The starting point
The homeowner is a working professional in Clovis with two school-age kids. Single-story 2,100 square foot home built in 2008, central AC running hard all summer, pool pump on a timer, and a single Toyota RAV4 hybrid (not plug-in). Average PG&E bill across the prior 12 months: $385/month, with summer peaks hitting $580 and winter shoulder months around $190.
The roof was in good condition (about 8 years into a 25-year composition roof), south and west-facing slopes with minimal shade from neighboring trees, no significant obstructions. Main electrical service was 200 amp, plenty of capacity for solar tie-in. Credit score in the 740s. No existing solar on the home.
What prompted the assessment: three increases on the PG&E rate schedule over the previous 18 months had pushed average monthly cost up about 22%. The homeowner had been considering solar for two years and decided the rate trajectory was making the decision for them.
The system design
We pulled 12 months of PG&E usage data and ran satellite shade analysis on the roof. Annual consumption: 11,200 kWh. Roof solar window: roughly 850 square feet of unshaded south and west-facing area. Local irradiance: 5.5 peak sun hours per day annual average.
Designed system: 21 Qcells Q.PEAK DUO 410W panels (8.61 kW DC capacity) with Enphase IQ8HC microinverters. Projected annual production: 13,800 kWh, slightly oversized relative to current consumption to allow for EV adoption within the next 5 years, which the homeowner mentioned was likely.
Battery storage option modeled: 10 kWh Enphase IQ Battery (two stacked 5P units) for evening load shifting and outage backup. With heavy evening AC load and the pool pump on a timer, storage paid back faster than solar alone in this case.
Three options, modeled head-to-head
We model multiple financing paths for every assessment. For this homeowner, here's how the three main options compared:
Option A: PPA from a national provider
A national PPA company quoted a 25-year power purchase agreement at $0.187/kWh starting rate with a 2.9% annual escalator. No up-front cost. The PPA covered solar only (battery storage was a separate add-on the company didn't offer cleanly).
- Year 1 monthly: $215 average ($187 PPA + $28 remaining utility)
- Year 25 monthly: ~$425 average (PPA portion alone hits $385+ by year 25)
- 25-year total cost: $78,000 estimated
- System ownership at end: Still owned by PPA company
Option B: Traditional solar loan (25 years at 6.49%)
Traditional bank loan financing the gross system cost of $28,500 (including battery), 25-year term at 6.49% APR. About $1,800 of dealer fee was rolled into the loan principal.
- Year 1 monthly: $217 average ($192 loan payment + $25 remaining utility)
- Year 25 monthly: $192 (fixed payment, no escalator)
- 25-year total cost: $57,600
- System ownership at end: Owned outright after loan payoff in year 25
Option C: Propel Financing
Propel by Concert Finance, system financed at the discounted price (after Concert's capture of commercial ITC and depreciation). Discounted system price came to $18,200 for the same hardware configuration. 25-year fixed payment, no escalator.
- Year 1 monthly: $146 average ($122 Propel payment + $24 remaining utility)
- Year 25 monthly: $122 (fixed payment, no escalator)
- 25-year total cost: $36,600
- System ownership at end: Owned outright after year 5 (then continued financed payments through year 25)
The compound effect over 25 years
The total cost difference between Option A (PPA) and Option C (Propel) is roughly $41,000 over 25 years. That's not a marketing exaggeration, it's compound math driven by the PPA's annual escalator combined with the lack of incentive capture under PPA structures.
What they chose
The homeowner chose Option C, Propel Financing. The decision came down to three factors:
First, the year-1 monthly cost was meaningfully lower than the PPA quote, $146 versus $215. Even ignoring the long-term math, the immediate monthly savings were better.
Second, the long-term math was much better. By year 10, the Propel payment ($122/mo) is roughly half the PPA payment ($250/mo for the equivalent solar production). By year 20, the gap is even wider.
Third, owning the system mattered. The household was planning to stay in the home long-term, and the equity argument resonated. After the Propel loan is paid off in year 25, the panels continue producing electricity for another 15+ years at essentially zero ongoing cost (beyond eventual inverter replacement around year 25 to 30).
Six-month follow-up
The system went online in March. Six months in, the actual production has been about 4% higher than the design forecast, typical for a south/west-facing roof in this region with minimal shading.
The household's monthly PG&E bills (during summer months when solar is producing heavily) have averaged about $35, down from the prior $385 baseline. Combined with the $122 Propel payment, total monthly electric cost is around $157 versus the $385 baseline, a real $228/month savings.
Winter months will look different (less solar production, slightly higher utility), but the annualized savings projection is on track to match the model. The household plans to add a Level 2 EV charger next year and shift more of their evening load to overnight off-peak hours, which will further improve the economics.
This case is reasonably representative of what most homes in this region see. Exact numbers will vary based on your roof, your usage profile, your utility, and your specific NEM 3.0 economics, but the general shape of the math holds across the Central Valley. Full breakdown of each financing structure is on our solar financing page and our ESA versus ownership comparison.