Here's why the U.S. electric grid isn't running on 100% renewable energy yet


solar power panel

Arc Flash Training - CSA Z462 Electrical Safety

Our customized live online or in‑person group training can be delivered to your staff at your location.

  • Live Online
  • 6 hours Instructor-led
  • Group Training Available
Regular Price:
$249
Coupon Price:
$199
Reserve Your Seat Today

US Renewable Energy Transition is the shift from fossil fuels to wind, solar, and nuclear, targeting net-zero emissions via grid modernization, battery storage, and new transmission to replace legacy plants and meet rising electrification.

 

Key Points

The move to decarbonize electricity by scaling wind, solar, and nuclear with storage and transmission upgrades.

✅ Falling LCOE makes wind and solar competitive with gas and coal.

✅ 4-hour lithium-ion storage shifts solar to evening peak demand.

✅ New high-voltage transmission links resource-rich regions to load.

 

Generating electricity to power homes and businesses is a significant contributor to climate change. In the United States, one quarter of greenhouse gas emissions come from electricity production, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Solar panels and wind farms can generate electricity without releasing any greenhouse gas emissions, and recent research suggests wind and solar could meet about 80% of U.S. demand with supportive infrastructure. Nuclear power plants can too, although today’s plants generate long-lasting radioactive waste, which has no permanent storage repository.

But the U.S. electrical sector is still dependent on fossil fuels. In 2021, 61 percent of electricity generation came from burning coal, natural gas, or petroleum. Only 20 percent of the electricity in the U.S. came from renewables, mostly wind energy, hydropower and solar energy, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, and in 2022 renewable electricity surpassed coal nationwide as portfolios shifted. Another 19 percent came from nuclear power.

The contribution from renewables has been increasing steadily since the 1990s, and the rate of increase has accelerated, with renewables projected to reach one-fourth of U.S. generation in the near term. For example, wind power provided only 2.8 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity in 1990, doubling to 5.6 billion in 2000. But from there, it skyrocketed, growing to 94.6 billion in 2010 and 379.8 billion in 2021.

That’s progress, as the U.S. moves toward 30% electricity from wind and solar this decade, but it’s not happening fast enough to eliminate the worst effects of climate change for our descendants.

“We need to eliminate global emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050,” philanthropist and technologist Bill Gates wrote in his 2023 annual letter. “Extreme weather is already causing more suffering, and if we don’t get to net-zero emissions, our grandchildren will grow up in a world that is dramatically worse off.”

And the problem is actually bigger than it looks, even as pathways to zero-emissions electricity by 2035 are being developed.

“We need not just to create as much electricity as we have now, but three times as much,” says Saul Griffith, an entrepreneur who’s sold companies to Google and Autodesk and has written books on mass electrification. To get to zero emissions, all the cars and heating systems and stoves will have to be powered with electricity, said Griffith. Electricity is not necessarily clean, but at least it it can be, unlike gas-powered stoves or gasoline-powered cars.

The technology to generate electricity with wind and solar has existed for decades. So why isn’t the electric grid already 100% powered by renewables? And what will it take to get there?

First of all, renewables have only recently become cost-competitive with fossil fuels for generating electricity. Even then, prices depend on the location, Paul Denholm of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory told CNBC.

In California and Arizona, where there is a lot of sun, solar energy is often the cheapest option, whereas in places like Maine, solar is just on the edge of being the cheapest energy source, Denholm said. In places with lots of wind like North Dakota, wind power is cost-competitive with fossil fuels, but in the Southeast, it’s still a close call.

Then there’s the cost of transitioning the current power generation infrastructure, which was built around burning fossil fuels, and policymakers are weighing ways to meet U.S. decarbonization goals as they plan grid investments.

“You’ve got an existing power plant, it’s paid off. Now you need renewables to be cheaper than running that plant to actually retire an old plant,” Denholm explained. “You need new renewables to be cheaper just in the variable costs, or the operating cost of that power plant.”

There are some places where that is true, but it’s not universally so.

“Primarily, it just takes a long time to turn over the capital stock of a multitrillion-dollar industry,” Denholm said. “We just have a huge amount of legacy equipment out there. And it just takes awhile for that all to be turned over.”

 

Intermittency and transmission
One of the biggest barriers to a 100% renewable grid is the intermittency of many renewable power sources, the dirty secret of clean energy that planners must manage. The wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine — and the windiest and sunniest places are not close to all the country’s major population centers.

Wind resources in the United States, according to the the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy.
Wind resources in the United States, according to the the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy.
The solution is a combination of batteries to store excess power for times when generation is low, and transmission lines to take the power where it is needed.

Long-duration batteries are under development, but Denholm said a lot of progress can be made simply with utility-scale batteries that store energy for a few hours.

“One of the biggest problems right now is shifting a little bit of solar energy, for instance, from say, 11 a.m. and noon to the peak demand at 6 p.m. or 7 p.m. So you really only need a few hours of batteries,” Denholm told CNBC. “You can actually meet that with conventional lithium ion batteries. This is very close to the type of batteries that are being put in cars today. You can go really far with that.”

So far, battery usage has been low because wind and solar are primarily used to buffer the grid when energy sources are low, rather than as a primary source. For the first 20% to 40% of the electricity in a region to come from wind and solar, battery storage is not needed, Denholm said. When renewable penetration starts reaching closer to 50%, then battery storage becomes necessary. And building and deploying all those batteries will take time and money.
 

 

Related News

Related News

Feds announce $500M contract with Edmonton company for green electricity

Canada Renewable Energy Partnerships advance wind power and clean electricity in Alberta and Saskatchewan, cutting emissions and supporting net-zero goals through Capital Power and SaskPower agreements with Indigenous participation and 25-year supply contracts.

 

Key Points

Government-backed deals with Capital Power and SaskPower to deliver clean electricity and reduce emissions.

✅ 25-year renewable supply for federal facilities

✅ New Halkirk 2 Wind project in Alberta

✅ Emissions cuts with Indigenous participation

 

The Government of Canada has partnered with two major energy providers in Western Canada (Prairie provinces) on renewable energy projects.

Tourism Minister Randy Boissonnault appeared in Edmonton on Friday to announce a new Alberta wind-generation facility in partnership with Capital Power.

It's one of two new energy partnerships in Western Canada as part of the 2030 emissions reduction plan by Public Services and Procurement Canada.

On Jan. 1, the federal government awarded a contract worth up to $500 million to Capital Power to provide all federal facilities in Alberta with renewable electricity as part of Alberta's renewable energy surge for 25 years.

"We're proud to partner with the government of Canada to help them reach their 100 per cent clean electricity by 2025 goal," said Jason Comandante, Capital Power vice president of commercial services.

The agreement also includes opportunities for Indigenous participation, including facility development partnerships and employment and training opportunities.

"At Capital Power, we are committed to net-zero by 2045, and are proud to take action against climate change. Collaborative agreements like this help support our net-zero goals, provide us opportunities to meaningfully engage Indigenous communities, and help decarbonize Alberta's power grid," Comandante said.

Capital Power will provide around 250,000 megawatt-hours of electricity each year through existing renewable energy credits while the new Capital Power Halkirk 2 Wind facility is being developed.

Located near Paintearth, Alta., the proposed wind farm will have up to 35 turbines and generate enough power for the average yearly electricity needs of more than 70,000 Alberta homes.

The project is currently awaiting regulatory approval, within Alberta's energy landscape, with construction projected to begin this summer. When complete, it will supply 49 per cent of its output to the federal government.

"Through the agreement, the federal government is supporting the ongoing development of renewable energy infrastructure development within the province," Boissonnault said.

The new partnership will join another in Saskatchewan and complement Alberta solar facilities that have been contracted at lower cost than natural gas.

In 2022, the federal government signed an agreement with SaskPower to supply clean electricity to the approximately 600 federal facilities in Saskatchewan. That wind project is expected to come online by 2024.

Boissonnault said the two initiatives combined will reduce carbon dioxide emissions in Alberta and Saskatchewan by about 166 kilotonnes.

"That is the equivalent of the emissions from more than 50,000 cars driven for one year. So, if you think about that, that's a great reduction right here in Alberta and Saskatchewan," he said.

"These are concrete steps to ensuring that Canada remains a leader of renewable energy on the global stage and grid modernization projects to help the fight against climate change." 

 

Related News

View more

Ford Motor Co. details plans to spend $1.8B to produce EVs

Ford Oakville Electric Vehicle Complex will anchor EV production in Ontario, adding a battery plant, retooling lines, and assembly capacity for passenger models targeting the North American market and Canada's zero-emission mandates.

 

Key Points

A retooled Ontario hub for passenger EV production, featuring on-site battery assembly and modernized lines.

✅ Retooling begins Q2 2024; EV production slated for 2025.

✅ New 407,000 sq ft battery plant for pack assembly.

✅ First full-line passenger EV production in Canada.

 

Ford Motor Co. has revealed some details of its plan to spend $1.8 billion on its Oakville Assembly Complex to turn it into an electric vehicle production hub, a government-backed Oakville EV deal, in the latest commitment by an automaker transitioning towards an electric future.

The automaker said Tuesday that it will start retooling the Ontario complex in the second quarter of 2024, bolstering Ontario's EV jobs boom, and begin producing electric vehicles in 2025.

The transformation of the Oakville site, to be renamed the Oakville Electric Vehicle Complex, will include a new 407,000 square-foot battery plant, similar to Honda's Ontario battery investment efforts, where parts produced at Ford's U.S. operations will be assembled into battery packs.

General Motors is already producing electric delivery vans in Canada, and its Ontario EV plant plans continue to expand, but Ford says this is the first time a full-line automaker has announced plans to produce passenger EVs in Canada for the North American market.

GM said in February it plans to build motors for electric vehicles at its St. Catharines, Ont. propulsion plant, aligning with the Niagara Region battery investment now underway. The motors will go into its BrightDrop electric delivery vans, which it produces in part at its Ingersoll, Ont. plant, as well as its electric pickup trucks, producing enough at the plant for 400,000 vehicles a year.

Ford's announcement is the latest commitment by an automaker transitioning towards an electric future, part of Canada's EV assembly push that is accelerating.

"Canada and the Oakville complex will play a vital role in our Ford Plus transformation," said chief executive Jim Farley in a statement.

The company has committed to invest over US$50 billion in electric vehicles globally and has a target of producing two million EVs a year by the end of 2026 as part of its Ford Plus growth plan, reflecting an EV market inflection point worldwide.

Ford didn't specify in the release which models it planned to build at the Oakville complex, which currently produces the Ford Edge and Lincoln Nautilus.

The company's spending plans were first announced in 2020 as part of union negotiations, with workers seeking long-term production commitments and the Detroit Three automakers eventually agreeing to invest in Canadian operations in concert with spending agreements with the Ontario and federal governments.

The two governments agreed to provide $295 million each in funding to secure the Ford investment.

"The partnership between Ford and Canada helps to position us as a global leader in the EV supply chain for decades to come," said Industry Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne in Ford's news release.

Funding help comes as the federal government moves to require that at least 20 percent of new vehicles sold in Canada will be zero-emission by 2026, at least 60 per cent by 2030, and 100 per cent by 2035.

 

Related News

View more

Europe must catch up with Asian countries on hydrogen fuel cells - report

Germany Hydrogen Fuel Cell Market gains momentum as policy, mobility, and R&D align; National Hydrogen Strategy, regulatory frameworks, and cost-of-ownership advances boost heavy transport, while Europe races Asia amid battery-electric competition and infrastructure scale-up.

 

Key Points

It is Germany and Europe's hydrogen fuel cell ecosystem across policy, costs, R&D, and mobility and freight deployments.

✅ Policy support via National Hydrogen Strategy and tax incentives

✅ TCO parity improves for heavy transport vs other low-emission tech

✅ R&D targets higher temps, compactness for road, rail, sea, air

 

In a new report examining the status of the German and European hydrogen fuel cell markets, the German government-backed National Platform Future of Mobility (NPM) says there is “a good chance that fuel cell technology can achieve a break-through in mobile applications,” even as the age of electric cars accelerates across markets.

However, Europe must catch up with Asian countries, it adds, even as a push for electricity shapes climate policy. For Germany and Europe to take on a leading role in fuel cell technologies, their industries need to be strengthened and sustainably developed, the report finds. In its paper, the NPM Working Group 4 – which aims to secure Germany as a place for mobility, battery cell production, recycling, training and qualification – states that the “chances of fuel cell technology achieving a break-through in the automotive industry – even in Europe – are better than ever,” echoing recent remarks from BMW's chief about hydrogen's appeal.

The development, expansion and use of the technology in various applications are now supported by “a significantly modified regulatory framework and new political ambitions, as stipulated in the National Hydrogen Strategy,” while updated forecasts show e-mobility driving electricity demand in Germany, the report stresses. In terms of cost of ownership, “hydrogen solutions can hold their own compared to other technologies” and there are “many promising developments in the transport sector, especially in heavy transport.”

If research and development efforts can help optimise installation space and weight as well as increase the operating temperature of fuel cells, hydrogen solutions can also become attractive for maritime, rail and air transport, even as other electrochemical approaches, such as flow battery cars, progress, the report notes. Tax incentives -- such as the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) surcharge exemption for green hydrogen -- can contribute to the technology’s appeal, it adds.

Fuel cell drives are often seen as a way to decarbonise certain areas of transport, such as heavy trucks. However, producing the hydrogen in a sustainable way consumes a lot of renewable electricity that power companies must supply in other sectors, and experts say electricity vs hydrogen trade-offs favor battery-electric trucks because they are much cheaper to run than other low-emission technologies, including fuel cells.

 

Related News

View more

Europe's Green Surge: Renewables Soar, Emissions Plummet, but Challenges Remain

EU Renewable Energy Transition accelerates wind and solar growth, slashes fossil fuels and carbon emissions via the ETS, strengthens energy security with LNG diversification, and advances grid resilience toward 2030 climate targets.

 

Key Points

EU shift to wind, solar, and efficiency that cuts fossil fuels while boosting energy security and grid stability

✅ Fossil fuels at 29% of EU power in 2023, coal and gas down sharply

✅ Renewables hit 44% share; wind 18%, solar 9% and rising

✅ ETS, LNG diversification, and efficiency cut demand and emissions

 

Europe's energy landscape is undergoing a dramatic transformation, fueled by a surge in renewable energy and a corresponding decline in fossil fuel dependence. This shift, documented in both a report from the energy think tank Ember and the European Commission's State of the Energy Union report, paints a picture of progress, but also highlights the challenges that lie ahead on the path to a sustainable future.

 

Fossil Fuels Facing an Unprecedented Decline:

Fossil fuels dipped to their lowest point in recorded history, making up only 29% of EU electricity generation in 2023. This represents a significant 19% decrease in both fossil fuel generation and carbon emissions compared to 2022, exceeding even the reductions witnessed during the pandemic. Coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel, saw the steepest decline, dropping by 26%, while gas generation fell by 15%. This decline is attributed to a combination of factors, including:

Increased deployment of renewables: As renewable energy sources like wind and solar become more affordable and efficient, they are increasingly displacing fossil fuels in the energy mix.

Carbon pricing: The EU's Emissions Trading System (ETS) puts a price on carbon emissions, incentivizing generators to switch to cleaner sources of energy.

Geopolitical tensions: The war in Ukraine and subsequent sanctions on Russia have accelerated Europe's efforts to diversify its energy sources away from Russian fossil fuels across the bloc.


Renewables Ascending to New Heights:

Renewable energy is now the dominant force in the EU, as renewables surpassed fossil fuels in the power mix, contributing a record-breaking 44% of the electricity mix. Wind energy leads the charge, generating 18% of electricity – the equivalent of France's entire demand – and surpassing gas for the first time. Solar power also continues to grow, reaching a 9% share, as solar reshapes electricity prices in Northern Europe and hydropower recovered from its 2022 dry spell. This remarkable growth is driven by factors such as:

Favorable policy frameworks: The EU has set ambitious renewable energy targets and implemented supportive policies, including feed-in tariffs and auctions.

Technological advancements: Advancements in wind turbine and solar panel technologies have made them more efficient and cost-effective.
Public support: There is growing public support for renewable energy, driven by concerns about climate change and energy security.

Beyond generation, energy efficiency is playing a critical role in reducing overall energy demand. Electricity demand in the EU fell by 3.4% in 2023, thanks to factors such as improved building insulation and more efficient appliances.

 

EU on Track to Quit Russian Fossil Fuels:

The report underscores Europe's progress in reducing dependence on Russian fossil fuels. Imports of Russian gas have plummeted to 40-45 billion cubic metres, compared to a staggering 155 bcm in 2021. This represents a remarkable 70% reduction in just one year. This shift has been achieved through a combination of increased LNG imports, diversification of gas suppliers, and accelerated deployment of renewable energy sources.

Overall greenhouse gas emissions decreased by 3% in 2022, putting the EU on track to achieve its ambitious 55% reduction target by 2030. These achievements demonstrate the EU's commitment to climate action and its ability to respond decisively to geopolitical challenges.

 

Success, But Not Complacency:

Despite the positive developments, the Commission warns against complacency. Energy markets remain volatile, fossil fuel subsidies are rising in some countries, and critical infrastructure vulnerabilities persist, while some advocates call for a fossil fuel lockdown to accelerate the transition. The bloc needs to accelerate renewable energy expansion to reach the legally binding 42.5% target by 2030. Additionally, ensuring affordability and security of energy supply will be crucial to maintaining public support for the transition.

 

Challenges and Opportunities:

While some countries like Denmark, Finland, and the Netherlands fall short of EU climate and energy goals, others like Spain, Portugal, and Belgium showcase success with renewables. The Commission is taking action with a plan to support the wind industry, where investments in European wind continue, even as it faces challenges from high inflation and increasing competition from China. Additionally, ensuring timely updates to national energy and climate plans is crucial for achieving the EU's overall objectives.

 

NGOs Urge Faster Action:

NGOs like the Climate Action Network (CAN) express concern about the adequacy of national plans, highlighting the gap between ambition and concrete action. They urge member states to accelerate efforts to meet the 2030 targets and avoid a "lost decade" in climate action. CAN emphasizes the need for more ambitious national energy and climate plans, increased investment in renewables, and accelerated energy efficiency measures.

Europe's energy transition is progressing rapidly, with renewables taking center stage and emissions declining. However, significant challenges remain, necessitating continued commitment, national-level action, and a focus on affordability, security, and sustainability. As 2030 approaches, Europe's green surge must translate into concrete results to secure a climate-neutral future.

 

Looking ahead, several key areas will define the success of Europe's energy transition:

  • Accelerating renewable energy deployment: The EU needs to maintain its momentum in building wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources. This requires sustained clean energy investment, streamlined permitting processes, and addressing grid integration challenges.
  • Ensuring affordability and security of supply: The energy transition must be just and inclusive, ensuring that energy remains affordable for all citizens and businesses. Additionally, diversifying energy sources and enhancing grid resilience are crucial to guarantee energy security.
  • Enhancing energy efficiency: Reducing energy demand remains crucial to achieving climate goals and reducing reliance on fossil fuels. This requires continued investments in building energy efficiency, promoting energy-efficient appliances and technologies, and encouraging behavioral changes.
  • International cooperation: Climate change and energy security are global challenges. The EU must continue to lead by example as renewables exceed 30% globally and collaborate with other countries on technological advancements, policy innovations, and financial support for developing nations undergoing their own energy transitions.

Europe's green surge is a testament to its ambition and collective action. By addressing the remaining challenges and seizing the opportunities ahead, the EU can pave the way for a sustainable and secure energy future for itself and the world.

 

 

Related News

View more

California's Looming Green New Car Wreck

California Gas Car Ban 2035 signals a shift to electric vehicles, raising grid reliability concerns, charging demand, and renewable energy challenges across solar, wind, and storage, amid rolling blackouts and carbon-free power mandates.

 

Key Points

An order ending new gasoline car sales by 2035 in California, accelerating EV adoption and pressuring the power grid.

✅ 25% EV fleet could add 232.5 GWh/day charging demand by 2040

✅ Solar and wind intermittency strains nighttime home charging

✅ Grid upgrades, storage, and load management become critical

 

On September 23, California Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order that will ban the sale of gasoline-powered cars in the Golden State by 2035. Ignoring the hard lessons of this past summer, when California’s solar- and wind-reliant electric grid underwent rolling blackouts, Newsom now adds a huge new burden to the grid in the form of electric vehicle charging, underscoring the need for a much bigger grid to meet demand. If California officials follow through and enforce Newsom’s order, the result will be a green new car version of a train wreck.

In parallel, the state is moving on fleet transitions, allowing electric school buses only from 2035, which further adds to charging demand.

Let’s run some numbers. According to Statista, there are more than 15 million vehicles registered in California. Per the U.S. Department of Energy, there are only 256,000 electric vehicles registered in the state—just 1.7 percent of all vehicles, a share that will challenge state power grids as adoption grows.

Using the Tesla Model3 mid-range model as a baseline for an electric car, you’ll need to use about 62 kilowatt-hours (KWh) of power to charge a standard range Model 3 battery to full capacity. It will take about eight hours to fully charge it at home using the standard Tesla NEMA 14-50 charger, a routine that has prompted questions about whether EVs could crash the grid by households statewide.

Now, let’s assume that by 2040, five years after the mandate takes effect, also assuming no major increase in the number of total vehicles, California manages to increase the number of electric vehicles to 25 percent of the total vehicles in the state. If each vehicle needs an average of 62 kilowatt-hours for a full charge, then the total charging power required daily would be 3,750,000 x 62 KWh, which equals 232,500,000 KWh, or 232.5 gigawatt-hours (GWh) daily.

Utility-scale California solar electric generation according to the energy.ca.gov puts utility-scale solar generation at about 30,000 GWh per year currently. Divide that by 365 days and we get 80 GWh/day, predicted to double, to 160 GWh /day. Even if we add homeowner rooftop solar, and falling prices for solar and home batteries in the wake of blackouts, about half the utility-scale, at 40 GWh/day we come up to 200 GW/h per day, still 32 GWh short of the charging demand for a 25% electric car fleet in California. Even if rooftop solar doubles by 2040, we are at break-even, with 240GWh of production during the day.

Bottom-line, under the most optimistic best-case scenario, where solar operates at 100% of rated capacity (it seldom does), it would take every single bit of the 2040 utility-scale solar and rooftop capacity just to charge the cars during the day. That leaves nothing left for air conditioning, appliances, lighting, etc. It would all go to charging the cars, and that’s during the day when solar production peaks.

But there’s a much bigger problem. Even a grade-schooler can figure out that solar energy doesn’t work at night, when most electric vehicles will be charging at homes, even as some officials look to EVs for grid stability through vehicle-to-grid strategies. So, where does Newsom think all this extra electric power is going to come from?

The wind? Wind power lags even further behind solar power. According to energy.gov, as of 2019, California had installed just 5.9 gigawatts of wind power generating capacity. This is because you need large amounts of land for wind farms, and not every place is suitable for high-return wind power.

In 2040, to keep the lights on with 25 percent of all vehicles in California being electric, while maintaining the state mandate requiring all the state’s electricity to come from carbon-free resources by 2045, California would have to blanket the entire state with solar and wind farms. It’s an impossible scenario. And the problem of intermittent power and rolling blackouts would become much worse.

And it isn’t just me saying this. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agrees. In a letter sent by EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler to Gavin Newsom on September 28, Wheeler wrote:

“[It] begs the question of how you expect to run an electric car fleet that will come with significant increases in electricity demand, when you can’t even keep the lights on today.

“The truth is that if the state were driving 100 percent electric vehicles today, the state would be dealing with even worse power shortages than the ones that have already caused a series of otherwise preventable environmental and public health consequences.”


California’s green new car wreck looms large on the horizon. Worse, can you imagine electric car owners’ nightmares when California power companies shut off the power for safety reasons during fire season? Try evacuating in your electric car when it has a dead battery.

Gavin Newsom’s “no more gasoline cars sold by 2035” edict isn’t practical, sustainable, or sensible, much like the 2035 EV mandate in Canada has been criticized by some observers. But isn’t that what we’ve come to expect with any and all of these Green New Deal-lite schemes?

 

Related News

View more

Is residential solar worth it?

Home Solar Cost vs Utility Bills compares electricity rates, ROI, incentives, and battery storage, explaining payback, financing, and grid fees while highlighting long-term savings, rate volatility, and backup power resilience for homeowners.

 

Key Points

Compares home solar pricing and financing to utility rates, outlining savings, incentives, ROI, and backup power value.

✅ Average retail rates rose 59% in 20 years; volatility persists

✅ Typical 7.15 kW system costs $18,950 before incentives

✅ Federal ITC and state rebates improve ROI and payback

 

When shopping for a home solar system, sometimes the quoted price can leave you wondering why someone would move forward with something that seems so expensive. 

When compared with the status quo, electricity delivered from the utility, the price may not seem so high after all. First, pv magazine will examine the status quo, and how much you can expect to pay for power if you don’t get solar panels. Then, we will examine the average cost of solar arrays today and introduce incentives that boost home solar value.

The cost of doing nothing

Generally, early adopters have financially benefited from going solar by securing price certainty and stemming the impact of steadily increasing utility-bill costs, particularly for energy-insecure households who pay more for electricity.

End-use residential electric customers pay an average of $0.138/kWh in the United States, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). In California, that rate is $0.256/kWh, it averages $0.246/kWh across New England, $0.126/kWh in the South Atlantic region, and $0.124/kWh in the Mountain West region.

EIA reports that the average home uses 893 kWh per month, so based on the average retail rate of $0.138/kWh, that’s an electric bill of about $123 monthly, or $229 monthly in California.

Over the last 20 years, EIA data show that retail electricity prices have increased 59% across the United States, with evidence indicating that renewables are not making electricity more expensive, suggesting other factors have driven costs higher, or 2.95% each year.

This means based on historical rates, the average US homeowner can expect to pay $39,460 over the next 20 years on electricity bills. On average, Californians could pay $73,465 over 20 years.

Recent global events show just how unstable prices can be for commodities, and energy is no exception here, with solar panel sales doubling in the UK as homeowners look to cut soaring bills. What will your utility bill cost in 20 years?

These estimated bills also assume that energy use in the home is constant over 20 years, but as the United States electrifies its homes, adds more devices, and adopts electric vehicles, it is fair to expect that many homeowners will use more electricity going forward.

Another factor that may exacerbate rate raising is the upgrade of the national transmission grid. The infrastructure that delivers power to our homes is aging and in need of critical upgrades, and it is estimated that a staggering $500 billion will be spent on transmission buildout by 2035. This half-trillion-dollar cost gets passed down to homeowners in the form of raised utility bill rates.

The benefit of backup power may increase as time goes on as well. Power outages are on the rise across the United States, and recent assessments of the risk of power outages underscore that outages related to severe weather events have doubled in the last 20 years. Climate change-fueled storms are expected to continue to rise, so the role of battery backup in providing reliable energy may increase significantly.

The truth is, we don’t know how much power will cost in 20 years. Though it has increased 59% across the nation in the last 20 years, there is no way to be certain what it will cost going forward. That is where solar has a benefit over the status quo. By purchasing solar, you are securing price certainty going forward, making it easier to budget and plan for the future.

So how do these costs compare to going solar?

Cost of solar

As a general trend, prices for solar have fallen. In 2010, it cost about $40,000 to install a residential solar system, and since then, prices have fallen by as much as 70%, and about 37% in the last five years. However, prices have increased slightly in 2022 due to shipping costs, materials costs, and possible tariffs being placed on imported solar goods, and these pressures aren’t expected to be alleviated in the near-term.

When comparing quotes, the best metric for an apples-to-apples comparison is the cost per watt. Price benchmarking by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory shows the average cost per watt for the nation was $2.65/W DC in 2021, and the average system size was 7.15 kW. So, an average system would cost about $18,950. With 12.5 kWh of battery energy storage, the average cost was $4.26/W, representing an average price tag of $30,460 with batteries included.

The prices above do not include any incentives. Currently, the federal government applies a 26% investment tax credit to the system, bringing down system costs for those who qualify to $14,023 without batteries, and $22,540 with batteries. Compared to the potential $39,460 in utility bills, buying a solar system outright in cash appears to show a clear financial benefit.

Many homeowners will need financing to buy a solar system. Shorter terms can achieve rates as low as 2.99% or less, but financing for a 20-year solar loan typically lands between 5% to 8% or more. Based on 20-year, 7% annual percentage rate terms, a $14,000 system would total about $26,000 in loan payments over 20 years, and the system with batteries included would total about $42,000 in loan payments.

Often when you adopt solar, the utility will still charge you a grid access fee even if your system produces 100% of your needs. These vary from utility to utility but are often around $10 a month. Over 20 years, that equates to about $2,400 that you’ll still need to pay to the utility, plus any costs for energy you use beyond what your system provides.

Based on these average figures, a homeowner could expect to see as much as $12,000 in savings with a 20-year financed system. Homeowners in regions whose retail energy price exceeds the national average could see savings in multiples of that figure.

Though in this example batteries appear to be marginally more expensive than the status quo over a 20-year term, they improve the home by adding the crucial service of backup power, and as battery costs continue to fall they are increasingly being approved to participate in grid services, potentially unlocking additional revenue streams for homeowners.

Another thing to note is most solar systems are warranted for 25 years rather than the 20 used in the status quo example. A panel can last a good 35 years, and though it will begin to produce less in old age, any power produced by a panel you own is money back in your pocket.

Incentives and home value

Many states have additional incentives to boost the value of solar, too, and federal proposals to increase solar generation tenfold could remake the U.S. electricity system. Checking the Database of State Incentives for Renewables (DSIRE) will show the incentives available in your state, and a solar representative should be able to walk you through these benefits when you receive a quote. State incentives change frequently and vary widely, and in some cases are quite rich, offering thousands of dollars in additional benefits.

Another factor to consider is home value. A study by Zillow found that solar arrays increase a home value by 4.1% on average. For a $375,000 home, that’s an increase of $15,375 in value. In most states home solar is exempt from property taxes, making it a great way to boost value without paying taxes for it.

Bottom line

We’ve shared a lot of data on national averages and the potential cost of power going forward, but is solar for you? In the past, early adopters have been rewarded for going solar, and celebrate when they see $0 electric bills paid to the utility company.

Each home is different, each utility is different, and each homeowner has different needs, so evaluating whether solar is right for your home will take a little time and analysis. Representatives from solar companies will walk you through this analysis, and it’s generally a good rule of thumb to get at least three quotes for comparison.

A great resource for starting your research is the Solar Calculator developed by informational site SolarReviews. The calculator offers a quote and savings estimate based on local rates and incentives available to your area. The website also features reviews of installers, equipment, and more.

Some people will save tens of thousands of dollars in the long run with solar, while others may witness more modest savings. Solar will also provide the home clean, local energy, and U.S. solar generation is projected to reach 20% by 2050 as capacity expands, making an impact both on mitigating climate change and in supporting local jobs.

One indisputable benefit of solar is that it will offer greater clarity into what your electricity bills will cost over the next couple of decades, rather than leaving you exposed to whatever rates the utility company decides to charge in the future.

 

Related News

View more

Sign Up for Electricity Forum’s Newsletter

Stay informed with our FREE Newsletter — get the latest news, breakthrough technologies, and expert insights, delivered straight to your inbox.

Electricity Today T&D Magazine Subscribe for FREE

Stay informed with the latest T&D policies and technologies.
  • Timely insights from industry experts
  • Practical solutions T&D engineers
  • Free access to every issue

Download the 2025 Electrical Training Catalog

Explore 50+ live, expert-led electrical training courses –

  • Interactive
  • Flexible
  • CEU-cerified