Solar panels create electricity on the roof of a house in Rockport, Massachusetts, U.S., June 6, 2022. Picture taken with a drone.
Brian Snyder | Reuters
When Josh Hurwitz decided to put solar power on his Connecticut house, he had three big reasons: To cut his carbon footprint, to eventually store electricity in a solar-powered battery in case of blackouts, and – crucially – to save money.
Now he’s on track to pay for his system in six years, then save tens of thousands of dollars in the 15 years after that, while giving himself a hedge against utility-rate inflation. It’s working so well, he’s preparing to add a Tesla-made battery to let him store the power he makes. Central to the deal: Tax credits and other benefits from both the state of Connecticut and from Washington, D.C., he says.
“You have to make the money work,” Hurwitz said. “You can have the best of intentions, but if the numbers don’t work it doesn’t make sense to do it.”
Hurwitz’s experience points up one benefit of the Inflation Reduction Act that passed in August: Its extension and expansion of tax credits to promote the spread of home-based solar power systems. Adoption is expected to grow 26 percent faster because of the law, which extends tax credits that had been set to expire by 2024 through 2035, says a report by Wood Mackenzie and the Solar Energy Industry Association.
Those credits will cover 30 percent of the cost of the system – and, for the first time, there’s a 30 percent credit for batteries that can store newly-produced power for use when it’s needed.
“The main thing the law does is give the industry, and consumers, assurance that the tax credits will be there today, tomorrow and for the next 10 years,” said Warren Leon, executive director of the Clean Energy States Alliance, a bipartisan coalition of state government energy agencies. “Rooftop solar is still expensive enough to require some subsidies.”
California’s solar energy net metering decision
Certainty has been the thing that’s hard to come by in solar, where frequent policy changes make the market a “solar coaster,” as one industry executive put it. Just as the expanded federal tax credits were taking effect, California on Dec. 15 slashed another big incentive allowing homeowners to sell excess solar energy generated by their systems back to the grid at attractive rates, scrambling the math anew in the largest U.S. state and its biggest solar-power market — though the changes do not take effect until next April.
Put the state and federal changes together, and Wood Mackenzie thinks the California solar market will actually shrink sharply in 2024, down by as much as 39%. Before the Inflation Reduction Act incentives were factored in, the consulting firm forecast a 50% drop with the California policy shift. Residential solar is coming off a historic quarter, with 1.57 GW installed, a 43% increase year over year, and California a little over one-third of the total, according to Wood Mackenzie.
For potential switchers, tax credits can quickly recover part of the up-front cost of going green. Hurwitz took the federal tax credit for his system when he installed it in 2020, and is preparing to add a battery now that it, too, comes with tax credits. Some contractors offer deals where they absorb the upfront cost – and claim the credit – in exchange for agreements to lease back the system.
Combined with savings on power homeowners don’t buy from utilities, the tax credits can make rooftop solar systems pay for themselves within as little as five years – and save $25,000 or more, after recovering the initial investment, within two decades.
“Will this growth have legs? Absolutely,” said Veronica Zhang, portfolio manager of the Van Eck Environmental Sustainability Fund, a green fund not exclusively focused on solar. “With utility rates going up, it’s a good time to move if you were thinking about it in the first place.”
How to calculate installation costs and benefits
Here is how the numbers work.
Nationally, the cost for solar in 2022 ranges from $16,870 to $23,170, after the tax credit, for a 10-kilowatt system, the size for which quotes are sought most often on EnergySage, a Boston-based quote-comparison site for solar panels and batteries. Most households can use a system of six or seven kilowatts, EnergySage spokesman Nick Liberati said. A 10-12 kilowatt battery costs about $13,000 more, he added.
There’s a significant variation in those numbers by region, and by the size and other factors specific to the house, EnergySage CEO Vikram Aggarwal said. In New Jersey, for example, a 7-kilowatt system costs on average $20,510 before the credit and $15,177 after it. In Houston, it’s about $1,000 less. In Chicago, that system is close to $2,000 more than in New Jersey. A more robust 10-kilowatt system costs more than $31,000 before the credit around Chicago, but $26,500 in Tampa, Fla. All of these average prices are as quoted by EnergySage.
The effectiveness of the system may also vary because of things specific to the house, including the placement of trees on or near the property, as we found out when we asked EnergySage’s online bid-solicitation system to look at specific homes.
The bids for one suburban Chicago house ranged as low as $19,096 after the federal credit and as high as $30,676.
Offsetting those costs are electricity savings and state tax breaks that recover the cost of the system in as little as 4.5 years, according to the bids. Contractors claimed that power savings and state incentives could save as much as another $27,625 over 20 years, on top of the capital cost.
Alternatively, consumers can finance the system but still own it themselves – we were quoted interest rates of 2.99 to 8.99 percent. That eliminates consumers’ up-front cost, but cuts into the savings as some of the avoided utility costs go to pay off interest, Aggarwal said.
The key to maximizing savings is to know the specific regulations in your state – and get help understanding often-complex contracts, said Hurwitz, who is a physician.
Energy storage and excess power
Some states have more generous subsidies than others, and more pro-consumer rules mandating that utilities pay higher prices for excess power that home solar systems create during peak production hours, or even extract from homeowners’ batteries.
California had among the most generous rules of all until this week. But state utility regulators agreed to let utilities pay much less for excess power they are required to buy, after power companies argued that the rates were too high, and raised power prices for other customers.
Wood Mackenzie said the details of California’s decision made it look less onerous than the firm had expected. EnergySage says the payback period for California systems without a battery will be 10 years instead of six after the new rules take effect in April. Savings in the years afterward will be about 60 percent less, the company estimates. Systems with a battery, which pay for themselves after 10 years, will be little affected because their owners keep most of their excess power instead of selling it to the utility, according to EnergySage.
“The new [California rules] certainly elongate current payback periods for solar and solar-plus-storage, but not by as much as the previous proposal,” Wood Mackenzie said in the Dec. 16 report. “By 2024, the real impacts of the IRA will begin to come to fruition.”
The more expensive power is from a local utility, the more sense home solar will make. And some contractors will back claims about power savings with agreements to pay part of your utility bill if the systems don’t produce as much energy as promised.
“You have to do your homework before you sign,” Hurwitz said. “But energy costs always go up. That’s another hidden incentive.”
Tesla has hired a celebrity ambassador, a departure from Elon Musk’s policy of not paying for celebrity endorsements.
Musk has often bragged about the fact that Tesla doesn’t pay for celebrity endorsements in contrast to other automakers who hire celebrity brand ambassadors to promote their cars.
Much like advertising, Musk seems to be abandoning this strategy.
Tesla announced that it hired Olympic shooter Kim Ye-ji, whose performance at the Paris Olympics this summer went viral, to be the automaker’s brand ambassador in Korea.
Kim said about her new partnership with Tesla:
I’m very excited to work with Tesla, who have recognized me. I hope to convey a positive message together with Tesla.”
Here are a few pictures released to announce her new partnership with Tesla:
Kim’s agency said that her relationship with Tesla started from CEO Elon Musk tweeting about her viral performance at the Olympics:
“The relationship between Kim Ye-ji and Tesla developed after Elon Musk mentioned her. The company said that Kim is Tesla Korea’s first brand ambassador.”
She is not only Tesla Korea’s first ambassador, but she is the first known paid celebrity ambassador for Tesla globally.
The policy change is not entirely surprising since the policy of Musk not paying celebrities to endorse Tesla’s products was often attached to the automaker’s strategy not to advertise.
Tesla sales in Korea haven’t been amazing, but the country’s auto market greatly favors domestic brands. The American automaker does fairly well for a foreign brand with the Model Y becoming the best-selling imported vehicle in Korea during the first half of 2024.
Although, it amounted to just over 10,000 units.
Electrek’s Take
It’s a change of strategy, and Elon certainly can’t claim that Tesla doesn’t pay for celebrities to endorse its products, but it is probably a smart move due to the fact that Koreans prefer domestic brands.
Kim could help create a deeper level of attachment to the Tesla brand, but I don’t really know. I’m just speculating.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Kia just broke its October sales record as its impressive US sales run continues. After another record-breaking month, Kia said the growth is fueled by “strong demand” for its electric vehicles.
Kia sets new October sales record in the US
Kia sold 69,908 vehicles in the US last month, up 16% from its previous October sales record in 2023.
According to Kia, higher demand for its electric models is charging up sales in the US. Kia’s electrified sales (EVs, PHEVs, and HEVs) reached its highest ever in October.
All-electric vehicles (EVs) led the way, with sales surging 70% year-over-year (YOY). Plug-in hybrid (PHEV) and hybrid (HEV) sales were up 65% and 49%, respectively, from October 2023.
Kia’s first dedicated electric model, the EV6, set a new October sales record with 1,941 units sold. Through the first ten months of 2024, Kia has now sold over 17,700 EV6 models in the US. Meanwhile, its first three-row electric SUV, the EV9, continues to defy expectations.
With another 1,941 models sold last month, Kia EV9 sales reached 17,911 through October. That’s even more than the EV6 despite costing +$12,000 more.
2024 Kia EV9 GT-Line (Source: Kia)
Kia’s first US-made EV9 rolled out of its West Point, GA plant this summer. Although the EV9 is expected to qualify for the full $7,500 federal tax credit next year, Kia is matching it for now through incentives.
Next year, we will also finally see the EV9 GT, which Kia promises will have “enormous power.” Ahead of its official debut, we got our first look at the sporty electric SUV with an active spoiler last month.
2025 Kia EV9 Trim
Starting Price*
Light Standard Range
$54,900
Light Long Range
$59,900
Wind
$63,900
Land
$69,900
GT-Line
$73,900
2025 Kia EV9 price by trim (*excluding $1,325 destination fee)
Earlier this month, we learned that the 2025 EV9 will start at $54,900 (not including the destination fee), which is only $700 more than the 2024 model.
With prices dropping to potentially under $50,000, Kia’s three-row electric SUV is a steal. If you’re ready to experience the EV9 for yourself, we can help you get started. You can use our links below to view deals on Kia’s electric vehicles in your area.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
The outcome of the U.S. presidential election on Nov. 5 won’t affect oil production levels in the short- to medium term, Exxon CEO Darren Woods told CNBC on Friday.
Former President Donald Trump has called for unconstrained oil and gas production to lower energy prices and fight inflation, boiling his energy policy down to three words on the campaign trail: “Drill, baby, drill.”
“I’m not sure how drill, baby, drill translates into policy,” Woods told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” Friday after the largest U.S. oil and gas company reported third-quarter results.
Woods said U.S. shale production does not face constraints from “external restrictions.” The U.S. has produced record amounts of oil and gas during the Biden administration.
Over the past six years, the U.S. has produced more crude oil than any other nation in history, including Saudi Arabia and Russia, according to the Energy Information Administration.
Output in the U.S. is driven by the oil and gas industry deploying technology and investment to generate shareholder returns based on the break-even cost of production, the CEO said.
“Certainly we wouldn’t see a change based on a political change but more on an economic environment,” Woods said. “I don’t think there’s anybody out there that’s developing a business strategy to respond to a political agenda,” he said.
While shale production has not faced constraints on developing new acreage, there are resources in areas like the Gulf of Mexico that have not opened up due to federal permitting, the CEO said.
“That could, for the longer term, open up potential sources of supply,” Wood said. In the short- to medium term, however, unconventional shale resources are available and it’s just a matter of developing them based on market dynamics, he said.
Exxon Mobil shares in 2024.
The vast majority of shale resources in the U.S. are on private land and regulated at the state level, according to an August note from Morgan Stanley. About 25% of oil and 10% of natural gas is produced on federal land and waters subject to permitting, according to Morgan Stanley.
Vice President Kamala Harris opposed fracking during her bid for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. She has since reversed that position in an effort to shore up support in the crucial swing state of Pennsylvania, where the natural gas industry is important for the state’s economy.