One household, one model, fifty-one answers. Every row comes from the same calculator this site runs on — not from an editor's opinion — so you can reproduce any of it by entering the same inputs on that state's page. It is a scenario comparison built on statewide averages, not a ranking of verified utility tariffs, and no row is a quote for a specific property.
The ranked table holds the 37 states where exports are still credited at the retail rate. Every row there shares one assumption, and in those states the assumption is simply what happens — so the rankings compare like with like.
14 states sit outside it, for two different reasons. 2 publish an export rate we can apply, so their figures are scenario estimates rather than ceilings — but they also rest on an assumption about how much generation the household uses on site, which no ranked row needs. Ranking them together would compare two different bases without saying so. The other 12 publish no single rate at all, so their figure stays a best case; ranking a best case against an estimate is how Hawaii once led this table on terms it retired in 2015.
Fastest payback
7.2 yrs
Massachusetts
Median state
12.6 yrs
Midpoint of the 37 ranked
Slowest payback
16.9 yrs
Washington
Ceiling, not estimate
12
States with no single export rate to apply
37 states compared. This is a controlled scenario comparison, not a ranking of verified utility tariffs. Every row uses the same full-retail-offset assumption, and every row is a state where retail netting is still in place — so the assumption is not only shared, it is what these states do. Only 4 of them were positively checked against current DSIRE information; inclusion of the rest means we found no evidence of a statewide replacement, not that every utility was verified. Every figure uses the 2025 EIA statewide residential average, not any utility's current tariff. Click any column heading to re-sort.
| # | State | Rate $/kWh | Sun hrs | System kW | Net cost | Year-1 savings | Payback | 25-yr profit | Export credit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Massachusetts | $0.305 | 4.3 | 4.70 | $14,016 | $1,800 | 7.2 | $46,564 | Retail 1:1 |
| 2 | Rhode Island | $0.295 | 4.3 | 4.87 | $14,501 | $1,800 | 7.5 | $46,079 | Retail 1:1 |
| 3 | Maine | $0.278 | 4.1 | 5.41 | $16,128 | $1,800 | 8.2 | $44,452 | Retail 1:1 |
| 4 | New York | $0.264 | 4.0 | 5.84 | $17,402 | $1,800 | 8.8 | $43,178 | Retail 1:1 |
| 5 | New Hampshire | $0.246 | 4.2 | 5.98 | $17,809 | $1,800 | 9 | $42,772 | Retail 1:1 |
| 6 | New Mexico | $0.151 | 6.5 | 6.29 | $18,741 | $1,800 | 9.4 | $41,839 | Retail 1:1 |
| 7 | New Jersey | $0.226 | 4.3 | 6.33 | $18,878 | $1,800 | 9.5 | $41,702 | Retail 1:1 |
| 8 | D.C. | $0.219 | 4.3 | 6.53 | $19,472 | $1,800 | 9.7 | $41,109 | Retail 1:1 |
| 9 | Vermont | $0.229 | 4.1 | 6.56 | $19,548 | $1,800 | 9.8 | $41,032 | Retail 1:1 |
| 10 | Colorado | $0.159 | 5.5 | 7.07 | $21,072 | $1,800 | 10.4 | $39,508 | Retail 1:1 |
| 11 | Florida | $0.152 | 5.5 | 7.35 | $21,916 | $1,800 | 10.8 | $38,664 | Retail 1:1 |
| 12 | Maryland | $0.195 | 4.3 | 7.36 | $21,930 | $1,800 | 10.8 | $38,650 | Retail 1:1 |
| 13 | Pennsylvania | $0.193 | 4.1 | 7.79 | $23,215 | $1,800 | 11.4 | $37,366 | Retail 1:1 |
| 14 | Alaska | $0.261 | 3.0 | 7.88 | $23,470 | $1,800 | 11.5 | $37,110 | Retail 1:1 |
| 15 | Wisconsin | $0.182 | 4.2 | 8.08 | $24,085 | $1,800 | 11.7 | $36,496 | Retail 1:1 |
| 16 | Illinois | $0.177 | 4.2 | 8.30 | $24,725 | $1,800 | 12 | $35,856 | Retail 1:1 |
| 17 | Delaware | $0.171 | 4.3 | 8.37 | $24,939 | $1,800 | 12.1 | $35,641 | Retail 1:1 |
| 18 | Kansas | $0.146 | 5.0 | 8.47 | $25,233 | $1,800 | 12.2 | $35,347 | Retail 1:1 |
| 19 | South Carolina | $0.150 | 4.7 | 8.77 | $26,126 | $1,800 | 12.6 | $34,454 | Retail 1:1 |
| 20 | Minnesota | $0.158 | 4.4 | 8.86 | $26,390 | $1,800 | 12.7 | $34,190 | Retail 1:1 |
| 21 | Virginia | $0.153 | 4.5 | 8.97 | $26,716 | $1,800 | 12.9 | $33,864 | Retail 1:1 |
| 22 | Wyoming | $0.134 | 5.1 | 9.03 | $26,920 | $1,800 | 12.9 | $33,660 | Retail 1:1 |
| 23 | Ohio | $0.170 | 4.0 | 9.09 | $27,078 | $1,800 | 13 | $33,502 | Retail 1:1 |
| 24 | Mississippi | $0.140 | 4.8 | 9.15 | $27,278 | $1,800 | 13.1 | $33,303 | Retail 1:1 |
| 25 | Oklahoma | $0.131 | 5.1 | 9.21 | $27,454 | $1,800 | 13.2 | $33,127 | Retail 1:1 |
| 26 | North Carolina | $0.140 | 4.7 | 9.35 | $27,878 | $1,800 | 13.3 | $32,702 | Retail 1:1 |
| 27 | Missouri | $0.135 | 4.7 | 9.72 | $28,973 | $1,800 | 13.8 | $31,607 | Retail 1:1 |
| 28 | South Dakota | $0.134 | 4.6 | 10.02 | $29,846 | $1,800 | 14.1 | $30,734 | Retail 1:1 |
| 29 | Montana | $0.130 | 4.7 | 10.10 | $30,112 | $1,800 | 14.2 | $30,469 | Retail 1:1 |
| 30 | Tennessee | $0.132 | 4.6 | 10.17 | $30,299 | $1,800 | 14.3 | $30,281 | Retail 1:1 |
| 31 | Arkansas | $0.128 | 4.7 | 10.21 | $30,440 | $1,800 | 14.4 | $30,140 | Retail 1:1 |
| 32 | Iowa | $0.137 | 4.4 | 10.21 | $30,430 | $1,800 | 14.4 | $30,151 | Retail 1:1 |
| 33 | Oregon | $0.154 | 3.9 | 10.28 | $30,646 | $1,800 | 14.5 | $29,935 | Retail 1:1 |
| 34 | Nebraska | $0.123 | 4.8 | 10.41 | $31,013 | $1,800 | 14.6 | $29,567 | Retail 1:1 |
| 35 | Idaho | $0.118 | 4.9 | 10.64 | $31,717 | $1,800 | 14.9 | $28,863 | Retail 1:1 |
| 36 | North Dakota | $0.118 | 4.4 | 11.86 | $35,351 | $1,800 | 16.3 | $25,229 | Retail 1:1 |
| 37 | Washington | $0.131 | 3.8 | 12.37 | $36,874 | $1,800 | 16.9 | $23,706 | Retail 1:1 |
These have left retail netting, but unlike the states further down they publish an export rate we can apply — so these are policy-adjusted scenario estimates, not ceilings, and arguably better grounded than the ranked rows because they account for something those states never have to face. Scenario, not measurement: the export rate is published, the self-consumption share below it is modelled.
They are kept out of the ranking anyway. A figure here also assumes how much generation the household uses on site — 28–53%, derived from Berkeley Lab metered household loads with simulated PV output, which is where the range comes from — and no ranked row carries that assumption, because under retail netting it makes no difference. Putting them in one table would let a reader compare positions built on different bases without knowing it. Step 6 sets out how they are built.
| State | Rate $/kWh | Sun hrs | System kW | Net cost | Payback | 25-yr profit | Export credit applied |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona | $0.153 | 6.5 | 6.19 | $18,447 | 14.5 yrs 12.9–17.8 range | $16,032 | Residential exports bought at a fixed export compensation rate rather than offsetting consumption — 6.171c/kWh (APS), 5.13c (TEP), 6.12c (UNS) as of Feb 2026, roughly a third to 40% of the state average retail rate, and phasing down toward avoided cost. |
| Utah | $0.131 | 5.8 | 8.13 | $24,233 | 19.1 yrs 16.1–23 range | $9,149 | Rocky Mountain Power closed retail net metering (Schedule 135) to new applicants in November 2017 and the interim Transition Program (Schedule 136) in October 2020. A new installation takes Schedule 137, Net Billing Service, which pays a fixed export credit for all exported kWh: 5.704c/kWh June-September and 4.199c/kWh October-May as of February 2026 — roughly a third to 44% of the state average retail rate. |
Every one of these has moved off retail-rate netting, and unlike the 2 states in the section above, none of them has an export credit we can reduce to a single figure — it is an hourly avoided-cost schedule, a rate each utility sets in its own docket, or no statewide rule at all. So the payback shown is what these households would get if they still had an arrangement they no longer have: a ceiling, not an estimate. Texas is here for a different reason again — no statewide rule exists, so what a household earns depends on the retail provider it picks, and no single figure can be right for the state.
We would rather publish no number than a flattering one. If any of these publishes a rate we can defend, it joins the policy-adjusted section above — that is what happened to Arizona and Utah. Anything else would be guesswork wearing a decimal point. Step 6 of the methodology sets out where the line is.
| State | Rate $/kWh | Sun hrs | System kW | Net cost | Payback | Why it is not ranked |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | $0.161 | 4.6 | 8.32 | $24,804 | 12.1 yrs at best | Alabama has no statewide net-metering or export rule at all. What an exported kilowatt-hour earns is set entirely by the utility: Alabama Power buys it under its own tariff, and the TVA distribution utilities serving much of north Alabama run TVA programmes with their own terms. Nothing at state level requires a retail-rate offset. |
| California | $0.325 | 5.8 | 3.27 | $9,733 | 5.1 yrs at best | NEM 2.0 closed to new applicants on 15 April 2023. A new installation takes the CPUC net billing tariff, which nets production and consumption instantaneously rather than monthly, and credits exports from the Avoided Cost Calculator: 8,760 hourly values, averaged per month for each hour and split weekday from weekend — roughly 576 distinct rates a year. Applies to the investor-owned utilities; municipal utilities such as LADWP set their own terms. |
| Connecticut | $0.294 | 4.2 | 5.00 | $14,887 | 7.6 yrs at best | Net metering closed to new customers on 1 January 2022; earlier customers are grandfathered to December 2039. A new installation picks one of two PURA tariffs from Eversource or United Illuminating: Buy-All/Sell-All, where all generation is sold to the utility and all consumption bought back at retail, or Netting, where excess carries as a kWh credit for a year and is then paid out at the wholesale avoided cost each 31 March. Which one a household picks changes the economics substantially. |
| Georgia | $0.147 | 4.9 | 8.54 | $25,451 | 12.3 yrs at best | DSIRE names the programme Net Billing, not net metering. Production and consumption are netted instantaneously and every exported kilowatt-hour is credited at the Solar Avoided Energy Cost filed with the Public Service Commission — a predetermined rate well under retail, not a 1-for-1 offset. |
| Hawaii | $0.406 | 6.0 | 2.53 | $7,543 | 4 yrs at best | No open retail net metering. Systems installed since April 2024 take one of two Smart DER tariffs: Smart Renewable Energy Export, which requires a time-of-use plan and credits exports at a time-varying, island-specific rate the Public Utilities Commission resets every three years, or Smart Renewable Energy Non-Export, which does not permit exporting at all. No single export rate exists to model. |
| Indiana | $0.162 | 4.3 | 8.83 | $26,322 | 12.7 yrs at best | Senate Bill 309 of 2017 phased out retail-rate net metering. Production and consumption are compared instantaneously, so exports have no netting window to offset against, and excess kWh are credited at 125% of the locational marginal price for the applicable utility — a wholesale market price rather than a retail one. Credits roll over indefinitely but revert to the utility if the customer leaves the programme. |
| Kentucky | $0.132 | 4.4 | 10.58 | $31,533 | 14.8 yrs at best | Split by utility type. The investor-owned utilities net production and consumption instantaneously and credit exports at a utility-specific dollar rate; electric cooperatives still roll monthly net excess forward as a kilowatt-hour credit. A household in Louisville or Lexington is on the first arrangement, one served by a co-op on the second. |
| Louisiana | $0.126 | 4.9 | 10.01 | $29,825 | 14.1 yrs at best | Exports are measured instantaneously and credited at the utility's avoided cost rate — DSIRE names the programme Net Billing outright. Customers on the old scheme are grandfathered for 15 years and keep full retail netting, monthly, but a new installation does not. Applies to investor-owned utilities and electric cooperatives except Entergy New Orleans, which runs its own net metering programme. |
| Michigan | $0.200 | 4.0 | 7.70 | $22,951 | 11.3 yrs at best | Since June 2018 utilities bill distributed generation on an inflow/outflow basis: consumption is billed at full retail while exports are credited separately at an outflow rate, which DSIRE describes as determined in real time under a net billing system. No single statewide figure exists — each utility sets its own outflow rate in its own rate case, and all filed updated tariffs under Public Act 235 of 2023 in separate dockets approved in March 2025. Customers who enrolled before their utility's new tariff keep legacy net metering for ten years. |
| Nevada | $0.132 | 6.4 | 7.32 | $21,827 | 10.8 yrs at best | Net excess credited at 75% of retail (final tier). Nevada Power nets monthly, so most output still offsets at full retail; Sierra Pacific nets every 15 minutes, so more of it is exported. |
| Texas | $0.155 | 5.3 | 7.52 | $22,405 | 11 yrs at best | Texas has no statewide net metering or export rule. What a household is paid for exported energy depends entirely on its retail provider or municipal utility, and the arrangements differ sharply: Austin Energy uses a Value of Solar tariff, El Paso Electric, CPS Energy, Brenham and Pedernales Electric Cooperative each run their own scheme, and competitive retail plans range from full buyback to none at all. |
| West Virginia | $0.154 | 4.2 | 9.52 | $28,383 | 13.5 yrs at best | Changed for new customers on 1 January 2025. Monongahela Power and Potomac Edison now credit excess generation at a service-classification rate of $0.0891 to $0.09343 per kWh rather than at retail; Appalachian Power customers still carry net excess forward at the retail rate with no annual true-up. Which applies depends on the utility, and the two arrangements are not close. |
Rates from EIA (2025 annual averages, last checked against EIA in September 2026), peak sun hours from NREL NSRDB. Projection assumes 2.9%/yr electricity inflation and 0.5%/yr panel degradation, and 1-for-1 retail-rate export credit. States under net-billing regimes such as California NEM 3.0 will be slower in practice — see the net metering guide. Full workings in the methodology.
This table is free to reproduce, quote, chart, or build on — in articles, videos, forum posts, research, or classroom material — for any purpose including commercial, provided you credit GetSolarCalc and link back to this page. Released under CC BY 4.0. The CSV carries the same terms in its header rows.
We sell no leads and take no installer commissions, so there is no version of this table where it pays us to make solar look better than it is. That is why 12 states are missing from the ranking rather than sitting near the top of it: the model would have flattered them, and a caveat under a flattering number is not the same thing as an honest one.
Suggested citation: GetSolarCalc, Solar payback by state, 2025. https://getsolarcalc.com/solar-payback-by-state.php
Spotted something that looks wrong? Tell us — corrections to the inputs are more useful to us than traffic.
Four inputs. Sixty seconds. Every number traceable to a public source.
May we count this visit? If you allow it, Google Analytics counts calculator use among visitors who agree — so it measures that group, not our total traffic. It sets a cookie and Google receives your IP address. It is not loaded unless you agree, and the calculator works either way — we do not send it your bill, ZIP code or results. What we collect.