Why Some Installers Say No to Solar—And Why They Might Be Wrong
TL;DR: Some homes labeled "unsuitable" for solar could still benefit from it—often with more affordable equipment and creative system design. Consider getting a quote from an installer who can better accommodate your home's unique conditions.
It took me over five years to finally commit to installing solar on my house. Throughout my investigations, I had some unusual experiences. One company, in particular, visited multiple times over several years. Initially, I reached out because I was interested in a new type of solar panel they had developed. They came early in the product’s lifecycle to assess whether my home was a good candidate, but then I didn’t hear from them for nearly a year. After regularly contacting them when they finally got back to me, they said my home wasn’t suitable for their technology.
A few years later, I contacted them again to explore their more traditional solar panels and received a quote—but the cost of their battery and PV system was extremely high, and the projected payback period was too long to justify the investment. A few more years passed, and I received another quote from a different local installer. This time, the payback period was a much more reasonable 3-4 years. I decided to move forward, especially since federal incentives and California’s SGIP battery rebate made the financials more attractive. The SGIP rebate has since been capped, but is still a valuable rebate.
The reason I wanted to write this post is that I’ve heard from several people exploring solar who were told by installers that their home wasn’t a good fit. However, many of them live in sunny parts of the Bay Area, where shading and overcast conditions likely aren’t significant issues given modern PV efficiency gains. Even with partial shading, a PV system configured in parallel using bifacial, half-cell design panels can reduce power loss. Adding microinverters or power optimizers can further enhance efficiency.
On overcast days, my system still generates a useful amount of power, though output can fall below 20% of peak capacity. Fortunately, those days aren’t frequent, and even on overcast days it's usually enough to cover most of my daytime energy needs. More importantly, with a large enough battery backup, I can bank excess energy on sunnier days to offset the dips during cloudier periods. Since overcast conditions where I live are sporadic and tree shading is often manageable, I suspect some installers may be overestimating their impact.
This raises a key question: Why do some installers discourage solar installations? Don’t they want to make money?
I suspect the issue comes down to maximizing profit and setting a minimum project cost to justify their time. For example, if an installer’s minimum viable project is $45,000 to $50,000 in an affluent area, they may simply walk away from anything smaller. There are costs to continuing to engage with a potential customer who might realize the deal isn’t worthwhile, so it’s easier for them to cut things off early. If the estimated payback period exceeds 10+ years, it becomes a tough sell. Most solar quotes outline costs and payback periods, and rather than presenting an unappealing financial case, my assumption is that some installers might simply say, “Your home isn’t a strong candidate,” citing tree cover or another factor as an easy explanation. Ideally, those who do that would be upfront and admit, “Our pricing is on the higher end; you might find a better deal elsewhere,” but that could come across as acknowledging they’re overcharging. While some installers may prioritize their margins or simply have higher operating costs, many others are truly committed to helping people adopt solar and are driven to find cost-effective solutions that maximize system performance. These are the providers worth seeking out.
If an installer has told you that your home isn’t a good fit for solar, it’s worth considering another opinion from one that uses more cost-effective technology, such as inverters and battery solutions from younger companies like EG4, which offers high performance inverter and battery hardware at a fraction of the cost of more established, premium brands. The market is full of affordable PV panel manufacturers. A more cost-effective installer may be able to cut the cost in half without sacrificing power generation or storage capacity.
Smaller solar installers aren’t cutting prices out of desperation—they can simply afford to offer lower costs. Advances in solar and battery technology have made systems far more efficient and affordable, allowing smaller businesses to pass those savings on to customers. In California, although some homes have major challenges that make solar impractical (such as heavy shading or unsuitable roof angles), they are the exception rather than the norm. The real question is cost: How long will it take for the system to pay for itself? Higher-cost systems naturally result in longer payback periods, making the investment harder to justify—especially if they don’t generate enough solar energy to store in batteries.
With energy costs in California expected to keep rising, now may be the best time to explore a whole-home backup system—one that can power your entire house during an outage, increase energy independence, and reduce long-term utility costs. The grid is becoming more strained and less reliable, making a well-designed solar-plus-battery system a smart investment for both savings and resilience. Plus, federal and state rebates won’t be around forever, so taking advantage of incentives now could significantly improve your financial return.