Benefits and costs of a utility-ownership business model for residential rooftop solar photovoltaics


The rapid growth of rooftop solar photovoltaic systems can pose a number of financial challenges for electric utility shareholders and their customers. One potential pathway to resolving these perceived challenges involves allowing utilities to own and operate rooftop solar systems. However, the financial benefits and costs of this business model are not well understood. Here we model the financial performance of a large-scale utility-owned residential rooftop solar programme. Over a 20 yr period, the programme increases shareholder earnings by 2–5% relative to a no-solar scenario, compared to a 2% earnings loss when an equivalent amount of rooftop solar is instead owned by non-utility parties. Such a programme could therefore be attractive from the perspective of utility investors. The impacts on utility customers, however, are more mixed, with average bills of non-solar customers increasing by 1–3% compared to the no-solar scenario, similar to the 2% increase under traditional, non-utility-ownership structures.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Base-case financial impacts of residential rooftop solar.
Fig. 2: Financial impacts of rooftop PV at varying penetration levels.
Fig. 3: Sensitivity of financial impacts to key modelling assumptions.

Data availability

Microsoft Excel files containing all FINDER model input data and outputs are available through Figshare at Input files are read directly by the FINDER model and contain all data required to reproduce the results for each scenario, including utility retail sales forecasts and hourly load shapes, the utility generation capacity expansion plan, T&D cost forecasts, ratemaking and cost allocation assumptions, and rooftop solar costs and avoided cost assumptions. Model outputs are provided as a single workbook with individual worksheets containing the outputs for each scenario. Outputs consist of 20 yr annual projections and the NPV of utility revenue requirements, achieved earnings and ROE, and average rates and bills by customer class, with additional post-processing to derive average bills for non-solar residential customers.

Code availability

Solar generation profiles were developed using the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s SAM, which is publicly accessible at Utility shareholder and ratepayer impacts of alternate solar ownership models were developed using Berkeley Lab’s FINDER model. That model, written in Analytica, is available through Figshare at


  1. 1.

    Kind, P. Disruptive Challenges: Financial Implications and Strategic Responses to a Changing Retail Electric Business (Edison Electric Institute, 2013).

  2. 2.

    Cappers, P., Satchwell, A., Gorman, W. & Reneses, J. Financial impacts of net-metered distributed PV on a prototypical western utility’s shareholders and ratepayers. Energies 12, 4794 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Kihm, S., Cappers, P., Satchwell, A. & Graffy, E. Corporate finance and sustainability: the case of the electric utility industry. Appl. Corp. Financ. 30, 106–111 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Cai, D., Adlakha, S., Low, S., DeMartini, P. & Chandy, K. Impact of residential PV adoption on retail electricity rates. Energy Policy 62, 830–843 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Eid, C., Guillén, J. R., Marína, P. F. & Hakvoort, R. The economic effect of electricity net-metering with solar PV: consequences for network cost recovery, cross subsidies and policy objectives. Energy Policy 75, 244–254 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Satchwell, A. & Cappers, P. Customer bill impacts of energy efficiency and net-metered photovoltaic system investments. Uti. Policy 50, 144–152 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Sergici, S., Yang, Y., Castaner, M. & Faruqui, A. Quantifying net energy metering subsidies. Electricity J. 32, 106632 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Wood, L. Why Net Energy Metering Results in a Subsidy: the Elephant in the Room (Edison Foundation Institute for Electric Innovation, 2013).

  9. 9.

    Distributed Energy Resources Rate Design and Compensation: a Manual Prepared by the NARUC Staff Subcommittee on Rate Design (National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, 2016).

  10. 10.

    Stanton, T. Review of State Net Energy Metering and Successor Rate Designs (National Regulatory Research Institute, 2019).

  11. 11.

    Utility Earnings in a Service-Oriented World: Optimizing Solutions for Capital- and Service-Based Solutions (Advanced Energy Economy, 2018).

  12. 12.

    Eto, J., Stoft, S. & Belden, T. The theory and practice of decoupling utility revenues from sales. Uti. Policy 6, 43–55 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Lowry, M. N. & Woolf, T. Performance-Based Regulation in a High Distributed Energy Resources Future (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2016).

  14. 14.

    Blansfield, J., Wood, L., Katofsky, R., Stafford, B. & Waggoner, D. Value-Added Electricity Services: New Roles for Utilities and Third-Party Providers (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2017).

  15. 15.

    Satchwell, A. & Cappers, P. Recent developments in competition and innovation for regulated electric utilities. Uti. Policy 55, 110–114 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Solar Rooftops Program Guidelines Community Solar: Effective November 2, 2016 (Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, 2016).

  17. 17.

    50 States of Solar: Q1 2020 Quarterly Report (North Carolina Clean Energy Technology Center, 2020).

  18. 18.

    We Energies Application to the Wisconsin Public Service Commission for the Solar Now Pilot and the Dedicated Renewable Energy Resource Pilot Docket Number 6630-TE-102 (Wisconsin Public Service Commission, 2018).

  19. 19.

    Cross-Call, D., Gold, R., Guccione, L., Henchen, M. & Lacy, V. Reimagining the Utility: Evolving the Functions and Business Model of Utilities to Achieve a Low-Carbon Grid (Rocky Mountain Institute, 2018).

  20. 20.

    O’Boyle, M. Who Should Own and Operate Distributed Energy Resources? Adaptive Approaches for DER Deployment (Energy Innovation, 2015).

  21. 21.

    Blansfield, J. & Wood, L. The Role of Electric Companies in Providing Distributed Energy Resources and Other Energy Services (Edison Foundation Institute for Electric Innovation, 2018).

  22. 22.

    Huber, L. Why utility ownership of rooftop solar should be explored. Utility Dive (2015).

  23. 23.

    Distributed Energy Resource Ownership: Emerging Roles for Regulated Utilities and Third-Party Providers (Advanced Energy Economy, 2017).

  24. 24.

    Neuhauser, J. Allowing utilities to compete in the distributed energy resources market: a comparative analysis. LSU J. Energy Law Resour. 3, 375–403 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Tong, J. & Wellinghoff, J. Should utilities be allowed to rate base solar? Utility Dive (2015).

  26. 26.

    McEowan, R. A. Legal Issues for Landowners to Consider in Negotiating Wind Energy Easements Washburn Agricultural Law & Tax Report, Article 2016-001 (Washburn University School of Law, 2016).

  27. 27.

    Shoemaker, J. Farmers’ Guide to Wind Energy: Legal Issues in Farming the Wind (Farmers’ Legal Action Group, 2007).

  28. 28.

    Sterling, J. & Vlahoplus, C. Lighting the Way to Utility DER Ownership (Solar Electric Power Association, 2018).

  29. 29.

    Zenneck, J., Bader, M., Baker, T. & Rubel, H. The M&A Way into Distributed Energy (Boston Consulting Group, 2019).

  30. 30.

    In the Matter of the Application of Arizona Public Service Company for a Hearing to Determine the Fair Value of the Utility Property of the Company for Ratemaking Purposes, To Fix a Just and Reasonable Rate of Return Thereon, To Approve Rate Schedules Designed To Develop Such Return Decision Number 76374 (Arizona Corporation Commission, 2017).

  31. 31.

    In the Matter of the Application of Southern California Edison Company (U338E) for Approval of Its Charge Ready and Market Education Programs—Decision Regarding Southern California Edison Company’s Application for Charge Ready and Market Education Programs Decision Number 16-01-023 (California Public Utilities Commission, 2016).

  32. 32.

    In the Matter of the Application of Union Electric Company d/b/a Ameren Missouri for Approval of a Tariff Setting a Rate for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations—Report and Order Case Number ET-2016-0246 (Public Service Commission of the State of Missouri, 2017).

  33. 33.

    Order Adopting a Ratemaking and Utility Revenue Model Policy Framework Case Number 14-M-0101 (New York Public Service Commission, 2016).

  34. 34.

    Energy Freedom Coalition Direct Testimony of R. Thomas Beach Docket Number E-01933A-15-0239 (Arizona Corporate Commission, March 11, 2016).

  35. 35.

    Solar Energy Industries Association & Wood Mackenzie. U.S. Solar Market Insight: 2019 Year-in-Review (Solar Energy Industries Association, 2019).

  36. 36.

    Barbose, G. & Darghouth, N. Tracking the Sun: Pricing and Design Trends for Distributed Photovoltaic Systems in the United States 2019 edn (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2019).

  37. 37.

    Averch, H. & Johnson, L. The behavior of the firm under regulatory constraint. Am. Economic Rev. 52, 1052–1069 (1962).

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Fu, R., Feldman, D. & Margolis, R. U.S. Solar Photovoltaic System Cost Benchmark: Q1 2018 (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2018).

  39. 39.

    Solar Partners Program. Arizona Public Service (accessed February 2019).

  40. 40.

    Entergy New Orleans pilots residential rooftop solar program. Entergy New Orleans (2019).

  41. 41.

    Wiser, R., Bolinger, M. & Lantz, E. Benchmarking Wind Power Operating Costs in the United States: Results from a Survey of Wind Industry Experts (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2019).

  42. 42.

    Hirth, L., Ueckerdt, F. & Edenhofer, O. Integration costs revisited – an economic framework for wind and solar variability. Renew. Energy 74, 925–939 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Horowitz, K. A. W., Palmintier, B., Mather, B. & Denholm, P. Distribution system costs associated with the deployment of photovoltaic systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 90, 420–443 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Cappers, P. & Goldman, C. Empirical Assessment of Shareholder Incentive Mechanisms Designs under Aggressive Savings Goals: Case Study of a Kansas “Super-Utility” (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2009).

  45. 45.

    Cappers, P. et al. Financial Analysis of Incentive Mechanisms To Promote Energy Efficiency: Case Study of a Prototypical Southwest Utility (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2009).

  46. 46.

    Cappers, P. & Goldman, C. Financial impact of energy efficiency under a federal combined efficiency and renewable electricity standard: case study of a Kansas ‘super-utility’. Energy Policy 38, 3998–4010 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Cappers, P., Satchwell, A., Goldman, C. & Schlegel, J. Benefits and Costs of Aggressive Energy Efficiency Programs and the Impacts of Alternative Sources of Funding: Case Study of Massachusetts (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2010).

  48. 48.

    Satchwell, A., Cappers, P. & Goldman, C. Carrots and sticks: a comprehensive business model for the successful achievement of energy efficiency resource standards. Uti. Policy 19, 218–225 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Satchwell, A., Mills, A. & Barbose, G. Regulatory and ratemaking approaches to mitigate financial impacts of net-metered PV on utilities and ratepayers. Energy Policy 85, 115–125 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Satchwell, A., Cappers, P. & Goldman, C. Financial Impacts of a Combined Energy Efficiency and Net-Metered PV Portfolio on a Prototypical Northeast Utility (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2017).

  51. 51.

    Denholm, P. et al. Methods for Analyzing the Benefits and Costs of Distributed Photovoltaic Generation to the U.S. Electric Utility System (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2014).

  52. 52.

    Hansen, L., Lacy, V. & Glick, D. A Review of Solar PV Benefit and Cost Studies 2nd edn (Rocky Mountain Institute, 2013).

  53. 53.

    ICF Consulting Review of Recent Cost-Benefit Studies Related to Net Metering and Distributed Solar (US Department of Energy, 2018).

  54. 54.

    Duke Energy 2016 Duke Energy Carolinas Integrated Resource Plan Docket Number 2016-10-E (Public Service Commission of South Carolina, 2016).

  55. 55.

    Duke Energy Application of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC for Adjustment of Rates and Charges Applicable to Electric Service in North Carolina Docket Number E-7, Sub 1146 (North Carolina Utilities Commission, 2017).

  56. 56.

    Grevatt, J., Hoffman, I. & Hoffmeyer, D. Keys to the House: Unlocking Residential Savings with Program Models for Home Energy Upgrades (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2016).

  57. 57.

    Hoffman, I. et al. The Cost of Saving Electricity through Energy Efficiency Programs Funded by Utility Customers: 2009–2015 (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2018).

  58. 58.

    Average U.S. electric, gas ROE authorizations in H1’18 down from 2017. S&P Global Market Intelligence (2018).

  59. 59.

    Kihm, S., Cappers, P. & Satchwell. A. The Financial Impacts of Declining Investment Opportunities on Electric Utility Shareholders (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2016).

Download references


This analysis was funded by the US Department of Energy Solar Energy Technologies Office under contract no. DE-AC02–05CH11231. We thank G. Leventis and B. Paulos for research assistance, and A. Qusaibaty of the US Department of Energy for his support of this work.

Author information




G.B. designed the study with assistance from A.J.S., prepared the figures and draughted the manuscript. A.J.S. led the financial modelling with Berkeley Lab’s FINDER model, including preparation of data inputs and quality assurance of model outputs.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Galen Barbose.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barbose, G., Satchwell, A.J. Benefits and costs of a utility-ownership business model for residential rooftop solar photovoltaics. Nat Energy 5, 750–758 (2020).

Download citation


Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing