Tag: "cpuc"

04/13/18

  11:10:00 am, by Jim Jenal - Founder & CEO   , 2082 words  
Categories: All About Solar Power, Solar Economics, Residential Solar, Ranting

My Electric Bill is So High! Will Solar Help? Part 3: Evaluating Competing Solar Proposals

Editor’s Note: This is the third installment in our three-part series:
My Electric Bill is So High! Will Solar Help?  
You can read Part One, How High is High, here, and
Part Two, How Do I Find Someone to Trust, here.

With apologies to the Lovin’ Spoonful, eventually you have to make up your mind between those competing bids you’ve received, but how?  Let’s walk through the proposal evaluation process and see if everything that you need to see has been included!

What’s in the Proposal?

Solar proposals come in all shapes and sizes.  Some are very short – just a listing of what will be provided, a price, and a place to sign.  On the other end of the spectrum are proposals that are twenty pages long, most of it boilerplate about what is solar and how does it work, and what a great company this is.  But strip away the boilerplate and are they really giving you much information that is specific to your situation?

What were the inputs?

The old saying, GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out, applies to solar proposals too.  In this case, the inputs are your past energy usage, and a detailed site evaluation that looked at your service panel and your roof.  Omit any of those inputs, and the output is likely to be of dubious value, or worse, it will mask the true cost of installing solar at your home, leaving you exposed to costly change orders down the road when the contractor “discovers” something that should have been addressed at the proposal stage!

Your energy usage for the past year is the key input – without it you’re flying blind.  If you are in SCE territory, your potential installer should be asking for access to your  interval data.  For most residential clients, that is hourly usage measurements over the entire year, and that is important to accurately model your savings under now mandatory, time-of-use rates.  Where interval data is not available, monthly, or worse, bi-monthly billing records can be used, but they will not provide the granularity needed to see how the proposed PV system will actually operate to offset your daily loads.

Seasonal load profile comparison

Assuming that interval data is available – we ask our clients provide it through a secure service called UtilityAPI – it is the installer’s responsibility to properly analyze it to know how large a system you need.  As we mentioned in Part One, we use Energy Toolbase for our data analysis as it is the most authoritative tool on the market.  The chart above shows the average seasonal usage for one particular client as processed by Energy Toolbase from the raw interval data.  This shows the average hourly usage over spring and summer, with a very dramatic peak on summer weekends around 5:30 p.m.  Recall from Part One about “low-hanging fruit” – what you are seeing here is an excessive A/C demand that, if it can be addressed, would greatly reduce the size of the PV system needed for this client.

Ideally, this analysis takes place before the site evaluation so that the installer is able to advise the potential client about actions to be taken to reduce their overall usage, and thereby end up with the most cost-effective solution tailored to their needs.

Detailed equipment line items

One of the things that we see on competitors’ proposals that never ceases to amaze us is the total lack of detail regarding the actual equipment that is going to be installed!  It is as if the homeowner is expected to pay thousands of dollars for a generic solar power system – but you wouldn’t spend thousands on a generic car, would you?  Moreover, how can you assess the value proposition of a generic system?  A company that proposes a generic system intends to install on your home whatever is on sale that week.  Maybe you get lucky, more likely you don’t, but in either case, you simply don’t know, and that is no way to make a major investment.

Your proposal should have line items for all of the major components of your system: the solar panels, microinverters, racking, and installation costs.  And those items should be specific, down to the model being selected and the per unit cost.  Only that level of detail allows you to see what you are getting and for how much.

Utility savings analysis

Determining how much your proposed PV system will save you in Year 1 is the key to the entire analysis of the proposal, and it is a two-step process.  First, your historical usage data is analyzed against your current billing rate to determine what your energy costs will be over the next year.  There are a couple of assumptions built into that assessment, namely that both your usage and your billing rate will stay the same.  If you have been in your home for awhile, your usage last year is probably a pretty good predictor of your usage next year.  On the other hand, if you moved in rather recently, or made a major purchase like a new EV, that will skew your usage going forward.  Similarly, last year’s bills were predicated on the exact details of your billing rate structure in effect at that time – and those are subject to change without notice.  So look at what the proposal projects for your bill next year without solar, and see how that compares with last year.

The second part is the more important piece - assessing how  your bill will change now that you have added PV.  Here’s where things get complicated, and a tool like Energy Toolbase becomes essential.  The proposal should show a model of your past usage overlayed by the production of the PV system.

PV production overlayed on historical usage

As you can see in the graph above (click for a larger version), the darker blue is the historical usage (we are looking at two days in July), the green is the modeled production from the proposed PV system, and the pale blue is the net energy demand.  At the peak on the right, the PV system is producing 5.22 kW at a time when the historical demand was 11.95, meaning that the net demand from the utility is 6.73 kw – and that is the basis for what the client will be billed.  You can also see that there are periods in the morning when the system is producing more power that the client historically used, resulting in power being exported out to the grid – for which the client is compensated due to net metering.

This is the analysis that must underlie your savings analysis – anything else is simply guess work.

Cash flow analysis – payback over time

Part of any cash flow analysis is the cost of the transaction.  If you are making a cash purchase you know exactly what your transaction costs will be.  But if you are financing through the solar company, or heavens forbid leasing, those transaction costs may well be obscured, it not hidden altogether.  Make certain that you have all the information you need to determine exactly what that deal is going to cost you.

For the sake of discussion, we will assume that this is a cash purchase.  What other assumptions go into a proper cash flow analysis? To start, how long is the period of the analysis?  Ten years?  Twenty years?  Thirty years?  Beware of an analysis that simply says how much money you will have saved in the end, without calling out the period in question!  In our view, ten years is too short, and 30 years is too long.  But whatever the number is, make sure you are aware of it as you compare “total savings!”

Another key assumption is how much will utility rates go up over the lifetime of the analysis?  It used to be common to see rate escalators of 6-7% per annum, but there was no real data-driven basis for that number.  (In fact, long ago we used 6.7% based on a website that claimed that the California Energy Commission had published that figure.  But when we went digging for the source, we discovered it didn’t exist - there was just this circular linking of sites each claiming to have gotten this from the CEC!) 

Over time we have consistently reduced the value that we use for our models, so that now we are using 3%, which we think is reasonably conservative.  But this is really a matter of just throwing darts at a board, and no one really knows what that number will be. Keep in mind that for comparison purposes, you should be able to see what value was used, and the higher the number, the rosier the prediction!

PV systems degrade over time, and that output diminishment should be accounted for in the analysis.  Modern solar panels degrade less than 1% per annum (the LG panels that we use are around 0.5%), but in any event, make sure that is incorporated in the model.

Finally, the value of money in your hand today is, generally, worth more than money you will have at some point in the future.  How much more valuable is a function of the discount rate applied to those future savings.  If the model ignores that, your future savings are likely artificially high.  Again, no one knows what the right number is, but a proper model will account for it and allow you to know what you are comparing.

What’s in the Contract?

Strictly speaking not a part of the proposal, it is not a bad idea to ask to look at the contract before you pick a contractor.  Many solar contracts are very long, written in tiny fonts, with lots of legalese – all designed to make you throw up your hands and simply ask, where do I sign?  But slow down, friend, the devil may be lurking in those details!  Indeed, we have had clients who were ready to sign with another company until they looked at what was in the contract!

Ideally the contract should be written in plain English, it should clearly set forth what will happen, when, and how, and it should be even-handed.

An Important Caveat

Finally, it is important to call out what even the most carefully considered proposal cannot address - future uncertainty; in particular, what will utilities try to do, and what will the CPUC let them do!

Things outside of our control - CPUC & Utilities

If you follow this blog you will know that the solar industry is under constant assault from efforts by utilities – particularly the investor-owned utilities like SCE – to reduce if not altogether eliminate the economic value of adding solar.  Whether it is by lobbying for changes to the net metering rules (which just this past year imposed additional fees, charges, and mandated time-of-use rates), or designing utility rates that make solar production less valuable, there is a constant struggle behind the scenes to undermine the solar investment of thousands of California homeowners.  (And this is not at all limited to California – attacks on net metering and efforts to impose pernicious rate structures are a nationwide phenomenon.)

Things we can control - SolarCitiSuns & CALSSA

Fortunately there are a couple of entities out there that are working hard to preserve the value of going solar.  If you are a California homeowner with a solar power system, there is an organization specifically for you.  California SolarCitiSuns is perhaps a corny name, but its mission is crucial: to organize the political power of California’s thousands of citizens with solar on their homes or businesses, or anyone who wants to be part of advocating for a clean, renewable future.  If you have solar on your home or business, click here to join!   The investment that you are protecting is yours!

 And finally, solar companies, are you a member of the California Solar & Storage Association?  We are, and you should be.  Click here to join CALSSA today! 

Beyond that, rank and file solar workers – installers, designers, finance people, anyone whose livelihood depends on the solar industry – there is an action group that you can join, even if your company is not a CALSSA member!  Joining means that you will get alerts when a crucial vote is upcoming in Sacramento or San Francisco, and give you the opportunity to reach out and show your support for the industry that provides your livelihood.  It’s easy and important. Every solar worker in California – click on this link to join the CALSSA Action Network – the job you save will be your own!

So there you have it - everything you need to know about going solar – look forward to hearing from you soon!

 Permalink

02/01/16

  03:12:00 pm, by Jim Jenal - Founder & CEO   , 1953 words  
Categories: Utilities, SCE, Ranting, Net Metering

Net Metering 2.0 Explained

On January 28 the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) voted 3-2 to adopt new rules governing what is known as Net Energy Metering, thereby creating the framework for Net Energy Metering 2.0 (NEM 2.0).  Here is our take on what the CPUC did, and didn’t do.

What Hasn’t Changed

The first and most important thing to know is that for many people, the new rules adopted by the CPUC will not affect you at all!  These new rules only directly apply to customers of the three investor owned utilities (IOUs): SCE, PG&E, and SDG&E.  If your electrical service is provided by one of the municipal utilities - like PWP or LADWP - nothing that the CPUC did last month will directly affect you since the CPUC does not have jurisdiction over the munis.  (That said, the munis often follow the lead of the CPUC, so it is entirely possible that they will individually adopt their own version of NEM 2.0, but that will be a discussion for another day.)

Even for solar clients in the service territory of one of the IOUs, if you have already signed a net metering agreement, you will be grandfathered in and allowed to continue to operate under the old rules for 20 years.  Once the 20 years have elapsed, you will be transitioned to the net metering rules (NEM 5.0?) then in effect.

Beyond all of that, even for new solar clients in IOU territory, these new rules do not go into effect right away.  Rather, the old rules will still apply until your utility reaches their 5% of customer aggregate demand cap, or July 1, 2017 - whichever comes first.  In SCE territory it is an open bet as to which will occur first (see more below).

Bottom line: this is not happening right away, so you still have time to benefit from the existing rules.

What is Going to Change

Net metering is changing

Net metering is changing!

Proposals

Lots of people weighed in on NEM 2.0 including all three IOUs, CALSEIA, NRDC, and various advocates for rate reform and consumer protection.  While some of the proposals, and their proponents, were entirely predictable, others were not, and at least one such position was seriously disappointing.

For example, the three IOUs all advanced proposals that would have significantly reduced the value of going solar.  SCE wanted to reduce the rate for energy exported from full retail to just 7¢/kWh (with a 1¢ adder if you give SCE your renewable energy credits), plus a $3/kW/month “grid access charge", and a one-time $75 interconnection charge.  (SDG&E’s proposal was even worse, seeking a $9/kW/month charge!) On top of that SCE wanted to eliminate virtual net metering altogether.

At the other extreme, the “solar parties” (such as CALSEIA and The Solar Alliance) advocated for keeping net metering at full retail value.  However, in a nod to changing realities, they did support paying on nonbypassable charges (more on that mouthful in a minute) but not until after 2019.

Still, there was one proposal that strikes us as entirely reasonable which CALSEIA opposed - mandatory warranty periods.  Back when the California Solar Initiative was in place (i.e., when SCE was paying rebates), solar contractors were required to provide a ten-year warranty on their work in order to participate in the program.  With the demise of the CSI program, technically that warranty requirement also went away.  As part of the NEM 2.0 rulemaking, ratepayer advocates advanced the notion of restoring the warranty requirement - a common sense request that no one should oppose.

But the “solar parties” did oppose it, asserting that such a requirement could “discourage innovation in product offerings."  Seriously?  What “product” might we reasonably want to offer that having to stand behind it would be discouraging? When pressed about this position during CALSEIA’s NEM 2.0 webinar, Brad Heavner, CALSEIA’s policy director, said that the view was that the market could decide this: presumably if a company didn’t offer a warranty and that was important to the customer, they would go with a different company.  This was not, however, a position that CALSEIA pushed hard to win, and in the end, they lost on this point.

In our view, opposing a mandatory warranty paints solar in a bad light.  It puts the industry on the side of those who do the least reliable work, and penalizes those companies who go the extra mile to install systems that will stand the test of time.  From what we have seen it is tough enough to get a company to honor its warranty commitments, let alone relying on the “invisible hand” of the market to protect consumers.  CALSEIA did a lot of great work on NEM 2.0, but this position was a mistake.

Decision

The ultimate decision is a major defeat for the IOUs, and a partial victory for the solar industry.  For the IOUs, they clearly overplayed their hand, advancing proposals that were so clearly anti-solar that the Commissioners couldn’t really take them seriously.  According to a CALSEIA webinar, toward the end of the proceedings the IOUs suggested an energy export feed-in-tariff which, if they had proposed it at the start, might have gained traction.  Something to think about as we look toward subsequent iterations on NEM rules.

The solar industry retained full retail value for energy exports, but they also saw three changes that undercut somewhat the value of that victory: nonbypassable charges (NBC) for all energy taken from the grid, one-time interconnection fees, and mandatory time-of-use (TOU) rates.  Let’s look at each in turn.

Nonbypassable Charges (NBCs)

As part of their rate schedules, the IOUs have certain rate components that are known as nonbypassable charges or NBCs.  For example, if you were to look at SCE’s Domestic Rate schedule tariff page (check out page 3), you would see a whole host of factors that go into making up the rate that the customer ultimately pays.  The decision affects three of those NBCs: the Nuclear Decommissioning Charge, the Public Purpose Programs Charge, and the Department of Water Resources Bond Charge.  The sum of those three charges for an SCE residential rate payer  comes to 2.224¢/kWh.  (The lion’s share of which is the charge for public purpose programs, such as bill assistance to people on limited incomes.)

Under the old rules, solar customers would only pay for these charges on the net energy that they consumed in a month.  So, if your consumption was 1000 kWh per month, and your solar system produced 800 kWh, you would only pay these charges on 200 kWh, about $4.45.  Under the new rules, however, every kWh that you pull from the grid, whether it is ultimately netted out by energy you exported, is subject to NBCs.  Sticking with the same example, of the 800 kWh that you produce, imagine that 500 kWh of that are consumed at your home and the remaining 300 kWh are exported.  Meaning that you imported a total of 500 kWh from the grid.  As a result, under NEM 2.0 you will pay NBC on 500 kWh — raising the charge from $4.45 to $11.12, and increase of $6.67/month on the solar customer’s bill.

The relatively small impact of the NBCs is due in part to solar industry lobbying that held the line at around 2¢/kWh versus a proposal, apparently favored by the two dissenting Commissioners, to include more charges that would have brought the total above 4¢/kWh.  (Indeed, we are told that keeping the NBCs at 2¢/kWh is what caused those two Commissioners to vote against the final package.)

Frankly, we think the NBC costs are fair.  The programs supported by the NBCs are a public benefit and all other customers pay for those based on every kWh they pull from the grid.  Under the new rules, so will solar customers.  Of course, if you are in a lease and only saving $20/month from your old bill, this is a much bigger hit.  Yet another reason to avoid leasing!

One-Time Interconnection Fees

Also reasonable was the imposition of one-time interconnection fees to be set based on the IOUs actual cost of handling the interconnection.  The CPUC estimates that the fee will be somewhere between $75-150.  (Recall that SCE advanced a $75 fee as part of its proposal, so it will be fascinating to see if they try to come back for a higher fee now!)

Mandatory TOU Rates

The biggest hit to solar mandated by the NEM 2.0 rules was the requirement that solar customers get switched over to TOU rates.  (SCE is moving all customers to TOU rates eventually, but that target date is 2019.)  Under TOU rates, you pay more for your energy depending upon the time of day when you use it, as opposed to being on a tiered rate schedule where you pay more when you use more during a billing cycle.  For residential customers, SCE sets its peak charge time as the hours between 2 and 8 p.m., and Noon to 6 p.m. for commercial customers.  This means that, for residential customers, solar exported to the grid before 2 p.m. will be valued less than energy that needs to be pulled from the grid after the sun goes down, but before 8 p.m.

It is this change to the rate structure, and to a lesser extent the imposition of the full NBCs, that makes intelligent energy storage that much more valuable.  With smart storage, you won’t export energy during the day, you will store it for later use.  That reduces the total amount of energy pulled from the grid (lowering the NBCs) and allows you to shift the availability of the energy to the evening so as to avoid peak TOU rates altogether.  There can be no doubt that this is the future for how solar installations under NEM 2.0 (and likely beyond) will be the most cost-effective.  We are optimistic that by the time NEM 2.0 goes into effect for SCE clients in our service area, we will have an intelligent storage solution to offer.

Timing

So when does all of this go into effect?  As we noted above, at the very latest, the new rules go into effect on July 1, 2017. Most likely, however, they will go into effect sooner than that since the actual start date is tied to when the IOU reaches its 5% cap.  In SCE territory, the following NEM report is informative:

SCE's NEM report

SCE’s total customer aggregate demand, the basis for the 5% cap, is 44,807 kW.  5% of that is 2,240 MW of solar installed.  As of the end of December, 2015, SCE had 1,388 MW of solar either installed or with net metering agreements in place, leaving 852 MW remaining under the cap.

The report also shows that applications for 48.1 MW of new solar were received during the month of December.  If we take that number as  a fair monthly average, we can expect SCE to reach its cap in 17 to 18 months. So to lock-in your system under the existing rules, you will need to have your net metering application complete and on file with SCE before then (May-June 2017).  We will continue to update on the status of SCE’s progress toward its cap.

Final Thoughts

On the whole, the solar industry dodged a bullet, especially when you look at the latest battles over NEM in other states, like Nevada.  This success is a tribute to the thousands of people who took the time to advocate for solar, whether they be our trade association, CALSEIA; individual solar companies, like Run on Sun; or solar customers who reached out to inform the Commission of the true value of solar.  Not lost in the debate was the importance of solar as a job creation engine in California.

Moreover, the political climate in California, from the Governor on down, has been strongly supportive of solar and they deserve our thanks as well.

We would love to hear your thoughts and if you have questions that haven’t been answered here, please leave them in the comments and we will do our best to address them.

11/30/15

  08:37:00 am, by Jim Jenal - Founder & CEO   , 390 words  
Categories: Solar Economics, SCE, Residential Solar, Ranting

Your Solar Savings - Stolen?

You may have heard that there are forces afoot - brought to you by the investor-owned utilities - that would lead to a “catastrophic” diminution of savings from solar power systems.  Stories from the LA Times, to CNBC, to even the Motley Fool all are proclaiming that change is coming to solar and the end is in site for any real solar savings.  To which we say - not so fast.  Take a deep breath and read on to see our take.

For example, just today the LA Times ran a story in the Business section quoting solar customers who were “just so angry” over not having access to renewable energy credits (RECs) under the state’s new renewable energy targets law.  Yet, that isn’t a change to past practices – no residential client has been able to sell RECs on the open market.

CPUC logoSimilarly with the upcoming changes in the state’s net metering rules - while the investor owned utilities, including our own Southern California Edison, are lobbying like mad to make solar less economically appealing, no decision has yet been reached.  Moreover, the California Public Utilities Commission (which is charged with resolving this issue) has consistently sided with the solar industry, and most likely will do so now.  If they don’t, there will still be the option of seeking a legislative fix before the new rules can go into effect.

And that raises yet another point that counsels for a less breathless approach to all of this: the new rules won’t take effect for at least a year, and clients who install solar before then are locked into the present, solar-friendly net metering rules for the next twenty years!

So let’s recap:

  • Today’s “solar-friendly” net metering rules will still be available to solar clients for at least the next year;
  • A consumer who installs solar before the new rules go into effect will be grandfathered into the current rules for 20 years; and
  • The 30% federal tax credit remains in effect going into 2016.

But there is one catch here - the second half of 2016 is poised to be crazy with lots of consumers trying to get their projects completed in time to take the tax credit.  This will invariably lead to a real crunch and folks who wait too long will miss out.  If solar is in your plans for 2016, the time to get started is now!

08/14/15

  11:26:00 am, by Jim Jenal - Founder & CEO   , 253 words  
Categories: All About Solar Power, Solar Economics, Residential Solar, Ranting

Only YOU Can Save Rooftop Solar!

Solar works!Smokey the Bear knew a thing or two about urgency, and appropriating his call to action seems particularly apt right now.  Today, rooftop solar is under concerted attack before the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).  If we are to maintain the growth of solar, with its tens of thousands of jobs here in California, as well as its huge benefits in reducing air pollution - particularly greenhouse gas emissions - we need YOU to act now.

Our friends over at Vote Solar, along with the California Solar Energy Industries Association (CalSEIA) are working to beat back the insidious proposals coming from the Investor Owned Utilities - including SCE - to gut net metering and impose taxes on those who invest in rooftop solar.  If those proposals were to be adopted, much of the economic value of solar could be destroyed.

But it doesn’t have to be that way.  The CPUC is a poltical entity and like any political entity, it responds to pressure from the public.  We cannot match the economic clout of the IOUs, but we can beat them the old fashioned way - by standing up for solar!

It’s easy - just click on this button:

SIGN PETITION!

When you do, you will go the Vote Solar website where you can add your name to the list of concerned Californians who want to preserve the many benefits of rooftop solar.  Please pass this word on to your friends and colleagues and urge them to get involved too!

We can win this fight - but we need YOU now!

09/28/14

  08:43:00 am, by Jim Jenal - Founder & CEO   , 441 words  
Categories: Solar Economics, SCE, Residential Solar, Ranting

Support Solar!

Regular readers of this blog will know that solar-friendly policies are under constant attach by the utilities, especially the three Investor-owned utilities (or IOUs as they are known), PG&E, SDG&E and our own SCE.  Well they are at it again, with rate proposals before the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) that could harm both solar and energy efficiency measures alike.  Fortunately, we have an opportunity to have our say - here’s our take. (H/t our friends at CalSEIA.)

Support SolarCurrent policies in California, most notably net metering, along with a tiered rate structure (whereby you pay more for electricity as you use more) have provided powerful incentives not only for consumers to install solar, but to also take proactive measures to reduce their energy consumption.  As a result, energy use in California over the past twenty years has grown slower than the growth in population despite the explosion of new electronic devices in homes and businesses during that time.  Indeed, California has lead the way for the rest of the Nation, proving that you can have a twenty-first century lifestyle and still reduce your energy demand.

In other words, these policies have been a success.

The proposals being floated at the CPUC would change rates throughout the three IOU service areas (i.e., much of California) and threaten that success.  In particular, they are seeking to add a flat, monthly fee to everyone of $10 to all bills, regardless of use and to reduce the number of tiers from four to two.  In addition, the rate for the lowest tier would increase, making this a double-whammy not just to solar owners, but to the poorest electric customers who will see a rise in their rates.  (So much for the utilities’ concern over hurting the poor!)

Fortunately these changes are not yet cast in stone and the public, particularly advocates for solar and energy efficiency, have a chance to have their voices heard.  The CPUC is holding a series of public hearings, some in the Run on Sun service area, as well as others around the state.  Here are the upcoming hearings:

FONTANA

September 29, 2014

2:00 pm & 6:30 pm

Fontana City Council Chambers
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335

TEMPLE CITY

September 30, 2014

2:00 pm & 6:30 pm?

Temple City Council Chambers
5938 Kauffman Avenue
Temple City, CA  91780

PALMDALE

October 2, 2014

2:00 pm & 6:30 pm

Palmdale City Council Chambers
38300 Sierra Hwy, Suite A
Palmdale, CA  93550

CHICO

October 9, 2014

2:00 pm & 6:30 pm

Holiday Inn Chico – Conference Center
685 Manzanita Ct.
Chico, CA 95926

FRESNO

October 14, 2014

2:00 pm & 6:30 pm

Fresno City Council Chambers
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA  93721

We are planning on attending the hearing in Temple City.  If you attend one of these important hearings, please let us know about your experience in the comments.

1 2 3 4 >>

Jim Jenal is the Founder & CEO of Run on Sun, Pasadena's premier installer and integrator of top-of-the-line solar power installations.
Run on Sun also offers solar consulting services, working with consumers, utilities, and municipalities to help them make solar power affordable and reliable.

Ready to Save?

Let’s Get Started!

Give Us a Call!

626.793.6025 or
310.584.7755

Click to Learn More About Commercial Solar Power!

We're Social!



Follow Run on Sun on Twitter Like Run on Sun on Facebook

Search

Run on Sun helps fight Climate Change
CMS + forums