You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Plus a note on batteries.

Rooftop solar is not like other types of consumer technology. Even though the end result is having a bunch of electrical equipment installed on the roof of your home, the process of getting solar is more like doing a bathroom renovation than buying a flat screen TV. To get the results you’re looking for, the most important decisions you’ll make are not the brand or model of the panels, but rather who you hire for the job, the size of your system, and how you finance it.
There’s a bunch more choices you’ll have to navigate along the way, and it’s easy to get overwhelmed. One expert I spoke with told me that sometimes the customers who are the most excited about getting solar end up bailing, the victims of decision fatigue.
We created this guide to save you from that fate. So take a deep breath, take my hand, and let’s walk down the metaphorical hardware store aisle and get you the rooftop solar solution you’re dreaming of.
Roger Horowitz is the director of Go Solar programs at Solar United Neighbors, a national nonprofit that serves as an unbiased resource for homeowners interested in solar. Horowitz manages and provides technical support to the company’s Solar Help Desk team.
Tony Vernetti is a senior trainer at Enphase Energy, a company that produces inverters, batteries, and EV chargers, where he trains solar sales and installation teams. Before joining Enphase in 2020, Vernetti spent 12 years working for rooftop solar companies in California.
Nate Bowie is the vice president of residential sales at ReVision Energy, an employee-owned solar company operating throughout northern New England. Bowie has been selling solar for ReVision for 15 years.
While the actual installation of the system should only take one to two days, the entire process from initial outreach to grid connection takes two to four months on average, according to Solar United Neighbors.
Example: The highest rated solar panels for 2024 according to EnergySage.com are SunPower's M-Series 440 watt model. If you install 20 of these, the system will be capable of generating 8,800 watts, or 8.8 kilowatts in direct sun.
When you start searching for information about solar on the internet, you might come across advertisements or commercials promoting free solar panels. There is no such thing. These ads are typically schemes to collect your personal data and sell it to solar companies looking for leads, and the federal government is starting to
crack down on them.
It is possible to install solar with zero up-front costs if you lease the system or take out a loan to finance it, but in both cases you will still owe monthly payments. It is also rare that anyone is able to offset 100% of their utility bill. You can get close, but you will likely still owe at least a connection fee to your utility company.
Most homeowners in the U.S. can benefit from installing solar as long as local energy policies are favorable. Placing the panels on a south-facing roof is optimal, but not necessary. If your panels face due west, you’ll only lose about 10% of potential generation, according to Vernetti. “They still produce a ton of energy. They’re still very effective. It's just a little bit less than if they're facing south,” he said. An east-facing roof is also viable in most cases.
You don’t have to worry about shoveling snow off the roof or anything like that. But like any other electronic devices, solar panels, inverters, and batteries can break or malfunction, and your system may require servicing at some point. Pay close attention to your warranties (more on that later). If you lease the system, you do not have to worry about this as much because the third-party owner will be responsible for maintenance.
In order to design a system that meets your needs and budget, solar companies will ask for a copy of your most recent electricity bill or, ideally, your annual energy consumption history. Make sure you have this information handy before you reach out for quotes.
Some utilities include your annual energy consumption, broken out by month, at the bottom of your electric bill. If you don’t see it, you should be able to log into your utility account online and download either your statements from the past year or a spreadsheet of your monthly electric meter readings.
In most of the U.S., you will find you have the option either to lease your solar panels or buy them outright. You don’t have to decide which way you want to go before you get started, but it’s helpful to think through the pros and cons of each.
Heatmap Recommends leasing if: You’re fairly certain you’ll keep your house for the next 15 to 20 years; you can’t afford the system outright, but you don’t want to take out a loan; your priority is to generate clean energy and reduce emissions, but you don’t want to spend too much time figuring out what you want or worrying about the system’s maintenance.
Heatmap Recommends buying if: You have the cash in hand; you might sell your house in the next 20 years; you know you want to have control over the details of your project.
The federal government offers a 30% tax credit for solar installations (and batteries) that covers parts and labor. It can significantly reduce the cost of getting solar, even if you don’t have a lot of tax liability in the year that you install the system. The credit will roll over to subsequent tax years.
Example: If you spend $25,000 installing solar in 2024, you’ll be eligible to take $7,500 off your federal income tax bill. If you only owe $3,000 in federal taxes in 2024, you’ll get $3,000 back and will be eligible to claim the remaining $4,500 for the 2025 tax year. If in 2025 you only owe $3,000 again, you can claim the remaining $1,500 in 2026.
Additional tax credits and rebates may also be offered by your state energy office, city, or utility. Contractors should be able to help you figure out what you’re eligible for, and you can wait to talk to them to learn more. However, incentives change frequently, and contractors don’t always keep up, so you might want to review the options in your area independently.
It will also be helpful to understand your state’s net metering policy, as that will determine how quickly your investment in solar will pay off and may also dictate how big your system can be. Some states, like New Jersey, also allow homeowners to generate additional income through the sale of solar renewable energy credits, or SRECS.
Where to look for more information:
One of the worst things that could happen is you install rooftop solar panels, and then later find out you have a leak or some other problem with your roof. “Removal and replacement of an array for a reroof is expensive and could significantly impact the owner’s return on investment,” Bowie told me. While metal roofs last a very long time and are unlikely to need a replacement, asphalt shingle roofs generally have a useful life of 25 to 30 years, Bowie said. You should be fine if your roof is less than 10 years old, but if not, you may need some roofing work done before your solar panels are installed.
If you don’t know how old your roof is, Vernetti recommended having a roofing contractor inspect it. He added that there’s varying opinions on this, with some solar experts recommending replacement if the roof is only 5 years old. “In my opinion, scrapping a 5 year old roof is wasteful and goes against the goal of sustainability,” he said.
“A good solar contractor will help evaluate the roof conditions and should recommend replacement when necessary, even if it is just to replace the roof on the roof plane where the solar panels will go,” said Bowie.
Solar contractors range from local mom and pop shops, to regional providers like ReVision Energy, which operates in multiple states in the Northeast, to national companies that install across the country like Sunrun and Sunnova.
“The advantage of going with a large company is that they have the ability to offer financing the smaller companies might not be able to. With a regional company, you can actually walk to their office and knock on the door and talk to somebody if you want to,” said Vernetti.
Heatmap Recommends: Contact at least one local company and one national company to get a good sense of your options. Always get at least three quotes!
If you are calling installers directly, here are some tips for what you should ask for or look for in a quote. (If you are using an online resource like EnergySage that finds quotes for you, use the following to help you ask follow-up questions or refine the proposals.)
A few questions you should ask:
One of the first questions an installer might ask you is how big you want the system to be. You may want to see quotes for multiple options in order to compare them. Options include:
Heatmap Recommends: Oversize your system if you can afford it.
Why?
Exceptions:
Most installers will include a financing option in their quote. Horowitz noted that some installers advertise very low interest rates that are below market rate. They are typically able to do this by paying a “dealer fee” to the bank, which they incorporate into the price of your installation — in other words, if your interest rate seems too good to be true, the total cost of your installation will likely be higher than it otherwise would be. To get a better sense of the true cost, ask for quotes both with and without financing options.
Adding energy storage, a.k.a. a battery, to your solar array can add another 10 grand or more to the project cost. But there are a few reasons it might be worth it:
In conclusion, if you just want back-up power, any battery that’s large enough to power your essential systems should do. If you want to pay off the investment, look into time-of-use rates. If you want your investment to go further for decarbonization, ask your contractor if there are local grid services programs available, and if any of their products are compatible.
After you get a few quotes, you’re going to want to spend some time comparing them, asking questions, and potentially soliciting additional quotes with variations on the system. If you’re feeling overwhelmed or you don’t have the time or patience to sort through the details on your own, you can also call the Solar United Neighbors Help Desk, which offers a free quote review service.
The most important number on the quote is the price per watt, not the total system cost. That is the number you should be comparing between different installers, as the quotes may be for differently sized systems.
You should also compare the annual bill savings. If two different companies quote you significantly different savings for systems that are roughly the same size, one of them has likely done a more detailed analysis of your roof than the other.
“It doesn't matter what module you have, from which manufacturer, or what inverter you have. There really is no difference in what your system can produce if it's the same size,” said Bowie.
Lastly, if the quote is for a solar lease, or includes a financing option, look at the monthly payments.
Every installer has certain brands and types of equipment they work with. Our expert panel agreed that it’s important to look at the brand names the installer is offering for the solar panels, inverters, and batteries, and to make sure they are from reputable companies that have been around for at least five years — even if it means paying more. A quick internet search of the top 10 residential solar panel brands should give you a taste of what those companies are.
“It is definitely worth paying a little bit extra to have really good equipment,” Vernetti said.
You may also see installers advertise that they offer “Tier 1” solar panels. That means the manufacturer has been designated “bankable” by Bloomberg New Energy Finance. The designation is more related to finance than product quality, but many solar companies use it as a rough proxy for reliability.
That being said, don’t get too bogged down in comparing solar brands.
“There's not a huge difference, typically, between one solar panel and the next of the Tier 1 manufacturers,” said Bowie. “A lot of solar companies will maybe offer one or two different manufacturers, and then maybe beyond that one or two different sizes.”
When it comes to inverters, you do want to pay attention to whether your quote includes string inverters, microinverters, or power optimizers. In a system with a string inverter, your panels will all be wired to one central inverter. This is generally the cheapest option, but it is less durable and may need to be replaced, said Vernetti, whose employer, Enphase, is the leading producer of microinverters. String inverters can also limit the output of your system if part of the roof gets more shade.
The other two options are more expensive but get around the issue with shade. A system with power optimizers is similar to one with a string inverter, but each panel will also have a small device attached to it that regulates the output and maximizes your system’s performance. By contrast, microinverters are small inverters attached to each individual panel. Both of these options also allow you to monitor each panel’s performance.
Bowie said the two were comparable in terms of performance and price. A key consideration, he said, is that your choice of inverter can begin to lock you into using the same brand of equipment on other home upgrades you might do down the line. “If you're an EnPhase customer, you're likely going to be going down the track of an EnPhase battery storage system,” he said. “Whether the customers know it or not, they're kind of being pushed down a path towards this manufacturer for more things in their home, like batteries, whole home controls, electric vehicle charging."
Your quote should provide information about warranties offered by the manufacturers of the panels, inverters, and batteries, as well as by the installation company. 25-year warranties are standard, but the details vary by installation company and by manufacturer. For example, your inverters may have a 25-year warranty, meaning you can get replacement inverters for free if any of them fails within that time period — but if you don’t have a warranty on labor, it could cost you several hundred dollars to get them installed.
“It's really important for customers to read the fine print and to talk with their local solar company who is quoting the system for them to uncover what the warranties mean,” said Bowie.
This is especially important if you are installing batteries. Ask your installer about both the equipment warranty and their policy is for servicing the equipment.
Most solar installers offer financing options. Your quote should include the name of the lender the installer works with, the down payment, monthly payment, financing term, and interest rate. However, you may find a better deal elsewhere. Horowitz noted that installers like using their own financing companies because it speeds up the sales process — they can approve you for a loan just by putting in your social security number, and sell it to you at the same time as the contract. But you may find a better deal elsewhere.
“Talk to your bank, talk to your credit union, look at home equity lines of credit, see what other options you have out there, and if those have lower interest rates or better payment terms,” said Horowitz. “You are not required to use their finance.”
After you’ve found an installer, settled on a system design, and secured financing, all that’s left to do is sign your contract. Then, you wait. Your installer will have to obtain permits from your city, county, or state, as well as an interconnection agreement with your utility.
One way to try to minimize the wait time is by working with an installer with lots of local experience. They’ll be better equipped to navigate the permitting process. For example, if you want Tesla solar panels but Tesla hasn’t done many installations in your community, it may take longer for the company to get through this stage.
After these two steps are complete, the solar company will reach out to you to schedule the installation, which should only take a few days.
After the system is installed, you may have to wait for a final inspection from your utility or a verified third party for permission to operate the system.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Whether any of them will hold up in court is now the big question.
Environmental lawyers are in for years of déjà vu as the Trump administration relitigates questions that many believed were settled by the Supreme Court nearly 20 years ago.
On Thursday, Trump rescinded the “endangerment finding,” the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2009 determination that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles threaten Americans’ public health and welfare and should be regulated. In the short term, the move repeals existing vehicle emissions standards and prevents future administrations from replacing them. In the longer term, what matters is whether any of the administration’s justifications hold up in court.
In its final rule, the EPA abandoned its attempt to back the move using a bespoke climate science report published by the Department of Energy last year. The report was created by a working group assembled in secret by the department and made up of five scientists who have a track record of pushing back on mainstream climate science. Not only was the report widely refuted by scientists, but the assembly of the working group itself broke federal law, a judge ruled in late January.
“The science is clear that climate change is creating a risk for the public and public health, and so I think it’s significant that they realized that it creates a legal risk if they were to try to assert otherwise,” Carrie Jenks, the executive director of Harvard’s Environmental and Energy Law Program, told me.
Instead, the EPA came up with three arguments to justify its decision, each of which will no doubt have to be defended in court. The agency claims that each of them can stand alone, but that they also reinforce each other. Whether that proves to be true, of course, has yet to be determined.
Here’s what they are:
Congress never specifically told the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. If it did, maybe we would have accomplished more on climate change by now.
What happened instead was that in 1999, a coalition of environmental and solar energy groups asked the EPA to regulate emissions from cars, arguing that greenhouse gases should be considered pollutants under the federal Clean Air Act. In 2007, in a case called Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court agreed with the second part. That led the EPA to consider whether these gases posed enough of a danger to public health to warrant regulation. In 2009, it concluded they did — that’s what’s known as the endangerment finding. After reaching that finding, the EPA went ahead and developed standards to limit emissions from vehicles. It later followed that up with rules for power plants and oil and gas operations.
Now Trump’s EPA is arguing that this three-step progression — categorizing greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act, making a scientific finding that they endanger public health, and setting regulations — was all wrong. Instead, the agency now believes, it’s necessary to consider all three at once.
Using the EPA’s logic, the argument comes out something like this: If we consider that U.S. cars are a small sliver of global emissions, and that limiting those emissions will not materially change the trajectory of global warming or the impacts of climate change on Americans, then we must conclude that Congress did not intend for greenhouse gases to be regulated when it enacted the Clean Air Act.
“They are trying to merge it all together and say, because we can’t do that last thing in a way that we think is reasonable, we can’t do the first thing,” Jenks said.
The agency is not explicitly asking for Massachusetts v. EPA to be overturned, Jenks said. But if its current argument wins in court, that would be the effective outcome, preventing future administrations from issuing greenhouse gas standards unless Congress passed a law explicitly telling it to do so. While it's rare for the Supreme Court to reverse course, none of the five justices who were in the majority on that case remain, and the makeup of the court is now far more conservative than in 2007.
The EPA also asserted that the “major questions doctrine,” a legal principle that says federal agencies cannot set policies of major economic and political significance without explicit direction from Congress, means the EPA cannot “decide the Nation’s policy response to global climate change concerns.”
The Supreme Court has used the major questions doctrine to overturn EPA’s regulations in the past, most notably in West Virginia v. EPA, which ruled that President Obama’s Clean Power Plan failed this constitutional test. But that case was not about EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases, the court solely struck down the particular approach the EPA took to those regulations. Nevertheless, the EPA now argues that any climate regulation at all would be a violation.
The EPA’s final argument is about the “futility” of vehicle emissions standards. It echoes a portion of the first justification, arguing that the point alone is enough of a reason to revoke the endangerment finding absent any other reason.
The endangerment finding had “severed the consideration of endangerment from the consideration of contribution” of emissions, the agency wrote. The Clean Air Act “instructs the EPA to regulate in furtherance of public health and welfare, not to reduce emissions regardless [of] whether such reductions have any material health and welfare impact.”
Funnily enough, to reach this conclusion, the agency had to use climate models developed by past administrations, including the EPA’s Optimization Model for reducing Emissions of GHGs from Automobiles, as well as some developed by outside scientists, such as the Finite amplitude Impulse Response climate emulator model — though it did so begrudgingly.
The agency “recognizes that there is still significant dispute regarding climate science and modeling,” it wrote. “However, the EPA is utilizing the climate modeling provided within this section to help illustrate” that zero-ing out emissions from vehicles “would not materially address the health and welfare dangers attributed to global climate change concerns in the Endangerment Finding.”
I have yet to hear back from outside experts about the EPA’s modeling here, so I can’t say what assumptions the agency made to reach this conclusion or estimate how well it will hold up to scrutiny. We’ll be talking to more legal scholars and scientists in the coming days as they digest the rule and dig into which of these arguments — if any — has a chance to prevail.
The state is poised to join a chorus of states with BYO energy policies.
With the backlash to data center development growing around the country, some states are launching a preemptive strike to shield residents from higher energy costs and environmental impacts.
A bill wending through the Washington State legislature would require data centers to pick up the tab for all of the costs associated with connecting them to the grid. It echoes laws passed in Oregon and Minnesota last year, and others currently under consideration in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, and Delaware.
Several of these bills, including Washington’s, also seek to protect state climate goals by ensuring that new or expanded data centers are powered by newly built, zero-emissions power plants. It’s a strategy that energy wonks have started referring to as BYONCE — bring your own new clean energy. Almost all of the bills also demand more transparency from data center companies about their energy and water use.
This list of state bills is by no means exhaustive. Governors in New York and Pennsylvania have declared their intent to enact similar policies this year. At least six states, including New York and Georgia, are also considering total moratoria on new data centers while regulators study the potential impacts of a computing boom.
“Potential” is a key word here. One of the main risks lawmakers are trying to circumvent is that utilities might pour money into new infrastructure to power data centers that are never built, built somewhere else, or don’t need as much energy as they initially thought.
“There’s a risk that there’s a lot of speculation driving the AI data center boom,” Emily Moore, the senior director of the climate and energy program at the nonprofit Sightline Institute, told me. “If the load growth projections — which really are projections at this point — don’t materialize, ratepayers could be stuck holding the bag for grid investments that utilities have made to serve data centers.”
Washington State, despite being in the top 10 states for data center concentration, has not exactly been a hotbed of opposition to the industry. According to Heatmap Pro data, there are no moratoria or restrictive ordinances on data centers in the state. Rural communities in Eastern Washington have also benefited enormously from hosting data centers from the earlier tech boom, using the tax revenue to fund schools, hospitals, municipal buildings, and recreation centers.
Still, concern has started to bubble up. A ProPublica report in 2024 suggested that data centers were slowing the state’s clean energy progress. It also described a contentious 2023 utility commission meeting in Grant County, which has the highest concentration of data centers in the state, where farmers and tech workers fought over rising energy costs.
But as with elsewhere in the country, it’s the eye-popping growth forecasts that are scaring people the most. Last year, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, a group that oversees electricity planning in the region, estimated that data centers and chip fabricators could add somewhere between 1,400 megawatts and 4,500 megawatts of demand by 2030. That’s similar to saying that between one and four cities the size of Seattle will hook up to the region’s grid in the next four years.
In the face of such intimidating demand growth, Washington Governor Bob Ferguson convened a Data Center Working Group last year — made up of state officials as well as advisors from electric utilities, environmental groups, labor, and industry — to help the state formulate a game plan. After meeting for six months, the group published a report in December finding that among other things, the data center boom will challenge the state’s efforts to decarbonize its energy systems.
A supplemental opinion provided by the Washington Department of Ecology also noted that multiple data center developers had submitted proposals to use fossil fuels as their main source of power. While the state’s clean energy law requires all electricity to be carbon neutral by 2030, “very few data center developers are proposing to use clean energy to meet their energy needs over the next five years,” the department said.
The report’s top three recommendations — to maintain the integrity of Washington’s climate laws, strengthen ratepayer protections, and incentivize load flexibility and best practices for energy efficiency — are all incorporated into the bill now under discussion in the legislature. The full list was not approved by unanimous vote, however, and many of the dissenting voices are now opposing the data center bill in the legislature or asking for significant revisions.
Dan Diorio, the vice president of state policy for the Data Center Coalition, an industry trade group, warned lawmakers during a hearing on the bill that it would “significantly impact the competitiveness and viability of the Washington market,” putting jobs and tax revenue at risk. He argued that the bill inappropriately singles out data centers, when arguably any new facility with significant energy demand poses the same risks and infrastructure challenges. The onshoring of manufacturing facilities, hydrogen production, and the electrification of vehicles, buildings, and industry will have similar impacts. “It does not create a long-term durable policy to protect ratepayers from current and future sources of load growth,” he said.
Another point of contention is whether a top-down mandate from the state is necessary when utility regulators already have the authority to address the risks of growing energy demand through the ratemaking process.
Indeed, regulators all over the country are already working on it. The Smart Electric Power Alliance, a clean energy research and education nonprofit, has been tracking the special rate structures and rules that U.S. utilities have established for data centers, cryptocurrency mining facilities, and other customers with high-density energy needs, many of which are designed to protect other ratepayers from cost shifts. Its database, which was last updated in November, says that 36 such agreements have been approved by state utility regulators, mostly in the past three years, and that another 29 are proposed or pending.
Diario of the Data Center Coalition cited this trend as evidence that the Washington bill was unnecessary. “The data center industry has been an active party in many of those proceedings,” he told me in an email, and “remains committed to paying its full cost of service for the energy it uses.” (The Data Center Coalition opposed a recent utility decision in Ohio that will require data centers to pay for a minimum of 85% of their monthly energy forecast, even if they end up using less.)
One of the data center industry’s favorite counterarguments against the fear of rising electricity is that new large loads actually exert downward pressure on rates by spreading out fixed costs. Jeff Dennis, who is the executive director of the Electricity Customer Alliance and has worked for both the Department of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, told me this is something he worries about — that these potential benefits could be forfeited if data centers are isolated into their own ratemaking class. But, he said, we’re only in “version 1.5 or 2.0” when it comes to special rate structures for big energy users, known as large load tariffs.
“I think they’re going to continue to evolve as everybody learns more about how to integrate large loads, and as the large load customers themselves evolve in their operations,” he said.
The Washington bill passed the Appropriations Committee on Monday and now heads to the Rules Committee for review. A companion bill is moving through the state senate.
Plus more of the week’s top fights in renewable energy.
1. Kent County, Michigan — Yet another Michigan municipality has banned data centers — for the second time in just a few months.
2. Pima County, Arizona — Opposition groups submitted twice the required number of signatures in a petition to put a rezoning proposal for a $3.6 billion data center project on the ballot in November.
3. Columbus, Ohio — A bill proposed in the Ohio Senate could severely restrict renewables throughout the state.
4. Converse and Niobrara Counties, Wyoming — The Wyoming State Board of Land Commissioners last week rescinded the leases for two wind projects in Wyoming after a district court judge ruled against their approval in December.