Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “capacity credit”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Can section 45Q tax credit foster decarbonization? A case study of geologic carbon storage at Acid Gas Injection wells in the Permian Basin

Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) is an important pathway for meeting climate mitigation goals. While the economic viability of CCUS is well understood, previous studies do not evaluate the economic feasibility of carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the Permian Basin specifically regarding the new Section 45Q tax credits. We developed a technoeconomic analysis method, evaluated the economic feasibility of CCS at the acid gas injection (AGI) wells, and assessed the implication of Section 45Q tax credits for CCS at the AGIs. We find that the compressors, well depth, and the permit and monitoring costs drive the facility costs. Compressors are the predominant contributors to capital and operating expenditure driving the levelized cost of CO 2 storage. Strategic cost reduction measures identified include 1) sourcing of low-cost electricity and 2) optimizing operational efficiency in well operations. In evaluating the impact of the tax credits on CCS projects, facility scale proved decisive. We found that facilities with an annual injection rate exceeding 10,000 MT storage capacity demonstrate economic viability contingent upon the procurement of inputs at the least cost. The new construction of AGI wells were found to be economically viable at a storage capacity of 100,000 MT. The basin is heavily focused on CCUS (tax credit – $\$$65/MT CO 2 ), which overshadows CCS ($\$$85/MT CO 2 ) opportunities. Balancing the dual objectives of CCS and CCUS requires planning and coordination for optimal resource and pore space utilization to attain the basin's decarbonization potential. We also found that CCS on AGI is a lower cost CCS option as compared to CCS on other industries.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Representing DC-Coupled PV+Battery Hybrids in a Capacity Expansion Model

Recent technology cost and performance improvements and the federal investment tax credit (ITC) have driven growing interest in coupling solar photovoltaic (PV) and battery systems. Combining these technologies into co-located or hybridized PV+battery systems has the potential to lower costs and increase energy output relative to multiple independent systems. In this work, we provide an overview of PV+battery systems and demonstrate methods for incorporating them into NREL’s Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) capacity expansion model. Although the methods are applied to a specific model, we anticipate that the approaches used here can be useful for informing PV+battery method development for other capacity expansion models. The implemented method relies heavily on the native representations of PV and battery technologies; therefore, the focus of this work is on capturing and parameterizing the interactions between them for a configuration in which the PV and battery technologies share a single bi-directional inverter. This work also demonstrates the impacts of including PV+battery systems in the ReEDS optimization for the conterminous United States through 2050. In particular, we perform parametric sensitivities for input assumptions that are uncertain and expected to influence PV+battery deployment levels, including (a) the cost of PV+battery systems relative to independent PV and battery systems, (b) the battery component’s qualification for the ITC, and (c) future cost trajectories for PV and battery systems. We find that PV+battery deployment could occur throughout the conterminous United States if there are cost savings associated with DC coupling PV and battery technologies. If even modest (5%) cost savings can be achieved (through a shared inverter and balance-of-system costs), then approximately one-third of utility-scale PV deployment through 2050 adopts the DC-coupled hybrid configuration, resulting in total PV+battery deployment that exceeds the magnitude of PV+battery projects in U.S. interconnection queues in 2020. If greater cost savings can be achieved through DC coupling (e.g., due to a growing amount of shared balance-of-system costs, reduced financial risk, or modularity) or more rapid cost and performance improvements are realized for PV and battery technologies, then total PV+battery deployment and the share of PV and battery deployment that adopts the hybrid configuration grows (to >50%). In all cases, growing PV+battery deployment primarily displaces independent PV and battery technologies, indicating the strong competition between the hybrid and independent configurations comprising technologies with similar performance characteristics.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Tax Credits for Clean Electricity: The Distributional Impacts of Supply-Push Policies in the Power Sector

We evaluate distributional and efficiency consequences of the bulk power clean electricity tax credits authorized by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. To do so, we link detailed electricity capacity expansion, computable general equilibrium, microsimulation, and air pollution models to estimate economic welfare and health incidence across demographic groups. We evaluate trade-offs between policy efficiency and income progressivity by comparing the tax credits to cap-and-trade policies. The tax credits encourage increased clean electricity investment, resulting in a reallocation of capital from elsewhere in the economy, higher prices for capital and other goods, lower power prices, and lower emissions. The tax credits yield progressive outcomes for economic welfare at the expense of efficiency while all modeled policies demonstrate progressivity in health impacts. The health benefits, absent climate benefits, exceed total policy costs and provide greater benefits for low-income and historically marginalized households given coincidence of household locations and emissions exposure intensity.

distributional impacts↗
DOE OSTI2025

Evaluating advanced nuclear fission technologies for future decarbonized power grids

Advanced nuclear fission, which encompasses various innovative nuclear reactor designs, could contribute to the decarbonization of the United States electricity sector. However, little is known about how cost-competitive these reactors would be compared to other technologies, or about which aspects of their designs offer the most value to a decarbonized power grid. We employ an electricity system optimization model and a case study of a decarbonized U.S. Eastern Interconnection circa 2050 to generate initial indicators of future economic value for advanced reactors and the sensitivity of future value to various design parameters, the availability of competing technologies, and the underlying policy environment. These results can inform long-term cost targets and guide near-term innovation priorities, investments, and reactor design decisions. We find that advanced reactors should cost $\$5.7$–$\$7.3$/W to gain an initial market share (assuming 30 year asset life and 3.5 %–6.5 % real weighted average cost of capital), while those that include thermal storage in their designs can cost up to $\$6.0$/W–$\$7.7$/W (not including cost of storage). Since the marginal value of advanced fission reactors declines as market penetration increases, break-even costs fall ~32 % at 100 GW of cumulative capacity and ~51 % at 300 GW. Additionally, policies that provide investment tax credits for nuclear energy create the most favorable environment for advanced nuclear fission. In conclusion, these findings can inform near-term resource allocation decisions by stakeholders, innovators and investors working in the energy technology sector.

Capacity expansion↗
DOE OSTI2023

Tax Credits for Clean Electricity: The Distributional Impacts of Supply-Push Policies in the Power Sector

We evaluate distributional and efficiency consequences of the bulk power clean electricity tax credits authorized by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. To do so, we link detailed electricity capacity expansion, computable general equilibrium, data-rich microsimulation, and air pollution models to estimate the policy incidence in terms of economic welfare and health impacts across a wide range of demographic groups. We evaluate the tradeoff between policy efficiency and income progressivity by comparing the tax credits to cap-and-trade policies that vary revenue recycling approaches. Under the scenarios analyzed the bulk power tax credits lead to increased clean electricity technology deployment resulting in a reallocation of capital from elsewhere in the economy, higher prices for capital and other goods, lower power prices, and lower emissions. The tax credits yield progressive outcomes for both economic welfare and health impacts. The health benefits exceed total policy costs and provide greater benefits for low-income and historically-marginalized households given the coincidence of household and emission source locations.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and carbon intensity of U.S. fuel use and projection for the next 10 years-based on built capacity and expansion plans

The U.S. Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 supports biofuel production expansion through the 45Z clean fuel production tax credit, replacing previous 40A and 40B credits. This follows on the Renewable Fuel Standard from the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and its expansion in 2007. States like California, Oregon, and Washington also offer clean fuel credits. Meanwhile, federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Energy, have advanced alternative fuel technologies through research and development funding. The surging interest in the biofuel industry has spurred the demand for biofuel supplies in the markets, although achieving profitability for advanced biofuels and low-carbon e-fuels remains challenging. This study aims to track U.S. alternative fuel production capacity expansion plans over the next 10 years and estimate impacts on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. By tracking built capacity and industry announcements of planned expansion, this study complements other studies which use models to predict changes in energy technologies and the associated GHG implications. Modeled projections of future technologies are often criticized for over or underestimating the cost and potential role of new technologies. The study focuses on sustainable aviation fuel, renewable diesel, ethanol, biodiesel, and renewable natural gas. Using facility-level data, we conducted a bottom-up analysis linking biofuel production pathways with corresponding pathways and parameterizations in the Argonne R&D GREET model. Results indicate that biofuel capacity could reach 3.8 exajoules in 2035, potentially reducing U.S. GHG emissions by 179 million tonnes, including the full life cycle. This corresponds to a 20% reduction in transportation and 5% in industry sector emissions by 2035, or a 3.6% reduction in economy-wide emissions. Overall, this study shows that while biofuel production capacity in the U.S. is expanding, the capacities remain limited compared to fuel demand. Uncertainty regarding the durability and extension of incentives may be dampening the pace of growth. Meanwhile, demonstrating the commercial potential for alternative fuels and climbing the learning curve for new technologies could lead to an increased pace of expansion in later years. This study offers insights for bioenergy stakeholders, highlighting biofuel technologies' contribution to U.S. energy system and emissions reduction over time based on producers' plans.

Biofuel Producers↗
DOE OSTI2020

Applying Non-Energy Impacts from Other Jurisdictions in Cost-Benefit Analyses of Energy Efficiency Programs: Resources for States for Utility Customer-Funded Programs

Avoided energy and capacity costs are the primary yardstick utilities use to determine which energy efficiency programs are cost-effective for their customers. But sometimes "non-energy impacts" — not commonly recognized as directly associated with energy generation, transmission and distribution — represent substantial benefits, such as improving comfort, air quality and public health. Considering whether and how to include non-energy impacts is an important part of cost-benefit analyses for these programs. This report offers practical considerations for deciding which non-energy impacts to include and how to apply values or methods from other jurisdictions. Researchers reviewed studies quantifying non-energy impacts used in 30 states and applied a five-point system to indicate transferability of a value or method from each study for 16 categories of non-energy impacts: Water resource costs and benefits; Other fuels costs and benefits; Avoided environmental compliance costs; Environmental impacts; Productivity; Health and safety; Asset value; Energy and/or capacity price suppression effects; Avoided costs of compliance with Renewable Portfolio Standard requirements; Avoided credit and collection costs; Avoided ancillary services; Comfort; Economic development and job impacts; Public health impacts; Energy security impacts; Increased reliability. The U.S. Department of Energy’s Building Technologies Office supported this work.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2024

Technological evolution of large-scale blue hydrogen production toward the U.S. Hydrogen Energy Earthshot

Hydrogen potentially has a crucial role in the U.S. transition to a net-zero emissions economy. Learning from large-scale hydrogen projects will boost technological evolution and innovation toward the U.S. Hydrogen Energy Earthshot. We apply experience curves to estimate the evolving costs of blue hydrogen production and to further examine the economic effect on technological evolution of the Inflation Reduction Act’s tax credits for carbon sequestration and clean hydrogen. Learning-by-doing alone can decrease the production cost of blue hydrogen. Without tax incentives, however, it is hard for blue hydrogen production to reach the cost target of $\$1$/kg H 2 . Here we show that the breakeven cumulative production capacity required for gas-based blue hydrogen to reach the $\$1$/kg H 2 target highly depends on tax credit, natural gas price, inflation rate, and learning rates. We make recommendations for hydrogen hub development and for accelerating technological progress toward the Hydrogen Energy Earthshot.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2022

Batteries Included: Top 10 Findings from Berkeley Lab Research on the Growth of Hybrid Power Plants in the United States

One of the most important electric power system trends of the 2010s was the rapid deployment of wind turbines and photovoltaic arrays, but a twist for the 2020s may be the rapid deployment of ‘hybrid’ generation resources. Hybrid power plants typically combine solar or wind (or other energy sources) with co-located storage. While hybridization helps to ease the challenge of balancing variable supply and demand, its relative novelty means that research is needed to facilitate integration and promote innovation. Combining the characteristics of multiple energy, storage, and conversion technologies poses complex questions for grid operations and economics. Project developers, system operators, planners, and regulators would benefit from better data, methods, and tools to estimate the costs, values, and system impacts of hybrid projects. This publication showcases some of Berkeley Lab’s robust research program intended to support private- and public-sector decision-making about hybrid plants in the United States. Our short briefing summarizes articles that we published between 2020 and 2022, links to the in-depth reports, and provides contact details for further engagement on the specific research topics: Growth: Developer interest in hybrid power plants is strong and growing Price vs. Value: PV+storage hybrids have low PPA prices and high value in some regions Market Drivers: Solar hybridization is driven by tax credits and other benefits Configuration Choices: Market prices have incentivized shorter duration batteries with PV Capacity Value: The capacity contribution of a hybrid is less than the sum of its parts Ancillary Services: AS markets are a valuable yet fleeting option for hybrids Market Participation: Hybrids can more flexibly engage with electricity markets Operations: The power system value of hybrids depends on how they are operated Distributed Hybrids: Growth of customer-sited PV+storage hybrids offers new opportunities Future Research: Where next? Priority areas for hybrid power research.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2021

Scaling Equitable Finance

Driven by dramatic declines in up-front cost, the U.S. solar photovoltaics (PV) industry has taken off over the past decade, growing from 1 gigawatt of installed capacity in 2009 to 89 gigawatts in 2020—or enough capacity to power roughly 19 million homes. The industry is expected to double in size over just the next 5 years.1 Much of the growth has been driven by large, utility-scale projects that can produce 5 mega- watts or more of power—enough to power at least 1,000 homes. The cost of electricity produced by these projects has decreased by more than 70 percent since 2010. As of Q3 2020, development costs of large, util- ity-scale solar PV power plants were under $1 per watt, down by more than 70 percent from 2010.2 A robust array of investors has come forward to efficiently deliver capital to these kinds of utility-scale projects including large banks, insurance companies, pension funds, and others. But low- and moderate-income communities, including communities of color, are at risk of being left behind in the transition to clean energy. Mission- driven solar project developers and financial institu- tions have been working alongside energy justice advocates to open up solar access for these communi- ties, using strategies ranging from community solar, to solar installations on affordable multifamily housing, to distributed solar and storage programs, and more. Their goals go beyond simply generating more green energy to advancing social equity by: • empowering communities to control their energy future • stabilizing energy prices, saving money, and build- ing wealth for low-income families • creating quality jobs • improving health by reducing pollution • providing energy resilience for vulnerable communities Mission-driven actors are successfully deploying a wide variety of strategies to meet these goals, from helping low-income homeowners get solar—and some- times battery storage, to developing solar projects serv- ing affordable rental housing and community facilities, to building larger “shared solar” projects to which households from across the community can subscribe. However, the financing ecosystem does not work nearly as well for these “mission driven” solar proj- ects as it does for utility-scale projects. For home rooftop solar, even if low-income consumers have a home and suitable roof, they may fail to qualify for federal tax incentives, lack adequate credit to qualify for a loan—or the mission-driven lenders seeking to serve them may not be adequately capitalized to make long-term loans. For mission-driven commercial or community-scale projects, assembling nearly every component of the project capital stack—whether bridging early-stage costs, attracting tax credit equity investors, securing long-term debt, or coming up with sponsor equity and filling gaps—can present challenges. A variety of obstacles contribute to the scarcity of financing for low-income solar, including small project sizes, lack of developer balance sheet capacity, both real and perceived issues with credit risk, elevated technical assistance needs, and greater subsidy requirements to pursue goals such as deep energy affordability, climate resilience, or job creation. Still other obstacles are regulatory: for example, not all states allow community solar projects or Power Purchase Agreements, common strategies used for providing low-income solar—and the potential for regulations to shift over time creates risks that mission-driven projects can ill afford. This report synthesizes information garnered from 47 key informant interviews, four focus group discus- sions involving 60 stakeholders, and a review of the substantial existing literature on low-income solar finance to assess the current landscape of mission- driven solar development in the United States, examine the roles that community-based financial institutions could play, and recommend public invest- ments and policy changes that could help to scale the provision of equitable solar finance. Key recommen- dations for policymakers and funders in the renew- able energy and community development fields that emerge from this process include the following: • Help to capitalize and support community-based lenders to provide flexible, low-cost, and long- term financing to mission-driven solar projects— including providing guarantees or other forms of credit enhancement. • Provide federal support for equitable solar, including a grant-in-lieu-of-credits option for the Investment Tax Credit to improve access to this critical government subsidy. • Develop pools of government and philanthropic support that can complement financing from community-based lenders to complete the capi- tal stack for mission-driven projects, as well as to support education and technical assistance to both consumers and potential project sponsors. • Create a national Renewable Energy Credits pro- gram that includes social equity targets to provide a baseline of support for clean energy generation. • Change utility regulations to remove barriers to low-income solar projects; lower permitting costs; provide greater certainty for developers, consumers and owners; and measure progress toward equity in renewable energy policy implementation.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Effects of the U.S. inflation reduction act on SMR economics

The U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 provides a wide array of tax credits and other incentives for low-carbon energy. The technology-neutral clean generation production tax credit (PTC) (Section 45Y of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code) and the technology-neutral investment tax credit (ITC) (Section 48E) lower the net cost of new electricity generation projects with zero or negative greenhouse gas emission rates. We evaluate the impact of the IRA legislation—specifically the PTC and ITC—on the cost-competitiveness of small modular reactors (SMRs). We use the Argonne Low-carbon Energy Analysis Framework (A-LEAF) model to calculate the capacity factor of an SMR with a range of hypothetical variable operating and maintenance (O&M) costs in the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) electricity market. We selected ERCOT for market modeling because of its competitive structure, available data, and extensive use in prior literature. We use a discounted cash flow model to calculate the SMR’s net present value based on the market prices and capacity factors from A-LEAF, hypothetical ranges of capital and variable O&M costs, and other input parameters, with or without the IRA tax credits. We determine the SMR owner’s optimal choice of PTC or ITC for the hypothetical ranges of capital and variable O&M costs. We also evaluate potential shifts in the SMR owner’s optimal choice of PTC or ITC based on historical patterns of nuclear capital cost overruns in the United States. We also assess the sensitivity of our results to longer PTC period and electricity prices from the New England market, which tend to be higher than electricity prices in ERCOT. We find that even with the IRA tax credits, only SMRs with low capital and variable O&M costs would be economically feasible in the low-price ERCOT market scenario modeled. A longer PTC period and higher-price market such as New England, however, would significantly expand the economic feasibility of SMRs in the United States.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Techno-economic analysis and environmental benefits of solar industrial process heating based on parabolic trough collectors

In this work, detailed techno-economic and environmental analyses are conducted for employing a 5 MWt parabolic trough-based solar industrial process heat (SIPH) plant in Salt Lake City, Utah. According to the results, an optimum solar multiple of 1.5 was determined, allowing the plant to generate annual thermal energy of 15389.24 MWth with a capacity factor of 35.1% and levelized cost of heat (LCOH) of $\$ 26.3$/MWth. Considering a 30% investment tax credit and a 30% reduction in the total installed cost could reduce the LCOH to $\$ 19.30$/MWth and $\$ 18.52$/MWth, respectively. Employing parabolic trough collectors could avoid emissions of 3,582,422.47 kg, 147.99 kg, 3,341.66 kg, and 14.32 kg for CO 2 , PM, NOx, and SO 2 , respectively per year compared to a natural gas-based plant. Further, it also caused an annual external cost savings of between $\$ 99,900$ and $\$ 357,004$. Including the external costs in the LCOH analysis shows that the SIPH plant is economically competitive with a natural gas-based plant, further demonstrating its value. A further comparison demonstrated the economic superiority of a parabolic trough-driven IPH plant over a photovoltaic-driven electric boiler plant. In summary, with reducing installed costs and providing incentives, parabolic trough-driven IPH plants will be an economically and environmentally viable option.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Identifying geologic characteristics and operational decisions to meet global carbon sequestration goals

Geologic carbon sequestration is the process of injecting and storing CO 2 in subsurface reservoirs and is an essential technology for global environmental security (e.g., climate change mitigation) and economic security (e.g., CO 2 tax credits). To meet energy, economic, and environmental goals, society will have to identify vast volumes of high-capacity, low-cost, and viable storage reservoirs for sequestering CO 2 . In turn, this requires understanding how major geologic characteristics (such as reservoir depth, thickness, permeability, porosity, and temperature) and design and operational decisions (such as injection well spacing) impact CO 2 injection rates, storage capacity, and economics. Although many numerical simulation tools exist, they cannot repeat the required thousands or millions of simulations to identify ideal reservoir properties and the sensitivity and interaction between geologic parameters and operational decisions. Here, we use SCO 2 T—a fast-running, reduced-order modeling framework—to explore the sensitivity of major geologic parameters and operational decisions to engineering (CO 2 injection rates, plume dimensions, and storage capacities and effectiveness) and costs. Our results show, for the first time, benefits and impacts such as allowing CO 2 plumes to overlap, how different well spacing patterns affect CO 2 sequestration, the effects on costs of including brine treatment and disposal, and the effect of restricting injection rates to 1 MtCO 2 per y based on well limitations. We reveal multiple novel and unintuitive findings including: (i) deeper reservoirs have reduced carbon sequestration costs until injection rates reach 1 MtCO 2 per y, at which point deeper reservoirs become more expensive, (ii) thicker formations allow for increased injection rates and storage capacity, but thickness barely impacts plume areas, (iii) higher geothermal gradients result in reduced sequestration costs, unless brine treatment/disposal costs are included, at which point reservoirs having lower geothermal gradients are more economical because they produce less brine for each unit of injected CO 2 , and (iv) allowing plumes to overlap has a significantly positive impact of increasing storage capacities but has only a small influence on reducing sequestration costs. Altogether, our results illustrate new scientific conclusions to help identify suitable sites to inject and store CO 2 , to help understand the complex interaction between geology and resulting costs, and to help support the pursuit of meeting global sequestration targets.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Land-Based Wind Market Report: 2024 Edition

Wind power additions in the United States totaled 6.5 gigawatts (GW) of capacity in 2023. 1 Wind power growth has historically been supported by the industry’s primary federal incentive—the production tax credit (PTC)—as well as numerous state-level policies. Long-term improvements in the cost and performance of wind power technologies have also been key drivers for wind additions, yielding low-priced wind energy for utility, corporate, and other power purchasers. Nonetheless, 2023 was a slow year in terms of new wind deployment, the lowest since 2014. Elevated interest rates played a role in slowing deployment, as did interconnection and siting challenges.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Utility-Scale Solar, 2024 Edition: Empirical Trends in Deployment, Technology, Cost, Performance, PPA Pricing, and Value in the United States [Slides]

Berkeley Lab’s “Utility-Scale Solar, 2024 Edition” presents analysis of empirical plant-level data from the U.S. fleet of ground-mounted photovoltaic (PV), PV+battery, and concentrating solar-thermal power (CSP) plants with capacities exceeding 5 MWAC (PV plants of 5 MWAC or less, including residential rooftop systems, are covered separately in Berkeley Lab’s companion annual report, Tracking the Sun). Key findings from this year’s report include: -18.5 GWAC of new utility-scale PV capacity came online in 2023, bringing cumulative installed capacity to more than 80.2 GWAC across 47 states. Installed costs continued to fall in 2023. Relative to 2022, capacity-weighted averages decreased by 8% to -$\$1.43$/WAC (or $\$1.08$/WDC). Costs, based on a 7.1 GWAC sample of 76 plants completed in 2023, have fallen by 75% (averaging 10% annually) since 2010. Plant-level capacity factors vary widely, from 6% to 36% (on an AC basis), with a sample median of 24%. -Levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of new 2023 projects increased slightly to $\$46$/MWh prior to the application of tax credits but continued to fall to $\$31$/MWh when accounting for federal incentives. PPA prices have largely followed the decline in solar’s LCOE over time, but newly signed longer-term PPA prices have increased since 2021, to an average of $\$35$/MWh (levelized, in 2023 dollars). -Solar’s average energy and capacity value (i.e., ability to offset costs of other power generation sources) across the U.S. was $\$45$/MWh in 2023. Solar’s average market value was lowest in CAISO ($\$27$/MWh), the market with the greatest solar generation share, and highest in ERCOT ($\$67$/MWh). -Newer solar projects had greater market value in 2023 than their generation costs, yielding $\$1.1$ billion in benefits. Projects built in 2022 delivered on average $\$15$/MWh more market value than their costs in 2023. -Solar’s combined value from wholesale electricity markets, public health and climate damage reduction were greater than generation costs and incentives, yielding $\$13.7$ billion in net benefits in 2023. We estimate U.S. health benefits of $\$24$/MWh and reduced global climate damages of $\$101$/MWh. -Adding battery storage is one way to increase the value of solar. Deployment of 52 new PV+battery hybrid plants set a record with 5.3 GW installed in 2023. Our public data file tracks metadata and PPA prices from more than 100 PV+battery hybrid projects that are already online or that have secured offtake arrangements. -Looking ahead, a massive pipeline of at least 1,085 GW of solar capacity dominates the nation’s interconnection queues at the end of 2023. Nearly 571 GW, or 53%, of that total was paired with a battery – in CAISO it was a staggering 98%. Historically only 10% of the requested solar capacity is built. -For more information, and to explore related interactive data visualizations, go to utilityscalesolar.lbl.gov.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Utility-Scale Solar, 2021 Edition: Empirical Trends in Deployment, Technology, Cost, Performance, PPA Pricing, and Value in the United States [Slides]

Berkeley Lab’s “Utility-Scale Solar, 2021 Edition” provides an overview of key trends in the U.S. market, with a focus on 2020. Highlights of this year’s update include: A record of nearly 9.6 GWAC of new utility-scale PV capacity came online in 2020, bringing cumulative installed capacity to more than 38.7 GWAC across 43 states. 89% of all new utility-scale PV capacity added in 2020 uses single-axis tracking. Median installed project costs declined to $\$$1.4/WAC (or $\$$1.1/WDC) in 2020. Project-level capacity factors vary widely, from 9% to 36% (on an AC basis), with a sample median of 24%. The report explores drivers of this variation. Utility-scale PV’s LCOE fell to $\$$34/MWh in 2020 ($\$$28/MWh if factoring in the federal investment tax credit, or ITC). PPA prices have largely followed the decline in solar’s LCOE over time, but have stagnated more recently. Prices from a sample of recent contracts average just above $\$$20/MWh (levelized). In 2020, solar’s average market value (defined in the report to include only energy and capacity value) exceeded average wholesale prices in 12 of the 17 balancing authorities analyzed (including 4 of the 7 independent system operators across the United States). Adding battery storage is one way to increase the value of solar. Our public data file tracks metadata for more than 150 PV+battery hybrid projects that are already online or that have secured offtake arrangements. At the end of 2020, there were at least 460 GW of utility-scale solar power capacity within the interconnection queues across the nation, 160 GW of which include batteries. For more information, and to explore related interactive data visualizations, go to utilityscalesolar.lbl.gov.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Q1-2024 Solar Cost Benchmarks

Each year, the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Solar Energy Technologies Office (SETO) and its national laboratory partners develop cost benchmarks for U.S. solar photovoltaic (PV) systems. These benchmarks track progress toward reducing solar costs and guide R&D priorities. Unlike typical studies that report only $/W, SETO uses intrinsic units (e.g., $/m² for mounting structures) to better capture how technology improvements such as module efficiency would impact system costs. This allows flexible modeling where inputs can vary significantly to assess cost sensitivity. Costs are reported in two ways: Minimum Sustainable Price (MSP): Long term, financially viable price under stable market conditions. Modeled Market Price (MMP): Actual market price, influenced by short term distortions such as tariffs or subsidies. Three national labs collect cost data from industry stakeholders, ensuring no duplication in outreach to stakeholders. Data reflects real transactions (primarily from Q1) and is weighted based on the number of sources per cost element. The PV System Cost Model (PVSCM) divides total installed system cost into eight categories: 1. Module (PV) 2. Inverter 3. Energy Storage System (ESS) 4. Structural BOS (SBOS) 5. Electrical BOS (EBOS) 6. Fieldwork 7. Office work 8. Other (developer/EPC costs) The first five are hardware costs, while the last three are soft costs. Each category includes fixed and variable cost components, where “size” depends on context (e.g., manufacturing capacity for modules vs. system capacity for installation costs). Variable costs are expressed using appropriate intrinsic units. The model reflects the owner’s upfront overnight capital cost, excluding tax credits. Tariffs and subsidies are treated as temporary market distortions affecting MMP but not MSP. PVSCM is implemented in Excel, where cost elements are aggregated into total system cost. Additional sheets handle unit conversions and operation & maintenance (O&M), with O&M costs levelized over the system’s lifetime.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

DOE Zero Energy Ready Manufactured Housing: Subject Matter Expert Technical Assistance Summary

Manufactured homes offer American consumers an affordable option for decent single-family detached housing. For working-class American families in many U.S. markets, manufactured homes are the first step toward home ownership. They now make up 10% of all new homes constructed in the United States, with higher percentages in the south and in rural communities. To help encourage the production of homes that are more durable, healthy, efficient, and disaster resistant, the U.S. Department of Energy is bringing its building science research to the manufactured housing industry through DOE’s Zero Energy Ready Manufactured Home (ZER-MH) program, which provides technical assistance and voluntary guidelines to manufactured home builders. Homes built to these guidelines are better able to handle power outages and less likely to experience moisture issues, offering a better product option for American families. This higher quality is evidenced by energy modeling which shows homes manufactured to these voluntary guidelines will typically use half the energy of manufactured homes built to the current minimum requirements of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)’s Manufactured Housing and Construction Safety Standard (MHCSS). These homes can also reduce critical energy demand during the busiest hours of the day, typically late afternoon and early evening in the summer when air conditioning demand is highest and mornings in the winter when furnaces and heaters are heating up. Reducing electricity demand during these peak periods when electricity rates are at their highest reduces costs for American families while freeing up capacity on overburdened energy distribution networks. Builders participating in the DOE ZER-MH program are eligible for a tax incentive via the 45L tax credit, which helps to offset the costs of ZER-MH upgrades, enabling builders to offer these certified homes at no additional cost. Together these factors enable manufactured homes to offer home buyers a housing option that is both affordable to finance and affordable to operate, with lower monthly mortgage payments and lower monthly energy bills.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗