Emily Miller, Erin Nobler, Christopher Wolf, 

and Elizabeth Doris

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Prepared under Task No. SM12.1060

Technical Report

NREL/TP-7A30-54574

August 2012
NOTICE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

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

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx

Cover Photos: (left to right) PIX 16416, PIX 17423, PIX 16560, PIX 17613, PIX 17436, PIX 17721

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post consumer waste.
iii

Acknowledgments 

This work is produced with support from the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Solar Market 

Transformation Team, through the Public Utility Commission Technical Assistance Project 

managed in coordination with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). The authors 

are grateful for the assistance of Jason Coughlin, Marguerite Kelly, and Ann Brennan of NREL

for providing valuable guidance and feedback on the report. We also wish to thank Jesse Harlow 

of the Michigan PUC who offered guidance and reviews and John Miller of SRA International, 

who, while supporting the DOE Solar Market Transformation Team, reviewed this report. Any 

errors or omissions are the fault of the authors.
iv

List of Acronyms

BAU business as usual

BOS balance of system

COSEIA Colorado Solar Energy Industry Association

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

kW kilowatt

MPSC Michigan Public Service Commission

MW megawatt

NEG net excess generation 

PV photovoltaics

REC renewable energy credit/certificate

RPS renewable portfolio standard
v

Executive Summary 

The solar industry in the United States is at a turning point; the cost of PV hardware has declined 

substantially in recent years, placing new attention on reducing the balance of system (BOS) 

costs of solar that now contribute to a growing percentage of installation expenses. BOS refers to 

all the costs associated with a photovoltaic (PV) system except for the module, such as 

permitting, interconnection, and incentives, among other things. How states address these costs 

through the creation of a favorable policy and regulatory environment is proving to be a critical 

determinant of a thriving statewide solar market.

The Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) identified two potential issues limiting the 

number of solar installations in the state: inconsistent permitting processes by jurisdiction and 

varying interpretations of the tax code for solar systems. In this report we evaluate the effect that 

current Michigan policies have on permitting and tax treatment of commercial and residential PV 

installations. We then analyze successful policy implementation in other states and hypothesize 

how those policies, if implemented in Michigan, would affect the solar market in the state.

The lack of a streamlined permitting process for similar systems across regional or statewide 

groups can be burdensome to installers, system owners, and the jurisdictions that process the 

permit applications. These burdens limit market expansion for PV systems because BOS costs 

make up a larger share of the total cost of PV. As shown by efforts in Colorado, Vermont, and 

California, permitting reform is a low-cost, low-risk solution to a market barrier that has the 

potential to provide Michigan with an opportunity to lead the solar industry as BOS factors 

become an increasingly important driver of solar market growth. Permitting reform is typically 

taken on by the state legislature or state agencies. Doing so has the potential to expand the 

Michigan solar market an additional 5% to 13 % beyond business as usual (BAU) market 

projections, inducing economic growth at a low cost to the initiating agency.

Property tax incentives reduce the overall cost of PV to property owners by keeping the assessed 

value of a home or business at the level it was prior to PV installation. In Michigan, residential 

system owners are not offered a tax exemption for PV systems. In the state's commercial and 

industrial sectors, an exemption is available but not currently functioning properly because the 

legislative and implementing bodies interpret the exemption differently. This problem can be 

addressed by rewording the real or personal property elements of the statute, as is done in other 

states. Adding residential systems to the exemption will lend further support to the solar market 

and enhance deployment of PV systems. This addition has not been shown to be burdensome in 

other states and has contributed to the growth of solar markets. Collaboration between the state 

legislature and the Department of Treasury would ensure consistency. The Michigan Assessors 

Association could work with the county assessors to ensure proper understanding of the policy 

and implementation.

Taking steps to address permitting and tax issues through collaboration may stimulate solar 

market growth in Michigan. Process consistency and predictable policies enable business to 

operate efficiently. By making PV installations easier to complete through reduced BOS costs, 

Michigan would become a more attractive location for manufacturers and installers. As PV 

module costs decline and BOS costs make up a greater share of the cost of solar, action taken 
vi

today on these issues will prove beneficial in the long term, providing Michigan an opportunity 

to establish a leadership position in the solar industry.
vii

Contents

Acknowledgments .....................................................................................................................iii

List of Acronyms........................................................................................................................iv

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................v

Contents ....................................................................................................................................vii

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

2 Renewable Energy in Michigan.............................................................................................1

2.1 Michigan’s Renewable Energy Policy and Program Environment............................................... 3

3 Methodology...........................................................................................................................5

4 Permitting ...............................................................................................................................5

4.1 Efforts in Other States: Case Studies and Analysis ...................................................................... 6

4.2 State Initiatives: Colorado and Vermont....................................................................................... 6

4.3 San José, California, and Ann Arbor, Michigan ........................................................................... 8

4.4 Potential Policy Impact in Michigan........................................................................................... 10

5 Tax Treatment.......................................................................................................................12

5.1 Michigan Property Tax Background........................................................................................... 12

5.2 Case Studies: New Jersey and California.................................................................................... 13

5.3 Legislative History...................................................................................................................... 15

5.4 Potential Policy Impact in Michigan........................................................................................... 15

6 Conclusion............................................................................................................................18

References.................................................................................................................................19
1

1 Introduction

Solar resources account for a growing share of the electricity portfolio in the United States. This 

growth is observed in both utility-scale installations and in small-scale, distributed systems at 

residences and in commercial operations. This market expansion is fueled by a decrease in the 

total installed cost of solar power systems over time, as well as federal, state, and local policies.

However, financial and bureaucratic impediments remain as barriers to implementation.

In Michigan, the state’s Public Service Commission (MPSC) identified two potential issues 

limiting the number of installations in the state. First, differing permitting processes across 

jurisdictions, including those for requirements and permit fees, have led to uncertainty for system 

owners and installers. These inconsistent and potentially complex requirements can cause 

installation delays, inefficiencies, and additional costs for system owners, installers, developers,

and permitting authorities. Second, lack of clarification in interpretations of the Michigan tax 

treatment of renewable energy systems, in combination with utility production-based incentives,

are causing investor uncertainty. 

In this report we evaluate the challenges associated with permitting and tax treatment of 

residential and small-scale commercial solar photovoltaics (PV) in Michigan and identify

potential policy changes that could reduce the barrier of uncertainty caused by the challenges.

Strategies employed by other states and cities are examined to estimate potential impacts of 

market barrier reduction strategies in Michigan.

We use case studies to provide the comparative policy analysis framework to assess if the 

strategies used lead to market expansion or contraction. The examples from other states suggest 

that permitting-process reform can stimulate market growth. Options for reducing the barriers 

include capping the allowable permit fees, improving the transparency of the process by 

providing information online or through training, and standardizing the criteria for permits for 

small systems that exhibit similar characteristics. For tax treatment, state examples demonstrate 

that how a solar system is categorized—whether real or personal property—must be consistent 

between state tax authorities and any legislated tax incentives so as to remove confusion and 

uncertainty for system owners or tax equity partners.

2 Renewable Energy in Michigan

At the time of this report, 3.52 megawatts (MW) of solar PV have been cumulatively installed in 

Michigan, for an average growth rate of 25% between 2003 and 2010. As illustrated in Figure 1, 

110 solar PV system installations occurred in Michigan in 2010 totaling 1.5 MW, which 

represents a 450% increase in the number of installations between 2009 and 2010. PV 

installations in both the residential and commercial sectors account for the growth in Michigan’s 

solar market, while installations larger than 25 kilowatts (kW) are more limited. Residential 

systems, typically 4 kW or smaller, compose 45% of the total number of installations in 

Michigan.
2

By contrast, the number of PV installations nationally doubled between 2009 and 2010, 

coinciding with a decline in costs of up to 14% for residential PV modules and 20% for 

nonresidential PV modules (Sherwood 2011). Nationally, residential installations increased by 

64% between 2009 and 2010, driven in part by state and local incentives (Sherwood 2011). 

Funding made available from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the 

SolarCurrents program, and the Experimental Advanced Renewable Program (EARP) may have 

also contributed to the recent growth in Michigan’s solar market. 

Figure 1: Annual installations and capacity additions in Michigan

Source: Open PV

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

MW

Installations

Year

Number of Installations

Size (MW)
3

Table 1: Average Current Installation Cost by 

System Size in Michigan 

(Source: Open PV)

Size Cost ($/W)

0 - 2 kw 15.579

2 - 4 kw 9.650

4 - 10 kw 6.382

10 - 25 kw 6.638

> 25 kw 6.891

Figure 2: Number of installations by system size (2003-2011) in Michigan

(Source: Open PV)

Installation costs vary depending on the size of 

the system, with systems less than 2 kW 

costing almost twice that of 2-4 kW systems 

(Open PV). Currently, the average installation 

cost is $9.17 per watt (W) in Michigan, which 

is higher than average costs around the country. 

Michigan has the tenth most expensive solar 

installation costs in a ranking among all 50 

states and the District of Columbia (Open PV).

Nationwide, the average installation cost is 

$7.97/W at the time of this report, November 

2011 (Open PV). While the number of 

installations is trending upward, the high costs 

in Michigan, especially for residential systems, may be a barrier to more installation.

2.1 Michigan’s Renewable Energy Policy and Program Environment 

Michigan has enacted a variety of policies to support growth in the renewable energy sector.

Michigan is one of 30 states with a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) mandating that 

renewable energy contribute to a certain percentage of electricity supplied in the state. RPSs 

have been implemented for a variety of reasons, including creating market demand for renewable 

and clean energy, signaling a commitment to cleaner sources of energy, or driving opportunities 

for job creation (EPA). Generally, the presence of an RPS drives utility-scale installations unless 

a carve-out for distributed generation is also enacted (Wiser 2007).

41 42

55

32

16

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0-2 kW 2-4 kW 4-10 kW 10-25 kW >25 kW

Number of Installations

System size
4

Public Act 295, known as the Clean, Renewable, and Efficient Energy Act, was signed into law 

on October 6, 2008 by Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm. The Act established an RPS

requiring Michigan electricity providers to achieve a retail supply portfolio that includes at least 

10% renewable energy by 2015 (MCL § 460.1001). Providers must comply with the Act 

beginning in 2012 and there are annual interim requirements. All regulated utilities are subject to 

the RPS; however. DTE Energy and Consumers Energy are required to meet additional targets 

because of the large customer base those utilities serve. The state and major utilities have taken 

steps to support the solar market specifically in Michigan through incentive programs. The RPS 

offers two additional Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) for each megawatt-hour (MWh) of solar 

power generated (1 MWh is equivalent to 1 REC).

The Clean, Renewable, and Efficient Energy Act also required the MPSC to create a statewide 

net metering program. On May 26, 2009, the MPSC issued net metering rules that apply to all 

rate-regulated utilities, cooperatives, and alternative electricity suppliers. These entities are 

required to offer customers net metering based on the size of the installed system. Systems 

20 kW and below qualify for true net metering, where net excess generation (NEG) is carried 

over to the next billing cycle at the full retail rate. Systems above 20 kW, up to and including

150 kW, qualify for modified net metering. Under modified net metering, the customer only 

receives the generation portion of the full retail rate for any net excess generation they produced

onsite.

The Michigan net metering program is considered a success, receiving a grade of “A” from the 

Freeing the Grid report (Vote Solar Initiative and Network for New Energy Choices 2011). In 

mid-2009 the program had 137 participants and then jumped to 254 participants by the end of 

December that same year (MPSC a). Participation continued to grow and as of December 2010 

the program had more than 620 participants (MPSC b). As demonstrated by Michigan’s 

experience and the 14 other states that received an “A” grade, net metering policies enable 

customer-sited distributed generation and thus residential market expansion (Vote Solar Initiative 

and Network for New Energy Choices 2011).

The RPS created certainty in the renewable energy market and prompted the utilities to offer 

incentives for solar power installation and production because production incentives enable 

generation of renewable energy credits (REC) that help utilities comply with an RPS. DTE 

Energy, Michigan’s largest investor-owned utility, launched the SolarCurrents Program in 2009,

which offered a one-time $2.40 per watt direct current (WDC) installed rebate for solar power 

systems between 1 kW and 20 kW. Additionally, SolarCurrents features a production incentive 

offering $0.11 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) for the duration of a 20-year contract. This production 

incentive is in exchange for RECs produced by the system. DTE Energy offered a retroactive 

rebate at discounted rates for systems installed from 2005 onward. The program was 

overwhelmingly popular, and as of May 5, 2011, DTE Energy discontinued the program stating 

they had reached their goal of 5 MW. 

Consumers Energy began the Experimental Advanced Renewable Energy Program (EARP) 

August 27, 2009. This program is purely performance-based and is available for residential 

systems between 1 kW and 20kW and for nonresidential systems between 1 kW and 150 kW. 

The first two phases of the program contracted approximately 2,000 kW of solar power capacity. 

The extension of this project is limited to 3,000 kW; 1,500 kW designated for residential systems 
5

and the remaining 1,500 kW for nonresidential systems. Participants in the program receive 

between $0.200 per kWh and $0.259 per kWh depending on the interest in the prior round of the 

program and whether or not the installation will use both Michigan labor and Michigan materials 

as defined in the Commission's temporary order in Case No. U-15800 (MPSC c). Contracts are 

for 15 years.

The expansion of the solar market in Michigan coincided with the advent of statewide policies to 

encourage installations. The implementation of the RPS, net metering, and utility incentive 

programs appears to have enabled solar market growth in Michigan, yet case studies will 

demonstrate that more levers are available to Michigan policymakers, regulators, and industry 

representatives. Such levers have the potential to enable Michigan’s solar market leadership.

3 Methodology

In this report, we use comparative policy analysis techniques to estimate the impact that potential

solar policies have on a given solar market in Michigan. The current conditions in Michigan, as 

presented in the previous section, provide a comprehensive picture of the state’s solar market and 

its future potential. From this baseline level, policy alternatives are applied to Michigan’s 

baseline case to estimate potential market impacts.

Case studies from other states and cities are used to gather qualitative and quantitative 

information about the market changes experienced in those locations as a result of policy 

changes. Because no two policy environments are identical, policies are applied in consideration 

of the variety of unique factors that may also affect market adoption, such as state renewable 

portfolio standards, utility incentives, or state political and economic climate.

For the purposes of this report, the word “policy” as applied to the solar market is broadly 

defined. It may describe a minor change in local process or major statewide legislative action. In 

the case of statewide permitting reform, the two existing statewide laws in Colorado and 

Vermont were enacted only in the last few months, so measurable data about market impact is 

not yet available.

4 Permitting

Permits ensure that safety and engineering standards for PV systems are met. Most local 

jurisdictions require building, electrical, and other permits before installation. These necessary 

processes have the potential to create market barriers for the development of renewable energy.

Transparent permitting processes and published fees can reduce potential information barriers to 

solar development.

In Michigan, installers assert that the process by which permits are obtained can be timeconsuming and unclear. By some accounts, the time and money required to understand

permitting requirements and to process applications constitute half of the time and cost of an 

installation (Bacon 2011). Because this process differs by jurisdiction, it can present an obstacle 

to installations and a deterrent to prospective system owners. Some communities in Michigan do 
6

not have an established protocol or requirements for solar, which requires installers to spend time 

coordinating and negotiating with local officials to determine exact project requirements.

Many aspects of the permitting process are designed to ensure public safety, but some aspects are 

extraneous given current market and technology conditions. The lack of a streamlined process 

for similar systems across regional or statewide groups can be burdensome not only to installers 

and system owners, but to the jurisdictions that process the permit applications. This may present 

a limitation in expanding the market for distributed renewable energy systems because BOS

costs make up a larger share of the cost of PV (Bony et al. 2010, AECOM 2011). 

The solar industry has grown organically, and local jurisdictions have had to adapt their planning 

and inspection systems to an evolving technology. In some cases, local regulatory staff lack 

experience with renewable energy systems and associated system safety, which can lead to a 

lengthy review process (Pitt 2008). While construction contracting requirements are set at the 

state level, the codes and standards for PV are such that there is the potential to adopt state or 

even national safety standards that would not conflict with the variability in state contracting 

requirements (DOE n.d.).

In addition to the cost associated with labor, such as researching permitting rules and filling out

permit applications, the fees for permits vary between jurisdictions and can often be a significant 

cost for a small installation. This may be reflected in the high cost for installations up to 2 kW in 

Michigan, which is nearly twice the cost of slightly larger systems (Table 1). Solar permit fees 

are determined by the permitting agency or local jurisdiction. Commonly, fees are established 

through 1) a flat-fee method, which charges the same fee regardless of size; 2) a valuation 

method, which is based on the cost of the solar system; or 3) a combination of the two (DOE

n.d.). In its January 2011 analysis of the cost of permitting, SunRun, a residential solar electricity 

provider, calculated that, on average nationally, the entire permitting process accounts for $2,516 

per residential installation, or $0.50 per watt (2011). The types of costs factored into this

assessment were extensive and included the labor cost of completing the permit application and 

submitting it in person, paying the permit fee, the labor associated with understanding different 

building requirements between jurisdictions, field inspections and the labor time waiting for 

inspectors, sales and marketing costs associated with reduced customer referrals, and 

cancellations due to delays (SunRun 2011).

4.1 Efforts in Other States: Case Studies and Analysis

Several cities and states have taken action to streamline the solar permitting process by using a 

variety of cost control, process, and transparency-promoting mechanisms. Two major strategies 

are employed: limiting the costs of permits; and streamlining the process of permitting through 

template forms, quicker processing times, or online submission options. In the following section 

we review selected actions taken by states and cities around the country.

4.2 State Initiatives: Colorado and Vermont

In 2011, Vermont and Colorado took legislative action to simplify the permit process and limit 

solar permit and related fees. The two states took different approaches to addressing this market 

barrier. Colorado opted for a legislative solution to extend a price cap on solar permitting and to 

revise the law to increase its enforceability. Vermont’s approach was also legislative, but focused
7

less on fee caps and more on increasing process transparency, with the purpose of reducing 

installer uncertainty in development. Because of the recent nature of this act, it is not possible to 

draw direct conclusions from installation data, but it is illustrative of a legislative option.

The Colorado legislature passed Senate Bill 117 in 2008 to limit permit fees on solar PV, 

establishing different fee caps for residential and nonresidential installations. At the time, 

disparities in permit fees were observed across the state, and installers expressed concern at the 

cost disparity limiting the potential and credibility of this burgeoning industry (Brown 2008).

However, the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association (COSEIA) observed through its 

business members that despite the passage of the bill, rising permit fees were becoming a major 

impediment for consumers and businesses (Bacon 2011). COSEIA pointed to analysis that 

showed one out of four Colorado cities and counties charged permit fees in excess of the cap 

dictated by SB08-117. Loopholes were exploited to exceed the cap for residential solar by as 

much as $1,500 in some jurisdictions, making it difficult to ascertain any reliable market impact 

from the policy after 2008.

Greentech Media reported that permit fees in the state had doubled in 2010 (Wesoff 2011 b).

While the hard costs associated with solar PV had decreased in the state, permit fees were on the 

rise in many communities. Furthermore, nonresidential, small-scale installations were facing 

large permit fees. For example, a project to outfit 31 Douglas County schools was stalled 

because of an unexpected assessment of $400,000 in permit fees (Bacon 2011). Additionally, 

regulatory paperwork and uncertain local government processes were adding expense to the soft 

costs (i.e., administrative, permitting, and inspection costs) of a solar transaction.

In promoting the passage of new legislation that would renew the permit fee cap with

enforcement, COSEIA pointed to the anecdotal evidence that communities with lower permit 

fees tend to have more solar job creation and rising fees would make Colorado less businessfriendly. What became known as the Fair Permit Act passed in May 2011 with overwhelming

support (House 64-1; Senate 32-2) just as the previous permit fee limitation actSB08-117

was to end (COSEIA). The Fair Permit Act extended for seven years the $500 residential cap and 

$1,000 nonresidential cap on permit, plan review, and other fees associated with installations. To 

close the loopholes of the previous act, process transparency is created such that local 

governments are required to clearly identify all fees and taxes assessed. For systems greater than 

2 MW, local governments cannot charge more than the actual costs incurred for processing a 

permit (ASES 2011).

Vermont took a different approach to permitting in the Vermont Energy Act of 2011. Instead of

focusing on costs, Vermont instituted a permitting process designed to indirectly reduce the BOS

costs for solar installations less than 5 kW. The legislation was an effort to spur residential 

installations. Small-scale solar customers now file a registration document and certificate of 

compliance with grid connection requirements. The local utility then has 10 days to raise any 

issues related to interconnection. Many have applauded Vermont’s effort as a micro-policy 

approach that will achieve the kind of uniformity and consistency needed to enable solar market 

growth (Wesoff 2011 a).
8

Because the legislative actions in Vermont and Colorado occurred just months before the writing 

of this report, data are not yet available to measure market impact of these leading state laws or if 

one approach is more effective than another. Colorado’s approach is more direct, impacting 

permitting jurisdictions with specific transparency requirements for fees and taxes and limiting 

the uncertainty experienced by installers and potential system owners. The Colorado law also 

affects a much larger group of solar stakeholders because it established limitations for both large 

and small installations. Vermont’s approach is specifically targeted to expedite the process for 

small systems (5 kW or less), thus not addressing any challenges experienced by all other 

installation sizes. The approach is also an indirect one, putting the onus on the utility involved in 

interconnection to raise objections or else allow the installation to proceed. The appropriate 

approach or combination of tactics may ultimately depend on the unique policy context of a 

region or state, unless forthcoming installation data in Colorado and Vermont support one 

approach over another.

The only substantial statewide estimates of permitting reform are derived from an analysis by 

AECOM, a technical and management support services firm, on the potential effect of 

streamlined permitting in California. The scenario evaluated in AECOM’s California analysis 

represents a more dramatic policy approach than those enacted in Colorado or Vermont. It 

assumes adoption of the expedited permitting process proposed by the Solar America Board for 

Codes and Standards (Solar ABCs)1 and automation of aspects of the permitting process such as 

electronic permit submittal (AECOM 2011). In this scenario, if California adopted a streamlined 

permitting process statewide, an additional 132,000 systems—or a 13 percent increase—relative 

to market projections could occur (2011). The data gleaned from this analysis provide insight 

into the potential market and economic effects elsewhere and will be discussed later in the report.

4.3 San José, California, and Ann Arbor, Michigan

At the municipal level, San José, California, is one of several cities that have taken action to 

address the permitting process. Some credit the city with expanding the community solar market 

through system changes and stakeholder engagement. Currently, San José is considered one of 

the least expensive cities for solar installations in California (SunRun 2011).

In 2008 and 2009, San José teamed with SolarTech, a solar industry consortium, to hold 

Renewable Energy Permitting Symposia that convened leaders in the solar industry and

permitting and safety disciplines (building, code, fire) to discuss ways in which the permitting 

process could be improved (DOE San José 2011). The stakeholder-driven approach resulted in a 

new process for the jurisdiction, described subsequently.

 1 The Solar ABCs provide a framework for streamlining the permit process. The Solar ABCs’ Expedited Permit 

Process outlines a method for local jurisdictions to confidently and efficiently approve building permits for small PV 

systems of less than 15 kW, simplifying the application requirements for the installer and saving time for the 

jurisdiction reviewing the permit (Brooks 2009). Applying the expedited process to small projects mitigates the 

inability of small-scale installations to absorb permitting costs, and acknowledges the similarities in engineering of 

the smaller systems (Brooks 2009). The complexity of larger projects warrants a less standardized, more flexible 

review process. According to SunRun’s stakeholder analysis group, there is wide support for the Solar ABCs 

standards because it is in both the installer’s and the jurisdiction’s best interests (SunRun 2011).
9

A major finding in San José has been that providing more information about the permitting 

process up front to applicants ensures that the permitting and inspection process is more 

efficient. The city’s Building Department took the initiative to reduce permit costs, provide overthe-counter permitting for smaller residential installations, and provide training for installers 

about the process. The city’s simple checklist for PV system electrical permits allows applicants 

to determine whether or not their system meets certain criteria so permits can be waived.

Furthermore, the city schedules post-installation inspection during a 2-hour window. Conversely, 

in many jurisdictions, contractors are expected to wait for up to eight hours for an inspector to 

arrive, costing an average of $121 per installation (SunRun 2011). This increases costs to the 

installercosts that are typically passed on to the customer in the form of higher prices.

A standardized permitting template has the potential to guide local governing bodies to a more 

uniform solar ordinance and a more uniform inspection standard process to reduce the time and 

expense of solar installations. The city observed that its transparency of information, provided on 

its website and through hands-on workshops, has been a factor in reducing market barriers to 

solar adoption. Furthermore, having a permitting process with clearly defined and publicly 

accessible requirements has been critical in expanding adoption of solar (DOE San José, 2011). 

In San José, residential installations increased 160% (750 to 1,941 installations) and its 

nonresidential installations increased 470% (13 to 74 installations) between 2007 and 2010 (SAC 

Report, 2011). The city has a one-day turnaround for residential permits. It is uncertain exactly 

how much of this consistency and expeditiousness is attributable to the reduced costs seen in the 

city, but what is evident is that the city saw a 17% decrease in the cost of residential PV to 

$6.70/watt over that same time period. With incentives, the cost is reduced to $4/watt.

San José’s statistics cannot be viewed in isolation. By comparison, Ann Arbor, Michigan 

provides some insight into Michigan’s solar market. While Ann Arbor is not representative of 

the entire state’s solar market, its data may be indicative of the statewide landscape and the 

potential effect of permitting costs and processes on the solar market.

In 2010, 31 PV installations were completed in Ann Arbor. While this represents an overall 

growth rate of 3,000% between 2007 and 2010, the scale of installations differs dramatically 

from San José (SAC Report, 2011). Ann Arbor non-residential installations increased by 600% 

(1 to 7 installations) during the same period (SAC Report, 2011). Permit time and costs also 

increased during this period, with nonresidential permit costs increasing 300%. Residential PV 

cost was on par with San José, at around $7/watt, but the SolarCurrents $2.40/watt rebate made 

residential solar more affordable than it had ever been in Ann Arbor.
10

 San José Ann Arbor

Figure 3: Comparative installations for San José and Ann Arbor 

Source: SAC Report, 2011

The large jump in installations is attributable to the DTE SolarCurrents program, which 

contributed to 29 of the 31 installations completed in 2010. The success of SolarCurrents may 

have balanced the impact of the increase in permit costs and time, and demonstrates a connection 

between cost reduction and market expansion. Out of the total installations in 2010 in Ann 

Arbor, 94% are attributed to SolarCurrents, suggesting that only 6% of the market would adopt 

solar at around $7/watt in Michigan. 

4.4 Potential Policy Impact in Michigan 

The main strategies employed in the case studies are streamlining the process and limiting permit 

fees. In either case, transparency of information simplifies the process and indirectly reduces 

BOS costs and barriers to market growth. Reduced costs for solar installations have the most 

direct effect on solar market expansion, and cost reduction can be achieved through both 

streamlined processes and permit fee caps. The aggregation of these hardware and non-hardware

costs adds, on average, $0.50/watt or $2,516 per residential installation (SunRun 2011). As 

hardware costs decline, lower BOS costs will become increasingly more important for the 

adoption of solar. As evidenced by the case studies, permitting can be addressed fairly easily and 

with bipartisan support.

If the methodology from the AECOM study of potential market impact in California is applied to 

Michigan, the state has the potential to experience additional market growth. In the California 

study, AECOM estimated that California could experience 13% additional market growth 

(beyond BAU projections) because of permitting reform (AECOM 2011). If Michigan 

streamlined permitting reform by adopting Solar ABCs and online permit submittal, the state 

could experience a 38% annual growth rate. Such a growth rate is composed of the 25% BAU 

projection with a 13% additional growth rate to account for permitting policy. In this scenario, 

Michigan could see an additional 1,731 installations by 2020 beyond the BAU scenario. 
11

Figure 4: Policy impact scenarios of adopting streamlined permitting in Michigan 

The experience with California’s program indicates that 13% is the high boundary for market 

improvements related to permitting reform. The 13% projection was developed using 

California’s ambitious RPS and the $0.25/W rebate offered to all California homeowners who 

install solar, in addition to the comprehensive adoption of permitting standards (AECOM 2011).

Considering that California and Michigan do not have identical policy environments, installation 

costs, or electricity prices, 13% would be the most aggressive estimate for Michigan. Under this 

scenario, it is projected that, in California, 18% more jobs (direct and indirect) are created each 

year, coupled with an 18% increase in economic output ($5.1 billion between 2012 and 

2020)(AECOM 2011).

If the most aggressive permitting reforms (adoption of Solar ABCs, online permit process, and 

fee caps) are implemented to reduce BOS costs in Michigan, it could create an attractive 

economic scenario for the state. Installations could reach 2,755 by 2020, nearly tripling the 

current projection. By making PV installations easier to do through reduced BOS costs, 

manufacturers and installers may be encouraged to establish a business in the state. Given 

Michigan’s existing net metering program and historic leadership and infrastructure in 

manufacturing, permitting reforms today may prove beneficial for state industry in the future as 

PV hardware costs continue to decline. 

There is no usable data available on adoption of a partial permitting solution, so an arbitrary 5% 

lower boundary is selected for this analysis. This low boundary reflects that changes in 

streamlining the system or lowering fees will induce some market changes, but not as much as 

would a comprehensive solution. This scenario could result in 1,500 PV installations by 2020, or 

492 additional installations above the BAU scenario.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Number of Installations Annually

Year

Installations BAU

Installations BAU + 5%

Installations BAU + 13%
12

Solar permitting is a collective action problem in that a change to the system benefits everyone, 

but no one is incentivized to initiate the change. Determining the initiating party is perhaps the 

most important step in streamlining the process. In San José, the local permitting authority

engaged stakeholders to discuss the issues in the city. In Michigan’s case, the MPSC, state 

energy office, and legislature could collaborate to initiate the process of identifying best practices 

in permitting and providing the information to jurisdictions. Permitting reform is a low-cost, 

low-risk solution to a market barrier that has the potential to provide Michigan an opportunity to 

lead the solar industry as BOS factors become an increasingly important part of solar market 

growth.

5 Tax Treatment

Tax policy has been used at the local, state, and federal level as a tool to support solar 

installations (DSIRE 2011). Property tax incentives eliminate the overall cost to property owners 

by ensuring that the renewable energy system has no impact on the assessed value. Currently, 36 

states and Puerto Rico offer some form of property tax incentives for renewable energy systems 

(DSIRE 2011). In Michigan, the tax exemption is limited to commercial and industrial sectors 

and isn't currently functioning because of an interpretation difference between the legislative and 

implementing bodies. That problem can be solved by changing the wording regarding the real or 

personal property in the statute, as other states have done. Adding residential systems to the 

exemption could lend further support to the solar market and enhance deployment of PV 

systems. This addition has not been shown to be particularly burdensome in other states and has 

contributed to the growth of those markets.

5.1 Michigan Property Tax Background

In 2002, Michigan began implementing an Alternative Energy Personal Property Tax Exemption 

(AEPPTE) that classifies installed PV systems in the commercial and industrial sectors as

exempt from statewide personal property taxes (M.C.L § 211.9). In accordance with the 

Michigan Tax System, personal property is defined as “a broad array of assets, including most 

equipment, furniture, and fixtures used by business. In addition, electric transmission and 

distribution equipment, gas transmission and distribution equipment, and oil and pipelines are all 

considered personal property” (M.C.L § 211.1).

In 2008, the Michigan State Tax Commission concluded that PV systems are to be considered 

real property and “should be assessed as an improvement to the real property on which they are 

located” (Michigan Department of Treasury, 2008). The exception to this rule is PV systems

located on property owned by someone other than the owner of the solar system. For this 

situation, “the solar array should be assessed on the personal property roll” (State of Michigan 

Department of Treasury 2008).

In a ruling in line with the Michigan State Tax Commission, the Michigan Department of 

Treasury determined that PV systems assessed as personal property will not be exempt because 

they do not meet the definitional requisites of the exemption (State of Michigan Department of 

Treasury, 2008). This decision limits the ability of Michigan taxpayers to utilize this benefit

intended for solar installations and effectively nullifies the exemption and the legislative intent.
13

Semantic problems cause inconsistency in tax exemptions that are granted, which may be 

responsible for the inability of some commercial and industrial PV system owners to receive a 

tax exemption. A system assessed as real property could be denied an exemption because the 

policy states that only systems defined as personal property will be exempt. Similarly, a system 

could be denied exemption because it was assessed as personal property and not recognized by 

the Department of Treasury, based on its definition of a system being considered real property.

The inconsistent assessment of PV systems as real or personal property creates a discrepancy that 

confuses both assessors and system owners alike. 

As of October 2011, Michigan did not have a tax exemption policy in place for residential PV 

system owners. At that time, residential homeowners with PV systems installed on their 

properties are receiving a property tax assessment that includes the replacement costs of the 

system (Nobler 2011). For example, a 4-kW residential system at the average cost per watt 

nationally would cost the system owner $25,680 (Table 2). Millage rates are used to evaluate 

property taxes and are based on an amount per $1,000. Based on a 10.68-mill example from 

Charleston Township, this system would create an additional $274.26 property tax burden, which 

translates into $0.06 per kWh. Using the maximum 15-mill rate allowed by Michigan Tax law, 

the burden would increase to $0.084 (Table 2). Lansing has a current cost per kilowatt-hour for 

energy of $0.083 (PV Watts 2011). The taxes associated with an average size system in Lansing 

using the 15-mill rate would essentially double the cost per kilowatt-hour to a homeowner 

installing a solar PV system. This tax burden may create a significant disincentive for 

homeowners to implement PV systems on their homes. 

Table 2: Michigan Property Tax Burden for 4-kW PV System

*Average cost of residential system in 2010 nationwide (GTM SEIA 2011)

**Average size kW system/residential (GTM SEIA 2011)

***Property tax millage in Charleston Township example (Charleston Township 2011)

†Maximum millage allowed in Michigan (M.C.L § 211.1)

††Lansing - closest data for Charleston Township (PV Watts 2011)

Produced kWh in an average year for a 4-kW system

†††Cost of electricity in Lansing, MI (PV Watts 2011)

Michigan is actively promoting solar installations on residential properties through the Michigan 

Saves incentive program, which provides home energy loans of up to $20,000 to homeowners 

installing Solar PV systems (Michigan Saves 2011). However, property tax negates much of the 

financial benefit of installing solar (at current electricity rates) and the lack of an exemption 

appears to contradict the state’s desire to promote greater adoption of PV through its incentive 

and loan programs. 

5.2 Case Studies: New Jersey and California

Strategies for supporting solar markets through tax exemptions have been adopted in other 

jurisdictions, and could provide a model for development of a functioning exemption process in 

Avg Cost 

(per watt)*

Avg 

Replacement 

Cost of a 4-kW 

System ($)

Property Tax 

(Based on 

Replacement 

Cost)

Avg Energy 

Produced 

Annually (in 

kWh)††

Tax Burden 

(per kWh)

Cost of 

Electricity in 

Lansing†††

Electricity 

Savings

Net Annual 

Savings After 

Property Tax

10.68 *** $6.42 $25,680.00 $274.26 4,578 $0.060 $0.083 $379.97 $105.71

15 † $6.42 $25,680.00 $385.20 4,578 $0.084 $0.083 $379.97 ($5.23)

Property Tax 

Millage
14

Michigan. Both New Jersey and California have established policies that provide support to solar 

development without leading to financial challenges for the states (Figure 5). In New Jersey, 

property tax accounts for 27% of total state and local general revenue (Tax Policy Center). Given 

the limited size of the solar market in New Jersey, the marginal tax increase from PV installation 

is negligible.

Figure 5: Property tax incentives by state, including Puerto Rico

One overarching theme in the policies is the ability to receive a tax exemption or exclusion for 

residential homeowners, in addition to the exemptions for commercial and industrial sectors (NJ

Stat 54:4-3.133a et seq., 2008; Cal Rev & Tax Code 73). Doing so relieves residential property 

owners of part of the tax burden associated with the development of energy systems, and 

supports market penetration. 

Another theme in California and New Jersey laws is the deliberate change in the tax exemption 

policy language involving the use of real or personal property to define solar PV systems. In 

New Jersey and California, this has been done by eliminating the terminology entirely from the 

incentive, and instead using the general “Property Tax Exemption” or “Property Tax Exclusion” 

terminology (N.J Stat. 54:4-2.113a et seq., 2008; Cal Rev & Tax Code 73).

California has provided education and training for the county assessors to ensure proper 

understanding of the language in the tax exemption policy. A December 2008 letter from the 

State Board of Equalization was sent to all county assessors to clarify issues related to the solar 

energy system exclusion that had recently been passed by the legislature. The letter directly 

specified the types of systems that are exempt and included contact information for further 

clarification from the Assessment Services Unit should an assessor need additional support

(CBOE 2008).
15

Michigan has already made a similar change to the Biomass and Anaerobic Digestion Property 

Tax Exemptions. The exemption states that Michigan exempts these “facilities from real and 

personal property taxes” (DSIRE Biomass 2010). This more generalized terminology eliminates 

the confusion regarding the type of property, and focuses on the technology being exempt.

5.3 Legislative History

There have been several unsuccessful attempts to introduce legislation that addresses the 

complicated nature of tax treatment of solar in Michigan. On April 12, 2011, a bill was 

introduced by Senator Tonya Schuitmaker to amend Section 211.9(i) and 211.34(c) of The 

General Property Tax Act (Act 206 of 1893 [M.C.L § 211.9i and 211.34c]) to exempt

residential alternative energy systems from personal property tax (Michigan Senate Bill 328). As 

of the writing of this paper, the bill was referred to the Committee on Energy and Technology, 

but no further action has been taken. However, the bill appears to lack clarification regarding the 

difference between real and personal property tax, which has been problematic in the past. If it 

were to pass, it would not address the confusion regarding the property tax exemption policy and 

the uncertainty would remain surrounding the current implementation of the law. 

5.4 Potential Policy Impact in Michigan 

Regardless of the classification of real or personal property, agreement between the Department 

of Treasury and the legislature on how PV systems are treated is essential to remove confusion 

and uncertainty from the process of installing and owning PV in Michigan. By clarifying the 

classification of PV systems for tax purposes, additional system owners would become eligible 

to receive the benefits outlined in the exemptions. This could result in an increase in solar PV 

installations as the cost of installing a PV system becomes more competitive with the cost of 

traditional energy sources in Michigan.

Waiving the tax for residential PV system owners could decrease the tax burden as much as 

$0.084/kWh (Table 2). This could be a significant incentive for homeowners who consider 

purchasing solar PV for their homes. In New Jersey, installations increased by 65% between 

2008 and 2009 (Figure 4). This upsurge was stimulated by policies that helped reduce market 

barriers. Included in these policies was the property tax exemption policy for renewable energy 

systems (NJ Stat 54:4-3.133a et seq. 2008). While it is impossible to directly tie tax treatment or 

exemptions to the increase in installations, the decrease in price as a result of the exemption

could be a positive influence in the market. If this policy is adopted in Michigan, it would help 

decrease the financial burden that system owners are currently experiencing from increased 

taxes.
16

Figure 6: Installations and Size by Year for New Jersey

Source: Open PV 

A trade-off to consider concerning tax exemptions is the revenue loss to Michigan. For every 

benefit to a PV owner, the agency having jurisdiction loses tax revenue. During times of weak 

economic growth, absence of tax revenue may be debilitating to the local government. In fiscal 

year 2008-2009, Michigan received approximately $10 billion in property tax expenditures 

(Figure 7). In that same year, residents installed 287 kW of solar PV (Open PV). This generated

an estimated loss of $27,638.10 in tax revenue for the state, if all PV installations were exempt, 

which would constitute a loss of .00276% from property taxes in this year (Table 3). By 

maintaining the law and the accompanying $27,638 in tax revenue, Michigan is running the risk 

of constraining the solar market and limiting potential revenues driven by investments in the 

solar industry. These disadvantages could include loss of wages from new installation jobs and 

sales tax on new PV systems.

Table 3: Michigan Property Tax Revenue

*Average cost of residential system in 2010 nationwide (GTM SEIA 2011)

**Total installs in Michigan in 2009 (Open PV 2011)

†Maximum millage allowed in Michigan (M.C.L § 211.1)

††(Scorsone 2010)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

MW

Installations

Year

Number of Installations

Annual Capacity Additions

Avg Cost 

(per watt)*

Total 

Installations in 

Michigan 

(kW)**

Avg Replacement 

Cost of a 287-kW 

System ($)

Property Tax 

(Based on 

Replacement 

Cost)

MI Property Tax 

Revenue (2009)††

% of Total 

Property 

Revenue

$6.42 287 $1,842,540.00 15 † $27,638.10 $10,000,000,000 0.000276%

Property Tax 

Millage
17

Figure 7: Michigan Tax Expenditures

Source: Scorsone 2010

Educating assessors is a vital aspect of the success in regards to tax assessments of solar PV 

systems. However, until the law is clarified, additional education is unwarranted. For education 

to become a commanding tool to increase solar installation in Michigan, the language of the tax 

law needs to be altered. Once this has been resolved, education will play a key role. Education of 

assessors will ensure that all systems will be equally assessed based on a clear, standard tax 

language. This consistency will reassure system owners in Michigan of the quality of the 

assessment. Additionally, it will promote the adoption of solar as a legitimate energy source.
18

6 Conclusion

The problems experienced in Michigan around permitting and tax treatment are distinct issues, 

but the impacts and potential solutions have similarities with those of other states. Michigan

experienced growth in solar installations between 2009-2011 despite the costs to install solar 

being higher than the national average. This indicates a public interest in increased development 

of solar. Hence, changes to the current permitting and tax treatment rules have the potential to

increase the size of the market by reducing installer uncertainty. As shown by the case studies, a 

simple change that makes information more accessible and transparent—either through 

clarification of the rules or making information accessible online—can make meaningful 

progress in reducing the barriers to solar adoption.

In the case of permitting, adopting the expedited permit process is a low-risk, low-cost solution 

to a segment of the problem. Doing so has the potential to expand the Michigan solar market by 

5% to 13% beyond market projections, inducing economic growth at a low cost to the initiating 

agency. Furthermore, streamlining the permit process benefits all parties involved by reducing 

uncertainty, time, and cost.

In regards to tax policy, the legislative intent to develop commercial and industrial solar markets 

does not correspond to implementation. Eliminating the disagreement between incentive 

language and the Department of Treasury's categorization has the potential to reduce this 

complex market barrier. Once a standard policy is in place, education and public outreach can

enable widespread awareness and acceptance of the regulation. Additionally, including a tax 

exemption for residential homeowners similar to policies implemented in California and New 

Jersey would eliminate a portion of the $0.084/kWh tax from an average residential PV system 

in Michigan (Figure 5).

Taking steps to address permitting and tax issues may stimulate further solar market growth in 

Michigan. Consistent processes and predictable policies reduce BOS costs and enable businesses

to operate efficiently. Such cost reductions make it easier to install PV and can help Michigan

become a more attractive location for manufacturers and installers. As PV hardware costs decline 

and BOS costs begin to constitute a greater share of the cost of solar, it makes sense to take 

action today on these issues. Doing so will provide Michigan with an opportunity to establish a 

leadership position in the solar industry.
19

References

[AECOM]. (July 2011). Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis of Residential Solar Permitting 

Reform. AECOM. Retrieved from: 

http://www.sunrunhome.com/uploads/media_items/aecom-executivesummary.original.pdf

[ASES] (May 5, 2011). Colorado Limits Solar Permit Fees. American Solar Energy Society.

Retrieved from: http://ases.org/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=Colorado-limitssolar-permit-fees.html&Itemid=27

Bacon, B. (October 6, 2011) Email communication to Emily Miller from Colorado State Senator 

Bob Bacon.

Bony, L., Doig, S., Hart, C., Maurer, E. and S. Newman. (September 2010). Achieving Low-Cost 

Solar PV: Industry Workshop Recommendations for Near-Term Balance of System Cost 

Reductions. Rocky Mountain Institute. Retrieved from: 

http://www.rmi.org/Content/Files/BOSReport.pdf

Brooks, B. (October 2009). Expedited Permit Process for PV Systems. Solar America Board for 

Codes and Standards. Retrieved from: 

http://solarabcs.org/about/publications/reports/expeditedpermit/pdfs/Expermitprocess.pdf

Brown, K. (March 28, 2008). Proposed law would cap fees for solar permits. Boulder County 

Business Report. Retrieved from: http://www.bcbr.com/article.asp?id=92286

[Cal Rev & Tax Code 73] (1999). California Revenue and Taxation Code 73. 

[CBOE]. California Board of Equalization. (2008) Property and Special Taxes Department. 

Letter to County Assessors Regarding Solar Energy System Exclusion Form. Retrieved from: 

http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/lta08071.pdf

[Charleston Township 2011] Charleston Township, Kalamazoo County, Michigan. (October 25, 

2011). Property Tax Assessment, Parcel 08-28-126-020. Retrieved from: 

www.charlestontownship.org/

[DOE] (January 2011). Solar Powering Your Community: A Guide for Local Governments. U.S. 

Department of Energy. Retrieved from: 

http://solaramericacommunities.energy.gov/resources/guide_for_local_governments/

[DOE San José] (September 2011). Solar in Action: Challenges and Successes on the Path 

toward a Solar-Powered Community—San José. U.S. Department of Energy. Retrieved from: 

http://solaramericacommunities.energy.gov/pdfs/san_jose.pdf

[DSIRE 2011] Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiencies. (2011). Property 

Tax Incentives for Renewables. Retrieved from: 

http://www.dsireusa.org/summarymaps/index.cfm?ee=1&RE=1
20

[DSIRE Biomass 2010] Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiencies. (2010). 

Biomass Gasification and Methane Digester Property Tax Exemption. Retrieved from 

http://dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=MI22F&re=1&ee=1

[EPA] (April 2009) Renewable Portfolio Standards Fact Sheet. Environmental Protection 

Agency. Retrieved from:http://www.epa.gov/chp/state-policy/renewable_fs.html

[GTM SEIA, 2011] Greentech Media & Solar Energy Industries Association. (September 28, 

2011). U.S. Solar Market Insight Q2 2001 Report. Retrieved from 

http://www.greentechmedia.com/research/solarinsight

Sherwood, L. (June 2011) U.S. Solar Market Trends 2010. Interstate Renewable Energy Council.

Retrieved from: http://www.irecusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/IREC-SolarMarket-Trends-Report-June-2011-web.pdf

[M.C.L § 211.1] M.C.L 211.1 et seq.; 1893 PA 206; Sec 3 and 6, Art. 9, state Constitution.

[M.C.L § 211.9] The General Property Tax Act, Act 206 of 1893, Mich. Comp. Laws § 211.9.

[MCL § 460.1001]. Renewable Portfolio Standard.

[Michigan Saves] (October 25, 2011). Michigan Saves Home Energy Loan Facts and FAQs.

Retrieved from:

http://www.michigansaves.org/Customers/HomeEnergyLoanProgram/LoanFactsandFAQ

s.aspx

Michigan Senate Bill 328 (2011)

[MPSC a] (January 4, 2011). Michigan’s Net Metering Program Gets an “A”. Michigan Public 

Service Commission. Retrieved from: http://www.michigan.gov/mpsc/0,4639,7-159-

16393-248836--,00.html

[MPSC b] (n.d.). Michigan’s Net Metering Program. Michigan Public Service Commission.

Retrieved from: 

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mpsc/net_metering_handout_2010_Energy_Fair_33

0553_7.pdf

[MPSC c] (December 4, 2008). Case No. U-1580. Michigan Public Service Commission. 

Retrieved from: http://efile.mpsc.state.mi.us/efile/docs/15800/0001.pdf

[NJ Stat 54:4-3.133a et seq.] NJ Stat 54:4-3.133a et seq. (2008).

Nobler, E. (October 12, 2011). Phone conversation with Andrew Brix 

[Open PV] (n.d.). Open PV: PV Market Mapper. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Retrieved from: http://openpv.nrel.gov/index. Accessed: November 9, 2011.
21

Pitt, D. (2008). Taking the Red Tape Out of Green Power. New York, NY: Network for New 

Energy Choices. Retrieved from: 

http://www.newenergychoices.org/index.php?sd=rt&page=redTape

[PV Watts, 2011] National Renewable Energy Laboratory Renewable Resources Data Center. 

(2011). PV Watts. Retrieved from 

http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/calculators/PVWATTS/version1/US/code/pvwattsv1.cgi

Scorsone, Eric. (April 2010). The Michigan Economy And State Revenue: A 10-Year History 

(1999-2009). Retrieved from: http://www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa

[SAC Report] van den Akken, T. (Forthcoming). Identification and Tracking of Market 

Development Metrics Across the 25 Solar America Cities. Critigen.

State of Michigan, Department of Treasury. (2008). Small Home and Farm Alternative Energy 

Systems. Lansing, Michigan. State Tax Commission.

[SunRun]. (January 2011). The Impact of Local Permitting on the Cost of Solar Power. SunRun. 

Retrieved from: www.sunrunhome.com/permitting

Tax Policy Center, State and Local Government Data Query System, Retrieved from : 

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/state-local/specific/property.cfm

[Vote Solar Initiative and Network for New Energy Choices] (October 2011). Freeing the Grid: 

Best Practices in State Net Metering Policies and Interconnection Procedures. The Vote Solar 

Initiative and Network for New Energy Choices. Retrieved from: www.freeingthegrid.org

Wesoff, E. a (May 31, 2011). Has Vermont solved the solar permitting problem? Greentech 

Media. Retrieved from: http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/has-vermontsolved-the-solar-permitting-problem/

Wesoff, E. b (June 15, 2011). Colorado joins Vermont in Solar Permit Price War. Greentech 

Media. Retrieved from: http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/colorado-joinsvermont-in-solar-permit-price-war/