Technical Potential and Meaningful Benefits of Community Solar in The United States

Technical Potential and Meaningful
Benefits of Community Solar in the

United States
Katy Waechter,1 Eric O’Shaughnessy,2 Sudha Kannan,1
and Robin Burton1
1 National Renewable Energy Laboratory
2 Clean Kilowatts
NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Technical Report

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy NREL/TP-6A20-87524
Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC February 2024
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Technical Potential and Meaningful
Benefits of Community Solar in the
United States
Katy Waechter,1 Eric O’Shaughnessy,2 Sudha Kannan,1
and Robin Burton1
1 National Renewable Energy Laboratory
2 Clean Kilowatts
Suggested Citation
Waechter, Katy, Eric O'Shaughnessy, Sudha Kannan and Robin Burton. 2024. Technical
Potential and Meaningful Benefits of Community Solar in the United States. Golden, CO:
National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-6A20-87524.
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy24osti/87524.pdf.
NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Technical Report

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy NREL/TP-6A20-87524
Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC February 2024
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications. 15013 Denver West Parkway
Golden, CO 80401
Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov
NOTICE
This work was authored in part by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, operated by Alliance for
Sustainable Energy, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under Contract No. DE-AC36-
08GO28308. Funding provided by U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Solar Energy Technologies
Office. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of the DOE or the U.S.
Government.
This report is available at no cost from the National

Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at
www.nrel.gov/publications.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) reports produced

after 1991 and a growing number of pre-1991
documents are available
free via www.OSTI.gov.
Cover Photo by Dennis Schroeder: NREL 60075.
NREL prints on paper that contains recycled content.
iii
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
Acronyms
AC alternating current
ACS U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey
AMI area median income
BTM behind-the-meter
CBA community benefit agreement
DC direct current
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
EIA U.S. Energy Information Administration
FCR fixed charge rate
GW gigawatt
GWh gigawatt-hour
IRA Inflation Reduction Act
JEDI Jobs and Economic Development Impact
km2 square kilometer
kW kilowatt
kWh kilowatt-hour
LCOE levelized cost of energy
LEAD Low-Income Energy Affordability Data
LMI low- to moderate-income
m2 square meter
MW megawatt
MWh megawatt-hour
NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory
NSRDB National Solar Radiation Database
PV photovoltaic
reV Renewable Energy Potential
SAM System Advisor Model
TWh terawatt-hour
W watt
iv
Executive Summary
Community solar is any solar project or purchasing program within a geographic area in which
the benefits flow to multiple customers, such as individuals, businesses, nonprofits, and other
groups. Community solar customers typically subscribe to or own a portion of the energy
generated by a solar array and receive an electric bill credit for electricity generated by their
share of the community solar system. Community solar can offer greater household savings for
electricity customers, provide access to solar energy for low- to moderate-income (LMI)
customers, generate resilience and grid benefits, and boost solar workforce development, among
other benefits. 1 The goal of this study was to identify the maximum amount of community solar
capacity that is physically feasible for development and the extent of the associated benefits.
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) estimated the technical potential for
community solar in the United States under two siting regimes (Limited Access and Reference
Access). This analysis characterized the variability in local drivers of community solar siting and
provided high and low bounds on community solar technical potential. For this analysis, we
modified existing siting regimes for ground-mount solar photovoltaics (PV) to reflect community
solar siting constraints, including virtual hosting requirements, maximum interconnection
distance, and inclusion of rooftop and ground-mount PV array types. This combination of land
availability assumptions targeted developable spaces with characteristics reflective of existing
community solar installations and that are incompatible with utility-scale renewable energy
technology deployments, similar to the methodology in Lopez et al. (2024). This approach
prioritizes exclusive siting of community solar. We applied one technology scenario per array
type. We used the PV Rooftop model (Gagnon et al. 2016) to estimate PV-developable areas on
individual buildings, and we used the Renewable Energy Potential (reV) model (Maclaurin et al.
2019) to estimate developable areas for ground-mount PV and to estimate energy production for
both rooftop and ground-mount systems across the United States for our two siting regimes.
At a national level, we estimate that there are 967 gigawatts alternating current (GWAC) of
community solar technical potential under the Limited Access regime, amounting to 1,710
terawatt-hours (TWh) of annual energy production. We estimate that there are 2,862 GWAC of
community solar technical potential under the Reference Access regime, amounting to 5,921
TWh of annual energy production (Table ES-1). The resource area for rooftop community solar
systems (2,776.64 square kilometers [km2]) is consistent across the Limited Access and
Reference Access siting regimes due to its low land conflict potential. The resource area for
ground-mount community solar systems ranges from nearly 12,000 to 53,000 km2. This wide
range represents 30% to 126% of the maximum land area for ground-based solar identified for
the highest land-use scenario (Decarb+E) in the Solar Futures Study (DOE 2021). These
resource areas are largely in addition to resource areas considered for utility-scale renewable
energy technologies in urban and suburban areas where only smaller systems can be deployed
and on not federally owned lands. However, these resource areas are in competition with utility-
scale renewable energy technologies in rural areas with larger contiguous developable tracts of
land within proximity of substation interconnections, primarily affecting the largest ground-
mount PV systems modeled in this study.
1
“Community Solar Basics,” DOE, https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/community-solar-basics
Table ES-1. Technical Potential Estimates by Siting Regime and Array Type
Siting Array Developable Net Capacity Capacity Annual Energy

Regime Type Area (km2) Factor (mean) (GWAC) Production (TWh)
Limited Rooftop 2,776.64 20.65% 396.99 718.24

Access
Ground 15,437.60 19.85% 570.51 991.98
Reference Rooftop 2,776.64 20.65% 396.99 718.24
Access
Ground 53,378.03 20.77% 2,465.14 4,484.77
Our technical potential estimation suggests that community solar could conceivably serve 53.2
million households and 311,750 businesses that cannot access behind-the-meter solar in the
United States. In practice, market, economic, and policy constraints mean that the actual number
of households and businesses potentially served by community solar is much smaller. Our
analysis suggests that community solar could theoretically grow to serve all residential electricity
customers who are unable to adopt behind-the-meter solar, including low- to moderate-income
(LMI) households. We found that 42% of households and 44% of businesses are unable to access
behind-the-meter solar, a decrease from previous estimates that represents a lower overall
demand for community solar. Not all community solar capacity is located within the same
communities as subscribers, particularly for households renting and multifamily buildings, but it
is accessible to subscribers within the same electricity utility service territory.
Figure ES-1. Summary of projected meaningful benefits based on near-term community solar
deployment
In this report, we also explore the potential gross benefits from the ongoing deployment of
community solar, as shown in Figure ES-1. We estimate that, if all technically viable potential
community solar is deployed, it could save customers billions of dollars on their electricity bills,
vi
serve tens of millions of LMI households, generate billions of dollars in grid resilience and grid
service values, drive billions of dollars of economic benefits into host communities, and support
hundreds of thousands of jobs. Realistically, the potential accrual of benefits is a fraction of the
technical potential estimates. Still, using the 20-GW target set by the U.S. Department of Energy
National Community Solar Partnership as a more realistic target for near-term deployment, we
estimate that community solar could reduce subscriber electricity costs by around $110 million–
$330 million per year, serve 210,000–630,000 LMI households, generate $50 million–$160
million per year in grid resiliency and service value, drive $20 million–$160 million per year in
economic benefits into host communities, and support around 7,000 permanent jobs.
vii
Table of Contents
NOTICE ........................................................................................................................................................ iii
Acronyms .................................................................................................................................................... iv
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... v
Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................... viii
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background: Technical Potential .................................................................................................. 2
1.2 Background: Meaningful Benefits ................................................................................................ 3
2 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Estimating Generation ................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Siting Constraints and Regimes .................................................................................................... 7
2.2.1 Rooftop Siting Constraints ............................................................................................... 8
2.2.2 Ground-Mount Siting Constraints .................................................................................... 8
2.2.3 Virtual Hosting Limitations ........................................................................................... 11
2.3 Estimating Technical Potential and Offsetable Consumption ..................................................... 12
3 Technical Potential Results ............................................................................................................... 14
3.1 Community Solar Capacity and Annual Energy Production ....................................................... 18
3.1.1 Opportunities for Strategically Siting Community Solar ............................................... 20
3.2 Community Solar Technical Potential by Household Income, Tenure, and Building Type ....... 26
4 Meaningful Benefits ........................................................................................................................... 28
4.1 Greater Household Savings ......................................................................................................... 28
4.1.1 Household Savings Baseline .......................................................................................... 28
4.1.2 Greater Household Savings Estimates ........................................................................... 30
4.2 LMI Household Access ............................................................................................................... 30
4.2.1 LMI Household Access Baseline ................................................................................... 31
4.2.2 LMI Household Access Estimates ................................................................................. 31
4.3 Resilience and Grid Benefits ....................................................................................................... 31
4.3.1 Resilience and Grid Benefits Baseline ........................................................................... 32
4.3.2 Resilience and Grid Benefits Estimates ......................................................................... 33
4.4 Community Ownership ............................................................................................................... 34
4.4.1 Community Ownership Baseline ................................................................................... 34
4.4.2 Estimated Benefits of Community Ownership ............................................................... 34
4.5 Equitable Workforce Development ............................................................................................. 35
4.5.1 Equitable Workforce Development Baseline ................................................................. 36
4.5.2 Estimated Benefits of Equitable Workforce Development ............................................ 36
5 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 38
5.1 Future Work ................................................................................................................................ 38
References ................................................................................................................................................. 40
viii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Community solar technical potential framework (modified from Brown et al. 2016) .................. 3
Figure 2. Size range of solar PV deployments with scaled system size indicator ........................................ 5
Figure 3. Annual mean global horizontal irradiance from 1998 to 2018 (National Solar Radiation
Database for the continental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii) ............................................ 6
Figure 4. Elevation digital surface model and derived roof area characteristics used by the PV Rooftop
model........................................................................................................................................ 8
Figure 5. Overview of the method used to determine resource availability after applying solar PV
ordinance setbacks (from Lopez et al. 2023) ........................................................................... 9
Figure 6. Ground-mount PV technical exclusions adapted from utility-scale solar siting regimes ............ 10
Figure 7. Geographic distribution of potential community solar sites by supply or demand constraint (gray
indicates no data) ................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 8. Distribution of households by income with significant barriers for behind-the-meter (BTM) PV
compatibility based on tenure, building type, and individual building suitability ................. 14
Figure 9. Modeled community solar capacity for Reference Access siting regime (top) and Limited
Access siting regime (bottom) ............................................................................................... 19
Figure 10. Community solar potential capacity by technology, siting regime, and context ....................... 20
Figure 11. Cumulative distribution of modeled ground-mount PV by siting regime ................................. 21
Figure 12. Percent of electricity consumption that cannot be met by behind-the-meter PV that can be
offset by modeled community solar under the Reference Access siting regime.................... 23
Figure 13. Percent of electricity consumption that cannot be met by behind-the-meter PV that can be
offset by modeled community solar under the Limited Access siting regime ....................... 23
List of Tables
Table 1. Limited Access Siting Regime Community Solar Technical Potential Results by State.............. 15
Table 2. Reference Siting Regime Community Solar Technical Potential Results by State ...................... 16
Table 3. Distribution of Rooftop PV Capacity by Building Occupancy Type ........................................... 24
Table 4. Percent of Rooftop Area Developable for PV by Building Occupancy Type .............................. 25
Table 5. Annual Residential Electricity Consumption by Income, Tenure, and Dwelling Type ................ 27
Table 6. Percent of Modeled Community Solar Supply (Limited Access) Needed To Offset Residential
Electricity Consumption by Income, Tenure, and Dwelling Type......................................... 27
ix
1 Introduction
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) defines community solar as any solar project or
purchasing program, within a geographic area, in which the benefits flow to multiple customers,
such as individuals, businesses, nonprofits, and other groups. 2 In most cases, customers benefit
from energy generated by solar panels at an off-site array. Community solar customers typically
subscribe to—or in some cases, own—a portion of the energy generated by a solar array, and
receive an electric bill credit for electricity generated by their share of the community solar
system. Community solar can be a great option for people who are unable to install solar panels
on their roofs because they are renters, can’t afford solar, or because their roofs or electrical
systems aren’t suited to solar.
Community solar is a business model that allows multiple electricity customers to “subscribe” to
the output of a shared solar photovoltaic (PV) array. Some definitions of community solar
include geographic restrictions, such as requiring that systems serve subscribers in the same
utility service territory. Community solar is growing rapidly, with cumulative installed capacity
in the United States increasing from around 1 gigawatt (GWAC) in 2018 to more than 7.045
GWAC by the end of 2023 (Xu 2024). The growth of community solar has partly been enabled by
state policies that facilitate the subscription business model—namely, policies that allow
subscribers to use community solar credits against their utility bill obligations.
Community solar could expand solar access to households and businesses that cannot adopt on-
site solar (e.g., rooftop solar). Previous work by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL) found that community solar could be a viable option for around half of U.S. homes and
businesses facing significant barriers to adopting on-site solar due to rooftop constraints,
property ownership issues, or other challenges (Feldman et al. 2015). Participation in community
solar generally entails no or minimal upfront costs, making community solar adoption a viable
option for budget-constrained households. Further, unlike rooftop solar, community solar poses
no specific barriers to adoption for households that rent or live in multifamily housing. As a
result, community solar expands solar access to populations underserved by conventional on-site
solar business models (Heeter et al. 2018; Michaud 2020; Abbott et al. 2022; Hausman 2022).
The role of community solar in expanding solar access is further promoted by a growing suite of
federal and state policies to promote community solar adoption among low- to moderate-income
(LMI) households (Cook and Shah 2018; Heeter et al. 2018; Connelly 2023).
The purpose of this report is twofold: First, we estimate the nationwide technical potential
capacity of community solar in the states and the District of Columbia. Other territories were not
included due to a lack of accessible data. Second, we explore the implications of our technical
potential estimates in terms of the social, economic, and technical benefits of community solar,
along with estimated benefits from projects projected to be deployed in the near term. We begin
with brief background discussions of both topics.
2
“Community Solar Basics,” DOE, https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/community-solar-basics
1.1 Background: Technical Potential
Technical potential is an estimate of the renewable energy capacity that could physically be
deployed without regard to market, economic, or policy constraints. NREL has conducted
several studies to estimate technical potential, including a broad study of renewable energy
resources (Lopez et al. 2012), a focused study on rooftop solar technical potential (Gagnon et al.
2016), a study on the siting considerations of offshore wind technical potential (Zuckerman et al.
2023), a focused study on floating solar technical potential (Spencer et al. 2019), and a study of
the technical potential of clean hydrogen production (Ruth et al. 2020), in addition to per-
technology estimates in the Annual Technology Baseline’s Standard Scenarios. NREL leveraged
data from the previously mentioned rooftop solar technical potential work to assess the
feasibility of meeting the electricity consumption of households that rent, live in multifamily
buildings, or have low-to-moderate incomes (Mooney and Sigrin 2018). Nonetheless, estimating
the technical potential of community solar is distinct. Community solar is unique among
renewable energy resources primarily because it is defined by how electricity is consumed rather
than how it is generated. Different scales of PV deployment, like utility- or large-scale solar and
behind-the-meter solar, are terms typically associated with technical potential discussions. These
scales dictate siting based on system sizing and interconnection processes, among other factors:
Large-scale solar requires larger tracts of land for deployment and produces more energy than
can be used by distribution feeders, whereas behind-the-meter solar requires little to no land and
does not require distribution to customers. Solar installations that can provide community solar
energy are sized in between large-scale and behind-the-meter solar. Community solar is not
defined by a nationally standardized size constraint, although policies at the municipal and state
levels can set varying caps on system sizes allowed within their jurisdictions. In addition,
community solar can be installed anywhere, including on rooftops and as ground-mounted
systems. A defining feature of community solar is that system output is virtually delivered to a
specific subset of electricity customers.
Our approach to estimating the technical potential of community solar is informed by the unique
aspects of the business model. We estimate the technical potential of community solar through
three steps (Figure 1). First, we estimate the technical potential supply of solar systems that
could be used for community solar. This step is fundamentally the same as technical potential
estimation for other PV energy resources, as described by Gagnon et al. (2016) for rooftop
systems and Maclaurin et al. (2019) for ground-mounted systems. The second step expands upon
previous PV technical potential analyses by applying localized maximum potential market share
thresholds. These thresholds include two primary constraints: (1) a supply constraint that limits
modeled ground-mount solar supply sites to those within an economically feasible
interconnection distance to substations within a respective electricity service territory, and (2) a
demand constraint that limits the capacity of modeled solar supply sites to not exceed local gross
electricity consumption. This step identifies how much of the community solar can feasibly be
hosted based on potential market share; it is unique to community solar and is a novel
contribution of this report. The third step brings the two concepts together: the technical potential
of community solar is determined by the overlap of technical potential supply and demand. We
explicitly address the ability of community solar technical potential to meet electricity demand
from all households and businesses that cannot adopt or face significant barriers to adopting on-
site solar. Although there is a wider market for households that prefer community solar over
other energy options even when they’re able to host on-site solar, this analysis focuses on serving
electricity customers without feasible or clear access to on-site solar. We describe our specific
methodology for implementing these three steps in Section 2.
Figure 1. Community solar technical potential framework (modified from Brown et al. 2016)
Our analysis constrains the definition of community solar to require that projects (supply) serve
subscribers (demand) within the same utility service territory. As a result, community solar
technical potential can be set by supply or demand constraints. In some areas, a lack of
developable spaces or high population density mean that supply is the constraining factor that
determines community solar technical potential. In other areas, abundant developable spaces or
low population density mean that supply exceeds demand, and thus demand is the constraining
factor that determines community solar technical potential. We present the results of our
technical potential estimation based on these constraints in Section 3.
1.2 Background: Meaningful Benefits

Community solar is also unique among renewable energy resources in terms of its potential
benefits. Community solar can provide comparable benefits to rooftop solar by directly serving
specific customers, while also expanding solar access to customers not traditionally served by
rooftop solar. Community solar can also provide similar benefits as utility-scale solar by
leveraging economies of scale and larger project sizes. The unique combination of characteristics
that define community solar yield a unique suite of social, economic, and technical benefits.
DOE has identified five meaningful benefits provided by community solar projects. 3 The five
meaningful benefit categories are:
• Greater household savings: Provide a reduction in electricity bills for residential

subscribers.
• LMI household access: Include subscribers from LMI households.
• Resilience and grid benefits: Include the capability to deliver power to households
and/or critical facilities during a grid outage or strengthen grid operations.
• Community ownership: Local community members, subscribers, or local community
organizations own or have equity in the project, or the project employs other wealth-
building strategies.
• Equitable workforce development: Support prevailing wages, support pre-
apprenticeship programming, and ensure women- and minority-owned businesses have
equitable opportunity.
In Section 4, we explore the meaningful benefits in further depth and estimate the potential
magnitude of these benefits in the context of our technical potential estimates.
3
“Community Solar Education and Outreach,” DOE, https://www.energy.gov/communitysolar/education-and-
outreach
2 Methodology
Estimating the technical potential of community solar is a nuanced process that considers
installations ranging from individual rooftop solar installations to large-scale utility solar
projects. Community solar systems, by definition, operate at flexible scales, including both types
of solar energy deployment. In our assessment, we considered rooftop solar and ground-mount
solar systems greater than 38 kilowatts alternating current (kWAC) as potential community solar
systems. This system size threshold is indicative of PV systems larger than typical single-
customer nonresidential systems. Figure 2 compares utility-scale solar, community solar, and
behind-the-meter solar deployments and shows to-scale representations of each deployment
type’s typical system size with accompanying comparative descriptions. This assumption does
not take state or utility community solar program caps into account and relies on sample statistics
taken from community solar installations through mid-2022 (Chan, Heeter, and Xu 2022).
Figure 2. Size range of solar PV deployments with scaled system size indicator
To ensure accuracy and relevance in our estimations, we excluded areas otherwise not
developable for solar and considered virtual hosting requirements unique to community solar
(e.g., maximum interconnection distance, co-location within an electricity service territory,
capacity not exceeding within-territory gross electricity consumption). In utility-scale ground-
mount PV technical potential analyses, spatial contiguity thresholds of 0.3 square kilometers
(km2) or less are typically applied to exclude potential PV sites smaller than utility-scale size.
This filter for utility-scale PV is equivalent to omitting ground-mounted PV sites of 1.2 MWAC
or less, assuming the same capacity density used here. The approach used in this study positions
the community solar systems modeled in this technical potential assessment as a distinct
modeled solar energy deployment type. Ground-mount PV systems modeled can range from 38
kWAC to 67 MWAC, based on modeling parameters discussed further in Section 2.2.2.
This analysis builds on previous work by Lopez et al. (2012), Gagnon et al. (2016), Feldman et
al. (2015), and Waechter and Williams (2021). We used both the PV Rooftop model (Gagnon et
al. 2016), a legacy software that delineates suitable areas for rooftop PV, and the Renewable
Energy Potential (reV) model (Maclaurin et al. 2019), an open-source software used for
renewable energy technical potential analysis. reV uses the System Advisor Model (SAM; Blair
et al. 2014) within its modeling pipeline to calculate PV system performance and costs for
specified technology assumptions. By combining rooftop solar siting results from PV Rooftop
and system performance with high-resolution ground-mount solar siting, we estimated
community solar technical potential within U.S. Census Bureau (2020) tracts across the United
States.
2.1 Estimating Generation

We calculated PV system performance using the reV model and hourly solar irradiance and
weather data from the National Solar Radiation Database (NSRDB; Sengupta et al. 2018). We
used four resource years (2018–2021) from the Extended CONUS (Continental United States)
set from the NSRDB for all states except Alaska. Because the NSRDB is not available above 60°
latitude (Figure 3), we used ERA5 4 hourly solar resource data (Copernicus Climate Change
Service 2017) covering the same resource years for Alaska. We used the reV model to estimate
PV system performance and incorporate siting constraints for community solar installations. We
focused on modeling system performance and community solar siting for this technical potential
analysis rather than community solar financial models, production and subscriber costs, and
interconnection costs.
Figure 3. Annual mean global horizontal irradiance from 1998 to 2018 (National Solar Radiation
Database for the continental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii)
4
ERA5 is the fifth generation European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts atmospheric reanalysis of the
global climate covering the period from January 1940 to present.
Rooftop system performance in reV was modeled for one system configuration of rooftop PV for
21 unique tilt and azimuth combinations to maintain consistency with previously published
rooftop PV siting data (Gagnon et al. 2016, pages 9, 11). Roof areas classified as suitable for PV
installation by Gagnon et al. 2016 were used to model and identify buildings with potential to
host rooftop community solar systems. For flat roof planes (tilt < 9.5°), the azimuth was assumed
to be south and the tilt was assumed to be 15°, with a module area to roof area ratio of .7. For
tilted roof planes (tilt > 9.5°), azimuths were assumed to be between 67.5° and 292.5°, and tilts
were assumed to be between 9.5° and 60°, with a module area to roof area ratio of .98. We made
changes to PV technology based on improvements made since Gagnon et al.’s 2016 publication.
In particular, we assumed that the inverter load ratio was 1.22 (Barbose et al. 2022), inverter
efficiency was 98%, losses were 8.06%, module efficiency was 20.3% (Ramasamy et al. 2022,
pages 22–23), and modules were monocrystalline with a capacity density of 172 watts (W) per
square meter.
Ground-mount system performance in reV was modeled for one configuration of ground-mount
PV for one tilt and azimuth combination. We assumed an inverter load ratio of 1.34 (Bolinger et
al. 2022), inverter efficiency of 98%, losses of 10.4% (NREL 2022), module efficiency of 20.3%
(Ramasamy et al. 2022), monocrystalline modules, and one-axis tracking arrays with a capacity
density of 48 MWDC/km2 or 37 MWAC/km2. These technology assumptions reflect recent reports
of trends (Barbose et al. 2023; NREL 2022) in distributed solar and utility-scale solar PV
deployment, and they correspond with the calculated capacity density of selected community PV
plants’ indirect use footprints (EIA 2023b). Multiyear mean capacity factors for each system,
described above, were computed across the United States at a four-kilometer resolution with
SAM’s PVWatts8 under the LCOE Calculator (FCR Method) financial model.
2.2 Siting Constraints and Regimes

As the community solar market has matured in the past decade, generalized community solar
siting constraints have emerged. These constraints include closer proximity to subscribers than
utility-scale generation sources, interconnection to electricity distribution infrastructure, and co-
location with feeders and substations with sufficient available hosting capacity. The latter two
constraints are difficult to model, as individual utilities own and maintain both distribution
geospatial datasets and hosting capacity information with no complete data proxy available. For
this analysis, we assume that rooftop solar interconnects to distribution without limitation, that
ground-mount solar interconnects at substations, and that ground-mount solar is in the same
electricity service territory as subscribers. Aside from these constraints, local siting drivers of
community solar are uncertain, particularly in states without established community solar
legislation and programs. We account for some of this uncertainty by presenting two siting
regimes for community solar in Section 2.2.2. With community solar’s flexible size and form,
there are additional benefits for local communities in strategically siting community solar (Gahl
and Norris 2022). In a recent study (Heleno et al. 2023), under baseline conditions, community
solar projects were found to not require additional distribution grid infrastructure investments
and were more likely to defer distribution system upgrades while potentially reducing line losses
in primary distribution feeders.
2.2.1 Rooftop Siting Constraints
Siting constraints for rooftop solar are inherited from the PV Rooftop model. The PV Rooftop
model uses high-resolution 3D digital surface models that represent the built environment and
potential shading obstructions to identify discrete planes that are suitable for rooftop PV
development based on plane direction, tilt, massing, and shading (Figure 4). These high-
resolution classified data are only available for 128 cities in the continental United States and are
limited to 3D representations at the time of data capture (2006–2013), representing up to 23% of
the national building stock of the time.
Figure 4. Elevation digital surface model and derived roof area characteristics used by the PV
Rooftop model
These classified data were used to train a k-nearest neighbors imputation for PV-developable
roof percent across buildings not represented in the PV Rooftop data archive (NREL 2016). The
k-nearest neighbors imputation was calculated within a maximum-distance, non-overlapping
(Thiessen) polygon basin for each sample city from PV Rooftop’s archive. Buildings within each
city’s basin were imputed based on the PV-developable area characteristics of overlapping
training data from PV Rooftop, building occupancy (Lutz et al. 2022), canopy cover (MRLC
2021), and topographic position index. Each building was attributed an occupancy-specific and
regionally appropriate distribution of the azimuth, tilt, and developable area of PV-suitable roof
planes. In this analysis, rooftop solar followed a singular siting regime based on maximizing per-
system capacity. We used USA Structures (ORNL 2023) for building geometries across the
United States and the National Structure Inventory (Lutz et al. 2022) for occupancy and building
heights.
2.2.2 Ground-Mount Siting Constraints

Ground-mount solar has greater siting variability than rooftop solar. Here, we used methods for
assessing siting constraints and regimes for ground-mount solar that were inherited from the reV
model and ongoing research by NREL. For this analysis, we used the same solar PV siting
regimes as in NREL’s Solar Ordinances database (NREL 2022). These regimes with ordinances
were found to reduce utility-scale solar PV resources up to 38% (Lopez et al. 2023). reV utilizes
a 90-meter grid across the study area and builds locational indices across multiple scales to
geospatial datasets pertaining to solar PV exclusion or inclusion. Individual locations are
typically identified for each siting regime with a Boolean exclusion or inclusion. This is not the
case with solar setbacks. Solar setbacks are often smaller than the standard 90-meter Boolean
exclusion or inclusion raster of reV. For setbacks, we calculated the inclusion area as a
percentage within a 90-meter raster cell as dictated by the finer-resolution source data, as shown
in Figure 5. Figure 5 shows (a) the national solar and transmission infrastructure and (b) a
zoomed-in grid cell for PV siting. For each grid cell, setbacks are imposed from features such as
roads, structures, and waterways. The remaining area is assumed to be available for PV
development. This percent inclusion value was calculated by rasterizing features (e.g., structures,
roads, railroads) onto a spatially upscaled Boolean exclusion layer and then totaling the area of
the resulting non-excluded sub-90-meter cells normalized by the area of the original 90-meter
cell.
Figure 5. Overview of the method used to determine resource availability after applying solar PV
ordinance setbacks (from Lopez et al. 2023)
We utilized two of NREL’s three solar PV siting regimes, Reference Access and Limited Access,
each of which represents a collection of individual siting constraints, to reflect the plausible
differences in solar PV siting restrictions. An overview of these adapted siting regimes is shown
in Figure 6, and the two regimes are described as follows:
1. Reference Access is a regime that balances siting considerations and is informed by

common practices to guide development. For example, a 10% slope restriction is used to
prevent complicated racking needs, in addition to other physical restrictions that are
assumed under the Open Access scenario. The Reference Access scenario also applies
seven documented types of setbacks and restrictions (property line, structures, roads,
water, height, sound, and minimum lot size). For areas without enumerated setback
requirements, we apply setbacks scaled to the 50th percentile of enumerated setbacks.
Reference Access community solar potential sites are also required to be within two
miles of existing substations.
Limited Access is a combination of more stringent siting considerations. Limited Access
applies greater setback requirements (90th percentile) from buildings and other
infrastructure as well as more comprehensive exclusions. The setback types are consistent
with Reference Access. The additional exclusions include additional restrictions of
protected areas (categories 3 and 4, PADUS 2023), conservation easements (NCED
2022), stricter slope requirements (0%–5%), and additional incompatible land covers
(pasture, gradients of inclusion for low- and moderate-density development). Limited
Access community solar potential sites are also required to be within one mile of existing
substations.
Figure 6. Ground-mount PV technical exclusions adapted from utility-scale solar siting regimes
10
We did not model the Open Access regime because its purpose is to define a ceiling for a
technology’s technical potential, something that has been previously established and does not
add information to community solar siting. These siting regimes were created to capture a range
of deployment barriers, in effect bracketing estimates of solar PV potential along a theoretical
gradient of site restrictiveness. We did not analyze the probability of any siting regime, and these
siting regimes are not intended to predict future community solar growth. The siting
considerations applied within each siting regime are not mutually exclusive. Technical
exclusions and setbacks were aggregated at a fixed scale to calculate location-based economics,
such as interconnection distance, costs, and interconnection capacity. Community solar
installation economics were captured at 1.44 km x 1.44 km2 (2.07-km2) resolution, totaling from
650,000 to over 3,000,000 locations across the United States, depending on spatial exclusions.
These aggregated community solar supply units include cumulative physically potentially
developable spaces for ground-mount community solar PV arrays and range in capacity from 38
kWAC to 67 MWAC.
2.2.3 Virtual Hosting Limitations

The preceding subsections describe physical hosting for community solar arrays. In addition to
limitations to physical hosting, community solar relies on virtual hosting limitations to
distinguish it from other forms of solar deployment. We define virtual hosting limitations as
constraints applied to solar supply that limit the theoretical maximum amount of solar that can be
added in an area. In this analysis, these limitations were applied exclusively to ground-mount PV
hosting sites. The first virtual hosting limitation that was applied limited the subscriber pool for
community solar to electricity customers within each electric retail service territory (EIA 2023a),
a common siting requirement for community solar. Second, we limited the potential ground-
mount community solar supply to economically feasible interconnection distances of one mile
(Limited Access) and two miles (Reference Access) from substations. In the future, community
solar interconnection should be mapped to distribution feeders in addition to substations. Third,
we applied a demand constraint to not exceed the serviceable demand within each utility service
territory. In service territories where the retail electricity consumption (EIA 2022) exceeded
modeled community solar supply, supply was not changed from the direct model outputs. In
service territories where the retail electricity consumption was less than the modeled community
solar supply, supply was limited within that service territory: We omitted potential community
solar sites (1.44 x 1.44 km2) with the highest site-based levelized cost of energy in the service
territory until modeled ground-mount community solar supply fell below annual electricity retail
sales. Because retail service territories overlap geographically, tracts were assigned to utility
service territories based on majority overlay and weighting by territory area and customer count.
Figure 7 shows how potential community solar sites are affected by demand or supply
constraints for each siting regime across the continental United States. Areas in brown denote
tracts where potential community solar supply falls short of total electricity demand in the
Reference siting regime, and areas in red denote the same situation for the Limited Access siting
regime. Where Limited Access supply shortages are not shared with the Reference Access
scenario, the map shows brown. Areas in yellow denote tracts where potential community solar
supply exceeds total electricity demand in the Reference Access siting regime, and areas in
orange denote the same situation for the Limited Access siting regime. Where Limited Access
supply overages are not shared with the Reference Access scenario, the map shows yellow.
11
Figure 7. Geographic distribution of potential community solar sites by supply or demand
constraint (gray indicates no data)
2.3 Estimating Technical Potential and Offsetable Consumption

For each solar array technology, we calculated capacity (Equation 1) and generation (Equation
2), where developable area includes the roof planes considered suitable for rooftop PV as well as
the aggregated ground-mount developable area (1.44 x 1.44 km2). The capacity density for
rooftop PV is 172 W/m2, and the capacity density for ground-mount PV is 48 MWDC/km2 or 37
MWAC/km2. Capacity factors refer to the corresponding multiyear mean capacity factors for each
system at 4-km2 resolution (described in Section 2.1), and time equates to time series length
(8,760). For each siting regime, we combined overlapping rooftop and ground-mount system
capacities and annual energy production within each tract (Manson et al. 2022) to create tract-
level community solar technical potential estimates.
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑊𝑊 = 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑚𝑚2 ∗ 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤/𝑚𝑚2
Equation 1: Capacity expressed for solar PV technology
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀ℎ = 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 ∗ 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹% ∗ 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇
Equation 2: Technical potential expressed for solar PV technology
We extended the tract-level community solar technical potential estimates by household income,
tenure, and building type. Unlike aggregation and Mooney and Sigrin’s (2018) methods for
normalizing households and buildings for exclusively behind-the-meter rooftop solar modeling,
we intersected all community solar suitable building technical potential estimates described in
Section 2.2.1 with community solar suitable ground-mount areas within tracts. We then
compared that supply to residential and commercial electricity consumption for households and
businesses that face significant barriers to adopting on-site solar. Feldman et al. (2015) identified
12
residential demand for solar energy that likely will not be met by behind-the-meter solar as
households that rent, are located in buildings with more than three stories (excluding basements),
or are located in buildings with roofs that are unsuitable for rooftop solar (e.g., excessive
shading, structural or panel issues). Additionally, we considered households that reside in
impermanent dwellings (vans, recreational vehicles, boats, mobile homes) to be unsuitable for
rooftop solar. Feldman et al. (2015) identified commercial demand for solar energy that likely
will not be met by on-site solar as businesses that are located in buildings with more than five
establishments, buildings with less than 10,000 square feet with 2–5 establishments, or buildings
with less than 10,000 square feet with one establishment and PV-developable roof areas that
cannot support at least 20% of the building’s overall electricity demand. The ability to meet 20%
or more of electricity load was not included in this analysis. Additionally, ground-mount behind-
the-meter solar generation was not considered.
Demographic data were disaggregated within tracts based on household income, tenure (own,
rent), and building type (single-family, multifamily) (Manson et al. 2022: Tables B19001,
B25001, B25003, B25032) using random weighted sampling and proportional allocation
methods similar to Mooney and Sigrin (2018). We maintained a consistent definition of previous
NREL works focused on LMI households, following the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development’s 2020 area median income (AMI) limits and binning income limits:
• Very low income: 0%–30% of AMI
• Low income: 30%–50% of AMI
• Moderate income: 50%–80% of AMI
• Middle income: 80%–120% of AMI
• High income: >120% of AMI.
Household income was discretized from the American Community Survey’s income bins to
$1,000 increments and applied to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s
income breakpoints by household size. Household electricity consumption data from the Low-
Income Energy Affordability Data (LEAD) Tool (Ma et al. 2019) was summed across tracts and
resampled to match AMI bins, tenure, and building type. Electricity consumption was stratified
by income, tenure, and building type and was divided by gross community solar supply within
tracts to calculate a per-category percent of electricity demand. Additionally, offsetable
electricity consumption for customers unable to access behind-the-meter solar was calculated by
dividing that consumption by gross community solar supply within tracts.
13
3 Technical Potential Results
Overall, we estimate that over 31% (809 TWh) of annual commercial and residential electricity
consumption cannot be met by behind-the-meter or on-site solar, including 42% of residential
electricity consumption (out of 1,049 TWh total) and 23% of commercial electricity
consumption (out of 1,558 TWh total). We found that 42% of households and 44% of businesses
are unable to access behind-the-meter solar, which is lower than previous estimates of 49% of
households and 48% of businesses (Feldman et al. 2015). This opportunity space for community
solar equates to 20% of domestic gross electricity consumption. It is clear from this analysis that
access to community solar is highly localized and subject to local supply and demand
constraints. The opportunity space for community solar is not uniformly distributed across
income levels, tenure, or building types. Figure 8 shows that more than 50% of LMI households
likely lack access to on-site solar, and this demonstrates an opportunity space for community
solar to benefit LMI customers. Conversely, a majority of middle- and high-income households
(>60%) face no discernible physical barriers to accessing behind-the-meter solar.
Figure 8. Distribution of households by income with significant barriers for behind-the-meter

(BTM) PV compatibility based on tenure, building type, and individual building suitability
Opportunities for community solar and other sources of renewable energy are significant, and the
potential community solar supply is significant. We estimate that there is sufficient community
solar potential to offset 211% and 643% of electricity consumption for customers unable to
access behind-the-meter or on-site solar (Tables 1 and 2) in the Limited Access and Reference
Access siting regimes, respectively. This is not uniformly distributed geographically, as shown in
Figures 11 and 12. Areas lacking wide access to ground-mount community solar installations are
less likely overall to be able to fully offset unmet residential and commercial electricity
consumption with community solar.
14
Table 1. Limited Access Siting Regime Community Solar Technical Potential Results by State
ROOFTOP PV GROUND-MOUNT PV COMBINED Percent of Unmet

Electricity
Percent Percent Consumption
of of Offsetable by
State MWAC GWh Capacity MWAC GWh Capacity MWAC GWh Community Solar
Alabama 6,902 13,569 50% 6,868 13,718 50% 13,771 27,287 205%
Alaska 913 867 14% 5,721 3,959 86% 6,634 4,827 409%
Arizona 7,260 12,046 33% 14,848 27,487 67% 22,108 39,534 229%
Arkansas 4,751 9,053 51% 4,548 9,634 49% 9,300 18,687 220%
California 36,108 48,482 59% 25,526 48,085 41% 61,635 96,568 135%
Colorado 6,244 12,053 13% 41,931 66,523 87% 48,175 78,577 633%
Connecticut 3,785 7,582 96% 152 1,144 4% 3,937 8,726 90%
Delaware 1,114 2,215 92% 97 614 8% 1,211 2,829 116%

District of
465 813 100% 0 0 0% 465 813 32%
Columbia
Florida 19,793 38,700 60% 13,083 23,506 40% 32,876 62,206 104%
Georgia 14,021 27,407 63% 8,319 19,263 37% 22,340 46,671 156%
Hawaii 909 1,917 16% 4,776 7,903 84% 5,686 9,820 425%
Idaho 2,467 4,077 21% 9,209 13,567 79% 11,676 17,645 474%
Illinois 16,059 29,760 78% 4,572 12,337 22% 20,632 42,098 162%
Indiana 11,369 21,486 77% 3,449 11,585 23% 14,819 33,071 250%
Iowa 5,889 11,703 46% 6,992 14,473 54% 12,882 26,176 428%
Kansas 5,756 11,118 19% 23,799 38,496 81% 29,556 49,614 795%
Kentucky 6,423 12,451 45% 7,710 15,057 55% 14,134 27,509 225%
Louisiana 5,454 10,165 71% 2,252 5,339 29% 7,706 15,504 118%
Maine 1,535 3,030 51% 1,501 3,184 49% 3,037 6,214 172%
Maryland 5,832 11,468 87% 851 2,833 13% 6,683 14,301 96%
Massachusetts 5,912 11,716 86% 955 3,228 14% 6,868 14,945 73%
Michigan 13,229 26,017 76% 4,247 11,030 24% 17,476 37,048 193%
Minnesota 8,153 15,947 40% 12,024 20,788 60% 20,178 36,735 354%
Mississippi 4,679 9,434 59% 3,302 8,194 41% 7,981 17,628 206%
Missouri 8,130 15,978 29% 19,722 30,988 71% 27,853 46,967 361%
Montana 2,483 4,497 8% 28,245 37,876 92% 30,728 42,373 1,731%
Nebraska 3,306 6,460 9% 33,834 49,894 91% 37,141 56,355 1,395%
Nevada 3,167 5,162 55% 2,575 5,108 45% 5,742 10,271 131%
New
1,461 2,765 87% 221 1,001 13% 1,682 3,766 106%
Hampshire
New Jersey 9,194 18,254 93% 743 3,606 7% 9,937 21,861 84%
New Mexico 2,113 4,113 14% 13,320 23,883 86% 15,434 27,997 532%
New York 17,824 35,651 74% 6,122 13,792 26% 23,946 49,443 69%
North
13,704 26,994 64% 7,706 19,629 36% 21,410 46,623 154%
Carolina
15
ROOFTOP PV GROUND-MOUNT PV COMBINED Percent of Unmet
Electricity
Percent Percent Consumption
of of Offsetable by
State MWAC GWh Capacity MWAC GWh Capacity MWAC GWh Community Solar
North Dakota 2,909 5,523 11% 22,624 31,147 89% 25,534 36,670 2,049%
Ohio 18,758 36,548 83% 3,769 14,344 17% 22,528 50,893 210%
Oklahoma 4,746 9,110 12% 33,236 51,728 88% 37,982 60,838 568%
Oregon 5,196 7,827 37% 8,866 14,355 63% 14,062 22,183 309%
Pennsylvania 17,215 26,171 87% 2,578 9,314 13% 19,793 35,485 104%
Rhode Island 1,093 2,068 86% 177 467 14% 1,270 2,536 77%
South
6,756 12,051 51% 6,430 12,731 49% 13,187 24,782 172%
Carolina
South Dakota 2,450 4,123 7% 30,541 42,170 93% 32,992 46,294 2,409%
Tennessee 8,946 14,987 69% 3,941 8,964 31% 12,887 23,951 131%
Texas 38,206 72,170 29% 93,404 159,795 71% 131,611 231,965 292%
Utah 3,857 7,291 33% 7,824 14,206 67% 11,682 21,498 349%
Vermont 814 1,173 39% 1,270 2,122 61% 2,084 3,295 194%
Virginia 8,907 14,833 57% 6,838 12,533 43% 15,745 27,366 124%
Washington 7,958 11,106 60% 5,251 8,739 40% 13,209 19,845 160%
West Virginia 2,292 3,470 75% 756 2,071 25% 3,049 5,542 116%
Wisconsin 9,422 14,934 69% 4,316 11,101 31% 13,739 26,035 218%
Wyoming 1,035 1,881 5% 19,445 28,453 95% 20,480 30,334 2,293%
Total 396,988 718,241 41% 570,508 991,984 59% 967,49 1,710,226 211%
Table 2. Reference Siting Regime Community Solar Technical Potential Results by State
Percent of
ROOFTOP PV GROUND-MOUNT PV COMBINED Unmet
Electricity
Consumption
Percent Percent Offsetable by
of of Community
State MWAC GWh Capacity MWAC GWh Capacity MWAC GWh Solar
Alabama 6,902 13,569 17% 33,213 58,019 83% 40,115 71,589 537%
Alaska 913 867 12% 6,562 5,048 88% 7,476 5,916 502%
Arizona 7,260 12,046 7% 99,617 223,185 93% 106,877 235,232 1,365%
Arkansas 4,751 9,053 17% 23,651 40,524 83% 28,403 49,577 584%
California 36,108 48,482 22% 126,147 261,014 78% 162,25 309,497 432%
Colorado 6,244 12,053 7% 84,761 167,535 93% 91,006 179,589 1,446%
Connecticut 3,785 7,582 54% 3,244 5,055 46% 7,030 12,638 130%
Delaware 1,114 2,215 34% 2,131 3,555 66% 3,245 5,770 237%
District of
465 813 88% 61 101 12% 527.38 914 36%
Columbia
Florida 19,793 38,700 32% 42,219 79,807 68% 62,012 118,508 198%
16
Percent of
Electricity
Consumption
of of Community
Georgia 14,021 27,407 23% 48,084 85,723 77% 62,105 113,130 379%
Hawaii 909 1,917 9% 9,575 19,255 91% 10,485 21,172 915%
Idaho 2,467 4,077 5% 43,431 77,741 95% 45,899 81,818 2,200%
Illinois 16,059 29,760 34% 31,188 51,325 66% 47,248 81,085 312%
Indiana 11,369 21,486 23% 37,313 60,194 77% 48,683 81,681 616%
Iowa 5,889 11,703 13% 38,857 63,872 87% 44,746 75,576 1,237%
Kansas 5,756 11,118 8% 65,302 121,734 92% 71,059 132,852 2,130%
Kentucky 6,423 12,451 13% 42,230 68,685 87% 48,654 81,137 664%
Louisiana 5,454 10,165 24% 17,509 31,229 76% 22,963 41,394 315%
Maine 1,535 3,030 18% 7,041 10,640 82% 8,576 13,670 378%
Maryland 5,832 11,468 43% 7,840 12,879 57% 13,673 24,347 163%
Massachusetts 5,912 11,716 43% 7,959 12,411 57% 13,872 24,128 117%
Michigan 13,229 26,017 26% 37,908 58,338 74% 51,137 84,355 440%
Minnesota 8,153 15,947 12% 59,333 93,638 88% 67,487 109,585 1,056%
Mississippi 4,679 9,434 19% 19,784 34,617 81% 24,464 44,051 516%
Missouri 8,130 15,978 9% 87,446 148,193 91% 95,576 164,172 1,262%
Montana 2,483 4,497 2% 105,005 168,873 98% 107,48 173,371 7,084%
Nebraska 3,306 6,460 3% 115,212 205,610 97% 118,51 212,071 5,251%
Nevada 3,167 5,162 14% 18,826 39,483 86% 21,994 44,646 568%
New
1,461 2,765 36% 2,639 4,000 64% 4,100 6,766 191%
Hampshire
New Jersey 9,194 18,254 50% 9,063 14,613 50% 18,257 32,868 127%
New Mexico 2,113 4,113 3% 77,693 171,659 97% 79,807 175,773 3,340%
New York 17,824 35,651 36% 31,374 46,275 64% 49,198 81,926 114%
North
13,704 26,994 25% 41,224 71,894 75% 54,928 98,889 327%
Carolina
North Dakota 2,909 5,523 3% 82,972 132,545 97% 85,882 138,069 7,716%
Ohio 18,758 36,548 34% 36,095 55,703 66% 54,854 92,252 381%
Oklahoma 4,746 9,110 5% 87,938 165,656 95% 92,684 174,766 1,631%
Oregon 5,196 7,827 11% 40,419 69,027 89% 45,615 76,855 1,070%
Pennsylvania 17,215 26,171 40% 25,583 38,425 60% 42,798 64,596 190%
Rhode Island 1,093 2,068 49% 1,139 1,805 51% 2,232 3,873 118%
South
6,756 12,051 19% 28,927 51,408 81% 35,684 63,459 440%
Carolina
South Dakota 2,450 4,123 3% 81,437 138,302 97% 83,888 142,426 7,412%
Tennessee 8,946 14,987 22% 31,109 52,218 78% 40,056 67,206 368%
Texas 38,206 72,170 8% 434,960 860,080 92% 473,166 932,250 1,174%
17
Percent of
Electricity
Consumption
of of Community
Utah 3,857 7,291 7% 48,923 97,114 93% 52,781 104,406 1,693%
Vermont 814 1,173 13% 5,599 8,019 87% 6,413 9,193 5,40%
Virginia 8,907 14,833 21% 33,956 56,290 79% 42,863 71,124 3,22%
Washington 7,958 11,106 21% 29,572 46,854 79% 37,530 57,960 4,66%
West Virginia 2,292 3,470 30% 5,304 8,030 70% 7,597 11,501 2,40%
Wisconsin 9,422 14,934 18% 43,634 69,061 82% 53,057 83,996 705%
Wyoming 1,035 1,881 2% 64,107 117,481 98% 65,143 119,362 9,023%
Total 396,988 718,241 14% 2,465,142 4,484,768 86% 2,862,130 5,203,010 643%
3.1 Community Solar Capacity and Annual Energy Production

The United States has 940 GWAC of community solar capacity under the Limited Access siting
regime, amounting to 1,710 TWh of annual energy production (Table 1). Of this, rooftop solar
systems comprise 41% of developable capacity, with 2,776 km2 of developable roof area across
commercial, industrial, and residential buildings. Ground-mount solar contributes the remaining
58% of developable capacity, with 15,437 km2 of developable area. In the Reference Access
siting regime, potential community solar capacity increases to 2,862 GWAC, amounting to 5,921
TWh of annual energy production (Table 2). Of this, rooftop solar systems comprise 14% of
developable capacity, with 2,776 km2 of developable roof area across commercial, industrial, and
residential buildings. If rooftop solar was limited to public buildings exclusively, only 1.7% of
overall community solar technical potential would be available from rooftop arrays. As rooftop
community solar projects represent a small minority of community solar projects to date, this is
an important consideration for feasibility and future economic and market potential studies.
Ground-mount solar contributes the remaining 86% of developable capacity, with 53,378 km2 of
developable area. The Limited Access regime reduces community solar developable area and
capacity by 88% from the Reference Access regime, reducing annual energy production by 71%.
Figure 9 shows the comparative distribution of ground-mount community solar capacity across
the continental United States. Within these estimates, 167 GWAC and 407 TWh/yr of community
solar potential is located in disadvantaged communities (DOE 2022a) under the Limited Access
siting regime. Community solar sited within disadvantaged communities can offset 91% of those
communities’ current electricity consumption levels that cannot be met by behind-the-meter
solar (441 TWh), as well as providing longer-term community benefits.
18
Figure 9. Modeled community solar capacity for Reference Access siting regime (top) and Limited
Access siting regime (bottom)
19
3.1.1 Opportunities for Strategically Siting Community Solar
Overall, rural areas and areas with intensive build-out of grid infrastructure are best suited to host
community solar installations, given interconnection assumptions. Dense urban, mountainous, or
forested areas, or areas with other preclusions, are least suited to host a cost-competitive,
sizeable community solar supply. For ground-mount solar, we found population density, land
cover, and ordinances/setbacks to be the most impactful factors in siting community solar
supply. Figure 10 shows that 1%–4% of ground-mount PV potential is outside of rural areas 5 and
has medium- and low-density development land covers. 6 The majority of community solar
potential lies in ground-mount arrays in exurbs and rural contexts, most commonly with open
space, grassland, pasture, and barren land covers. Solar ordinances and setbacks within each
siting regime decreased gross community solar supply potential by less than 20%. These
constraints had a significantly smaller impact on the community solar technical potential
estimates than the utility-scale solar estimates, which were found to potentially reduce utility-
scale solar capacity by 38% (Lopez et al. 2023). The diminished impact of ordinances and
setbacks is due to community solar’s unique size—community solar is able to maximize
potential deployment by fitting into infill and other areas that large-scale solar cannot. Figure 11
shows that the majority of modeled community solar occurs in aggregations of <10 MWAC in
both siting regimes within the interconnection distance required per regime.
Figure 10. Community solar potential capacity by technology, siting regime, and context
5
Based on spatial overlay of solar power plants (EIA 2023a) between 0.34 and 5 MW and the Global Human
Settlement Layer’s Degree of Urbanization dataset (Schiavina, Melchiorri, and Pesaresi 2023).
6
Land cover descriptions are based on overlapping characterization with the National Land Cover Database
(https://www.mrlc.gov/data/legends/national-land-cover-database-class-legend-and-description) from the Multi-
Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium.
20
Figure 11. Cumulative distribution of modeled ground-mount PV by siting regime
Although the majority of community solar potential by volume lies in rural and exurb contexts,
Figure 10 also shows that rooftop community solar holds significant potential in those areas with
higher populations and built-out land covers. The need for community solar likely will not be
met by ground-mount PV alone, especially in supply-limited areas and small electricity service
territories. In some areas, like the District of Columbia (Table 2), we found no ground-mount PV
sites available for community solar that met our siting assumptions, despite the presence of
ground-mount community solar in the district (Ellfeldt 2019). Rooftop community solar is most
impactful for offsetting unmet local electricity consumption in dense urban and urban contexts
where clusters of large (15,000+ square feet) buildings can be found, like commercial or
industrial districts. We found that building occupancies including professional/technical services,
light industrial, wholesale trade, and K-12 schools offered the highest overall generation
potential per building and contributed the highest share of potential capacity among community
solar suitable buildings (Table 3). Table 4 lists the distribution of percent rooftop area considered
developable for rooftop solar by occupancy type and census region, highlighting regional
architecture trends in solar-suitable buildings. Rooftop PV siting is more constrained in regions
with an older building stock, regardless of building density. Rooftop arrays on residential
buildings have lower capacity per building than industrial and public buildings. Each building
was assessed independently and not based on overlaying parcel ownership, potentially
understating the impacts of deployment for multiple building complexes.
Community solar is better able to conform to urban and suburban siting constraints than utility-
scale solar. However, not enough community solar can be sited within those settings to meet the
maximum potential market share for community solar in tracts with large populations or high
electricity consumption. Larger ground-mount community solar installations will be most
competitive against lower-cost utility-scale solar by focusing on deployment in exurbs and rural
areas within demand-constrained service territories. Within urban and suburban areas, municipal
lands and repurposed lands 7 (EPA 2023) may serve as potential anchor points for community
solar development. Jurisdictions benefitting from utilities with expansive service territories—
particularly those encompassing rural areas—demonstrate the greatest opportunity space for
community solar. In these areas, it may be necessary to look farther afield, tapping into
7
More information can be found through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s RE-Powering initiative
(https://www.epa.gov/re-powering).
21
community solar resources available elsewhere within the utility’s service domain. Figures 12
and 13 show the opportunity space for community solar as the percent of electricity consumption
that cannot be offset by behind-the-meter on-site solar: Tracts with low offsetable energy levels
will likely need to access the community solar supply outside of their own tract and within their
service territory, whereas tracts with high offsetable energy levels can host more community
solar supply than they can consume, making them hotspots for community solar deployment at
larger scales.
Community solar supply was most constrained by the applied virtual hosting limitations and
interconnection distance and type requirements. The broader landscape of community solar
potential also mirrors regional patterns. These patterns encompass factors like competitive land
usage, land valuation metrics, the prevalence of federal lands, and the density of existing grid
infrastructure. It is noteworthy that, while this analysis did not factor in agrivoltaic systems, it
did account for community solar with conventional inter-row spacing on pastoral lands within
the Reference Access siting regime alone.
22
Figure 12. Percent of electricity consumption that cannot be met by behind-the-meter PV that can
be offset by modeled community solar under the Reference Access siting regime
Figure 13. Percent of electricity consumption that cannot be met by behind-the-meter PV that can
be offset by modeled community solar under the Limited Access siting regime
23
Table 3. Distribution of Rooftop PV Capacity by Building Occupancy Type
Building Percent of Percent of
Sector Occupancy Count GWAC Developable Developable
(thousands) Buildings Rooftop Capacity
Banks 29.894 3.0807 0.77% 0.76%
Entertainment/Recreation 192.435 15.6608 4.94% 3.88%
Medical Office/Clinic 144.872 11.4305 3.72% 2.83%

COMMERCIAL
Personal and Repair Services 230.815 18.1668 5.93% 4.50%
Professional Services 768.993 64.1048 19.74% 15.87%
Retail 382.722 43.3017 9.83% 10.72%
Temporary Lodging 66.403 5.6214 1.70% 1.39%
Theater 7.491 0.9048 0.19% 0.22%
Wholesale 290.726 43.3146 7.46% 10.72%
Construction 181.745 11.8024 4.67% 2.92%
Food/Drug/Chemical 20.903 3.5166 0.54% 0.87%

INDUSTRIAL
Heavy Industrial 90.28 16.9353 2.32% 4.19%
High Technology 51.158 5.2413 1.31% 1.30%
Light Industrial 377.466 48.1256 9.69% 11.91%
Metals/Minerals Processing 20.086 2.9456 0.52% 0.73%
Single-Family Residential 127.499 10.4291 3.27% 2.58%
Multifamily Residential (2) 125.268 7.1505 3.22% 1.77%

RESIDENTIAL
Church/Nonprofit 172.181 13.6366 4.42% 3.38%
College/University 10.663 1.9304 0.27% 0.48%
Emergency Response 17.348 1.6529 0.45% 0.41%
Government Services 135.88 14.3447 3.49% 3.55%

OTHER
Grade School 105.538 23.9871 2.71% 5.94%
Hospital 22.114 3.3789 0.57% 0.84%
Institutional Dormitory 45.837 10.7090 1.18% 2.65%
Nursing Home 47.405 6.5353 1.22% 1.62%
Parking 17.893 2.8628 0.46% 0.71%
24
Table 4. Percent of Rooftop Area Developable for PV by Building Occupancy Type
East East West West
Middle New South
Sector Building Occupancy North South Mountain Pacific North South
Atlantic England Atlantic
Central Central Central Central
Banks 63% 65% 54% 51% 50% 58% 60% 58% 64%
Entertainment and
58% 60% 50% 47% 50% 54% 57% 55% 59%
recreation
Medical office/clinic 60% 59% 50% 44% 49% 55% 56% 56% 63%
Personal and repair

COMMERCIAL
62% 62% 53% 48% 49% 57% 58% 56% 64%

services
Professional/technica
57% 58% 49% 44% 44% 53% 52% 51% 60%
l services
Retail trade 61% 65% 57% 52% 52% 60% 62% 59% 65%
Temporary lodging 53% 62% 52% 41% 43% 46% 56% 50% 59%
Theaters 64% 77% 56% 54% 63% 53% 58% 61% 70%
Wholesale trade 67% 68% 59% 58% 53% 62% 66% 60% 71%
Construction 58% 60% 50% 43% 45% 54% 52% 51% 61%
Food/drug/chemicals 73% 62% 63% 57% 55% 61% 65% 64% 69%
INDUSTRIAL
Heavy industry 70% 70% 63% 56% 56% 62% 66% 53% 71%
High technology 63% 66% 52% 53% 49% 57% 56% 61% 58%
Light industrial 68% 68% 62% 56% 58% 60% 62% 64% 68%
Metals/minerals
75% 64% 65% 60% 62% 61% 65% 53% 64%
processing
Single-family dwelling 39% 34% 33% 28% 31% 40% 35% 33% 35%
Multifamily dwelling
43% 41% 37% 30% 34% 43% 38% 37% 40%
(2)
45% 43% 38% 31% 35% 44% 40% 37% 45%
(3)
RESIDENTIAL
51% 44% 39% 34% 40% 45% 44% 43% 49%
(5)
53% 49% 42% 35% 46% 49% 43% 42% 51%
(10)
50% 60% 47% 32% 48% 50% 43% 47% 42%
(20)
58% 54% 51% 36% 39% 42% 48% 53% 55%
(50)
Church/nonprofit 58% 55% 47% 43% 45% 55% 54% 56% 61%
College/universities 61% 62% 51% 58% 65% 62% 56% 49% 56%
Emergency response 66% 67% 59% 55% 51% 59% 60% 61% 66%
General services 64% 62% 50% 52% 46% 57% 61% 58% 67%
OTHER
Grade schools 66% 64% 63% 55% 59% 59% 65% 65% 67%
Hospitals 56% 58% 53% 49% 52% 59% 60% 58% 70%
Institutional
54% 60% 47% 43% 48% 48% 54% 49% 64%
dormitory
Nursing home 57% 60% 53% 40% 45% 48% 53% 50% 58%
Parking 57% 67% 52% 52% 48% 52% 55% 61% 65%
25
3.2 Community Solar Technical Potential by Household Income,
Tenure, and Building Type
Our exploration of community solar technical potential reveals its ability to bridge the gap for
households without access to behind-the-meter solar. Overall, there is sufficient community solar
technical potential to serve all residential income levels, tenures, and building types without
significant competition, as shown in Table 6. Even in the Limited Access siting regime,
community solar has the technical potential to address the entire annual electricity consumption
of these households. The annual energy produced by developing 67% of the community solar
technical potential under the Limited Access siting regime would entirely offset current
residential electricity consumption in the United States. Table 5 shows the breakdown of
community solar supply potential and residential electricity consumption. However, households
without behind-the-meter solar access—attributed to factors like housing tenure (such as renters),
building types (like multifamily or manufactured homes), or building unsuitability due to
shading or structural challenges—consume a cumulative 5% more electricity than their
counterparts without physical barriers to on-site solar (53% versus 47%, respectively). To satisfy
the electricity needs of these households through community solar alone, 53% (495 GW) of the
modeled community solar potential would need to be developed. Regionally, the capacity of
states in the Central Plains, Midwest, and Southeast to host community solar supply significantly
surpasses the electricity consumption that can’t be met by behind-the-meter solar. In contrast, the
Mid-Atlantic and West Coast states are more balanced, and the Northeast and select areas of the
Southwest are the most challenged, where potential supply trails behind the existing
consumption levels that cannot be offset by on-site solar.
26
Table 5. Annual Residential Electricity Consumption by Income, Tenure, and Dwelling Type
Very Low Low Moderate Mid
High
0%–30% 30%–50% 50%–80% 80%–120%
120+% AMI
AMI AMI AMI AMI
Owner Occupied,
65,350,294 43,536,741 95,785,401 252,458,022 365,500,349
Single-Family
Owner Occupied,
932,641 1,364,245 2,499,454 6,401,835 12,061,394
Multifamily
Renter Occupied,
44,816,169 17,700,346 29,342,621 84,211,171 28,605,584
Single-Family
Renter Occupied,
34,796,418 19,427,293 26,679,484 48,757,529 30,033,638
Multifamily
Mobile Dwelling 2,976,650 5,504,750 19,239,550 59,869,800 38,406,300
Total 148,872,172 87,533,375 173,546,510 451,698,358 474,607,265
Table 6. Percent of Modeled Community Solar Supply (Limited Access) Needed To Offset
Residential Electricity Consumption by Income, Tenure, and Dwelling Type
Very Low Low Moderate Mid
High
0%–30% 30%–50% 50%–80% 80%–120%
120+% AMI
AMI AMI AMI AMI
Owner Occupied,
3.3% 2.2% 4.8% 12.6% 18.2%
Single-Family
Owner Occupied,
Less than 1% Less than 1% Less than 1% Less than 1% Less than 1%
Multifamily
Renter Occupied,
2.2% Less than 1% 1.45% 4.2% 1.4%
Single-Family
Renter Occupied,
1.7% Less than 1% 1.3% 2.4% 1.5%
Multifamily
Mobile Dwelling Less than 1% Less than 1% 1.0% 3.0% 1.9%
Total 7.5% 4.4% 8.7% 22.5% 23.7%
27
4 Meaningful Benefits
DOE has identified five meaningful benefits that can be provided by community solar projects:
greater household savings, LMI household access, resilience and grid benefits, community
ownership, and equitable workforce development (DOE 2024). All estimates in this section are
based on gross estimated impacts of community solar. Gross estimates do not consider potential
interactions between community solar into other domains. For instance, gross estimates of jobs
created by community solar do not account for the fact that jobs may be displaced in other
industries. In this section, we explore the potential magnitude of these meaningful benefits in the
context of our community solar technical potential estimates.
We discuss each meaningful benefit separately in individual sections. In each section, we begin
by establishing a baseline of the meaningful benefits provided by existing community solar
projects to understand the plausibility of DOE’s meaningful benefit targets. We then estimate
ranges of the future accrual of meaningful benefits at a national scale. The ranges of meaningful
benefits are based on two book-end estimates:
• Benefits under the National Community Solar Partnership (NCSP) target: We

estimate meaningful benefits at the DOE NCSP deployment target of 20 GW of
cumulatively installed community solar. Assuming that at least 6 GW of community
solar has been installed as of 2023 (Xu et al. 2023), we estimate the incremental benefits
that will be achieved if the remaining 14 GW is deployed and provides the associated
meaningful benefits.
• Benefits from technically potential projects: We estimate the potential accrual of
meaningful benefits if DOE targets are achieved and all technically potential community
solar is deployed (based on estimates from Section 3). These estimates should be
understood as an upper-bound accrual of benefits if all technically potential projects
yield feasible levels of benefits, as discussed in each subsection.
4.1 Greater Household Savings

Community solar can reduce household electricity bills. According to DOE, community solar
projects provide meaningful benefits when reducing residential subscriber electricity bills by at
least 20%.
4.1.1 Household Savings Baseline

Subscribers to existing and planned community solar projects generally reduce electricity bills by
around 5%–15% (DC DOEE n.d.; Heeter et al. 2021; Mooney 2022; Kennedy 2023). 8 While
most typical community solar projects may not currently achieve the 20% meaningful benefit
threshold, the target is financially plausible. Ramasamy et al. (2022) estimate that a benchmark,
ground-mounted, 500-kW commercial solar system costs around $1,940/kW. Tax credits would
8
Mooney and Kennedy both cite ranges on the order of 5%–15%. Heeter et al. (2021) estimate a nationwide median
net value from bill savings of about $24/kW/year for projects that came online in 2021. According to EIA (2023)
data, households earning less than $60,000/year use around 9.3 megawatt-hours (MWh)/year, spending around
$1,400/year using an average nationwide retail rate of $0.15/kWh. We assume a typical community solar
subscription size of 4 kW, consistent with DOE assumptions for NCSP targets (DOE 2022b). That subscription size
equates to annual savings of around $96 using the Heeter et al. median estimated savings, or roughly a 7% reduction
from current electricity expenditures.
28
offset at least 30% of those costs, bringing the effective cost down to about $1,360/kW.
Assuming the project aims to recoup those costs over 10 years, the project would require annual
revenues of about $140/kW. In addition to those installation costs, community solar projects
incur ongoing costs to manage subscribers on the order of $30/kW/year (Elevate 2021),
increasing minimum revenues to $170/kW/year. For a 4-kW subscription, those costs equate to
minimum subscription costs of $680/year. For projects that credit subscribers at the full retail
rate, a subscription priced at the minimum cost would yield a roughly 27% electricity bill
reduction for a typical household earning less than $60,000/year (see assumptions in Footnote 5).
In a more realistic scenario where bill credits are valued at less than the retail rate (e.g., 80%),
the bill reduction would be closer to 20%. Clean energy provisions in the federal Inflation
Reduction Act (IRA) make the target more plausible (see Text Box 1). Indeed, for certain
projects, IRA-based tax credits alone could drive bill savings well above 20%.
Text Box 1. Community solar provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act

The federal Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), passed in 2022, contains several provisions that will support
future community solar deployment:
• Extended and expanded tax credits: The IRA extends existing tax credits and expands eligibility
for tax credits, including by allowing solar projects to choose between upfront investment tax credits
and ongoing production-based tax credits.
• Tax credit transferability and direct payments: The IRA makes tax credits transferable, meaning
that project owners can easily sell the tax credits to other entities. The IRA also allows some entities
(e.g., nonprofits) to apply for direct payments of tax credits rather than monetize the value via tax
liabilities. See the bottom of this text box for a discussion of how transferability and direct payments
affect community solar deployment.
• Tax credit adders: The IRA includes several tax credit adders for projects, including a 10-point
bonus for projects that meet domestic content standards, a 10-point bonus for projects developed in
energy communities (e.g., coal mining communities), a 10-point bonus for projects in or benefitting
low-income communities or on tribal lands, and a 10-point bonus for projects sited on low-income
housing in low-income communities. These adders can be stacked such that a community solar
project could offset as much as 70% of the initial costs through tax credits.
• Grants: The IRA includes billions of dollars in grants to be distributed to communities pursuing clean
energy investments such as community solar, including funding from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency’s Solar For All program.
How do tax credit transferability and direct payments affect community solar?
Tax credits can only be monetized by entities with sufficient tax liabilities. As a result, federal tax
credits have distorted solar markets by driving project owners to work with tax-equity investors who
monetize the tax credits. Tax equity is a complex and costly form of financing, and has created barriers
to solar deployment, especially for small projects. The IRA’s transferability and direct payment
provisions will reduce financing costs by obviating the need for tax equity or other complex financing
structures to monetize tax credits. The reduced barriers could facilitate smaller-scale community solar
projects with higher levels of community ownership (see Section 4.4).
29
4.1.2 Greater Household Savings Estimates
Benefits under NCSP target: $110 million– Benefits from technically potential projects: $7
$330 million/year; $8 million–$24 million/GW billion–$21 billion/year
We estimate potential bill savings as a function of three inputs:
• Residential share of community solar capacity: Most projects reserve a large share of
capacity for a single “anchor tenant,” typically a large commercial or industrial customer.
Anchor tenants help improve project financeability by providing a stable, long-term
revenue source. Several states restrict anchor tenants to subscribe to no more than 40% of
project capacity. In such projects, the remaining 60% of project capacity is split between
some mix of residential and nonresidential subscribers. To provide lower- and upper-
bound estimates, we assume that residential customers account for 25%–75% of the non-
anchor capacity, equating to 15%–45% of total project capacity.
• Annual project output: We use annual output estimates from our technical potential
analysis for the technical potential estimates and apply a single 20% capacity factor to
convert nationwide projected deployment to annual output for the projected potential
estimates.
• Electricity rates: For the technical potential estimates, we multiply system output
aggregated to the zip code level by average zip-code-level residential rates 9 to estimate
the total amount that residential customers would pay to buy the equivalent amount of
electricity from their electric utilities. For the projected potential estimates, we multiply
the projected output by a nationwide average retail electricity rate of $0.15/kWh, given
that the projected capacity is at the national level rather than a more geographically
granular level.
Estimated bill savings are 20% of the product of the assumed residential share (15%–45%), the
annual output, and retail electricity rates. The estimated bill savings from technically potential
projects are $7 billion–$21 billion per year. To put those numbers in context, $7 billion is
roughly the annual electricity expenditure of all residential customers in Pennsylvania, while $21
billion is roughly the annual residential expenditure in California. The potential bill savings
under the NCSP target are $110 million–$330 million per year, or about $8 million–$24 million
for each additional GW, a range comparable to the annual residential electricity expenditure of
Washington, D.C.
4.2 LMI Household Access

LMI households are underrepresented among PV adopters (Forrester et al. 2023). Community
solar could increase LMI household access by addressing several key barriers to LMI PV
adoption, such as reducing upfront costs and barriers to adoption for renters (Heeter et al. 2018;
Michaud 2020). According to DOE, community solar projects provide meaningful benefits when
at least 40% of subscribers are from LMI households.
9
Retail rate data are available by utility at the zip code level (Huggins 2022). We first generate zip-code-level
residential rates based on residential sales-weighted averages across utilities within zip codes using U.S. Energy
Information Administration electricity sales data.
30
4.2.1 LMI Household Access Baseline
LMI participation in existing community solar projects is far below the meaningful benefit target
(Chwastyk et al. 2018). However, state community solar policies are likely to accelerate LMI
adoption of community solar. Connelly (2023) projects that about 18% of community solar
capacity deployed from 2023–2027 in 15 states will be reserved for LMI customers, largely
reflecting state-level LMI community solar policies. The LMI share of subscribers—the criterion
in the DOE target—exceeds the LMI share of capacity for two reasons. First, large shares of
project capacity are held by anchor tenants, as discussed in Section 4.1. Assuming anchor tenants
hold 40% of capacity while smaller subscribers split the remaining 60% of capacity evenly, an
18% LMI share of project capacity equates to a roughly 29% LMI share of subscribers. Second,
LMI households tend to use less electricity than more affluent households and may thus
subscribe to less capacity on average. Based on U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
data, households earning less than $60,000 per year tend use around 10% less electricity per year
than more affluent households, implying that the future LMI share of subscribers may be slightly
greater than 30%. Hence, while LMI access in existing community solar projects is far below the
40% DOE target, state community solar policies are likely to substantially close that gap in the
near future.
4.2.2 LMI Household Access Estimates

Benefits under NCSP target: 210,000– Benefits from technically potential projects: 13
630,000 LMI households served; 15K–45K/GW million–38 million LMI households served
We estimate a technical potential range of LMI households served based on a range of

assumptions about the number of residential subscribers per MW of community solar capacity.
In Section 4.1, we assumed that residential customers subscribed to 15%–45% of project
capacity. Under that assumption, residential households subscribe to 150–450 kW for each MW
of community solar capacity. Assuming that households subscribe to 4 kW on average (DOE
2022b), and that LMI households account for 40% of residential subscribers, each MW of
community solar capacity would serve around 15–45 LMI subscribers. Under these assumptions,
the number of LMI households served by technically potential projects is 13 million–38 million.
Applying the same process to incremental NCSP community solar capacity, the nationwide
number of LMI households served is about 210,000–630,000, or about 15,000–45,000 per
additional GW. To place both numbers in context, data from Forrester et al. (2023) and Davis et
al. (2023) suggest that around 860,000 LMI households cumulatively had adopted rooftop solar
by the end of 2022. 10
4.3 Resilience and Grid Benefits

Energy resilience refers to the power system’s ability to prevent long-duration electrical outages,
mitigate the impacts of outages, and restore power after outages. 11 According to DOE,
10
Data from Forrester et al. (2023) suggest that 22% of rooftop solar adopters through the end of 2022 earned less
than 80% of area median income, a typical threshold for identifying LMI households. Davis et al. (2023) estimate
that about 3.9 million households had adopted rooftop solar by the end of 2022. The product of the two numbers
suggests that around 860,000 LMI households had adopted rooftop solar by the end of 2022.
11
Resilient Energy Platform defines power sector resilience as “the ability to anticipate, prepare for, and adapt to
changing conditions and withstand, respond to, and recover rapidly from disruptions to the power sector through
adaptable and holistic planning and technical solutions.”
31
community solar projects provide meaningful resilience and grid benefits by delivering power to
households and critical facilities during grid outages and strengthening grid operations through
demand response and other actions.
4.3.1 Resilience and Grid Benefits Baseline

While reliable data are lacking, the use of community solar systems to provide resilience and
grid benefits is likely rare. Resilience and grid benefits have generally not been prioritized in
community solar planning to date (Abbott et al. 2022). Still, anecdotal evidence suggests that a
growing number of community solar projects are exploring how to factor resilience into system
design (DOE 2023). Theoretically, community solar systems—like all distributed solar
systems—can reduce the grid’s vulnerability to outages at any one location. Community solar
systems that are strategically sited near or on critical facilities can ensure a power source for
critical services during broader grid outages. Further, solar systems are not susceptible to short-
run supply chain shocks, such as fuel shortages that may arise during natural disasters.
The resilience value of community solar is inherently limited by the intermittent nature of solar
output, especially during prolonged storms. As a result, recent research examines solar resiliency
in the context of co-located solar plus storage (Anderson et al. 2018; Laws et al. 2018; Abbott et
al. 2022). Battery storage enhances the resiliency value of solar by storing and shifting solar
output during grid outages. Through battery storage, solar output can more effectively meet
critical loads and be shifted to meet nighttime loads. Battery storage can also enhance the grid
value of community solar—the second component of DOE’s meaningful benefit—strengthening
grid operations. Battery storage can effectively convert community solar systems into quasi-
dispatchable resources, meaning that solar output can be stored and shifted to provide a broader
variety of grid services (e.g., demand response, frequency regulation, capacity reserves).
Battery storage is poised for significant growth (Frazier et al. 2021). Still, significant deployment
of battery storage does not imply co-location with community solar. Battery storage is typically
more economical when sited at strategic points on the grid rather than co-located with renewable
energy projects such as solar (Gorman et al. 2022). The popularity of solar-plus-storage co-
location has been enabled in part by incentives created by federal tax credits (Gorman et al.
2022). The IRA removes those distorted incentives by allowing independently sited storage
projects to receive tax credits. With the new tax credit structure, the efficiency and value of co-
location will need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis (Gorman et al. 2022). The primary
value proposition of co-location moving forward lies in providing grid services (Gorman and
Seel 2022). As a result, it is likely that community-solar-plus-storage co-location will only be
economically attractive for projects that can effectively monetize the value of grid services
provided by batteries. 12 We incorporate these considerations into our estimation of potential
benefits in the following section.
12
Some caution is required in evaluating investments in storage solely based on supporting grid resiliency during
infrequent grid outages. Such investments add to project costs without increasing project revenues, such that
inefficient storage investments would likely deflate subscriber bill savings. Further, most battery storage deployed
today uses battery chemistries that rely on supply chains associated with substantial social and environmental risks
and damages. The need for battery storage should thus be evaluated carefully on a case-by-case basis.
32
4.3.2 Resilience and Grid Benefits Estimates
Benefits under NCSP target: $30 million–$100 Benefits from technically potential projects: $2
million/year in avoided outage damages ($2 billion–$6 billion/year in avoided outage damages;
million–7 million/GW); $20 million–$60 $1.3 billion–$3.8 billion/year in grid services
million/year in grid services ($1 million–4
million/GW)
We estimate potential community solar resilience and grid benefit values as a function of five
inputs:
• Community solar projects co-located with storage: The future prevalence of

community solar co-location with storage remains uncertain. Davis et al. (2023) estimate
that 20% of new nonresidential solar projects will be co-located with storage by 2027. To
provide a rough technical potential analysis, we assume that 10%–30% of technically
potential community solar projects could be co-located with storage. Of those projects,
we assume that battery storage capacity equates to 60% of deployed solar capacity, based
on typical solar/storage ratios for existing utility-scale solar systems (Bolinger et al.
2022).
• Reserve capacity for resilience: For simplicity, we assume that 50% of storage capacity
is reserved for backup power (resilience) and 50% is reserved for providing ongoing grid
services. Of the battery storage reserved for backup power, we assume that batteries can
provide 2 hours of backup power, on average, based on typical storage durations for
existing projects (Bolinger et al. 2022). We assume that storage capacity is fully used in a
typical outage incident, which lasts around 4 hours on average (EIA 2023d).
• Value of lost load: The value of lost load refers to the monetary value of damages caused
by blackouts, such as lost economic activity, thermal discomfort, and food spoilage. Most
estimates for values of lost load are on the order of $1–$30/kWh, though some estimates
range over $100/kWh (Schröder and Kuckshinrich 2015). We assume a value of lost load
of $30/kWh.
• Frequency of outages: According to EIA (2023) data, the nationwide average number of
interruptions from 2013–2021 is 1.3 interruptions per customer, with an average
interruption duration of 4.2 hours.
• Value of grid services: The value of non-energy grid services (e.g., capacity reserves,
ancillary services) has been estimated to be on the order of $10–$100/kW (Balducci et al.
2021). For simplicity, we assume a single value of $50/kW.
We estimate the annual value of backup power as the product of the potential backup gigawatt-
hours (GWh), the value of lost load, and the number of outages per year. Under that approach,
the estimated value of grid resilience provided by technically potential community solar projects
is $2 billion–$6 billion per year, while the estimated value under the NCSP target is $30 million–
$100 million per year, or about $2 million–$7 million per each additional GW. To contextualize
those numbers, the annual cost of weather-related outages is estimated to be on the order of $18
billion–$33 billion nationally (EOP 2013). Finally, assuming the other half of capacity provides
ongoing grid services at an average value of $50/kW, our technical potential grid service value
estimate is $1.3 billion–$3.8 billion per year and $20 million–$60 million per year for the
estimate under the NCSP target, or about $1 million–$4 million for each additional GW.
33
4.4 Community Ownership
According to DOE, community solar projects provide meaningful benefits when community
members own or hold equity in project assets. Community ownership refers to projects where
community members have equity ownership rights in community solar projects (Grimley and
Chan 2023). In addition to equity ownership, DOE recognizes other community wealth-building
strategies such as community benefit agreements (CBAs), meaning contractual agreements to
distribute some portion of project benefits into host communities.
4.4.1 Community Ownership Baseline

Community ownership of community solar projects is rare (Bolinger and Paulos 2023). While
specific estimates are lacking, community-owned projects account for no more than 5% of
installed community solar project capacity. 13 Most community solar projects are owned by for-
profit entities not directly tied to host communities (Heeter et al. 2021; Paulos 2022). Financing
challenges, regulatory barriers, and lack of expertise impede community ownership (Farrell
2016; McHarg 2016; Paulos 2022; Bolinger and Paulos 2023). Notwithstanding these challenges,
the potential benefits of community ownership provide an ongoing incentive for communities to
pursue greater ownership of community solar projects (Lantz and Tegen 2009; Kienbaum et al.
2023). Further, communities have a plethora of strategies to achieve community ownership, and
tax credit reforms implemented in the IRA have renewed interest in community ownership
(Grimley and Chan 2023).
Alternative wealth-building strategies such as CBAs provide practical alternatives to community

ownership that still drive economic benefits into host communities. Under a CBA, the project
owner contractually agrees to invest in the host community, such as by hiring local labor or
contributing to local economic trust funds (DOE 2023). CBAs are an increasingly common
model for redistributing the values of large-scale projects that require community acceptance
(Wolf-Powers 2011), though the prevalence of CBAs in community solar is unclear.
4.4.2 Estimated Benefits of Community Ownership

Benefits under NCSP target: $20 million–$160 Benefits from technically potential projects: $0.9
million/year in added local economic value, out billion–$7.2 billion/year in added local economic
of a total of about $550 million/year in economic value, out of a total of about $25 billion/year in
impacts ($1 million–$11 million/GW) economic impacts
We estimate the potential benefits of community ownership as a function of two inputs:
• Community-owned and CBA shares of capacity. We were unable to develop literature-

based assumptions for the potential future uptake of community ownership and CBAs. To
estimate a range of potential benefits, at the low end, we assume that 1% of future
community solar capacity is community owned, while the remaining share of capacity is
developed with CBAs. At the high end, we assume that 25% of capacity is community
owned and the remaining 75% of capacity is developed with CBAs.
13
Customer-owned projects account for a fraction of a percent of installed capacity. According to data collected by
the authors as part of NREL’s Sharing the Sun project, electric cooperative projects, some of which may meet
community ownership criteria, accounted for around 4.7% of capacity as of the end of 2022.
34
• Economic benefits of community ownership and CBAs. Several studies suggest that
community ownership roughly doubles the local economic benefits of renewable energy
projects relative to absentee ownership models (Lantz and Tegen 2009; Kienbaum et al.
2023). These economic impacts reflect the accrual of project revenues into the
community as well as economic “multipliers” that result when those revenues circulate
around local businesses. We therefore assume that the local value of community-owned
capacity is double the estimated economic impact of typical projects. Research on the
quantitative value of CBAs is sparse (Gunton et al. 2023), but Cowell et al. (2011) found
that CBAs may redistribute around 5% of annual project earnings to host communities.
To explore a plausible range, we assume the economic value of CBAs ranges from 5%–
10% of project earnings.
We use NREL’s Jobs and Economic Development Impact (JEDI) model to estimate the
economic impacts of community solar projects. We then multiply the state-level economic
impacts from JEDI by our assumed multipliers as follows:
𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑠𝑠
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣 = � 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶% �𝐿𝐿% × 𝐺𝐺𝑊𝑊𝑠𝑠 × � + 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶% �𝐺𝐺𝑊𝑊𝑠𝑠 × �
𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺
𝑠𝑠
Equation 3: Community ownership value based community solar estimated capacity
In Equation 3, 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣 is the estimated additional local value generated by community
ownership or community benefit agreements, 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶% is the assumed share of project capacity
with CBAs (75%–99%), 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶% is the assumed share of project capacity that is community owned
(1%–25%), 𝐿𝐿 is the percent of project earnings that are redistributed locally through CBAs (5%–
10%), 𝐺𝐺𝑊𝑊𝑠𝑠 is the estimated technically potential community solar in state 𝑠𝑠, and 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 and
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑠𝑠 are the estimated annual earnings and local economic impacts in state 𝑠𝑠 as estimated
by JEDI, respectively. Under that approach, the estimated impact of technically potential projects
on local economic value from community ownership is $0.9 billion–$7.2 billion per year. That
is, if all technically potential community solar capacity is developed, and all that capacity
includes some form of community ownership, an additional $0.9 billion–$7.2 billion of annual
economic benefits will accrue to host communities. In terms of the potential under the NCSP
target, the JEDI model suggests nationwide average earnings of $19,000/MW and average
economic impacts of $39,000/MW. Applying those inputs to the process outlined in Equation 3
above, we estimate that community ownership and CBAs could add $20 million–$160
million/year in local economic value, or about $1 million–$11 million per each additional GW.
It is important to emphasize that these estimates reflect the economic impacts accruing to host
communities, not the full economic value of projects. The total economic impact of all
technically potential projects using the JEDI model is estimated to be about $25 billion per year.
The total estimated economic impact of incremental capacity under the NCSP target is about
$550 million per year, or about $40 million per each additional GW.
4.5 Equitable Workforce Development

According to DOE, community solar projects achieve meaningful benefits by advancing high
wages, reducing income disparities across demographic lines, ensuring a workforce that is
reflective of the community, and creating a safe working environment.
35
4.5.1 Equitable Workforce Development Baseline
The U.S. solar industry actively promotes a more equitable workforce (Gilliland et al. 2022). The
U.S. solar industry is more racially diverse than the broader U.S. workforce, though the solar
industry exhibits a more significant gender imbalance (Keyser et al. 2023). Solar industry wages
are generally competitive, with median industry wages higher than construction industry median
wages and slightly higher than the U.S. median wage for all occupations (Gilliland et al. 2022).
The solar industry is unionized at comparable levels to the broader U.S. workforce (Keyser et al.
2023).
Further equitable workforce development is compatible with other clean energy and
decarbonization objectives. Mayfield and Jenkins (2021) show that efforts to ensure an equitable
workforce—such as higher wages, local hiring requirements, and gender and racial equity hiring
requirements—have minimal impacts on solar costs and deployment. The reason for these
minimal impacts is that labor costs compose a small share of overall project costs—though
community solar is more labor-intensive than other forms of solar given the need for ongoing
subscriber management. Still, other political and social factors could impede equitable workforce
development initiatives, such as political resistance to wage standards or unionization (Mayfield
and Jenkins 2021). Further, the U.S. solar industry already faces broad labor shortages. Most
surveyed solar companies report hiring difficulties at all levels of the solar supply chain
(Gilliland et al. 2022; Keyser et al. 2023). Most solar companies attribute hiring difficulties to
the limited supply of job seekers with adequate experience, training, and skills (Gilliland et al.
2022).
4.5.2 Estimated Benefits of Equitable Workforce Development

Benefits under the NCSP target: 290,000 Benefits from technically potential projects: 18
construction positions (20K/GW), 7,000 ongoing million construction positions, 420,000 ongoing
jobs (300/GW), $200 million–$230 million in jobs, $12 billion–$13 billion in ongoing local wages
ongoing local wages in host communities ($15 in host communities
million/GW)
To explore the workforce development impacts of community solar, we estimate the number of
jobs associated with new projects and the local wages generated by those projects.
Community solar jobs can be grouped into three categories: construction, operations and
maintenance, and subscriber management (e.g., managing subscriber bills, acquiring new
subscribers). These solar jobs reflect some combination of local hires (e.g., local hired workers
during construction) and positions held outside of host communities (e.g., subscriber
management organizations are not typically located in host communities). According to the
NREL JEDI model, a typical project supports the equivalent of around 21 full-time construction
jobs per MW for one year. After construction, a typical project supports around 0.3 full-time jobs
per MW for operations and maintenance. Although similar estimates for subscriber management
labor are unavailable, labor requirements estimated by Elevate (2021) suggest that subscriber
management typically requires multiple staff on an ongoing basis. For simplicity, we assume that
one full-time position is required to manage every 5 MW of community solar capacity. 14
14
The number of employees per MW may currently be higher, but labor per MW will presumably decline over time
as community solar scales and achieves growing economies of scale.
36
Using those assumptions, nationwide technical potential community solar capacity would
support around 18 million construction positions, 250,000 ongoing jobs for operations and
maintenance, and 167,000 ongoing jobs for subscriber management. For the NCSP target,
incremental deployment would support 290,000 construction positions (about 20,000 per each
additional GW), 4,200 ongoing jobs for operations and maintenance (300 per GW), and 2,800
ongoing jobs for subscriber management (200 per GW). For comparison, the entire U.S. solar
industry currently employs around 260,000 individuals (IREC 2023).
As already noted, many and possibly most of those jobs would be filled by employees who do
not reside in the communities that host community solar projects. To estimate the local impacts
of wages, we calculate total wages paid for ongoing jobs in operations and maintenance—
positions that are presumably held by individuals who live in or near host communities. We
assume that average wages could vary from the current industry average for solar photovoltaic
installers ($47,970/year) to the industry’s 75th percentile wage ($53,700) (BLS 2023). Under
those assumptions, local wages accruing to host communities range from $12 billion–$13 billion
per year for technically potential capacity and $200 million–$230 million per year for
incremental capacity to meet the NCSP target, or about $15 million per each additional GW.
37
5 Conclusions
This report presents a first-of-its-kind assessment of the technical potential of community solar
and provides insight into the distribution of community solar potential by tenure, income, and
other building characteristics. This research indicates that a substantial fraction of residential and
commercial electricity consumption can be met by community solar across siting regimes
intended to represent both balanced, common practices for community solar as well as more
restrictive exclusions and setbacks. Our technical potential estimates suggest that the maximum
feasible deployment of projects with characteristics typical of community solar projects could
generate enough electricity to meet the electricity consumption of 53.2 million households in the
United States. In practice, market, economic, and policy constraints mean that the actual number
of households potentially served by community solar will be much smaller. Still, our analysis
suggests that community solar could conceivably grow to serve a significant portion of those
customers who are unable to adopt rooftop or other behind-the-meter solar.
We find that community solar potential can significantly contribute to meeting electricity
consumption for households and business that are unable to access on-site solar, such as the
many LMI households, renters, and households residing in dwellings not suitable for behind-the-
meter solar (e.g., unsuitable roofs for solar, structural problems, code or panel issues, or
impermanent or modular housing types).
We also explore the potential benefits of the ongoing deployment of community solar. We
estimate that, if all technically potential community solar is deployed, community solar could
save customers billions of dollars on their electricity bills, serve tens of millions of LMI
households, generate billions of dollars in grid resilience and grid service values, drive billions of
dollars of economic benefits into host communities, and support hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Realistically, the potential accrual of benefits is a fraction of those high-end estimates based on
technical potential capacity. Still, using realistic projections for community solar deployed in the
ensuing decade, we estimate that community solar could reduce subscriber electricity costs by
around $170 million–$500 million per year, serve 320,000–950,000 LMI households, generate
$80 million–$240 million per year in grid resiliency and service value, drive $30 million–$230
million per year in economic benefits into host communities, and support around 10,500
permanent jobs.
5.1 Future Work

We suggest four topics for future work to extend this analysis. First, community solar can be
modeled in SAM (Blair et al. 2018) using the community solar financial model with community-
solar-specific costs, incentives, and other financial parameters to increase the fidelity of techno-
economic potential results. Site-based levelized costs of energy for modeled community solar
supply were significantly below (50% less than) reported levelized costs of energy for
community solar (Lazard 2023). From this, community solar supply curves could be modeled
and could directly compete with other technology supply curves.
Second, community solar interconnection requirements should be expanded to include

distribution-level interconnection constraints. Geospatial data representative of national and
regional electricity distribution systems are not available, either publicly or as licensed data.
Experimental methods exist to classify these data using optical remote sensing and may fit this
38
need if computed on a national scale. As part of distribution interconnection, hosting capacity
assessment and power flow analyses can assist project developers and utilities in evaluating site-
based community solar feasibility and overall impacts on feeders and downstream customers.
Third, offsetting electricity consumption for households and businesses that cannot access
behind-the-meter solar is a first step in assessing community solar potential. A logical next step
is furthering this work in developing market potential estimates for community solar, particularly
in terms of local policy—including state-level enabling legislation, project size limits, and
program and annual limits, among others. Part of developing community solar market potential
could include matching electricity consumption and community solar generation time series.
Assessing load and supply time series would help establish the degree of paired storage for
community solar installations.
Finally, community solar and agrivoltaics are emerging solar PV deployment forms that can
provide additional benefits to both communities and habitats beyond utility-scale solar and wind.
Community solar and agrivoltaics can occupy the same system size niche, and both can act as a
land-saving instance of renewable energy (The Nature Conservancy 2023), capitalizing on
incentives and opportunities for programs under both forms. Future agrivoltaic techno-economic
potential assessments could include a form of community solar.
39
References
Abbot, S., M. Tyson, M. Popkin, A. Farthing. 2022. Community Solar+: How the Next
Generation of Community Solar Can Unlock New Value Streams and Help Communities Pursue
Holistic Decarbonization. Boulder, CO: Rocky Mountain Institute.
Anderson, K., N. Laws, S. Marr, L. Lisell, T. Jimenez, T. Case, X. Li, D. Lohmann, D. Cutler.
2018. “Quantifying and Monetizing Renewable Energy Resiliency.” Sustainability 10:933.
Balducci, P., K. Mongrid, M. Weimar. 2021. “Understanding the Value of Energy Storage for
Power System Reliability and Resilience Applications.” Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy
Reports 8: 131–137.
Barbose, G., N. Darghouth, E. O’Shaughnessy, and S. Forrester. 2022. Tracking the Sun: Pricing
and Design Trends for Distributed Photovoltaic Systems in the United States, 2022 Edition.
Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.
https://emp.lbl.gov/publications/tracking-sun-pricing-and-design-1.
Blair, N., A. Dobos, J. Freeman, T. Neises, M. Wagner, T. Ferguson, P. Gilman, and S. Janzou.
2014. System Advisor Model, SAM 2014.1.14: General Description. Golden, CO: National
Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-6A20-61019. www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/61019.pdf.
BLS. 2023. Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2022: 47-2231 Solar
Photovoltaic Installers. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Bolinger, M., J. Seel, C. Warner, and D. Robson. 2022. Utility-Scale Solar, 2022 Edition:
Empirical Trends in Deployment, Technology, Cost, Performance, PPA Pricing, and Value in
the United States. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Contract No. DE-
AC02-05CH11231. https://emp.lbl.gov/publications/utility-scale-solar-2022-edition.
Bolinger, M., B. Paulos. 2023. Revisiting Community Wind Through the Lens of Community
Solar. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Brown, A., P. Beiter, D. Heimiller, C. Davison, P. Denholm, J. Melius, A. Lopez, D. Hettinger,

D. Mulcahy, and G. Porro. 2016. Estimating Renewable Energy Economic Potential in the
United States: Methodology and Initial Results. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy
Laboratory. NREL/TP-6A20-64503. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/64503.pdf.
Chan, G., J. Heeter, and K. Xu. 2022. “Sharing the Sun Community Solar Project Data (June
2022).” NREL Data Catalog. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Last
updated: December 3, 2022. DOI: 10.7799/1901523.
Chwastyk, D., J. Leader, J. Cramer, M. Rolph. 2018. Community Solar Program Design Models.
Smart Electric Power Alliance.
Connelly, C. 2023. Demystifying LMI incentives for community solar projects. Wood Mackenzie.
40
Cook, J., M. Shah. 2018. Focusing the Sun: State Considerations for Designing Community
Solar Policy. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-6A20-70663.
Copernicus Climate Change Service. 2017. ERA5: Fifth generation of European Centre for
Medium-Range Weather Forecasts atmospheric reanalyses of the global climate. Copernicus
Climate Change Service Climate Data Store (CDS), 15 June, 2023.
https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/cdsapp#!/dataset/reanalysis-era5-single-levels.
Cowell, R., G. Bristow, M. Munday. 2011. “Acceptance, acceptability and environmental justice:
the role of community benefits in wind energy development.” Journal of Environmental
Planning and Management 54(4): 539–557.
Davis, M., S. Leyva Martinez, Z. Gaston, S. Chopra, C. Connelly, M. Sahd, M. Issokson, E.

Pierce, C. Seiple, S. Rumery, C. Silver, T. Thompson, J. Baca. 2023. US Solar Market Insight:
2022 Year in review. Wood Mackenzie.
DC DOEE. n.d. Solar Initiatives. Washington DC Department of Energy and Environment.
DOE. 2021. Solar Futures Study. https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2021-

09/Solar%20Futures%20Study.pdf.
DOE. 2022a. J40 DACs Data. Dataset, accessed 10 May, 2023. https://energyjustice.egs.anl.gov.
DOE. 2022b. National Community Solar Partnership. Washington, DC: National Community
Solar Partnership.
DOE. 2023. Building with Benefits: Increased Resilience. Washington, DC: National
Community Solar Partnership.
DOE. 2024. Community Solar Best Practices Guide: Developing Projects with Meaningful
Benefits. https://www.energy.gov/communitysolar/community-solar-best-practices-guide-
developing-projects-meaningful-benefits.
EIA. 2022. Monthly Form EIA-861M (2020). Table 10, retail sales of electricity to ultimate
customers, annual, by state and utility. Dataset, accessed 1 May, 2023.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/sales_revenue_price/pdf/table_10.pdf.
EIA. 2023a. Electric Retail Service Territories. Dataset, accessed 1 May, 2023.
https://atlas.eia.gov/datasets/f4cd55044b924fed9bc8b64022966097/explore.
EIA. 2023b. Power Plants. Dataset, accessed 1 May, 2023.

https://atlas.eia.gov/datasets/eia::power-plants.
EIA. 2023c. U.S. Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey. Washington, DC: U.S.
Energy Information Administration.
EIA. 2023d. U.S. Residential Energy Consumption Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Energy
Information Administration.
41
Elevate. 2021. Community Solar Pro Forma. Elevate Energy.
Ellfeldt, A. 2019. “Powered By Faith, Religious Groups Emerge As A Conduit For A Just Solar
Boom.” North Country Public Radio.
https://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/npr/784483810/powered-by-faith-religious-
groups-emerge-as-a-conduit-for-a-just-solar-boom.
EOP. 2013. Economic Benefits of Increasing Electric Grid Resilience to Weather Outages.
Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President.
EPA. 2023. RE-Powering Screening Dataset and Geodatabase. Dataset, accessed 10 October,
2023. https://www.epa.gov/re-powering/how-identify-sites#looking.
Farrell, J. 2016. Beyond Sharing: How Communities Can Take Ownership of Renewable Power.
Institute for Local Self-Reliance.
Feldman, D., A.M. Brockway, E. Ulrich, and R. Margolis. 2015. Shared Solar: Current
Landscape, Market Potential, and the Impact of Federal Securities Regulation. Golden, CO:
National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-6A20-63892.
Forrester, S., G. Barbose, E. O’Shaughnessy, N. Darghouth, C. Crespo Montañés. 2023.

Residential Solar-Adopter Income and Demographic Trends: 2023 Update. Berkeley, CA:
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Frazier, A.W., W. Cole, P. Denholm, S. Machen, N. Gates, N. Blair. 2021. Storage Futures
Study: Economic Potential of Diurnal Storage in the U.S. Power Sector. Golden, CO: National
Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-6A20-77449.
Gagnon, P., R. Margolis, J. Melius, C. Phillips, and R. Elmore. 2016. Rooftop Solar Photovoltaic
Technical Potential in the United States: A Detailed Assessment. Golden, CO: National
Gahl, D. and B. Norris. 2022. Community Solar Project Siting: A Framework for Producing
Zero Carbon Electricity and Serving Ecosystem Enhancement & Conservation. SEIA
Whitepaper. https://www.seia.org/research-resources/community-solar-project-siting.
Gilliland, E., A. Palmer, M. Hernandez. 2022. National Solar Jobs Census 2021. International
Renewable Energy Council.
Gorman, W., C. Crespo Montañés, A. Mills, J.H. Kim, D. Millstein, R. Wiser. 2022. “Are
coupled renewable-battery power plants more valuable than independently sited installations?”
Energy Economics 107: 105832.
Gorman, W., J. Seel. 2022. Batteries Included: Top 10 Findings from Berkeley Lab Research on
the Growth of Hybrid Power Plants in the United States. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory.
42
Grimley, M., G. Chan. 2023. Community Ownership in Community Solar Projects. University of
Minnesota.
Gunton, T., E. Werker, S. Markey. 2021. “Community benefit agreements and natural resource
development: Achieving better outcomes.” Resources Policy 73: 102155.
Hausman, N. 2022. How Community Solar Can Benefit Low- and Moderate-Income Customers.
Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute.
Heeter, J., L. Bird, E. O’Shaughnessy, S. Koebrich. 2018. Design and Implementation of

Community Solar Programs for Low- and Moderate-Income Customers. Golden, CO: National
Heeter, J., K. Xu, G. Chan. 2021. Sharing the Sun: Community Solar Deployment, Subscription
Savings, and Energy Burden Reduction. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
NREL/PR-6A20-80246.
Heeter, J., K. Xu, M. Grimley, G. Chan, and E. Dalecki. 2022. Status of State Community Solar
Program Caps. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-6A20/84077.
Heleno, M., J. P. Carvallo, A. Valenzuela, G. Leventis, C. Miller, and J. Deason. 2023.

Distribution Grid Impacts of Community Solar. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory. Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. https://eta-
publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/lbl_cs_grid_impacts_final_09.01.23_v2.pdf.
Huggins, J., 2022. U.S. Electric Utility Companies and Rates: Look-up by Zipcode (2020).
Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
IREC. 2023. National Solar Jobs Census 2022. Albany, NY: Interstate Renewable Energy
Council.
Kennedy, E. 2023. Community solar saves money with solar energy — without changing your
roof. Kiplinger.
Keyser, D., M. Fiori, B. Jones, H. Ho, S. Jatkar, K. Gordon, G. Coplon-Newfield, C. Frisch, C.

Veeder. 2023. United States Energy & Employment Report 2023. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Energy.
Kienbaum, J. Farrell, M. Grimley. 2023. Advantage Local: Why Local Energy Ownership
Matters. Institute for Local Self-Reliance.
Lantz, E., S. Tegen. 2009. Economic Development Impacts of Community Wind Projects: A
Review and Empirical Evaluation. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
NREL/CP-500-45555.
43
Laws, N., K. Anderson, N. DiOrio, X. Li, J. McLaren. 2018. “Impacts of valuing resilience on
cost-optimal PV and storage systems for commercial buildings.” Renewable Energy 127: 896–
909.
Lazard. 2023. Lazard’s LCOE+ (April 2023). https://www.lazard.com/media/2ozoovyg/lazards-

lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf.
Lopez, A., W. Cole, B. Sergi, A. Levine, J. Carey, C. Mangan, T. Mai, T. Williams, P. Pinchuk,
and J. Gu. 2023. Impact of siting ordinances on land availability for wind and solar development.
Nature Energy. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-023-01319-3.
Lopez, A., P. Pinchuk, M. Gleason, W. Cole, T. Mai, T. Williams, O. Roberts, M. Rivers, M.

Bannister, S. Thomson, G. Zuckerman, and B. Sergi. 2024. Solar Photovoltaics and Land-Based
Wind Technical Potential and Supply Curves for the Contiguous United States: 2023 Edition.
Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-6A20-87843.
Lopez, A., B. Roberts, D. Heimiller, N. Blair, and G. Porro. 2012. U.S. Renewable Energy
Technical Potentials: A GIS-Based Analysis. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy
Lutz, N., W. Helman, A. Ryan, T. Nguyen, and R. Goss. 2022. National Structure Inventory.
Dataset, accessed 10 May, 2023. https://github.com/HydrologicEngineeringCenter/NSI.
Ma, O. K. Laymon, M. Day, R. Oliveira, J. Weers, and A. Vimont. 2019. Low-Income Energy
Affordability Data (LEAD) Tool Methodology. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy
Maclaurin, G.J., N.W. Grue, A.J. Lopez, D.M. Heimiller, M. Rossol, G. Buster, and T. Williams.
2019. The Renewable Energy Potential (reV) Model: A Geospatial Platform for Technical
Potential and Supply Curve Modeling. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
NREL/TP-6A20-73067. https://doi.org/10.2172/1563140.
Manson, S., J. Schroeder, D. Van Riper, T. Kugler, and S. Ruggles. 2022. IPUMS National
Historical Geographic Information System: Version 17.0. Minneapolis, MN: IPUMS.
https://doi.org/10.18128/D050.V17.0.
Mayfield, E., J. Jenkins. 2021. “Influence of high road labor policies and practices on renewable
energy costs, decarbonization pathways, and labor outcomes.” Environmental Research Letters
16: 124012.
McHarg, A. 2016. “Community Benefit through Community Ownership of Renewable

Generation in Scotland: Power to the People?” Sharing the Costs and Benefits of Energy and
Resource Activity: Legal Change and Impact on Communities.
Michaud, G. 2020. “Perspectives on community solar policy adoption across the United States.”
Renewable Energy Focus 33: 1–15.
44
Mooney, M. 2022. How much can you save with community solar? EnergySage.
MRLC. 2021. NLCD 2021 Tree Canopy Cover (CONUS). Dataset, accessed 12 May, 2023.
https://mrlc.gov/data/nlcd-2021-tree-canopy-cover-conus.
NCED. 2022. National Conservation Easement Database. Dataset, accessed 12 May, 2023.
https://www.conservationeasement.us.
NREL. 2016. “PV Rooftop Database.” Dataset, accessed 16 April, 2023.

https://dx.doi.org/10.25984/1784725.
NREL. 2022. “2022 Annual Technology Baseline.” Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy
Laboratory. https://atb.nrel.gov.
ORNL. 2023. USA Structures. Dataset, accessed 15 January, 2023.

https://disasters.geoplatform.gov/publicdata/Partners/ORNL/USA_Structures/.
PADUS. 2023. U.S. Geological Survey. Dataset, accessed 28 October, 2023.

https://doi.org/10.5066/P9Q9LQ4B.
Paulos, B. 2022. Review of Approaches to Energy Sovereignty. Illinois Power Agency.
Ramasamy, V., J. Zuboy, E. O’Shaughnessy, D. Feldman, J. Desai, M. Woodhouse, P. Basore,

R. Margolis. 2022. U.S. Solar Photovoltaic System and Energy Storage Cost Benchmarks, With
Minimum Sustainable Price Analysis: Q1 2022. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy
Laboratory. NREL/TP-7A40-83586.
Ruth, M.F., P. Jadun, N. Gilroy, E. Connelly, R. Boardman, A.J. Simon, A. Elgowainy, J. Zuboy.
2020. The Technical and Economic Potential of the H2@Scale Concept within the United States.
Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-6A20-77610.
Schiavina, M., M. Melchiorri, and M. Pesaresi. 2023. GHS-SMOD R2023A – GHS settlement
layers, application of the Degree of Urbanisation methodology (stage I) to GHS-POP R2023A
and GHS-BUILT-S R2023A, multitemporal (1975-2030). European Commission, Joint Research
Centre (JRC). DOI: 10.2905/A0DF7A6F-49DE-46EA-9BDE-563437A6E2BA.
Schröder, T., W. Kuckshinrichs. 2015. “Value of Lost Load: An Efficient Economic Indicator
for Power Supply Security? A Literature Review.” Frontiers in Energy Research 3: 55.
Sengupta, M., Y. Xie, A. Lopez, A. Habte, G. Maclaurin, and J. Shelby. 2018. “The National
Solar Radiation Database (NSRDB).” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 89, 51–60.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.003.
Sigrin, B. and M. Mooney. 2018. Rooftop Solar Technical Potential for Low-to-Moderate
Income Households in the United States. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
NREL/TP-6A20-70901. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/70901.pdf.
45
Spencer, R.S., J. Macknick, A. Aznar, A. Warren, M.O. Reese. 2019. “Floating Photovoltaic
Systems: Assessing the Technical Potential of Photovoltaic Systems on Man-Made Water Bodies
in the Continental United States.” Environ. Sci. Technol. 53(3): 1680–1689.
The Nature Conservancy. 2023. Power of Place. https://www.nature.org/en-us/what-we-do/our-

priorities/tackle-climate-change/climate-change-stories/power-of-place/.
Waechter, K. and T. Williams. 2021. Assessment of Photovoltaic Technical Potential for

Community Solar Gardens in Xcel Energy’s Service Territory in Northern Colorado. Golden,
CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-6A20-44596.
Wolf-Powers, L. 2011. Community Benefits Agreements in a Value Capture Context. In: Value
Capture and Land Policies. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Xu, K., J. Sumner, E. Dalecki, R. Burton. 2023. Expanding Solar Access: State Community Solar
Landscape (2022). Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-6A20-
84247.
Xu, K. 2024. Sharing the Sun Database, end of 2023 update. Dataset, unreleased. Accessed
January 24, 2024.
Zuckerman, G. R., A. Lopez, T. Williams, R. Green, and G. Buster. 2023. Impacts of Siting
Considerations on Offshore Wind Technical Potential in the United States. Golden, CO: National
Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-6120-85088.
46

Technical Potential and Meaningful Benefits of Community Solar in The United States

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technical Potential and Meaningful Benefits of Community Solar in The United States

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technical Potential and Meaningful Benefits of Community Solar in The United States

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technical Potential and Meaningful

Benefits of Community Solar in the

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

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

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

This report is available at no cost from the National

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) reports produced

Cover Photo by Dennis Schroeder: NREL 60075.

NREL prints on paper that contains recycled content.

Siting Array Developable Net Capacity Capacity Annual Energy

Limited Rooftop 2,776.64 20.65% 396.99 718.24

1.2 Background: Meaningful Benefits

• Greater household savings: Provide a reduction in electricity bills for residential

2.1 Estimating Generation

2.2 Siting Constraints and Regimes

2.2.2 Ground-Mount Siting Constraints

1. Reference Access is a regime that balances siting considerations and is informed by

2.2.3 Virtual Hosting Limitations

2.3 Estimating Technical Potential and Offsetable Consumption

Equation 1: Capacity expressed for solar PV technology

Equation 2: Technical potential expressed for solar PV technology

Figure 8. Distribution of households by income with significant barriers for behind-the-meter

ROOFTOP PV GROUND-MOUNT PV COMBINED Percent of Unmet

Connecticut 3,785 7,582 96% 152 1,144 4% 3,937 8,726 90%

Delaware 1,114 2,215 92% 97 614 8% 1,211 2,829 116%

Montana 2,483 4,497 8% 28,245 37,876 92% 30,728 42,373 1,731%

Nebraska 3,306 6,460 9% 33,834 49,894 91% 37,141 56,355 1,395%

Wyoming 1,035 1,881 5% 19,445 28,453 95% 20,480 30,334 2,293%

Arizona 7,260 12,046 7% 99,617 223,185 93% 106,877 235,232 1,365%

Colorado 6,244 12,053 7% 84,761 167,535 93% 91,006 179,589 1,446%

Hawaii 909 1,917 9% 9,575 19,255 91% 10,485 21,172 915%

Idaho 2,467 4,077 5% 43,431 77,741 95% 45,899 81,818 2,200%

Kansas 5,756 11,118 8% 65,302 121,734 92% 71,059 132,852 2,130%

Missouri 8,130 15,978 9% 87,446 148,193 91% 95,576 164,172 1,262%

Montana 2,483 4,497 2% 105,005 168,873 98% 107,48 173,371 7,084%

Nebraska 3,306 6,460 3% 115,212 205,610 97% 118,51 212,071 5,251%

Oklahoma 4,746 9,110 5% 87,938 165,656 95% 92,684 174,766 1,631%

Texas 38,206 72,170 8% 434,960 860,080 92% 473,166 932,250 1,174%

Wyoming 1,035 1,881 2% 64,107 117,481 98% 65,143 119,362 9,023%

3.1 Community Solar Capacity and Annual Energy Production

Banks 29.894 3.0807 0.77% 0.76%

Entertainment/Recreation 192.435 15.6608 4.94% 3.88%

Medical Office/Clinic 144.872 11.4305 3.72% 2.83%

Personal and Repair Services 230.815 18.1668 5.93% 4.50%

Professional Services 768.993 64.1048 19.74% 15.87%

Retail 382.722 43.3017 9.83% 10.72%

Temporary Lodging 66.403 5.6214 1.70% 1.39%

Theater 7.491 0.9048 0.19% 0.22%

Wholesale 290.726 43.3146 7.46% 10.72%

Construction 181.745 11.8024 4.67% 2.92%

Food/Drug/Chemical 20.903 3.5166 0.54% 0.87%

Heavy Industrial 90.28 16.9353 2.32% 4.19%

High Technology 51.158 5.2413 1.31% 1.30%

Light Industrial 377.466 48.1256 9.69% 11.91%

Metals/Minerals Processing 20.086 2.9456 0.52% 0.73%

Single-Family Residential 127.499 10.4291 3.27% 2.58%

Multifamily Residential (2) 125.268 7.1505 3.22% 1.77%

Multifamily Residential (3) 37.725 2.2521 0.97% 0.56%

Multifamily Residential (5) 59.997 3.2425 1.54% 0.80%