Homeowner’s 4.26 kW rooftop solar case study: costs, rebates and real-world payback

Village of Cross Plains Sustainability Committee · January 16, 2026

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A Village resident presented a one-year case study of a 4.26 kW rooftop system installed in August 2024: installed cost $21,005.13, federal tax credit $6,002.74, Focus on Energy rebate $600, net cost $14,006.39, and first-year savings of $682.55; payback estimates ranged from about 10–21 years depending on assumptions and future electric rates.

A Village resident who installed a 4.26 kilowatt rooftop solar system last August told the Village of Cross Plains Sustainability Committee about the costs, incentives and year-one performance of the system.

The installer’s price for the job was $21,005.13, the presenter said, and he received a federal nonrefundable tax credit of $6,002.74 and a Focus on Energy rebate of $600, reducing his net outlay to $14,006.39. Using a sample Madison Gas & Electric bill for the period 09/10/2025–10/09/2025, the presenter said the system produced 275 kilowatt-hours and produced $682.55 in first-year bill savings.

“Because of the rebates and tax credit, my total cost in dollars was 14,006.39,” the presenter said. “In a year’s time I ended up saving $682.55.”

Committee members and the presenter discussed different ways appraisers might value residential solar. The presenter described two common models: one that applies a flat percentage increase in home value (he cited an example 4% figure) and another that multiplies annual utility savings by a factor (he quoted a $20 multiplier per dollar of annual savings), which produced widely different illustrative numbers for his property.

The presenter noted sizeable variation in month-to-month production: summer months produced a “pretty good return,” while winter months and lengthy snow cover reduced output (one winter month produced only about $17 worth of credit). He also emphasized that without a battery the system remains grid-tied and does not provide power during outages.

Committee members asked about battery systems and complementary uses. One member described adding a battery (a “power wall”) and coupling the solar array with plug-in electric vehicles, saying the combination both saves fuel and provides backup power in outages.

On payback, the presenter calculated a simple payback of roughly 21.4 years under one set of assumptions but said he personally expected a 10–12 year payback if electric rates rise over time. “I am, that’s what I’m thinking,” the presenter said when a committee member suggested the 10–12 year range.

The committee discussed how financing choices change outcomes. The presenter said he paid cash rather than taking a loan and described how a loan at roughly 5.99% interest would alter returns. Members noted warranty terms for panels and typical 20-year loan periods and suggested homeowners weigh financing costs, expected electricity price increases and local production factors.

The committee said the homeowner’s account would be a good case study for public outreach. One member suggested summarizing the presenter’s numbers in a newsletter or other public guidance so residents can better understand costs, incentives and trade-offs.

The committee did not take formal action on the presentation; members agreed to consider using the case study in public education materials.