Long weekend, longer sunlight — and it turns out this has been a landmark year for solar in the United States. As we fire up the grill and enjoy the extra day off, it felt like the right moment to step back and look at just how far solar has come, and where it’s headed next.
We just crossed 6 million installations
Earlier this year, the U.S. officially surpassed 6 million solar installations nationwide — and 97% of those are sitting on residential rooftops just like the ones we install every week. What’s remarkable isn’t just the number, it’s the pace: the country went from 5 million to 6 million installations in only two years. For context, it took decades to hit that first million.
Right now, about 9% of U.S. homes have solar. By 2030, that’s expected to climb to 11%, with total installations projected to top 8 million. Solar isn’t a niche choice anymore — it’s becoming a mainstream part of how American homeowners power their lives.
The bigger energy picture
Zoom out to the utility scale, and the growth is even more striking. Cumulative utility-scale solar capacity has more than tripled since 2020 — from 48 gigawatts to 161 gigawatts by early this year. Just a decade ago, solar supplied less than 1% of U.S. electricity. Today, solar and battery storage together accounted for 91% of all new electricity-generating capacity added in the first quarter of 2026 alone, with solar on its own making up 60%.
That means more often than not, when the country adds new power to the grid, it’s coming from the sun.
A more complicated year for homeowners — and why that matters
We’ll be straight with you: 2026 hasn’t been a straight line up for residential solar. The federal residential tax credit (Section 25D) expired at the start of the year, and it caused a rush of installations at the end of 2025 as homeowners raced to lock it in — followed by a quieter stretch since. Industry-wide, residential installations are expected to dip this year before returning to growth in 2027.
Here’s the thing: the fundamentals that make solar worth it haven’t changed. Utility rates keep climbing, equipment keeps getting more efficient, and financing options — including third-party ownership and prepaid plans — are evolving to fill the gap left by the expired credit. If anything, a quieter market often means more attention, faster scheduling, and more room for us to walk you through what still makes sense for your home and budget.
Why Labor Day is a good day to think about solar
Labor Day marks the unofficial end of summer — peak sunlight, peak energy bills, and for a lot of homeowners, the moment they finally get around to that home project they’ve been putting off. If going solar has been on your mind, there’s no better time to get a straight answer on what it would look like for your roof, your usage, and your budget.
Enjoy the long weekend. And if you’re curious what solar could do for your home, we’re happy to run the numbers with you.
Sources: Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), Wood Mackenzie U.S. Solar Market Insight Report Q2 2026, American Clean Power Association Market Pulse Summer 2026.
By Frank Scotti, Sustainable Energy Advocate – October 31, 2024
As consumers, we’re constantly encouraged to make choices that reduce our environmental impact, and buying energy-efficient products is often recommended as a way to do so. But what if we already have a perfectly functional item? Is it worth throwing out a still-usable product for the sake of greater energy efficiency? In reality, the answer is not straightforward, as both paths have environmental, financial, and practical implications. Here, I’ll examine the pros and cons of replacing a perfectly good product for a more energy-efficient version.
Pros of Replacing a Functional Product with an Energy-Efficient One 1. Long-Term Energy Savings Energy-efficient products are often designed to consume less electricity or fuel, which leads to substantial energy savings over time. For instance, energy-efficient appliances, lighting, and HVAC systems can significantly lower monthly utility bills and reduce your carbon footprint. By switching to a more efficient product, you may eventually offset the environmental cost of producing and discarding the old item. 2. Reduced Greenhouse Gas Emissions In many cases, more efficient products can cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. For example, energy-efficient appliances use less electricity, which means they draw less power from the grid. Since much of our electricity still comes from fossil fuels, this reduction translates to fewer carbon emissions over time. In the long run, this can contribute positively to reducing global warming. 3. Improved Technology and Performance Newer products often come with better technology, offering more advanced features and improved performance. For example, modern energy-efficient refrigerators may have enhanced cooling systems that keep food fresher longer. LED light bulbs not only save energy but also offer better lighting quality than traditional incandescent bulbs. The added convenience and functionality of newer technology can be a compelling reason to make the switch. 4. Government Incentives and Rebates Many governments offer financial incentives for upgrading to energy-efficient appliances and systems. These can come in the form of tax rebates, cash incentives, or even discounts on new products. Depending on where you live, these incentives can reduce the initial cost of buying a new product and make the switch a financially appealing choice.
Cons of Replacing a Functional Product with an Energy-Efficient One 1. Environmental Impact of Disposing Usable Products When we discard functional products, we contribute to waste that may end up in landfills or need to be processed for recycling. This adds to the environmental burden, as waste management and recycling also consume energy and resources. Furthermore, certain products contain materials that, if not properly disposed of, can release toxins into the environment. In many cases, the environmental costs of disposal may outweigh the benefits of energy savings, particularly if the product was durable and not ready for replacement. 2. Embedded Energy in Manufacturing The production of any new item requires energy and resources. Known as “embedded energy,” this concept includes the energy used in extracting raw materials, transporting them, and manufacturing the product. By discarding an old but usable item in favor of a new energy-efficient one, you indirectly endorse the environmental impact associated with the new product’s production process. This can be especially concerning if the energy savings over the new product’s life cycle do not offset the initial environmental cost of production. 3. Financial Costs Energy-efficient products often come with a higher price tag. While savings on utility bills may make up for this over time, it’s important to consider your immediate financial circumstances. If the functional product still works well and meets your needs, replacing it may not make economic sense, especially if the expected energy savings are modest. Additionally, not everyone may qualify for rebates or incentives, making the initial cost barrier difficult to overcome. 4. Limited Options for Proper Disposal or Recycling Even with intentions to recycle responsibly, the infrastructure for recycling or properly disposing of certain products varies by location. For example, appliances and electronics require specific facilities for proper disposal to prevent environmental harm. Without access to such facilities, people may end up sending functional items to landfills, where their potential as reusable or recyclable resources is wasted, amplifying the negative environmental impact.
Balancing the Decision: Key Considerations When deciding whether to replace a functional product with a more energy-efficient option, consider the following: • Assess the Energy Savings Potential: Calculate the actual energy savings the new product would provide compared to the energy costs involved in its production and disposal of the old product. A significant reduction in energy usage may justify the replacement. • Product Lifespan: If the current product is nearing the end of its useful life, it may be more environmentally sound to replace it sooner rather than later. On the other hand, if it still has many years of use left, using it for as long as possible could be more sustainable. • Research Disposal and Recycling Options: If you do decide to replace, ensure the old item can be responsibly recycled or donated. Many nonprofits accept functional appliances, or recycling centers may offer options for eco-friendly disposal. • Look for Multi-Purpose Upgrades: Some new products offer both energy efficiency and multi-functional benefits. If you are upgrading a system that incorporates smart technology or automation, for instance, the efficiency gains and added convenience may make the replacement more worthwhile.
Conclusion Replacing a perfectly good product in favor of a more energy-efficient option is a complex decision, balancing energy savings, environmental costs, and personal financial factors. In cases where the energy savings and functionality upgrades are substantial, a replacement can be beneficial. However, when a functional item still has plenty of life left, it might be more sustainable to keep it until its usefulness is truly exhausted. Ultimately, each choice should reflect a blend of practicality and environmental consciousness, aligning with both your values and immediate needs.
Frank Scotti became a true sustainable energy advocate since 2008, when he installed solar pool heating on his home in Templeton, California. He was so impressed with the industry and technology, that he joined Solarponics full time in 2012 as marketing and sales director. Solarponics is the oldest continuously operating solar company in California. Mr. Scotti wrote the resolution to proclaim June 21 (summer solstice) Solar Energy Day, and can often be seen giving presentations about sustainable energy to students in all grades across the central coast. He continues to campaign for greater adoption of sustainable energy for residential and commercial buildings in California.
PRO – Cost. The average cost of a real Christmas tree is $76, compared to $108 for an artificial tree, meaning reusing the artificial tree a second year will save money. This doesn’t even factor in the costs of tree stands and lights, typically included with an artificial tree but sold separately with a real tree.
PRO – Convenience. Artificial trees don’t need watering, don’t leave pine needles or sap all over the floor and transportation from tree farm to home isn’t an issue. Artificial trees come in a compact cardboard box that easily fits in most cars instead of tied to the roof. But many experts believe artificial trees actually have a greater negative environmental impact when all aspects of their life cycle are considered.
CON – Non-Biodegradable, Non-Recyclable. Today’s artificial trees are typically manufactured with metal and polyvinyl chloride (PVC), a non-biodegradable, petroleum-derived plastic. In addition, many older varieties may contain lead.
CON – Performance. There’s also no guarantee the LED lights will last the whole time you own it, and they can’t be removed and replaced like with a real tree.
CON – Travel. Approximately 85% of artificial trees sold in the U.S. are imported from China, adding to their overall environmental footprint.
CON – Space Consideration. You will be storing an artificial tree in your home for 11 months, and it won’t fit easily back into the box once you uncoil the branches. You’ll need to find the storage space, whereas real trees require no storage needss.
The Pros and Cons of a Real Tree
Approximately 25 to 30 million real Christmas trees are sold in North America each year, according to the U.S. EPA.
PRO – Recycling. 93% of those trees are recycled. Also known as “treecycling,” the act of recycling a Christmas tree is a leading reason many experts agree they are more environmentally friendly than their plastic counterparts. Treecycling is an easy way to return a renewable and natural source back to the environment instead of disposing it in a landfill, where decomposition rates are slowed due to lack of oxygen.
Christmas trees are recycled into mulch and used in landscaping and gardening or chipped and used for playground material, hiking trails, paths and walkways. They can be used for beachfront erosion prevention, lake and river shoreline stabilization, and fish and wildlife habitat.
PRO – CO2 Sequestering. A single farmed tree absorbs more than 1 ton of CO2 throughout its lifetime. With more than 350 million real Christmas trees growing in U.S. tree farms alone, you can imagine the yearly amount of carbon sequestering associated with the trees. Additionally, each acre of trees produces enough oxygen for the daily needs of 18 people.
In order to ensure a healthy supply of Christmas trees each year, growers must use sustainable farming techniques.
PRO – American Jobs. According to the NCTA, the “live” Christmas tree industry employs more than 100,000 Americans, an important economic consideration in the real versus artificial debate.
CON – Pesticides. As an agricultural products, repeated applications of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers may be used throughout their lifetime. The ideal tree would be raised organically, using integrated pest management techniques rather than chemicals.
CON – Travel. Even live trees have had to travel hundreds of miles to reach the lot. However, a tree trucked from a couple states away is still traveling thousands of miles less than one from China.
Verdict!
All of the experts agree that a real tree is better for the environment.
Go one step further than the real versus artificial debate and consider a living, potted tree this Christmas. Though not feasible for everybody due to climate and land availability, living trees are brought into the home for about 10 days, then replanted after Christmas. If you don’t have the land for replanting, your local parks department will likely accept your tree for planting after the holidays.
