Editorial Policy — Solar Planner Guide

Solar Planner Guide exists to help homeowners understand the financial and technical realities of going solar. We publish research-backed, jargon-free articles about solar payback calculations, installer selection, financing options, incentives, and long-term system performance. Our readers are typically homeowners in the early-to-middle stages of solar evaluation—people who have received a proposal or two and want to understand what the numbers really mean before writing a check. This is serious money and a 25-year commitment. Bad information here doesn’t just waste time; it can lead to poor financial decisions. That’s why we maintain rigorous editorial standards and are transparent about how we work.

Our Editorial Team

Jordan Ellis has worked in solar energy for nine years, first as a solar consultant and installer troubleshooter, and more recently as an independent analyst helping homeowners evaluate and compare installation proposals. Over that span, Jordan has directly helped several hundred homeowners work through the decision-making process—reading contracts, modeling different financing structures, understanding what their utility company’s rate schedule actually means for system payback, and flagging red flags in installer proposals. This work taught Jordan what questions homeowners actually struggle with and which parts of solar planning are misunderstood or oversimplified by the internet at large.

Jordan’s consulting background also embedded a critical skepticism about the solar industry itself. Unlike writers who approach solar as pure technology evangelism, Jordan spent years inside installer sales meetings and has seen how financial incentives shape what gets recommended to homeowners. That vantage point—appreciating solar as a genuine financial and environmental win while understanding the industry’s actual incentive structures—informs the editorial approach here. We present solar favorably because the data supports it, not because the industry funds us.

Before launching Solar Planner Guide, Jordan spent two years auditing solar analysis content across the web and noticing patterns: claims about payback periods that didn’t match regional financing realities, production estimates disconnected from actual system data, oversimplified installer comparison frameworks, and a general glossing-over of the legitimate complexities that make solar decisions hard. Solar Planner Guide exists partly to fill that gap—to write about the parts of solar planning that other sites breeze past.

How We Research

Every article on Solar Planner Guide starts with a clear research map. For payback calculation articles, we start with NREL’s System Advisor Model documentation and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory’s Tracking the Sun report, which annually publishes empirical data on system costs, financing terms, and performance across the US market. For incentive articles, we begin at the DSIRE database—the authoritative, government-maintained source for state and federal solar incentives—and cross-reference with the IRS code and current state Public Utilities Commission filings. For installer comparison frameworks, we draw from EnergySage Marketplace pricing data (which aggregates tens of thousands of real quotes) and industry reports from the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA).

The second step is verification through primary sources, not secondary reporting. If we want to discuss the current federal Investment Tax Credit, we do not cite a solar company’s blog post about the ITC; we read the IRS publication or the actual legislative text. When we present regional production estimates, we use NREL’s PVWatts calculator and validate against published performance data from real-world installations in that region. When we describe financing structures, we review actual loan documents and utility rate schedules, not summaries of them.

We distinguish between three tiers of source authority for this niche. Tier 1 consists of government agencies (NREL, NIST, the U.S. Department of Energy), academic research institutions (Lawrence Berkeley Lab, Sandia National Laboratories), and standardized databases maintained by public bodies (DSIRE, the National Center for Appropriate Technology). Tier 2 includes industry associations with transparent methodologies (SEIA, the North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners) and peer-reviewed journals in energy and economics. Tier 3—used only when Tier 1 and Tier 2 sources don’t exist on a topic—includes practitioner reports from established firms, utility commission filings, and market analyses from organizations like Wood Mackenzie or BloombergNEF that have documented track records of analytical rigor.

We reject certain sources entirely: marketing materials and press releases from solar companies and manufacturers (unless they’re disclosing a factual product spec, and we verify that spec independently); analyses funded by equipment manufacturers without clear conflict-of-interest disclosure; opinion pieces presented as data; and secondhand reporting of studies we haven’t read ourselves. If a source makes a claim that’s central to our article, we trace it back to the original research paper or government publication. This extra step catches a surprising amount of drift—numbers that were correct in a 2019 paper but are now outdated, or claims that were one author’s interpretation, not the actual finding.

Source Standards

Sources we rely on:

  • Government research institutions: NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, and NIST. These publish peer-reviewed work, maintain public datasets, and have no financial stake in solar adoption outcomes.
  • Government incentive and regulatory databases: DSIRE (Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency), maintained by the North Carolina Clean Energy Technology Center, and state Public Utilities Commission filing systems, which document rate schedules and regulatory decisions.
  • Industry associations with transparent methodology: SEIA annual reports on market trends, NABCEP (North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners) installer certifications and standards.
  • Academic research: Peer-reviewed journals in renewable energy, economics, and public policy; working papers from university energy research centers.
  • Market data: EnergySage’s aggregated pricing data from real quotes, which is one of the few datasets with sufficient sample size and regional granularity to discuss installer pricing reliably.
  • Regulatory filings: Actual state and federal legislation, utility rate schedules, and Public Utilities Commission decisions—the primary sources, not summaries of them.

Sources we do not use:

  • Sales and marketing materials from solar companies, manufacturers, or installers, except when disclosing product specifications we’ve independently verified.
  • Industry research funded by equipment manufacturers without transparent conflict-of-interest disclosure.
  • Anecdotal accounts or single homeowner case studies presented as representative findings.
  • Blog posts or articles that cite other articles instead of original sources.
  • Unattributed claims or estimates (“industry experts say,” “studies show”) where we cannot trace the claim to its origin.

Accuracy and Fact-Checking

Every claim of fact in Solar Planner Guide—whether a tax credit amount, an average cost figure, a production estimate methodology, or a description of how a financing structure works—is checked against at least one primary source before publication. We maintain a research document for each article that links specific claims to their sources. When we cite a statistic (for example, “the average installed cost of residential solar in the US was $2.76 per watt in 2024”), we note where that figure came from, when it was measured, and whether it’s adjusted for inflation or regional variation.

When sources genuinely conflict—which happens, especially across different regions or time periods—we present the conflict transparently. We don’t cherry-pick the source that aligns with a preferred narrative. For instance, production estimates vary depending on whether you use NREL’s PVWatts model, utility company estimates, or EnergySage’s installer-provided figures; these sometimes disagree by 10-15%. We explain these differences and note which methodology is most conservative, most optimistic, and most widely used by installers in practice. Readers deserve to know where the uncertainty is.

Keeping Content Current

Solar energy policy, incentives, and market data change significantly year to year. The federal Investment Tax Credit, state rebates, and financing terms are especially volatile. We review all articles on an annual cycle each spring, checking whether incentive amounts or eligibility criteria have changed, whether new NREL or SEIA data has been published, and whether state rate structures or utility policies have shifted. Every article on Solar Planner Guide displays a “Last Reviewed” date at the bottom. If that date is more than 12 months old and the topic involves incentives, financing, or costs, we mark it for priority review.

Beyond the annual cycle, we monitor for urgent updates. When the federal government adjusts the ITC or a major state launches new incentive programs, we update relevant articles immediately and note the revision date. A homeowner reading about financing options in January should not encounter outdated interest rate assumptions in August. In a field where federal policy, state regulations, and market conditions shift frequently, staying current is not optional—it’s foundational to editorial integrity. This is one reason Solar Planner Guide prioritizes explanation and methodology over specific numbers; when you understand how a payback calculation works, you can adjust it as rates and incentives change.

Corrections Policy

We take corrections seriously. If you believe an article contains a factual error, please report it through our contact form, describing the claim you believe is incorrect and the source supporting your concern. We investigate all reported errors within 48 hours. If we determine a correction is warranted, we publish it within seven days.

Significant factual corrections are noted clearly within the article itself—not hidden in a version history—so readers know they’ve encountered previously inaccurate information. Minor corrections (typos, clarified wording that doesn’t change meaning) are made silently. We also thank readers who report errors and update our research documents to prevent similar mistakes in future articles.

Editorial Independence

Solar Planner Guide earns revenue from two sources: Amazon affiliate links (when we link to solar equipment, monitoring systems, or electrical hardware) and display advertising. We are transparent about both. Neither revenue source determines what we recommend or what our articles conclude. Editorial decisions rest entirely on research and merit.

We do not publish sponsored content, accept payment for product placement, or carry manufacturer-funded reviews. No solar company, equipment maker, or installer has paid for coverage or influenced article conclusions. We do not recommend specific installers or products based on financial incentives; when we mention a brand, we do so because the research supports it, and we would mention it even if no affiliate revenue resulted. If a product or company has paid us in any capacity outside of our standard affiliate program, we disclose it clearly in the article. This hasn’t happened to date, and it’s not our editorial model.

Our advertising program is managed through a third-party ad network and does not involve direct deals with solar companies. We reserve the right to refuse advertising that conflicts with our editorial mission—for instance, ads making unsubstantiated solar claims—and we don’t let advertisers influence what articles we publish or how we cover competing products.

What We Don’t Do

  • We don’t provide personalized solar recommendations. We publish frameworks and methodologies for evaluating solar; we don’t analyze your specific roof, tell you whether solar makes financial sense for your home, or recommend which installer you should hire. Those decisions depend on information (your roof orientation, shading, your utility’s rate structure, your financial situation) that only you can provide fully, and they deserve personalized analysis, ideally from a local solar consultant or installer.

  • We don’t diagnose equipment problems or recommend repairs. If your system isn’t performing, you need an installer or solar engineer on-site. Our articles explain how systems work and what affects performance, but we’re not troubleshooting your equipment.

  • We don’t sell solar equipment, financing products, or installation services. We are not a solar company. We don’t benefit financially from you going solar, choosing a particular financing option, or buying a specific inverter. That independence is central to our credibility.

  • We don’t replace a lawyer or tax professional. Articles about tax credits, incentives, and financing structures are educational. They’re not tax advice or legal advice. Before claiming a tax credit or signing a financing agreement, consult with a CPA or tax attorney familiar with solar installations in your state.

  • We don’t model production for your specific system. We explain how production estimates are calculated and what factors affect them. We don’t run PVWatts analyses for individual homes or predict how much electricity your roof will generate. That analysis requires site-specific data and expertise.

  • We don’t certify or endorse installers. We publish frameworks for comparing installers—what to look for in contracts, how to evaluate warranties, red flags in proposals. We don’t maintain a list of “approved” installers or vouch for any company’s quality.

Last reviewed: January 2026. This page is updated whenever our editorial practices change.