Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 62 references

Lost in Siting: The Hidden Carbon Cost of Inequitable Residential Solar Installations

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Residential solar in the US is concentrated where it offsets the least carbon, and a simple multi-objective siting rule could improve its climate benefit by up to 39.8% while keeping 94.6% of the energy gain.

desk verdict The observational link between solar siting inequity and carbon offset potential is real and worth citing; the 39.8% simulation headline needs a capacity-cap check and uncertainty analysis before being used in policy. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13868 v1 pith:SZEITV36 submitted 2025-01-23 cs.CE

Cooper Sigrist , Adam Lechowicz , Jovan Champ , Noman Bashir , Mohammad Hajiesmaili This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CE
keywords residentialsolarphotovoltaicscarbonoffsetpotentialsitingstrategiesenergyequitygridintensityProjectSunroofmulti-objectiveoptimizationdecarbonization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Residential solar panels in the US are not being built where they would do the most for the climate. Combining Project Sunroof's per-panel carbon offset potential with census and voting data, the paper finds a systematic inversion: neighborhoods with higher shares of Black residents have about 7.4% higher carbon offset potential than average but 36.7% fewer installations, and lower-income neighborhoods have 14.7% higher potential but 47% fewer installations. Because installations are concentrated in high-sun, low-carbon-offset regions, the status quo trajectory wastes a large share of the potential climate benefit of each new panel. The paper proposes siting strategies, including a multi-objective 'Round Robin' rule that cycles among energy, carbon, and equity priorities, and simulates that it would avoid up to 39.8% more carbon than continuing current trends while still achieving 94.6% of the status quo's added electricity generation. If true, modest changes in where solar is encouraged could make residential PV substantially more effective as a decarbonization tool while narrowing demographic inequities.

What carries the argument

Carbon offset potential per panel—the estimated kilograms of CO2 avoided by replacing grid electricity with rooftop PV at a location, computed from Project Sunroof's energy-generation potential and eGRID non-baseload emission rates—is the yardstick that exposes the inefficiency. Realized potential, the ratio of existing to possible installations, is the yardstick of equity. The mechanism that carries the policy claim is the Round Robin simulation: ZIP codes are sorted by energy potential, carbon offset potential, Black population proportion, and median income, and the simulator assigns new panels by cycling through the top ZIP in each list, then the second, and so on, giving each objective equal weight. This produces a more geographically spread allocation than optimizing any single objective and is the strategy whose carbon gain and energy retention are reported.

What would settle it

Recompute per-ZIP carbon offset potential using hourly marginal grid emission rates—the emissions of the actual plants that would ramp down when solar generates—instead of yearly average non-baseload rates, and rerun the siting simulations; if the resulting carbon offset rankings stop showing high-offset, low-installation ZIPs, or if the Round Robin strategy no longer beats the status quo in avoided carbon, the central claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the current distribution of residential rooftop PV is carbon-inefficient: the US has been putting panels where they generate the most electricity, but those places often sit on grids that are already relatively clean, while places with dirtier grids—disproportionately Black, low-income, and Republican-leaning areas—have higher carbon offset potential and far fewer panels. The paper quantifies this as a mismatch between realized potential (existing installations as a share of possible installations) and carbon offset potential per panel. It then shows that a 'Round Robin' siting strategy, which gives equal weight to energy generation, carbon offset, Black population share, and low income by cycling through ZIP codes ranked on each objective, would achieve 94.6% of the status quo's energy addition while increasing carbon reductions by at least 39.8%, and would lift realized potential in high-Black-population states from about 50% below the national average to about 25% above it.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that Project Sunroof's carbon offset potential—which is based on yearly average eGRID non-baseload emission rates and does not correct for the mismatch between when solar generates and when the grid is dirtiest—is an accurate ranking of where rooftop panels avoid the most carbon; if that estimate is biased by region, the observed carbon inefficiency and the 39.8% improvement could both be artifacts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Continuing the status quo to a fourfold panel increase would need 100% of the projected panels to reach the net-zero carbon offset level, while the Round Robin strategy reaches the same total carbon offset with only 69.0% as many panels.
  • A strategy that optimizes for carbon offset alone avoids 71.3% more carbon than the status quo for the same number of panels, showing that pure carbon targeting is even more aggressive on climate.
  • Strategies that target racial or income equity also beat the status quo on carbon, so in the simulated range the equity and climate objectives reinforce rather than oppose each other.
  • The energy-maximizing siting strategy performs worst on carbon despite generating the most electricity, implying that optimizing residential solar for kilowatt-hours alone can undermine decarbonization goals.
  • The Round Robin strategy keeps 94.6% of the status quo's added energy while spreading installations more evenly across the southeast and Midwest rather than concentrating them in the sunny southwest.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The 39.8% figure compares strategies at equal panel counts; if targeted incentives also increase total adoption in underserved ZIP codes, the total carbon savings could be larger than this bound, but that depends on demand responses the paper does not estimate.
  • The simulation treats each ZIP code's rooftop space as exhaustible, so a home-level version could reveal whether the highest-offset rooftops within a ZIP are also the least likely to be adopted, which would change how aggressively a policy must target individual households.
  • The authors note that Sunroof's carbon offset estimates ignore the duck-curve timing mismatch between solar generation and evening grid demand; redoing the analysis with hourly marginal emission rates could shrink or grow the gaps, though the broad regional inversion of high-offset areas being underserved would likely persist because grid mixes differ strongly by region.
  • Because the Round Robin gives equal weight to four objectives, it is only one point in a policy space; explicit weights chosen by policymakers could trade energy for carbon or equity differently, and a formal Pareto analysis would map those trade-offs.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper combines Google Project Sunroof, ACS5, Ember, and MEDSL data to study the alignment between residential rooftop PV siting and carbon offset potential in the United States. It reports that ZIP codes with higher carbon offset potential tend to have fewer existing installations, with disparities along racial, income, and political lines. It then proposes and simulates five siting strategies, including a multi-objective 'Round Robin' strategy, and claims that this strategy achieves 94.6% of the energy generation of the status quo while improving carbon offsets by 39.8%. The authors release the SunSight toolkit comprising the cleaned data, analysis scripts, and simulation framework. The paper's central contribution is the quantification of a 'hidden carbon cost' of inequitable siting and the demonstration that simple alternative strategies could improve the climate impact of future residential solar deployment.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper makes a timely and policy-relevant contribution by connecting distributional inequity in rooftop solar to carbon efficiency, an angle that prior work has largely treated separately. The observed demographic patterns are broadly consistent with earlier studies (e.g., Sunter et al.), and the addition of a carbon-offset dimension is a genuine extension. The public release of SunSight is a practical strength, as is the use of externally sourced data and the absence of fitted parameters in the core analysis, which makes the simulation pipeline transparent and reproducible. However, the headline 39.8% improvement and 94.6% energy-preservation figures depend on simulation assumptions that are not fully specified, and the realized-potential metric that underpins the equity analysis is ambiguously defined. These issues affect the load-bearing quantitative claims and require strengthening before the results can be considered robust.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Strategy 5] The Round Robin simulation, and also the Status Quo simulation in Strategy 1, are not described as enforcing any cap on the number of panels per ZIP code. Unlike the energy- and carbon-efficient strategies, which explicitly install panels 'until the available rooftop space is exhausted,' the Round Robin description says only that panels are added by cycling through sorted lists. With N up to 1.8 million panels across roughly 10,559 ZIP codes, an uncapped procedure would place implausibly large numbers of panels in a few high-ranked ZIPs, and the claimed 39.8% carbon improvement and 94.6% energy fraction could be artifacts of deployments that exceed rooftop capacity. The paper must specify how 'available rooftop space' is quantified (e.g., from Project Sunroof's viable-roof estimates) and confirm that all simulated strategies respect this capacity constraint, then re-run the simulations with the constraint enforced and report whether the headline ratios persist.
  2. [Section 3.2.1] The definition of Realized Potential in Section 3.1 says it is 'the number of existing solar panel installations as a percentage of the potential solar PV installations,' but the procedure in Section 3.2.1 uses percent-covered to scale existing installations (multiplying by 1/percent-covered) to 'estimate the total.' This scaling estimates the total number of existing installations, not the number of potential installations, so it is unclear how the denominator of realized potential is obtained. If percent-covered refers to the fraction of buildings analyzed, the scaling only corrects for incomplete coverage of the existing-install count, not for the total viable-roof count. This ambiguity affects the realized-potential statistics reported in Table 2 and Figure 4, which are central to the paper's equity claims, and could change the demographic comparisons if percent-covered varies systematically by income or race. The authors should clarify the exact construction of realized potential and justify the scaling assumption.
  3. [Section 3.2.1, drawback (4)] The carbon offset potential used throughout the paper is based on eGRID non-baseload emission rates and does not account for the timing mismatch between PV generation and grid demand (the duck curve). The paper acknowledges this limitation but does not test its impact on the results. Because the core finding is that carbon offset potential is geographically misaligned with existing installations, a systematic regional bias in the emission-rate assumption could affect both the observed correlation and the simulated strategy comparisons. A sensitivity analysis using alternative marginal emission factors, or a time-matched generation and dispatch model for a subset of regions, would strengthen the central claim. If such data are unavailable, the paper should at least quantify the plausible range of error and discuss how it might alter the 39.8% improvement figure.
  4. [Abstract vs. Table 2] The abstract states that neighborhoods with relatively higher Black population have '7.4% higher carbon offset potential than average but 36.7% fewer installations,' while Table 2 reports +6.9% carbon offset potential and -34.0% realized potential for the same group. These are different numbers for what appears to be the same comparison. The discrepancy needs to be reconciled or the text should clarify that different subgroup definitions are used. Since these quantitative claims are a prominent part of the paper's motivation, an unexplained mismatch undermines the reliability of the reported statistics.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 6.2] The text introducing Figure 7 says 'we plot projections of the additional energy generation (in kWh)' but the figure and caption describe carbon emissions offset; this should be corrected to 'carbon offset.'
  2. [Section 4, Strategy 5] The Round Robin description says the strategy cycles through 'energy, carbon, equity' lists, but Section 4 defines two separate equity strategies (Black population proportion and low median income). It is unclear whether the Round Robin uses one combined equity list or cycles through four lists (energy, carbon, Black, income). Clarify the exact construction.
  3. [Figure 8 caption] The caption says Round Robin is a 'Round Robin of each of the other strategies,' which suggests it combines all objectives, but the body text only mentions energy, carbon, and equity. Align the caption and text.
  4. [Section 3.2.1] The paper refers to 'Google's Project Sunroof API' in Section 1.1 but the methodology in Section 3.2.1 describes retrieval of the published dataset; verify the terminology and data-access method for consistency.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor self-definitional reduction in 'Realized Potential'; headline 39.8% carbon result is scenario arithmetic on external data, not circular.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.1 (Realized Potential definition) and Section 3.2.1 (potential install count estimation)]
    "Realized Potential is the number of existing solar panel installations as a percentage of the potential solar PV installations. ... Since Sunroof only provides the existing install count for a given ZIP code, we need to estimate the potential installation count ... we scale each value using the percent-covered value given in the dataset. For instance, if 50% of a ZIP code is covered, we multiply the number of existing installations by 2 to estimate the total for a given ZIP code."

    By construction, the estimated potential installation count equals existing installations divided by Project Sunroof's percent-covered field. Therefore 'Realized Potential' (existing installations as a percentage of estimated potential) algebraically reduces to percent-covered itself. The paper presents this as an independently computed ratio of existing to possible installations, but any demographic pattern reported for 'realized potential' is exactly a restatement of Sunroof's coverage field. This is a self-definitional reduction, though it does not directly drive the headline 39.8% carbon-offset simulation, which uses raw installation counts and carbon-offset data.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not circular. The observed correlations, such as high-carbon-offset ZIP codes having fewer existing installations, are computed from external Project Sunroof, ACS5, Ember, and MEDSL data. The simulated siting strategies are greedy allocation procedures evaluated with the same externally sourced carbon-offset values; the 39.8% improvement over the Status Quo is the arithmetic result of the sorting and panel-count assumptions, not a fitted parameter. No fitted coefficient is used to produce the headline result, and no load-bearing self-citation occurs: the only co-author prior work cited, Solar-TK [7], is not used in the simulations. The one constructed quantity that reduces to its own input is 'Realized Potential', whose denominator is estimated as existing installations divided by Project Sunroof's percent-covered field, making the ratio identically that same field. This affects the equity metric presentation but not the headline carbon-improvement simulation, which relies on raw install counts and carbon offsets. The paper also transparently lists Project Sunroof's limitations, including the missing 'duck curve' timing adjustment, rather than concealing them. The separate concern that the Round Robin simulation may not cap panels at rooftop capacity is a modeling correctness and feasibility question, not a circularity. Overall, the paper's core claims retain independent empirical content, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central analysis imports external carbon offset estimates and demographic data, and the simulation layers additional assumptions about coverage scaling and rooftop capacity. These are reasonable starting points, but they are not derived or validated within the paper, so the headline improvement figure inherits their uncertainty.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The carbon offset potential values from Google Project Sunroof, which use eGRID non-baseload CO2-equivalent emission rates, represent the true avoided emissions of rooftop PV in each ZIP code.
    Assumed in Section 3.2.1 and used throughout; the paper notes it ignores the temporal mismatch of PV generation and demand (duck curve), a known bias.
  • ad hoc to paper The percent-covered scaling (multiplying existing install counts by 1/percent-covered) yields an unbiased estimate of total existing installations per ZIP code.
    Introduced in Section 3.2.1 to estimate total installations from Sunroof's partial coverage; assumes uniform distribution of installations in uncovered areas.
  • ad hoc to paper For the round-robin simulation, a ZIP code can receive as many panels as its position in the sorted lists dictates, without exhausting rooftop capacity.
    Section 4 describes cycling through sorted lists without specifying capacity constraints, so the simulation may over-allocate panels to smaller ZIP codes.
  • domain assumption State-level 2020 presidential voting results can characterize the political leaning of all ZIP codes within a state.
    Section 3.3.2 assigns state-level vote data to ZIP-code level analysis; assumes within-state homogeneity of political preference.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lost in Siting: The Hidden Carbon Cost of Inequitable Residential Solar Installations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SZEITV36

@misc{pith2026250113868,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lost in Siting: The Hidden Carbon Cost of Inequitable Residential Solar Installations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SZEITV36}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13868}
}
read the original abstract

The declining cost of solar photovoltaics (PV) combined with strong federal and state-level incentives have resulted in a high number of residential solar PV installations in the US. However, these installations are concentrated in particular regions, such as California, and demographics, such as high-income Asian neighborhoods. This inequitable distribution creates an illusion that further increasing residential solar installations will become increasingly challenging. Furthermore, while the inequity in solar installations has received attention, no prior comprehensive work has been done on understanding whether our current trajectory of residential solar adoption is energy- and carbon-efficient. In this paper, we reveal the hidden energy and carbon cost of the inequitable distribution of existing installations. Using US-based data on carbon offset potential, the amount of avoided carbon emissions from using rooftop PV instead of electric grid energy, and the number of existing solar installations, we surprisingly observe that locations and demographics with a higher carbon offset potential have fewer existing installations. For instance, neighborhoods with relatively higher black population have 7.4% higher carbon offset potential than average but 36.7% fewer installations; lower-income neighborhoods have 14.7% higher potential and 47% fewer installations. We propose several equity- and carbon-aware solar siting strategies. In evaluating these strategies, we develop Sunsight, a toolkit that combines simulation/visualization tools and our relevant datasets, which we are releasing publicly. Our projections show that a multi-objective siting strategy can address two problems at once; namely, it can improve societal outcomes in terms of distributional equity and simultaneously improve the carbon-efficiency (i.e., climate impact) of current installation trends by up to 39.8%.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13868 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The estimated potential carbon offset (defined in Section 3.1) of building all viable rooftop solar panels plotted against the number of current rooftop installs for each ZIP code covered by Google’s Project Sunroof. ZIP codes with > 250 existing installs or potential carbon offset > 800,000 metric tons are not shown for legibility, but are used to fit the trend lines. The ZIP codes are split along the quartiles of … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Solar energy generation potential (y-axis) and car [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Map of estimated carbon offset potential (kg/panel) for each ZIP code represented in the dataset. data because it is the most accurate summary of results in the 2020 election – we note that the data does not include write-in votes. 3.3.3 Combining Datasets. In our analysis, we interchangeably use ZIP code-level and state-level granularity values. For ZIP code￾granular experiments, we use primarily the Project Sunroo… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Inequity and inefficiency analysis using (a) the realized potential (existing installs / possible installs) for a given group [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: State-level granularity maps of relevant features. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Projections of the additional (yearly) energy gener [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Projections of the estimated carbon emissions offset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The projected locations and quantities of panels projected to be built by the strategies described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The projected demographic breakdown of Estimated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    FACT SHEET: President Biden Sets 2030 Greenhouse Gas Pollution Reduc- tion Target Aimed at Creating Good-Paying Union Jobs and Securing U.S

    2021. FACT SHEET: President Biden Sets 2030 Greenhouse Gas Pollution Reduc- tion Target Aimed at Creating Good-Paying Union Jobs and Securing U.S. Lead- ership on Clean Energy Technologies. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing- room/statements-releases/2021/04/22/fact-sheet-president-biden-sets-2030- greenhouse-gas-pollution-reduction-target-aimed-at-creat...

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    https://seia.org/research-resources/solar-market-insight-report-q2-2024/

    2024. https://seia.org/research-resources/solar-market-insight-report-q2-2024/

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    https://seia.org/research-resources/major-solar-projects-list/

    2024. https://seia.org/research-resources/major-solar-projects-list/

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Scott Agnew and Paul Dargusch. 2015. Effect of residential solar and storage on centralized electricity supply systems. Nature Climate Change 5, 4 (March 2015), 315–318. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2523

    doi:10.1038/nclimate2523 2015

  5. [5]

    Forrester, Naim Richard Darghouth, and Ben Hoen

    Galen Barbose, Sydney P. Forrester, Naim Richard Darghouth, and Ben Hoen

    work page

  6. [6]

    Bhagavathy

    Jake Barnes and Sivapriya M. Bhagavathy. 2020. The economics of heat pumps and the (un)intended consequences of government policy. Energy Policy (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Noman Bashir, Dong Chen, David Irwin, and Prashant Shenoy. 2019. Solar-TK: A Data-Driven Toolkit for Solar PV Performance Modeling and Forecasting. In IEEE International Conference on Mobile Ad Hoc and Sensor Systems (MASS) . https://doi.org/10.1109/MASS.2019.00060

    arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Bauner and C

    C. Bauner and C. Crago. 2015. Adoption of residential solar power under uncer- tainty: Implications for renewable energy incentives. Energy Policy (2015)

    work page 2015

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Nicolas Boccard and Axel Gautier. 2021. Solar rebound: The unintended con- sequences of subsidies. Energy Economics 100 (Aug. 2021), 105334. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105334

    2021

  2. [10]

    US Census Bureau. [n. d.]. Our Commitment to Quality: A Revised American Community Survey Estimation Methodology in the Complexity of a Pandemic — census.gov. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2022/ 03/acs-5year-estimation-methodology.html. [Accessed 23-07-2024]

    2022

  3. [11]

    Census Bureau

    U.S. Census Bureau. 2022. American Community Survey 2017-2021 5-Year Data Release. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-kits/2022/acs-5-year.html

    2022

  4. [12]

    US Census Bureau. 2024. Code Lists, Definitions, and Accuracy — census.gov. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/technical- documentation/code-lists.html. [Accessed 22-09-2024]

    2024

  5. [13]

    Chrystie Burr. 2016. Subsidies and Investments in the Solar Power Market. https://spot.colorado.edu/~chbu2511/solarrevise2016.pdf. [Accessed 21-12-2023]

    2016

  6. [14]

    Cañizares, Kankar Bhattacharya, and Ross Baldick

    Ivan Calero, Claudio A. Cañizares, Kankar Bhattacharya, and Ross Baldick. 2022. Duck-Curve Mitigation in Power Grids With High Penetration of PV Generation. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid 13 (2022), 314–329. https://api.semanticscholar. org/CorpusID:239917712

    2022

  7. [15]

    North Carolina Clean Energy Technology Center. 2023. The 50 States of Solar: Q1 2023 Quarterly Report. Technical Report. North Carolina Clean Energy Technology Cente. Access at https://nccleantech.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Q1- 23_SolarExecSummary_Final.pdf

    2023

  8. [16]

    Chapman, Benjamin McLellan, and Tetsuo Tezuka

    Andrew J. Chapman, Benjamin McLellan, and Tetsuo Tezuka. 2016. Residential solar PV policy: An analysis of impacts, successes and failures in the Australian case. Renewable Energy 86 (2016), 1265–1279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene. 2015.09.061

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    Christine Crago and Ilya Chernyakhovskiy. 2017. Are policy incentives for solar power effective? Evidence from residential installations in the Northeast. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    Crago, Emma Grazier, and Dwayne Breger

    Christine L. Crago, Emma Grazier, and Dwayne Breger. 2023. Income and racial disparities in financial returns from solar PV deployment. Energy Economics 117 (Jan. 2023), 106409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2022.106409

    2023

  11. [19]

    Zana Cranmer, Laurel Steinfield, Javier Miranda, and Taryn Stohler. 2023. Energy distributive injustices: Assessing the demographics of communities surrounding renewable and fossil fuel power plants in the United States. Energy Research; Social Science 100 (June 2023), 103050....

    2023

  12. [20]

    MIT Election Data and Science Lab. 2017. U.S. President 1976–2020. https: //doi.org/10.7910/DVN/42MVDX

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    Dokshin and Brian C

    Fedor A. Dokshin and Brian C. Thiede. 2023. Revised estimates of racial and ethnic disparities in rooftop photovoltaic deployment in the United States.Nature Sustainability 6 (2023), 752 – 755. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 259398453

    2023

  14. [22]

    Idiano D’Adamo, Massimo Gastaldi, and Piergiuseppe Morone. 2022. The impact of a subsidized tax deduction on residential solar photovoltaic-battery energy storage systems. Utilities Policy 75 (April 2022), 101358

    2022

  15. [23]

    Rawad El Kontar and Xin Jin. 2020. A Framework for Optimal Placement of Rooftop Photovoltaic: Maximizing Solar Production and Operational Cost Sav- ings in Residential Communities. ASME Journal of Engineering for Sustainable e-Energy ’25, June 17–20, 2025, Rotterdam, Netherlan...

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    Ember. 2023. United States electricity data (state-level), 2023 release. https: //ember-climate.org/data-catalogue/us-electricity-data/. [Accessed 20-03-2024]

    2023

  17. [25]

    SolarPower Europe. 2023. Solar for the masses as global solar rooftops skyrocket by 50%. https://www.solarpowereurope.org/press-releases/new-report-solar- for-the-masses-as-global-solar-rooftops-skyrocket-by-50-2

    2023

  18. [26]

    Fitiwi, and John Curtis

    Ankita Singh Gaur, Desta Z. Fitiwi, and John Curtis. 2021. Heat pumps and our low-carbon future: A comprehensive review. Energy Research & Social Science 71 (Jan. 2021), 101764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101764

    2021

  19. [27]

    Gernaat, Harmen-Sytze de Boer, Louise C

    David E.H.J. Gernaat, Harmen-Sytze de Boer, Louise C. Dammeier, and Detlef P. van Vuuren. 2020. The role of residential rooftop photovoltaic in long-term energy and climate scenarios. Applied Energy 279 (2020), 115705. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115705

    2020

  20. [28]

    Granger Morgan

    Shelly Hagerman, Paulina Jaramillo, and M. Granger Morgan. 2016. Is rooftop solar PV at socket parity without subsidies? Energy Policy 89 (Feb. 2016), 84–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.11.017

    2016 doi

  21. [29]

    Chiung-Wen Hsu. 2012. Using a system dynamics model to assess the effects of capital subsidies and feed-in tariffs on solar PV installations. Applied Energy 100 (Dec. 2012), 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.02.039

    2012 doi

  22. [30]

    Iea. [n. d.]. Executive summary – electricity 2024 – analysis. https://www.iea. org/reports/electricity-2024/executive-summary

    2024

  23. [31]

    Andrew Kearns. 2022. Are Solar Incentive Programs Effective at Reducing CO2 Emissions? Evidence from Massachusetts. https://andrewkearns.github. io/andrewkearns/JMP_Andrew_J_Kearns.pdf. [Accessed 19-12-2023]

    2022

  24. [32]

    Sophia Kokoni and Matthew Leach. 2021. Policy mechanisms to support heat pump deployment: A UK case study based on techno-economic mod- elling. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Transition 1 (Aug. 2021), 100009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rset.2021.100009

    2021

  25. [33]

    Khaleghi, Maryam Hamidi, Ye Zhang, Ferenc Szidarovszky, Guzin Bayraksan, and Young-Jun Son

    Sadik Kucuksari, Amirreza M. Khaleghi, Maryam Hamidi, Ye Zhang, Ferenc Szidarovszky, Guzin Bayraksan, and Young-Jun Son. 2014. An Integrated GIS, optimization and simulation framework for optimal PV size and location in campus area environments. Applied Energy 113 (Jan. 2014),...

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

    Kairat A Kuterbekov, Asset M Kabyshev, Kenzhebatyr Zh Bekmyrza, Marzhan M Kubenova, and Abebe T Ayalew. 2024. How can solar panels collectors enhance energy efficiency? Utilization of the novel optimization techniques. International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 19 (2024)...

    2024

  27. [35]

    Haifeng Lan, Zhonghua Gou, and Yi Lu. 2021. Machine learning approach to understand regional disparity of residential solar adoption in Australia.Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 136 (Feb. 2021), 110458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. rser.2020.110458

    2021

  28. [36]

    Lemay, Sigurd Wagner, and Barry P

    Amélie C. Lemay, Sigurd Wagner, and Barry P. Rand. 2023. Current status and future potential of rooftop solar adoption in the United States. Energy Policy 177 (June 2023), 113571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113571

    2023

  29. [37]

    Google LLC. [n. d.]. Project Sunroof. https://sunroof.withgoogle.com

  30. [38]

    Anna Manowska, Artur Dylong, Bogdan Tkaczyk, and Jarosław Manowski. 2023. Analysis and Monitoring of Maximum Solar Potential for Energy Production Optimization Using Photovoltaic Panels. Energies 17, 1 (Dec. 2023), 72. https: //doi.org/10.3390/en17010072

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    Matisoff and Erik P

    Daniel C. Matisoff and Erik P. Johnson. 2017. The comparative effectiveness of residential solar incentives. Energy Policy 108 (Sept. 2017), 44–54

    2017

  32. [40]

    Meghan Mooney and Ben Sigrin. 2018. Rooftop Energy Potential of Low Income Communities in America (REPLICA). https://doi.org/10.7799/1432837

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2024. 2024 Annual Technology Baseline

    2024

  34. [42]

    Department of Energy

    U.S. Department of Energy. 2021. Money Matters: How to Finance Your Rooftop Solar Energy System. https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/articles/ money-matters-how-finance-your-rooftop-solar-energy-system

    2021

  35. [43]

    Eric O’Shaughnessy, Galen Barbose, Ryan Wiser, Sydney Forrester, and Naïm Darghouth. 2020. The impact of policies and business models on income equity in rooftop solar adoption. Nature Energy 6, 1 (Nov. 2020), 84–91. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41560-020-00724-2

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    Prachuab Peerapong and Bundit Limmeechokchai. 2014. Investment Incentive of Grid Connected Solar Photovoltaic Power Plant under Proposed Feed-in Tariffs Framework in Thailand. Energy Procedia 52 (2014), 179–189. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.egypro.2014.07.069

    2014

  37. [45]

    Cristina Peñasco, Laura Díaz Anadón, and Elena Verdolini. 2021. Systematic review of the outcomes and trade-offs of ten types of decarbonization policy instruments. Nature Climate Change 11, 3 (Jan. 2021), 257–265

    2021

  38. [46]

    Miguel Poblete-Cazenave and Narasimha D. Rao. 2023. Social and contextual determinants of heat pump adoption in the US: Implications for subsidy policy design. Energy Research & Social Science 104 (Oct. 2023), 103255

    2023

  39. [47]

    Trisha Ray. 2021. Residential Rooftop Solar Equity in Washington State - ProQuest — proquest.com. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2562802377?pq-origsite= gscholar&fromopenview=true

    2021

  40. [48]

    Tony G. Reames. 2020. Distributional disparities in residential rooftop solar potential and penetration in four cities in the United States. Energy Research and Social Science 69 (2020), 101612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101612

    2020

  41. [49]

    Rabee Reffat and Radwa Ezzat. 2024. Maximizing solar energy generation: guidelines for optimizing photovoltaic panel placement on building facades. Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research (June 2024). https: //doi.org/10.1108/arch-01-2024-0006

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. 2024. Tax Credit - NYSERDA. https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/All-Programs/NY-Sun/Solar-for-Your- Home/Paying-for-Solar/Tax-Credit. [Accessed 21-05-2024]

    2024

  43. [51]

    Andrea Sarzynski, Jeremy Larrieu, and Gireesh Shrimali. 2012. The impact of state financial incentives on market deployment of solar technology. Energy Policy 46 (July 2012), 550–557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.04.032

    2012 doi

  44. [52]

    Ali Sher and Yuzhuo Qiu. 2022. Pakistan’s solar mission: Do solar finance and subsidy remove the barriers to solar installations? Renewable Energy (2022)

    2022

  45. [53]

    Department of Energy Solar Energy Technologies Office. 2023. Homeowner’s Guide to the Federal Tax Credit for Solar Photovoltaics. https://www.energy.gov/ eere/solar/homeowners-guide-federal-tax-credit-solar-photovoltaics. Accessed February 2024

    2023

  46. [54]

    Sunter, Sergio Castellanos, and Daniel M

    Deborah A. Sunter, Sergio Castellanos, and Daniel M. Kammen. 2019. Disparities in rooftop photovoltaics deployment in the United States by race and ethnicity. Nature Sustainability 2, 1 (Jan. 2019), 71–76

    2019

  47. [55]

    Jacqueline Hettel Tidwell and Abraham Tidwell. 2021. Decarbonizing via dispar- ities: Problematizing the relationship between social identity and solar energy transitions in the United States. Energy Research & Social Science 77 (July 2021), 102099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.e...

    2021

  48. [56]

    Census Bureau

    U.S. Census Bureau. 2020. Multiyear ACS Accuracy of Data

    2020

  49. [57]

    Environmental Protection Agency

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. eGRID2012 Summary Ta- bles. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-10/documents/egrid2012_ summarytables_0.pdf Available from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/ 2015-10/documents/egrid2012_summarytables_0.pdf [Accessed 2...

    2015

  50. [58]

    https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/tech_docs/ accuracy/MultiyearACSAccuracyofData2020.pdf Available from: https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/tech_docs/accuracy/ MultiyearACSAccuracyofData2020.pdf [Accessed 2024-07-23]

    2024

  51. [59]

    Qing Zhong and Daoqin Tong. 2020. Spatial layout optimization for solar photovoltaic (PV) panel installation. Renewable Energy 150 (May 2020), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.12.099

    2020 doi

  52. [60]

    Zander, Genevieve Simpson, Supriya Mathew, et al

    Kerstin K. Zander, Genevieve Simpson, Supriya Mathew, et al. 2019. Preferences for and potential impacts of financial incentives to install residential rooftop solar photovoltaic systems in Australia. Journal of Cleaner Production (2019)

    2019

  53. [62]

    Wellstead, and Dong Min Kim

    Shan Zhou, Xue Gao, Adam M. Wellstead, and Dong Min Kim. 2023. Oper- ationalizing social equity in public policy design: A comparative analysis of solar equity policies in the United States. Policy Studies Journal (May 2023). https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12505

    2023 doi

  54. [2020]

    Residential Rooftop Solar Adopters

    Income Trends among U.S. Residential Rooftop Solar Adopters. https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:216398906

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.