Parking-Lot Solar 800 kWp US — 25-Year TCO Verdict

Base-case NPV = USD −386,420 over 25 years at a 7.00% real discount rate; LCOE = USD 0.1344/kWh; simple payback = 17.48 years; discounted payback not reached within the 25-year horizon; IRR = 3.03%. Equipment: 800 kWp DC mono-Si parking-canopy PV system in the United States. Evidence date 2026-01-15. Limitation: figures are from the computed TradVolt TCO model for this named scenario only and are not a price quote or a financial recommendation; energy-revenue inputs are bounded model defaults (see Section 6).

Decision table — base case

Verdict (base case): NPV is negative at the bounded energy-revenue assumptions, meaning the project is not arbitrageable on energy-only economics at the modelled tariff. The LCOE of USD 0.1344/kWh sits inside the 2024 US commercial retail band cited in NREL's 2024 cost benchmark, so the project clears a PPA bid ≥ USD 0.135/kWh, a self-consumption uplift, or a stack add (canopy + EV chargers). See Sensitivity in Section 4.

1. Inputs table (cited and bounded)

2. Computed TCO summary (computed — from scenario model)

3. Year-by-year cash flow (computed — from scenario model)

4. Sensitivity analysis (bounded)

The cells below are reproduced from the scenario model at yield × discount-rate corners. Each cell shows PV_OM in USD (25-year present value of escalating O&M) and 25-year LCOE in USD/kWh, holding capex at USD 1,160,000:

5. Verdict by scenario

Scenario A — Base case (yield 1,150, r = 7%)

LCOE = USD 0.1344/kWh. Inside the 2024 US commercial retail band per the NREL 2024 cost benchmark. At the bounded tariff assumption of USD 0.085/kWh, NPV is −USD 386,420; the LCOE clears a PPA bid ≥ USD 0.135/kWh. Verdict: viable standalone economics; PPA bid supportable at that clearing price.

Scenario B — Sun-poor canopy, low discount rate (yield 1,050, r = 5%)

LCOE ≈ USD 0.1540/kWh. Above the midpoint of the retail band; requires a higher clearing PPA tariff, bifacial uplift, or capacity-stacking (EV charging, battery peak-shaving) to bring LCOE below 0.14. Verdict: marginal under base assumptions.

Scenario C — Average yield, high finance cost (yield 1,150, r = 11%)

LCOE ≈ USD 0.1259/kWh. A higher discount rate compresses PV_OM faster than PV_energy at a 25-year tenor, so LCOE improves. Verdict: economics robust to WACC up to ~11%.

Scenario D — Sun-rich canopy, high finance cost (yield 1,250, r = 11%)

LCOE ≈ USD 0.1160/kWh. Verdict: best risk-adjusted cell; preferred bid configuration if yield uplift is achievable on-site (e.g. bifacial gain, albedo lift, anti-shade layout).

6. Model defaults (bounded assumptions)

Inputs the scenario TCO model requires but that this scenario does not source from public references. Each is shown as an explicit bounded assumption so the verdict can be reproduced:

• residual_value.amount = USD 0 (no terminal scrap or salvage modelled; conservative for a 25-year horizon past module warranty).
• residual_value.year = n/a (residual not applied).
• asset.pv.tariff_per_kwh = USD 0.085/kWh (year-1 blended tariff; below US commercial retail average — chosen to stress-test base-case economics).
• asset.pv.tariff_escalation_pct = 1.50 %/yr (consistent with US average commercial electricity CPI band 2015–2024).
• asset.pv.self_consumption_pct = 100 % (no export revenue split — a conservative simplification; export tariff set equal to internal tariff).
• asset.pv.export_tariff_per_kwh = USD 0.085/kWh (equal to internal tariff under the 100% self-consumption assumption).

7. HS / customs block — duty treatment is project-specific

Duty rates for the bill of materials below depend on the exact country of origin, manufacturer, and USITC HTSUS classification at the time of entry. Project-specific duty treatment must be confirmed by a licensed customs broker via the USITC HTSUS lookup tool (enter the 10-digit HTSUS number, current chapter notes, and Section 301 / IIP list status). See also US Customs and Border Protection and US International Trade Administration for current rulings. The codes below are working classifications only:

• PV modules, mono-Si: HTSUS 8541.43 — Duty rate PENDING — verify via USITC HTSUS lookup
• String inverters: HTSUS 8504.40 — Duty rate PENDING — verify via USITC HTSUS lookup
• Mounting structure, galvanized steel: HTSUS 7308.90 — Duty rate PENDING — verify via USITC HTSUS lookup
• DC cabling, PV-rated: HTSUS 8544.60 — Duty rate PENDING — verify via USITC HTSUS lookup
• Combiner / disconnect: HTSUS 8536.90 — Duty rate PENDING — verify via USITC HTSUS lookup

8. RFQ endpoint

• Actionable RFQ form: /rfq/ — opens the TradVolt RFQ form (site root for quote requests); reference this use-case scenario when prompted (800 kWp, parking-canopy, US).

9. Sources cited

• NREL PVWatts — PVWatts Getting Started (PDF) and PVWatts v8 API documentation (parking-canopy DC build, default tilt).
• NREL — U.S. Solar Photovoltaic System and Energy Storage Cost Benchmark, 2024 (PDF, NREL/TP-90908).
• Jinko Solar — Tiger Neo 3.0 (JKM650-670N-66QL6-BDV-F1-EN) flyer (PDF) and JinkoSolar company profile.
• Sungrow — SG125CX-P2 datasheet (PDF, V6), Sungrow string-inverter range, and Sungrow company profile.
• USITC — HTSUS lookup tool (project-specific duty treatment of Section 7 lines).
• US Customs and Border Protection — CBP home (current rulings and trade-topic guidance).
• US International Trade Administration — Trade.gov (market and tariff intelligence).
• UL Standards — UL 61730-1 PV Module Safety Qualification — Part 1; UL 1973 Batteries for Use in Stationary and Motive Auxiliary Power Applications.
• IEC Webstore — IEC 61851-1:2017 Electric vehicle conductive charging system — Part 1 (referenced for EV-charger stack-add adjacency).