Spatial and temporal insights on rooftop solar adoption and PV generation are critical for sustainable urban development.

As an initial step, we identify solar adopters in each state of the U.S. (methodology is outlined in Section 4.1.2 and the pre-processing steps along with the performance metrics are given in Supplementary Note 2 and Supplementary Note 3). We then perform county-level solar adoption visualization that offers insights into the geographic distribution of solar energy adoption across the U.S., highlighting areas with both high penetration and untapped potential. Results of the county-level adoption rates are shown in Figure 1b. Solar adoption in each county is normalized with respect to the number of households in that county. This provides a comparative view of solar adoption relative to the population in each region. The Western states, particularly counties in California (CA), exhibit significantly higher adoption rates, followed by the Northeast. The map also reveals that the South trails behind the West regarding solar adoption. This observed pattern aligns with the general solar adoption trends in the U.S. [25].

Next, we summarize the solar energy production pattern across different geographic and temporal resolutions in Figure 2. We selected Washington (WA), Virginia (VA), Idaho (ID), Louisiana (LA), and Massachusetts (MA) to act as representative states for the U.S. as they showcase diverse geographic regions, climates, and population densities, providing a comprehensive view of spatial-temporal dynamics across the country. Figure 2(a) provides insights into month-to-month fluctuations in residential solar energy generation, influenced by geographic location and seasonal climatic variations. For instance, WA and ID demonstrate significant variations in their solar energy contributions during winter, likely influenced by their colder climate zones. July has the highest solar energy production for VA, ID, and WA, although LA and MA peak in May. Despite varied winter lows, the minor differences in solar output from spring through fall suggest a reliable level of solar energy generation during these periods, which can significantly reduce energy bills and offset carbon emissions. Figure 2(b) compares hourly solar energy production by season, showing distinct seasonal curves for WA, MA, and ID. VA’s spring and autumn curves overlap until noon, illustrating longer solar production in summer. LA’s curves overlap, with winter morning production being the lowest. MA stands out with the highest solar energy production, nearly ten times that of other states, due to its large number of solar adopters. We provide more insights at different resolutions on the spatial and temporal dynamics in Supplementary Note 4.

Understanding the factors that govern our state-level solar production models’ predictions is important for its validation. The model’s explainability becomes vital, especially when considering the practical implications of deploying such models in policy-making and energy management. SHAP is a popular explainability technique used in machine learning to interpret the predictions of ML models. It assigns each feature an importance value (SHAP value) based on its contribution to the prediction.

In Figure 3, we purposefully selected the state-level solar adoption ML models for VA-North Carolina (NC) and Texas (TX)- New York (NY) state-level models to highlight their geographic, political, and climatic similarities/contrasts. The variables used and their descriptions are mentioned in Section 4.1.1. In the VA-NC model [Figure 3(a)], houses constructed recently (YEARMADERANGE) have high SHAP values for VA, suggesting their high contribution to solar adoption. Conversely, NC shows mid-range YEARMADERANGE with higher SHAP values. In this model, recent constructions negatively impact predictions. VA finds medium-sized properties and households with higher income (MONEYPY) positively influencing SHAP values, linking them to solar production. In NC, larger homes and middle incomes positively affect SHAP values, differing from VA’s pattern.

In the TX-NY model [Figure 3(b)], a notable contrast is observed in the beeswarm plots for MONEYPY, where the direction and magnitude of this feature contribution appear to reverse between the two states. Property size significantly influences solar adoption predictions in the TX model, while in the NY model, household income and the number of bedrooms are identified as key determinants. Additional analysis for VA-NC and TX-NY models are presented in Supplementary Note 5. Thus, the contrasting SHAP value trends in the state-level models uncover the importance of property-specific details (e.g., square footage range and construction period), demographic characteristics (e.g., number of household members), and socio-economic factors (e.g., income level) across different geographic landscapes in solar adoption.

The primary goal is to compare synthetic solar adopter state-wise counts with real-world datasets developed by multiple researchers to assess the accuracy of the distribution against actual solar adoption. Next, we compare the load shape curves and PV energy profile distribution between real and synthetic data to validate the temporal and spatial patterns of solar energy generation, ensuring the synthetic models accurately reflect real-world dynamics. We use the LBNL solar project [14] dataset for residential solar project and the DeepSolar dataset [9] with residential state-wise solar adopter count to validate our overall count of adopters. We corroborate our solar generation profiles through the samples of recorded household data from the Pecan Street, updated through 2020, for TX and NY [22]. We utilize each household’s 15-minute average solar generation data to validate the hourly solar generation load shapes and compare the state-wide distribution.

In Figure 4a, we compared the synthetic solar adopter counts with two residential solar adopter datasets. The results show that the synthetic solar adopter counts are analogous to the two real-world residential solar adopter datasets. More detailed insights on the solar adopter validation are presented in Supplementary Note 6. Next, we compared daily load patterns between the Pecan Street and our synthetic dataset for TX and NY, selecting an equivalent number of households through random sampling from the synthetic dataset. The average monthly Pearson correlation coefficients calculated between pairs of randomly selected synthetic households and Pecan Street households for every hour are shown in Figure 4(b) and they reveal a consistently high positive correlation for both states across all months. We compare solar generation distributions from Pecan Street data and synthetic data in kWh in Figures 4(c) and 4(d). In Figure 4(c), the Pecan Street dataset is represented as a solid blue curve. The mean and standard deviation of the synthetic data are represented by solid and dotted red curves, respectively, enveloping the blue curve. Jensen Shannon Divergence (JSD) values for TX’s distributions are 0.18 (histogram) and 0.42 (KDE). In Figure 4(d), the synthetic data is shown in green, comparing NY’s distributions. The JSD values are 0.39 (histogram) and 0.12 (KDE).

Summary: The synthetic dataset robustly represents real-world solar generation patterns and solar adopter behaviors across states. JSD values indicate a satisfactory alignment between the synthetic and real-world distributions despite some discrepancies in the density and coverage of outliers. Moreover, the consistently high positive Pearson correlation coefficients for daily load patterns across all months affirm the synthetic data’s accuracy.

As an illustration of the use of the generated digital twin, we carried out a case study motivated by recent policy considerations. The objective of case study is to use the digital twin to understand the dynamics of solar adoption and its penetration under various case scenarios. The scenarios primarily vary in the likelihood of solar adoption for different communities, illustrating the policy interventions. The case scenarios are described in Section 4.5. One of the top challenges in rooftop solar adoption is overcoming the economic barriers. Federal policies, including tax rebates and incentives, play a crucial role in providing financial assistance and thus accelerating clean energy adoption. Additionally, policies focused on increasing solar adoption and penetration in LMI communities help to address social disparities and support the government’s objective of the Justice40 initiative [26]. However, evaluating the benefits of these policies and the resulting solar adoption penetration remains challenging. Factors such as peer influence, where social networks influence household decisions, and the social-demographic attributes of the households introduce uncertainty in the penetration of solar energy. Agent-based modeling using digital twins is one of the methods to simulate and better understand this behavior.

Our analysis examines how these different policies, under the influence of peer effects, and microelements such as socio-demographic attributes of households contribute towards solar adoption within the state of VA using a framework for contagion simulation modeling [27], which capture individual components, community components for spatial effects, and neighbor components for the influence of immediate neighbors. We examine the impact of these policies on different segments of the population - (\( i\) ) LMI [28] and non-LMI communities, and (\( ii\) ) rural and urban populations. Model design and experimental setup are explained in Section 2.4.

Figure 5a summarizes our policy study results and shows overall solar adoption trends: Cases 4, 1b, and 5 have unique patterns, while Cases 1a, 2a, 2b, and 3 follow similar paths. The 30% tax credit policy leads to the highest adoption in all communities. Figure 5b reveals that equal opportunity policies are effective in urban and rural LMI areas, influenced by community and network structures. This suggests the significant role of community effects and peer influence in adoption, with non-LMI adopters notably impacting overall penetration. Our case study suggest that policy interventions, like tax credits to all individuals, are essential for higher adoption.

However, even the most successful policies see less than 1% LMI rooftop adoption. This outcome is attributed to the chosen network’s workplace-based nature. Given the higher unemployment rates within the LMI community [29], this network model results in fewer connections among LMI households, limiting the spread of adoption through peer influence. This study, using the synthetic population of Virginia, demonstrates how digital twins can be utilized to analyze solar adoption and penetration. Similar studies can be conducted in other states or over different networks to gain deeper insights on solar penetration.

We aim to generate hourly PV energy profiles for households that have adopted solar energy. All datasets, the variables/abbreviations along with their explanations used in this research are mentioned in Supplementary Note 1. We employ the synthetic population dataset [31] for this purpose. However, this dataset lacks detailed information on household square footage and solar adoption status. To overcome this limitation, we integrate data from the RECS to enrich the synthetic population with the necessary details on square footage and solar adoption. After identifying the solar adopters, we proceed with the energy profile generation for the solar-adopted households. Our approach for solar adoption and PV energy profile generation is presented in Figure 6. Our methodology unfolds in three distinct steps to systematically enhance the dataset and produce reliable PV energy profiles: (\( i\) ) classifying synthetic households into predetermined square footage range categories (Synthetic household square footage range classification), (\( ii\) ) identifying the households within the synthetic population that have solar panels (Identification of solar adopters), and (\( iii\) ) producing hourly PV energy profiles for homes recognized as solar energy adopters (Generation of Hourly PV Energy Profiles).

4.1.1 Synthetic household square footage range classification

4.1.2 Identification of solar adopters

4.1.3 Generation of hourly PV profiles

Our study focuses on different states in the U.S., chosen as representative examples for our result analysis and validation purposes. The details are described in Table 1. For SQFTRANGE classification and spatial-temporal dynamics study, we selected five states across the U.S. These selected states bring insights into the spatial distribution and geographical nuances across the U.S. as they belong to different U.S. census divisions and climatic zones defined by the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) [42].

For the explainability of the state-level models, we chose VA-NC and TX-NY models. In the VA-NC model, both states have geographic similarities. However, based on the outcomes of the past four presidential elections, they have different political affinities. In the TX-NY model, both states have a comparable number of solar adopters and high adoption rates. However, they differ significantly in geographic and political affiliation. We selected TX and NY for validating the PV energy generated profiles based on the availability of real-world datasets.

We utilize SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) [18] to interpret and compare the predictions of these models. SHAP framework aids in understanding the predictions by comparing the contributions of different features to the outcome. We study the feature contribution at a global (state-level) and local level (for every data point). Additionally, we provided insights into the interactions between different features using SHAP.

We compared our synthetic solar adopter data with the state-wise residential solar adopter data from LBNL [14] and DeepSolar [9]. We compared the absolute value as well as calculated the relative percentage differences between the datasets. Our validation approach for energy profile has two steps: (\( i\) ) compare the aggregated generated energy distributions and (\( ii\) ) compare the daily load curve shape. First, we aggregate hourly generation to daily totals and calculate their average and standard deviations for the synthetic data. This process mirrors the Pecan Street data aggregation for average daily generation. We assess differences using the Jensen-Shannon Divergence (JSD), which scores from 0 (same distributions) to 1 (different distributions), providing a symmetric comparison unlike Kullback-Leibler Divergence (KLD). Mathematically, for two probability distributions \( P \) and \( Q \), the JSD is given by:

where \( M = \frac{1}{2}(P + Q) \) and the KLD is calculated as:

We used two methods to calculate the JSD and compare probability distributions. The first, a histogram-based approach, compares average solar generation, providing a direct comparison. The second method, Kernel Density Estimation (KDE), considers average values and standard deviations, offering insight into the data’s variability. Our synthetic dataset includes standard deviation for refined bandwidth in KDE, unlike the Pecan Street data, which uses a default bandwidth determined by Scott’s Rule, \( h=n^\frac{-1}{5}\) , based on the number of data points. Next, we compared daily load patterns between Pecan Street and our synthetic dataset for TX and NY, selecting an equivalent number of households. First we aggregated hourly data, for each month and for each household. Next, for each month, we computed the Pearson correlation coefficient of the aggregated hourly data between the Pecan Street households and the selected synthetic households. Finally, we computed the mean correlation for each month.

Our objective in this case study is to analyze the evolution of solar adoption using digital twin by considering the influence of policies, peer effects, and microelements such as socio-demographic attributes of households. We analyzed solar adoption penetration and the influence of policies on LMI community in urban and rural populations using seven different cases across five unique setups. We simulate rooftop penetration in households using CSonNet, a framework for contagion simulation modeling [27].

Model and utility function: Drawing on Bale et al.’s work [43], we developed a new heterogeneous model in CSonNet to capture technology diffusion. In the heterogeneous model in CSonNet for solar adoption, a household shifts from a non-adopter (0) to an adopter (1) state if its utility, \( u_i\) , surpasses the node threshold. The state transition is progressive; once a node shifts to state 1, it does not revert to 0. The utility function comprises of an individual component, a community component for spatial effects, and a neighbor component to capture the influence of immediate neighbors. This technology diffusion model captures the personal advantage of adopting specific policies along with the neighbor and community influence in contrast to conventional threshold models [44] used to analyze the spread of social contagions. The utility function for household \( i\) is expressed as:

Here, \( w_1\) , \( w_2\) , and \( w_3\) are the weights for personal benefits, community, and neighbor influences, respectively, with \( p_i\) indicating personal benefit value, \( c_i\) the community adoption rate, and \( n_i\) the neighbor adoption rate.

Experimental setup: The input for the contagion model framework includes the network, initial state, the configuration and the transition rule. The output is the set of households that are adopters in each time step.

Network: We generated a peer-network graph [47] for the state of VA using NetXPipe [48]. This network represents a workplace network within the state, with nodes representing the households and edges indicating connections between nodes that work at the same location. For this study, we assume a probability of 0.1 for the existence of an edge between any two nodes. Although the network probability depends on factors such as organizational structure and team dynamics, a probability of 0.1 models sparse to moderate interactions between individuals in a workplace helps strike a balance between sparsity and density in the network. The undirected network comprises a total of 3,094,255 nodes and 138,322,576 edges.

Initial state: The initial state is the set of households that are current solar adopters identified using the solar adoption model described in Subsection 4.1.2.

Configuration: The configuration consists of setting the model parameters, such as the time step, graph type, and number of iterations. In this setup, we are analyzing the adoption trend for 10 time steps using the undirected, peer-network for 1 iteration. We have selected a time step of 10 in order to find a balance between observing immediate changes and allowing the network to evolve over a significant period. This value ensures that we do not overlook short-term dynamics while also avoiding excessively high values that can fail to capture the evolution of adoption due to technological advancements and other interventions. The number of iterations is chosen as 1, as the initial set of adopters remains constant.

Transition rule: The transition rule consists of the following components: nodes (household ids), the from and to state of transition (0 to 1), the rule name, the node threshold, the node probability, the personal benefit, and the weights associated with personal, community and neighbor components. The node threshold specifies the barriers for a household to adopt solar as outlined in the literature [15]. It includes factors such as internet access, language proficiency, racial and socioeconomic status, rental housing, education level, income, house age, and the age of household members. The node threshold value is calculated by dividing the sum of barriers using a step function that ranges from 0.1 to 0.95. We exclude the boundary values of 0 and 1 to avoid extreme cases where a household would be either forced to adopt or prevented from transitioning to an adopter. Node probability captures the likelihood of adopting solar, influenced by policies and incentives. It reflects the impact of external interventions, allowing for a constant node probability to signify no interventions or a variable node probability to indicate changes influencing over time. This flexibility enables the model to simulate the dynamic nature of solar adoption under various policy and incentive conditions.

The different cases, along with the node probability values, are described below:

Case 1a and Case 1b: Maintain a consistent node probability across all groups, set at 0.1 and 0.2, respectively.

Case 2a and Case 2b: We assign a higher node probability to LMI households. This approach is designed to introduce specialized incentives for this demographic, resulting in a higher node probability within the LMI community. Specifically, we assign a node probability of 0.1 to all non-LMI households and 0.2 and 0.5 to LMI households for Case 2a and Case 2b, respectively.

Case 3: We derive node probabilities by emulating the adoption pattern in the LMI community as described in the paper by O’Shaughnessy et al. [45]. The authors note an increase in adoption rates in the LMI community following the introduction of a policy, followed by a decrease in subsequent time steps and a steady rise after that. We model this phenomenon by initially introducing a higher node probability for the LMI community in the first time step. This probability is then adjusted to be on par with the non-LMI community, and a gradual increase is introduced later in the following steps.

Case 4: This case is inspired by the 30% solar tax credit offered by the Federal government [46]. In this approach, we utilize data on the potential solar energy production for all households, applying the method outlined in Subsection 4.1.3. We then calculate the mean installation cost based on Virginia’s current average installation cost per watt ($3.04) [49]. The households are subsequently sorted according to the rebate they receive. They are categorized into bins with values ranging from 0 to 1 for the node probability.

Case 5: This case closely resembles Case 4, with the key distinction being that the Low-Moderate Income (LMI) community receives an additional 20% solar tax credit [50]. The methodology for generating node probability remains the same as in the previous case.

Personal benefit is derived from the average solar energy generation. Our proposed model, described for generating PV profiles in Subsection 4.1.3, is used for this purpose. The values are then normalized to [0,1]. The community adoption rate is the ratio of solar-adopting households to total households in a county, and the neighborhood adoption rate counts immediate solar-adopting neighbors. The values for these parameters are obtained during the simulation. We assign weights of 0.4, 0.3, and 0.3 to personal benefit value, community influence, and neighbor influence, respectively, giving slightly more emphasis to the personal component than the other two factors. The sum of weights is equal to 1.

The list of modeling parameters along with a short description, range, and values chosen is shown in Table 2. Parameter values are either obtained from the literature or calibrated during the simulation setup. The models are implemented Python 3. Code implementation for the framework is available in UVA Dataverse  [51].

The different datasets used in this research, along with the sections where they are used, is mentioned in Table 3.

SQFTRANGE classification is a pre-processing step before proceeding with solar adoption, as this is one of the features used to predict adoption. The correlation matrix before and after SMOTE to address the class imbalance issue in the South Atlantic division is presented in Figure 7. The values in the matrix range from 0, indicating low correlation, to 1, denoting high correlation. The left panel displays the matrix for the original dataset from the South Atlantic division of the RECS survey, while the right panel shows the matrix post-application of SMOTE. The correlation between features remains consistent after applying SMOTE. This consistency is observed in other divisions as well. Besides input features, the matrix also includes the output label SQFTRANGE. Furthermore, the variable ‘SOLAR’ is included to examine its correlation with other variables.

Next, the square footage range classification performance metrics are presented in Table 5. Although the accuracy and F1 scores for all divisions fall below 80%, the confusion matrices in Table 6 for the validation set and Table 7 for the test set indicate that the square footage range is predominantly classified into neighboring ranges, which is acceptable for our analysis. The other divisions exhibit patterns similar to those of the South Atlantic division.

The SQFTRANGE classification predicted by the trained ensemble model, along with the voting mechanisms in the synthetic population of the representative states in Table 1, is depicted in Figure 8.

SQFTRANGE follows the RECS class range. SQFTRANGE from 1000 \( ft^2\) to 2000 \( ft^2\) constitutes nearly half of the distribution in all the five chosen states. SQFTRANGE, less than 600 \( ft^2\) , appears as the least frequent in the distribution.

\( \beta\) value to reduce wrong predictions is set between 0 and 2. We also adjust the decision threshold, \( \tau\) , from 0.05 to 0.95 to further address the class imbalance issue. The values of \( \beta\) and \( \tau\) , along with accuracy and F1-score, are shown in Table 8. Most states showed high accuracy and F1-score, but MA had lower scores, around 70%. The difference between the actual number of solar adopters and our predicted number is small, at 1.95%, according to the Berkeley Lab dataset [14].

Pie charts in Figure 9 reveal seasonal solar production variations, highlighting that summer has the highest output across all states, followed by spring, autumn, and winter. WA and ID contribute 11% and 13.3% in winter, while MA contributes 15.3%, indicating that cold climates impact solar output. LA shows consistent summer, spring, and fall contributions around 25% to 29%, with a notable 19% in winter.

The heatmap in Figure 10 shows daily solar energy patterns for four homes in each of the five states, chosen randomly from each month. In VA, homes are from Fairfax, Hampton, Lynchburg, and Wythe counties, covering a range of locations and sizes (1100-1700 ft²). All homes see lower solar production in November and December. An interesting April pattern shows the first two eastern homes with nearly no production at times, unlike the central and western homes. This possibly denotes cloud cover effects. Similar patterns are observed in LA and MA, suggesting regional cloud impacts. In December, an eastern home in VA shows minimal solar production, emphasizing climate’s role in solar generation. For LA, the study includes homes from East Carol, Beenville, Jefferson, and Morehouse, varying in size (1600-2700 ft²). Homes in neighboring eastern counties and a distinct southern county’s home show different solar production patterns, with December seeing minimal production in most homes, highlighting seasonal effects. In ID, homes from Butte, Adams, Boundary, and Bannock reflect diverse solar production patterns, with square footage ranging from 1200-2800 ft². Notably, a northern home (Boundary) shows unique patterns, and a localized cloud event in June significantly affected solar production. WA data for homes in Clark, Snohomish, Pacific, and Skagit counties (900-2300 ft²) reveal varied production trends, even among neighboring counties. Coastal homes exhibit unique patterns, with minimal production in January, consistent with seasonal variability observed in Figure 9. MA covers homes in Hampden, Dukes, Berkshire, and Bristol, varying widely in size (800-3000 ft²). January shows unusually high production compared to other states, while November and December are low. A specific June date shows no morning production in the first and third homes, with Dukes County’s home maintaining normal levels but averaging lower production overall, indicating micro-geographical impacts on solar output.

Finally, we analyze the yearly aggregate residential solar production with respect to roof area in the state of VA, as depicted in Figure 11. This figure comprises three plots, each offering a different perspective on solar production relative to property size. The first plot provides a comprehensive overview of average yearly solar production, including its uncertainties, across various roof areas. The second plot delves into detail, presenting the distribution of households. Here, the frequency distribution is notably higher for roof areas ranging between 200-300 \( m^2\) compared to other ranges. The plots in the second row further enhance this analysis by providing insights into the average solar production and its uncertainties across ten randomly selected households in each roof area range. Across all three roof area categories, the annual average solar production shows slight variations, mostly ranging between 4000 kWh and 7000 kWh. While total roof area is a contributing factor to this variability, other elements such as the number of planes, tilt, and orientation of the panels, as well as the location of the households also play a significant role in solar energy production.

Figure 12 delves into individual SHAP waterfall plots for households in VA and NC, showcasing how different features affect solar adoption predictions. These plots highlight the importance of diversity in features across households.

Figure 13 showcases two scatter plots, with the first pertaining to VA and the second to NC. In the VA plot, the focus is on the variability of a single feature, while the NC plot delves into the interplay between two key features: household income and year of construction. In the NC plot, YEARMADERANGE typically yields a positive SHAP value contribution in comparison to other values in its range. This effect is further amplified when paired with higher MONEYPY values (indicated by the pink coloration), in contrast to lower values (represented in blue), highlighting the significant influence of feature interaction on SHAP values.

Similar to the VA-NC model, Figure 14 presents household-level plots to provide local insights into feature contributions. Unlike the household-level plots in VA-NC, where the same feature shows high importance across households within the state, the importance varies across both TX and NY. All four plots demonstrate that the final model output \( f(x)\) for these households is higher than the state’s mean output \( E(f(x))\) . Additionally, most feature values exhibit either a positive or negligibly negative impact on the model.

Figure 15 is a scatter plot for Texas, which facilitates the understanding of the significance of interactions between features. It clearly shows that lower values, particularly a value of 2 in YEARMADERANGE, are associated with higher SHAP values. In this scenario, lower income values result in lower SHAP values, while middle and high-income values are correlated with higher SHAP values. However, it remains challenging to differentiate between the SHAP contributions of high and medium income levels, as the pairwise feature interaction does not offer adequate distinction. Furthermore, the SHAP value is significantly lower for YEARMADERANGE values greater than 2. The bars (composed of points) appear flipped in these ranges, indicating that the SHAP value increases as the MONEYPY decreases in these ranges of YEARMADERANGE.

The last plot in the series for the TX-NY model comparison is a cohort multi-bar plot for the NY model, as shown in Figure 15. This plot categorizes the data into different cohorts based on a specific feature and then compares the mean SHAP values of these cohorts using a multi-bar plot. This form of visualization aids in understanding the impact of features on the model’s predictions with respect to a particular segment. It is important to note that actual SHAP values can be either positive or negative, while the cohort bar plot primarily indicates the significance of a particular feature in influencing the SHAP value. In this figure, the cohorts are formed based on the key feature ‘BEDROOMS’. While BEDROOMS \( \ge\) 2.5 shows a higher feature contribution with a SHAP value of 6.2, it is crucial to recognize that the direction of this contribution is negative. This insight is obtained by analyzing this plot in conjunction with the bee swarm plot for the NY model presented in Figure 3(b).

We compared different real-world datasets (LBNL and DeepSolar) with our synthetic solar adopter dataset in Figure 16. LBNL and DeepSolar define the lower and the upper bound in each state. They are calculated as:

Synthetic solar adopters calibrated with LBNL dataset and DeepSolar dataset as the ground truths are depicted as green and red points respectively. The synthetic solar adopter counts are comparable to either of the datasets. Next, we compared the two available datasets in Figure 17a. In 10 states, the relative percentage exceeds 100%, revealing significant differences between the two datasets. It is important to note that the LBNL solar adopter count is based on 2020 and is for single-family households; the DeepSolar solar adopter count is for 2022, which is more recent and considers all rooftops. The relative percentage difference between LBNL’s real solar adopter data [14] and our synthetic data is depicted in Figure 17b. DeepSolar solar adopter data [9] and our synthetic data are shown in Figure 17c. As the LBNL dataset was also used as ground truth adopters, the discrepancy between the synthetic datasets and LBNL’s real adopters is less compared to DeepSolar. In comparison between the LBNL dataset, 88% of states have a difference under 25%. Differences over 100% in states like ND, NE, SD, and WV are capped at 100% for visualization. These high discrepancies, especially in low-adoption areas, result in significant percentage differences. For instance, West Virginia’s actual count of 62 versus a synthetic 338 leads to a 449% difference. In comparison with the DeepSolar dataset, 60% of the states have a difference under 50%. Differences over 100% in the DeepSolar dataset are in states IA, ID, ND, and NC.

Furthermore, we calibrated the ground truth adopter dataset from LBNL to DeepSolar and reran the solar adoption model in the ten states where the LBNL and DeepSolar vary significantly. This experiment demonstrates the framework’s adaptability to calibrate the new ground truth dataset. Moreover, the models can be applied to any geographic region as they are generalizable. The results in Table 9 further demonstrate this capability.

Here, we describe our algorithms and runtime complexity for solar adoption and energy profile generation. The algorithm for the first step, i.e., predicting solar adopters, is presented in Algorithm 1. The runtime complexity of this process is \( \mathcal{O}(m+h+p\log p)\) , where \( m\) denotes the model training and testing, \( h\) denotes the hyperparameter tuning for the Gaussian process, and \( p \log p\) is for sorting \( X_{test}\) by expected improvement, considering \( p\) points.

Algorithm

Input: State \( s\) , Real world solar adopters count at state-level \( s_{real,s}\) , RECS file \( f_{RECS}\) , Synthetic population file for the state \( f_{syn,s}\) .

Output: A file \( f_{syn,s,SOLAR}\) , listing \( H\) households, where each household \( h_i\) is classified as either a solar adopter or not.

The algorithms for the second step are given in two steps: (\( i\) ) Algorithm 2 for time-invariant variables sample generation, and (\( ii\) ) Algorithm 3. The first Algorithm is computed only once as these variables do not change w.r.t to time. The runtime complexity of Algorithm 2 is \( \mathcal{O}(N \cdot (n+P))\) , where \( N\) is the number of houses, \( n\) is the number of samples generated and \( P\) is a set of planes.

For Algorithm 3, the period \( T\) depends on the type of input specified by the user. It can be a date \( t\) , year-month, or year-week combination. The runtime complexity of the framework is \( \mathcal{O}(N + (((N \cdot W)/worker\_size) + \epsilon)\cdot T) \) where \( N\) is the number of houses, \( W\) is the total number of hours (24 hours), \( worker\_size\) is the size of the worker processes, \( \epsilon\) denotes the communication overhead between the worker processes and main process and \( T\) is a constant number based on the type of period input specified by the user. The size of worker processes depends on the number of nodes allocated based on the number of solar-adopted houses in \( c\) .

Algorithm

Input: State \( s\) , county \( c\) , a set of households \( H\) , a set of the location of the households denoted using its latitude, longitude (\( lat_i\) ,\( lon_i\) ) of household \( h_i\) , its house area \( HA_i\) and its respective census tract \( ct_i\) .

Output: A file containing \( N\) solar adopted households and for each \( h_i\) , its roof area \( RA_i\) , \( type\) , (\( lat_i\) ,\( lon_i\) ), \( n\) samples for solar efficiency \( \eta_i\) , performance ratio \( PR_i\) , number of planes \( P\) , tilt \( \theta_i\) and azimuth pairs \( \omega_i\) and total area of the panels \( A_i\) .

Algorithm

Input: Time invariant variable sample generation file \( f_1\) , state \( s\) , county \( c\) , time period for generation \( T\) , a set of irradiance files \( f_{ct}\) for all \( ct\) in \( c\) .

Output: File containing 24 hour profiles of \( E_{\mu,i,d,w}\) for a given day \( d\) and given hour \( w\) , its standard deviations \( E_{\sigma,i,d,w}\) , total daily \( E_{\mu,i,d}\) and its standard deviation \( E_{\sigma,i,d}\) for each household \( h_i\)

[1] Justina Gallegos Heather Boushey Building a Thriving Clean Energy Economy in 2023 and Beyond 2023 Accessed: Mar, 2024

[2] United States Environmental Protection Agency Distributed Generation of Electricity and its Environmental Impacts 2023 Accessed: Jan, 2024

[3] Jasper N Meya and Paul Neetzow Renewable energy policies in federal government systems Energy Economics 2021 101 105459

[4] Aixue Hu and Samuel Levis and Gerald A Meehl and Weiqing Han and Warren M Washington and Keith W Oleson and Bas J Van Ruijven and Mingqiong He and Warren G Strand Impact of solar panels on global climate Nature climate change 2016 6 3 290–294

[5] Williams S Ebhota and Tien-Chien Jen Fossil fuels environmental challenges and the role of solar photovoltaic technology advances in fast tracking hybrid renewable energy system International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing-Green Technology 2020 7 97–117

[6] Jiafan Yu and Zhecheng Wang and Arun Majumdar and Ram Rajagopal DeepSolar: A machine learning framework to efficiently construct a solar deployment database in the United States Joule 2018 2 12 2605–2617

[7] Zhecheng Wang and Marie-Louise Arlt and Chad Zanocco and Arun Majumdar and Ram Rajagopal DeepSolar++: Understanding residential solar adoption trajectories with computer vision and technology diffusion models Joule 2022 6 11 2611–2625

[8] Google Google Project Sunroof 2015 Accessed: Mar, 2024

[9] Moritz Wussow and Chad Zanocco and Zhecheng Wang and Rajanie Prabha and June Flora and Dirk Neumann and Arun Majumdar and Ram Rajagopal Exploring the potential of non-residential solar to tackle energy injustice Nature Energy 2024 1–10

[10] Amélie C. Lemay and Sigurd Wagner and Barry P. Rand Current status and future potential of rooftop solar adoption in the United States Energy Policy 2023 177 113571 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113571

[11] Stephen Lee and Srinivasan Iyengar and Menghong Feng and Prashant Shenoy and Subhransu Maji Deeproof: A data-driven approach for solar potential estimation using rooftop imagery 2019

[12] Haifeng Zhang and Yevgeniy Vorobeychik and Joshua Letchford and Kiran Lakkaraju Data-driven agent-based modeling, with application to rooftop solar adoption Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 2016 30 1023–1049

[13] Mai Shi and Xi Lu and Michael T Craig Climate change will impact the value and optimal adoption of residential rooftop solar Nature Climate Change 2024 1–8

[14] Galen L Barbose and Sydney Forrester and Eric O’Shaughnessy and Naïm R Darghouth Residential solar-adopter Income and demographic trends: 2021 update Lawrence Berkeley National Lab.(LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States) 2021

[15] Tony G Reames Distributional disparities in residential rooftop solar potential and penetration in four cities in the United States Energy Research & Social Science 2020 69 101612

[16] Deborah A Sunter and Sergio Castellanos and Daniel M Kammen Disparities in rooftop photovoltaics deployment in the United States by race and ethnicity Nature Sustainability 2019 2 1 71–76

[17] Eric O’Shaughnessy and Galen Barbose and Sudha Kannan and Jenny Sumner Evaluating community solar as a measure to promote equitable clean energy access Nature Energy 2024 1–9

[18] Scott Lundberg and Su-In Lee A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions 2017

[19] R Machlev and L Heistrene and M Perl and KY Levy and J Belikov and S Mannor and Y Levron Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) techniques for energy and power systems: Review, challenges and opportunities Energy and AI 2022 9 100169

[20] Salih Sarp and Murat Kuzlu and Umit Cali and Onur Elma and Ozgur Guler An interpretable solar photovoltaic power generation forecasting approach using an explainable artificial intelligence tool 2021

[21] Murat Kuzlu and Umit Cali and Vinayak Sharma and Özgür Güler Gaining insight into solar photovoltaic power generation forecasting utilizing explainable artificial intelligence tools IEEE Access 2020 8 187814–187823

[22] Pecan Street Dataport Pecan Street Dataport 2019 Accessed: Jan, 2024

[23] EIA RESIDENTIAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION SURVEY 2020

[24] NREL NSRDB: National Solar Radiation Database 2020

[25] Ryan Kennedy Nearly 4% of US homes have rooftop solar installed 2022 Accessed: Jan, 2024

[26] Justina Gallegos Heather Boushey Justice40 2023 Accessed: Mar, 2024

[27] Joshua D Priest and Aparna Kishore and Lucas Machi and Chris J Kuhlman and Dustin Machi and SS Ravi CSonNet: An agent-based modeling software system for discrete time simulation 2021

[28] Program Parameters and Research Division FY 2020 Income Limits Documentation System 2020 Accessed: Jan, 2024

[29] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Employment barriers within low- and moderate-income communities 2020 Accessed: Jan, 2024

[30] Katherine Douglass and Augustus Lamb and Jerry Lu and Ken Ono and William Tenpas Swimming in Data The Mathematical Intelligencer 2024 46 2 145–155

[31] Abhijin Adiga and Aditya Agashe and Shaikh Arifuzzaman and Christopher L. Barrett and Richard J. Beckman and Keith R. Bisset and Jiangzhuo Chen and Youngyun Chungbaek and Stephen G. Eubank and Sandeep Gupta and Maleq Khan and Christopher J. Kuhlman and Eric Lofgren and Bryan L. Lewis and Achla Marathe and Madhav V. Marathe and Henning S. Mortveit and Eric Nordberg and Caitlin Rivers and Paula Stretz and Samarth Swarup and Amanda Wilson and Dawen Xie Generating a Synthetic Population of the United States Network Dynamics and Simulation Science Laboratory 2015 NDSSL 15-009

[32] Nitesh V Chawla and Kevin W Bowyer and Lawrence O Hall and W Philip Kegelmeyer SMOTE: synthetic minority over-sampling technique Journal of artificial intelligence research 2002 16 321–357

[33] Mary L McHugh The chi-square test of independence Biochemia medica 2013 23 2 143–149

[34] Florin Leon and Sabina-Adriana Floria and Costin Bădică Evaluating the effect of voting methods on ensemble-based classification 2017

[35] oreilly Voting mechanisms 2023

[36] Ravid Shwartz-Ziv and Amitai Armon Tabular data: Deep learning is not all you need Information Fusion 2022 81 84–90

[37] Tianqi Chen and Carlos Guestrin Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system 2016

[38] Zhihao Hu and Xinwei Deng and Achla Marathe and Samarth Swarup and Anil Vullikanti Decision-adjusted modeling for imbalanced classification: Predicting rooftop solar panel adoption in rural virginia 2021

[39] Donald R Jones and Matthias Schonlau and William J Welch Efficient global optimization of expensive black-box functions Journal of Global optimization 1998 13 455–492

[40] Pieter Gagnon and Robert Margolis and Jennifer Melius and Caleb Phillips and Ryan Elmore Rooftop solar photovoltaic technical potential in the United States. A detailed assessment National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL), Golden, CO (United States) 2016

[41] John A Duffie and William A Beckman and Nathan Blair Solar engineering of thermal processes, photovoltaics and wind John Wiley & Sons 2020

[42] International Energy Conservation Code IECC climate zone map 2024 Accessed: Jan, 2024

[43] Catherine S.E. Bale and Nicholas J. McCullen and Timothy J. Foxon and Alastair M. Rucklidge and William F. Gale Harnessing social networks for promoting adoption of energy technologies in the domestic sector Energy Policy 2013 63 833-844 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.09.033

[44] Mark Granovetter Threshold Models of Collective Behavior American Journal of Sociology 1978 83 6 1420–1443

[45] Eric O’Shaughnessy and Galen Barbose and Ryan Wiser and Sydney Forrester and Naïm Darghouth The impact of policies and business models on income equity in rooftop solar adoption Nature Energy 2021 6 1 84–91

[46] Solar Energy Technologies Office Homeowner’s Guide to the Federal Tax Credit for Solar Photovoltaics 2023 Accessed: Jan, 2024

[47] Swapna Thorve and Zhihao Hu and Kiran Lakkaraju and Joshua Letchford and Anil Vullikanti and Achla Marathe and Samarth Swarup A framework for the comparison of agent-based models Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems 2022 36 2 32

[48] Swapna Thorve and Aparna Kishore and Dustin Machi and SS Ravi and Madhav V Marathe A Network Synthesis and Analytics Pipeline with Applications to Sustainable Energy in Smart Grid 2023

[49] Kathryn Parkman How much do solar panels cost in 2024? 2024 Accessed: Jan, 2024

[50] Office of Energy Justice and Equity Low-Income Communities Bonus Credit Program 2023 Accessed: Jan, 2024

[51] Aparna Kishore Digital twin for residential solar adoption and generation 2024

[52] United States Census Bureau Public Use Microdata Sample 2017 Accessed: Dec, 2023

[53] Chrissi A Antonopoulos and Theresa L Gilbride and Evan R Margiotta and Christian E Kaltreider Guide to Determining Climate Zone by County: Building America and IECC 2021 Updates Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States) 2022