Solar comparison
California vs Texas Solar Economics
Compare California and Texas solar economics: rates, install costs, NEM 3.0, buyback plans, battery value, and payback assumptions.
Quick answer
What this comparison means
California usually has higher electricity rates and higher installed costs, so battery strategy under NEM 3.0 is central. Texas often has lower install cost and strong sun, but ROI depends heavily on the retail electricity provider buyback plan and household daytime load.
Comparison table
| Factor | Option A | Option B | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Electricity rate | $0.33/kWh | $0.16/kWh | California savings are rate-driven; Texas varies by REP plan. |
| Solar cost | $2.80-$3.40/W | $2.45-$2.90/W | Texas bids can be lower, but roof and interconnection scope still matter. |
| Payback | 5-8 years | 8-12 years | California can be faster with self-consumption; Texas can be strong with good buyback terms. |
| Export credit | NEM 3.0 pushes value toward self-consumption and storage | Buyback plans vary by retail electricity provider | Do not assume exported solar is worth the full retail rate. |
| Battery role | Often central under NEM 3.0 | Depends on buyback plan and outage needs | Backup value should be separated from bill savings. |
| Best next check | Model evening load and battery dispatch | Compare import rate, buyback rate, and credit expiration | Run state-specific inputs before comparing installer quotes. |
Data Sources
This comparison uses state electricity-rate ranges, local incentive context, net-metering rules, and solar production assumptions informed by NREL PVWatts-style modeling. Final quotes, utility tariffs, and interconnection rules can materially change the economics.
Assumptions
Payback and ROI are directional estimates, not financial advice. They assume typical residential roof conditions, stable household usage, currently available incentives, and separate treatment of battery backup value, financing costs, and installer-specific add-ons.