Energy Reports 10 (2023) 1602–1617

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Reports
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/egyr

Research paper

Categorizing shared photovoltaic business models in renewable

markets: An approach based on CANVAS and transaction costs
∗
Luciana Marques a,b , Hendrigo Batista da Silva a , Jagruti Thakur c , , Wadaed Uturbey a ,
Pragya Thakur d
a
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil
b
VITO Flemish Institute for Technological Research, Belgium
c
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
d
Vellore Institute of Technology, India

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: Shared Photovoltaic (PV) business models enable a broader percentage of consumers to benefit from
Received 28 April 2023 renewable energy because installation and transaction costs are significantly decreased. Designing
Received in revised form 28 July 2023 these shared and community-based business models can contribute to help countries achieve emission
Accepted 1 August 2023
reduction targets, particularly in developing countries. A systematization in different categories of
Available online xxxx
how these business models can improve the awareness of opportunities and barriers to such models,
Keywords: including the identification of potential models is yet to be explored in a specific market. This paper
Business model proposes such categorization and discusses different shared PV business models observed in this sector,
CANVAS discussing the main similarities and differences of each one based on the CANVAS business model
Shared PV methodology. Further, this paper analyzes these categories in terms of how the decrease in transaction
Sharing economy
costs from the consumers’ perspective would help to deliver value. Finally, we demonstrate the
proposed categorization to existing models in Brazilian and Indian markets, defining which business
model categories are more adherent to this market. Moreover, we discuss possible innovative models
yet to be applied to these developing countries and barriers to be overcome. It was identified that
major existing business models are feasible for both India and Brazil, however, regulatory hindrances
needs to be addressed beforehand.
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction Although these favorable policies have been harnessed by

Fossil fuel CO2 emissions are an increasing concern world-
wide due to climate change. Multilateral agreements such as
the Paris agreement are trying to solve this issue, by pushing
countries to adopt a collective long-term goal on climate change
mitigation (Savaresi, 2016). Actions towards renewable energy
developments are being taken worldwide to accomplish these
goals. For instance, solar photovoltaics (PV) panels are becoming
an important technology for countries to accomplish their CO2
emissions reduction targets, and an impressive PV diffusion has
been observed in different countries in the last decade (Masson
and Kaizuka, 2020). Such increase has been occurring in both
distributed and utility-scale facilities worldwide (Masson and
Kaizuka, 2020), since different sorts of incentives have been given
to the sector in the last decade (Matisoff and Johnson, 2017).
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jrthakur@kth.se (J. Thakur).
early-adopter consumers and companies, a number of key barri-
ers to the widespread PV adoption still exist, as high up-front cost,
long payback time, high transaction costs in the installation and
planning of the system, among others (Strupeit and Palm, 2016).
To overcome such barriers, the available PV business models
must be designed to reduce the consumers’ transaction costs
and risks, as well as must provide easy and fast-to-implement
solutions (Schleicher-Tappeser, 2012). As such, the concept of
business models can be used as a framework for analyzing, oper-
ationalizing, and boosting the diffusion of sustainable innovations
as PV. Moreover, the identification of different aspects of PV busi-
ness models can provide the necessary information to identify
sociopolitical and regulatory barriers to their implementation.
PV business models have evolved in the past years, as reg-
ulatory frameworks have enabled different players to operate
in this market worldwide. They have been classified into three
generations (zero, first and second generations) depending on
how utilities are involved in the business model (Frantzis et al.,
2008) and different types of individual or shared PV models have

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2023.08.007
2352-4847/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
L. Marques, H.B. da Silva, J. Thakur et al.
Fig. 1. The three generations of PV business models.
been structured in each generation. A summary of those three
generations of PV business models is shown in Fig. 1.
The zero generation corresponds to those models when the
consumers own and maintain their PV systems on their premises.
In this generation, utilities have a passive role of enabling me-
tering and grid connection. It is characterized by high upfront
costs, being restricted to a small group of higher income con-
sumers (Drury et al., 2012). Therefore, most of the PV business
models in this generation are focused on installation. From an
individual PV perspective, such business models are characterized
by companies that install systems on the rooftop of houses or
commercial buildings. In a shared PV perspective, such business
models are better represented by companies that install systems
on the rooftop of condominiums such as multi-family or small
business buildings.
The first generation is characterized by third-party ownership.
It has emerged in the U.S. in 2005 and is expanding gradu-
ally, since it requires an enabling regulatory framework (Drury
et al., 2012). In terms of financing, the third-party model has
been implemented in 24 U.S. states, being considered one of
the major drivers for PV expansion in the last few years (Hong
et al., 2018). These business models involve PPA (Power Purchase
Agreements) with RESCOs (Renewable Energy Service Company),
renting and leasing of PV systems to building occupants. In this
generation, companies design, purchase, install and typically op-
erate PV systems (Hong et al., 2018), which decreases largely
the upfront costs for consumers. Third-party companies usually
have more access to low cost financing, great ability to handle
technical risks and the ability to make use of all government
incentives (Frantzis et al., 2008). There are also non-profit and
crowdfunding initiatives that can facilitate this issue. These busi-
ness models contribute to PV diffusion among lower income
users (Drury et al., 2012). From an individual PV perspective,
such business models contribute to diffusion among tenants or
apartment households, where installing a PV system on rooftops
might not be a simple task. Moreover, individual households and
small companies that prefer to avoid upfront costs are benefited
from this scenario. From a shared PV perspective, these business
models are characterized by contracts with condominiums of
multi-family or small business buildings to install a third-party
PV system on the building’s premises or by solar farms in remote
locations with compensation by virtual net-metering. In the last
case, consumers are subscribers of a share of such farms.
The second generation is characterized by a more in-depth
involvement of utilities with PV being part of their infrastructure.
As PV penetration accelerates, utilities will face an increasing
1603
Energy Reports 10 (2023) 1602–1617
pressure to adapt (Funkhouser et al., 2015). A utility can ulti-
mately decide the best place to install a solar facility in order to
decrease its distribution costs. However, regulatory frameworks
might prevent utilities from owning PV facilities. These business
models can be looked from an individual PV perspective, when
relations are between utility and consumers only. However, great
value is observed in the shared PV perspective, when utilities can
offer turn-key PV solutions as part of an electrification strategy to
communities without access to electricity, being responsible for
the ownership and operation costs (Thakur et al., 2019). Utilities
can also play a significant role in business models not actually
owned by them. They can act as a re-seller buying all the energy
from local communities and selling to final consumers, with a
commission for the service.
As demonstrated by the characteristics of the three gener-
ations, one of the main obstacles to the widespread deploy-
ment of PV generation is the high upfront cost (Mah et al.,
2018), which hinders the participation of multiple consumers
who cannot afford such systems. The rise of remote and shared
PV businesses models in the later generations (Drury et al., 2012)
was able to deal with this barrier, enabling more consumers to
benefit from this sustainable technology, because this high cost
is no longer paid by one individual. In other words, designing
shared and community-based business models is a way to achieve
economies of scale and boost market participation (Asmus, 2008;
Fina et al., 2019; Foroozandeh et al., 2021). In addition to reducing
the upfront cost, community-based PV can contribute signifi-
cantly to reducing harmful gas emissions (Sifakis et al., 2019,
2020). Besides the environmental benefits, energy independence
and personal economic benefits are considered important factors
that drive people to decide to participate in a community solar
initiative (Peters et al., 2018).
The concept of shared PV business model is widely discussed
in the literature, having multiple definitions depending on the
regulatory context, local practices, and actors involved. Cough-
lin et al. describes ‘‘community shared solar’’ (CSS) as a ‘‘solar-
electric system that provides power and/or financial benefit to
multiple community members’’ (Coughlin et al., 2011, p. 3). For
the authors, the idea of having multiple and different members
sharing the benefits of the PV system defines a community shared
business model. Their model is further separated in three sub-
models, depending on the system ownership (e.g. utility, special
purpose entity, or nonprofit). Moreover, Chan et al. emphasizes
that all CSS programs are different, depending on design choices
defined by not only the ownership model, but also the sub-
scription model, the system and site selection, how subscribers
enroll the program, and how the CSS is managed/operated (Chan
L. Marques, H.B. da Silva, J. Thakur et al.
et al., 2017). ‘‘Community solar’’ is again discussed in Asmus
(2008), which adds to the definition of business models with
PV modules on various buildings operating as a single system.
On the other hand, Augustine and McGavisk use the expression
‘‘community shared solar’’ (or more simply ‘‘shared solar’’) to
refer to PV systems providing power and/or benefits to multiple
members, while ‘‘community solar’’ to a broader classification,
which can include the group purchasing of solar equipment (Au-
gustine and McGavisk, 2016). Finally, Feldman et al. adopt the
concept of ‘‘shared solar’’, described as jointly owned or leased
systems whose generation is allocated to offset multiple con-
sumers’ bills (Feldman et al., 2015). From this definition, the
authors exclude some cases as shared systems for common ar-
eas, crowdfunding financing mechanisms, collective-purchasing
programs, among others.
The literature concepts of ‘‘community solar’’ or ‘‘shared so-
lar’’ typically consider the idea of having one system allowing
multiple consumers to share its benefits. After studying differ-
ent countries’ policies, we give a broader definition to create
a general classification of shared PV business models, in which
‘‘community solar’’ and ‘‘shared solar’’ are part of it. We consider
any type of PV business model that allows individuals to have
access to PV generation through shared mechanisms related to
the use of the PV system. The idea is to present in one study a
comprehensive set of shared PV models used in the industry as a
means to provide comparative information to researchers, policy-
makers, and decision-makers. For instance, Zhang provides policy
recommendations for China based on the examination of the
rapidly evolving business models and financing mechanisms in
the U.S. (Zhang, 2016), and we seek to provide similar conclusions
in the shared PV context.
In addition to the multiple terminology for shared PV, there
is no consensus on the literature or industry over its business
models (Michaud, 2020). After reviewing over a hundred papers,
Horváth and Szabó classifies the PV business models into three
categories mainly based on the ownership model (Horváth and
Szabó, 2018): host-owned, third-party-owned, and community-
shared. The first one includes models in which the owner of
the building where the PV system is installed is also the owner
and main user. The second one includes business models in
which the owner and user of the system are different entities.
The last one includes the models operated and administered by
different entities, including utilities and non-profit organizations.
From the shared PV perspective, this classification has many
overlaps between the categories and is unable to include some
of the shared PV models currently available. Moreover, some of
the shared PV business will be included in the second category,
while others in the third. For example, PPAs and solar leases are
examples of revenue streams of third-party ownership models
but are not present in the community-shared model (Horváth and
Szabó, 2018). However, Michaud shows that many community
solar models are based on subscriptions (Michaud, 2020), which
can be done through PPAs, rental or lease contracts. This three-
category classification approach is also in line with the classifica-
tion presented by Huijben and Verbong (2013) for the Dutch PV
market, which defines PV business models as customer-owned,
community shared, and third party.
In Coughlin et al. (2011) and Michaud (2020), the community
shared solar models are also classified according to the sponsor-
ship models: utility, special purpose entity (SPE),1 or nonprofit.
This classification suits the U.S. regulatory framework but is again
unable to fit many shared PV models around the world as well
1 A group of individuals join forces and create a special entity to develop the
community shared project. Given the complexity of this enterprise, many SPEs
are organized by existing business entities.
1604
Energy Reports 10 (2023) 1602–1617
as have overlaps depending on other business model aspects. For
instance, crowdfunding models can gather financing for commu-
nity PV projects from different institutions, including companies,
non-profit entities, and residential consumers.
The authors of Roberts et al. (2019) study the shared PV
business models for apartment buildings. They define 4 types of
arrangements between the households: individual, which means
without a shared governance among the apartments; shared PV
for common property, in which the generation is used to offset
the consumption of common areas; shared PV distributed to
apartments via embedded network, to offset the consumption of
the residents; and shared PV distributed to apartments via a local
energy trading, which adds a local market to the model. Barriers
to these models are discussed, and focused in the Australian
market. Again, the classification proposed by these authors is
not able to contemplate all possibilities of a shared PV business
model, because it is focused on apartment buildings.
After studying the variations in the definitions and expressions
of shared solar, it is imperative to improve the understanding of
shared solar for appropriate policy interventions to encourage PV
adoption. The gap can be seen by the above literature review,
where no consensus of the shared PV business model categories
exists, and many overlapping classifications have been proposed
so far, which undermines the identification of benefits, chal-
lenges, and barriers to the different possible shared PV business
models. To fill this gap, the contributions of this paper are as
follows:
• We propose a different classification of shared PV business
models, following literature discussion and real-world ex-
amples. The idea is to provide a comprehensive set of shared
PV models able to support researchers, the industry, and
regulatory decision-makers to identify opportunities and
barriers to shared PV adoption. The categories are defined
according to Osterwalder’s business model CANVAS (Oster-
walder and Pigneur, 2010);
• We analyze the business model categories in terms of trans-
action costs, considering three factors that impact the level
of these costs: adoption decision, compensation of elec-
tricity, and ownership. We analyze how transaction cost
reduction was explored by companies to deliver value to
consumers;
• We apply the proposed categorization and analysis to Brazil-
ian and Indian shared PV business models in order to under-
stand how these countries’ contexts influence what business
models are more applicable, and what are the barriers for
nonexistent ones.
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the
methodology and the data, Section 3 presents the categories and
transaction cost discussion, Section 4 presents the case study in
the Brazilian and Indian markets. In Section 5, we highlight the
main conclusions.
2. Methodology
The methodology applied in this paper is composed of two
main methods: (1) Osterwalder’s business model CANVAS, which
is applied to classify the shared PV models in a way to provide
a comprehensive set; (2) the transaction costs method, which
is used to analyze the incentives and barriers of the PV shared
business models adoption.
The first method results in a comparative table listing different
business models on each column and different features in each
row based on the CANVAS model. The second method results in
a discussion of how each business model category is related to
L. Marques, H.B. da Silva, J. Thakur et al.
different levels of transaction costs reduction for users of shared
PV.
Finally, there is a case study of how each category has ad-
herence to the Brazilian and Indian regulatory and economic
contexts, in terms of how many pillars of the CANVAS business
model are adherent to each market. Also the main barriers faced
by each shared business model based on the Brazilian and Indian
regulatory frameworks are discussed.
The establishment of those methods and their further applica-
tion in the aforementioned case study is based on qualitative and
unstructured data obtained from literature, government agencies,
companies’ websites and interviews with players from the sector.
2.1. Business model CANVAS
Studying business models is essential to boost the diffusion
of innovations and for allowing a more sustainable application of
existent technologies (Strupeit and Palm, 2016), e.g. Paiho et al.
study business models for improving the energy efficiency of
residential buildings (Paiho et al., 2015). Different concepts and
definitions of a business model exist (Horváth and Szabó, 2018).
Although many researchers disagree on the term meaning, in
general they agree that value creation and capture are central
aspects defining a business model (Strupeit and Palm, 2016). The
Business Model CANVAS is a popular methodology which defines
nine building blocks of a business that are vital for value creation
and capture. Those blocks are represented in a board, helping
entrepreneurs to design a new business or reformulate an ex-
isting strategy (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010). As we intend to
define business models for shared PV, which is a new application
of this distributed generation technology, CANVAS methodology
is also applicable. However, describing an entire business able to
deliver the shared PV value is out of scope of this study. Therefore,
only fundamental blocks that characterize the main differences
between shared PV models are used, as schematized in shaded
brown in Fig. 2:
• Value Proposition: can be described by products and/or ser-
vices offered by the company to fulfill the requirements of
consumer segments (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010). Defin-
ing the value proposition of a shared PV business model
will impact all its other aspects, being key to identify the
different categories of shared PV models, their benefits and
barriers. For instance, the value proposition impacts which
types of consumers can be targeted/covered by the business
(e.g. a shared PV model sold as a turn-key solution to con-
sumers with multiple consuming units might not be inter-
esting for a residential consumer living in an apartment), as
well as impacts the revenue streams of the business. In the
context of shared PV, value propositions include turn-key
solutions, subscription models, matching platforms, among
others, offered by ‘‘integration’’ companies,2 utilities, third
parties, and non-profit organizations (NPOs) to consumers
interested in distributed generation.
• Customer Segments (target consumers): includes the target
consumers a company aims to reach and serve. They may
be grouped into distinct segments with common needs/
behaviors. Defining customer segments is important for
carefully designing the other aspects of the business model
in general, and, in the context of shared PV, it also helps
to identify the applicability of a certain model to a certain
sociopolitical context (e.g. a community solar focused on
residents might not be possible due to local regulations).
2 Integration companies are defined in this paper as the intermediary
businesses installing, maintaining, and sometimes owning the PV systems.
1605
Energy Reports 10 (2023) 1602–1617
In the context of shared PV, we divide consumers in com-
mercial, residential, and industrial, following power system
nomenclature.
• Revenue Streams (revenue model): represents the money a
company earns from each customer segment (Osterwalder
and Pigneur, 2010), impacting the feasibility of a business.
In the context of shared PV, we also consider the rev-
enue model of the consumers, which drives them to in-
vest in distributed generation, thus impacting the adoption
of a shared PV business model. The revenue model for
consumers depends on local policies and can be of differ-
ent types, e.g. virtual net-metering, feed-in tariff, access
to electricity, among others. For the company offering the
shared PV product/service, herein referred to as ‘‘intermedi-
ary’’, revenues can come from the project development and
management, installing and operating the system, among
others.
• Cost Structure: characterize the most important costs in-
curred to operate the business (Osterwalder and Pigneur,
2010). In the context of shared PV, the main costs are
related to the system’s upfront investment and operation.
Therefore, to differentiate shared PV businesses, we consider
who pays for these key costs, e.g. consumers, a third party,
etc. This cost will impact the adoption/feasibility of a shared
PV business model in a certain sociopolitical context.
Different value propositions and customer segments impact
how to design the other aspects of the business model, defining
the core of the business and being essential to determine how
shared PV models differentiate. Moreover, the revenue model
(for consumers and intermediaries), as well as the cost structure,
are key to classifying business models, because the upfront and
operation costs are the main costs of this type of business. The
definition of these four blocks will determine the feasibility,
adoption potential, and implementation challenges of a certain
shared PV business model in an specific regulatory context. In
addition to those fundamental blocks, we add the ownership
model as a defining block, which is related to who pays the cost
structure, but not necessarily the same. The ownership impacts
who pays the system costs, who benefits from its revenues, and
how intermediary companies act to create value.
The other five building blocks, i.e. key activities, key partners,
key resources, customer relationships, and channels, are not con-
sidered, because our objective is to generally classify shared PV
business models, not to determine the specific aspects necessary
to create these businesses. More specifically, key activities de-
fine the most important activities in the execution of a value
proposition; key partners relate to the suppliers of a business
and/or its complementary business alliances; key resources de-
termine the resources necessary to create value for the customer;
customer relationships will define how the business will get,
keep, and grow its customers; and channels define how the
company reaches the customers. As such, all of them describe
the operations of a specific company, which do not add value to
the categorization proposed in this paper, and do not impact the
business potential of shared PV models in different sociopolitical
contexts.
2.1.1. Transaction costs
The reason why consumers make contracts with energy com-
panies under different business models is to decrease the sum of
production and transaction cost of energy services (Sorrell, 2007),
i.e., consumers want to reduce their electricity bill without incur-
ring high transaction costs, related to organizing and governing
the activity (Nolden et al., 2016).
L. Marques, H.B. da Silva, J. Thakur et al. Energy Reports 10 (2023) 1602–1617

Fig. 2. Blocks of CANVAS methodology. Shaded blocks are used to classify shared PV business models.

Transaction costs include the costs of planning, adapting,

executing, and monitoring task completion. Uncertainty, com-
plexity, asymmetric information, and opportunism in some situa-
tions are conditions under which transactional inefficiencies may
arise (Williamson, 1980). The greater the transaction efficiency
gains are delivered to a consumer by a business, more valuable
this business will be Amit and Zott (2001). It also involves the
reduction of search and information costs, bargaining and deci-
sion costs and supervision and enforcement costs (Sorrell, 2007).
the authors (Allen, 1991) also links a costly information as one of
the necessary conditions for the existence of transaction costs, as
well as the variability of goods.
The decrease in transaction costs provided to consumers has
significant importance in the diffusion of PV technology and busi-
ness models development. They are mainly associated with how
much direct or indirect effort a non-specialist small consumer
should put into the process or internalize in order to adopt a PV
technology, and to harness local government incentives on re-
newable energy and other economic benefits. Since PV consumers
usually have low expertise in these activities of installing or con-
necting the PV system with local utility and all the bureaucracy
involved with these activities, value is added to consumers when
such costs are decreased by a company in a business model.
In shared PV business models, transaction costs might be
internalized in some cases due to voluntary time and dedication
of community directors (Nolden et al., 2020). However, even with
information available online, there is a possibility that customers
are confused, resulting in high transaction costs considering mar-
kets like the building-integrated PV (Curtius, 2018).
From the consumers’ point of view, these transaction costs
might even be prohibitive without companies that offer a com-
plete turn-key solutions. Therefore, transaction cost reduction
opportunities are being used as a way to deliver value to these
consumers. In order to evaluate how these costs are decreased by
each business model, we consider 2 different variables from the
transaction cost economics (TCE): environmental and behavior
uncertainty (Sorrell, 2007). These features are indirectly consid-
ered by consumers when opting for shared PV systems. The first
is related to unanticipated changes in circumstances surrounding
a transaction and the second is related to difficulties associated
with monitoring the contractual performance of transaction part-
ners, avoiding opportunist behavior (Sorrell, 2007). Such behavior
comes when decision makers may unscrupulously seek to serve
their self-interests (Rindfleisch and Heide, 1997).
In this approach, we consider there are three main features
that could be responsible for how large the transaction costs
1606
Fig. 3. Transaction cost features considered for shared PV business models.
are borne by the company in favor of the consumers. In the
group of environmental uncertainty, we consider the compen-
sation of electricity, since local or remote compensation inputs
challenges regarding technological issues. On the other hand, in
the group of behavior uncertainty, we consider adoption deci-
sions and ownership of the PV system. In this latter group, these
two features encompass the possible uncertainties that may arise
in the relation to consumers in an economic transaction in a
shared PV business model. Fig. 3 presents the transaction cost
features considered in this analysis.
In other to clarify how each category of shared PV business
model tends to deliver to consumers more or less transaction
costs reduction, we propose a comparative analysis based on
binary variables xi . For this comparative purpose, we consider:
• x1 as compensation of electricity, considering x1 = 0 for
local compensation and x1 = 1 for remote;
• x2 as adoption decision, considering x2 = 0 for joint deci-
sions and x2 = 1 for single;
• x3 as ownership of PV system, considering x3 = 0 for
self-owned ownership and x3 = 1 for third-party;
Compensation of electricity could be local or remote. Remote
compensation could be perceived as having a higher level of
transaction costs reduction, since the system is installed out of
the consumer’s premises and electrical and civil infrastructure
issues would be mostly reduced in this scenario. The adoption
decision of a PV system could be single or joint, and this last
one is related to agreements between different consumers, which
inputs to them a higher transaction cost to conduct such agree-
ments. Therefore, business models with single adoption decisions
tend to deliver higher transaction cost reductions to consumers.
Regarding ownership, a self-owned system inputs to consumers
L. Marques, H.B. da Silva, J. Thakur et al. Energy Reports 10 (2023) 1602–1617

Table 1
Classification of shared PV models.
Pillar Integration model Renting of PV Community solar Leasing Microgrid model RESCO/PPA Utility re-seller Nonprofit Crowdfunding
systems

Value Proposition Turn-key solution Subscription Community Turn-key solution Turn-key solution Turn-key solution Utility buys Supporters of the Platform matches
offered by model offered by members own the offered by offered by the installed in the energy from local NPO help finance investors with
‘‘integration’’ third-party, utility, shared PV, defined ‘‘integrators’’ utility as an consumers’ communities solar the system consumers
companies or government by a negotiated without upfront off-grid microgrid premises with a and resells to through interested in the
agreement costs and the solution pre-defined consumers tax-deductible PV generation
possibility of monthly tariff donations or
buying the system direct investment
at the end in the project

Target Consumer Commercial, Renters, small Owners (of all Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential,
industrial business, types) inside commercial,
industries community industrial

Ownership Model Customer-owned Third-party, utility, Community- Third-party Utility Utility, third-party Local community NPO, community Various types
government owned, flipping to solar members, donors depending on
utility consumer project

Revenue model Virtual Virtual Virtual Virtual Energy access Lower tariff Virtual Virtual Virtual
(consumers) net-metering, net-metering, net-metering, net-metering, with monthly net-metering, net-metering, net-metering,
feed-in tariff feed-in tariff feed-in tariff feed-in tariff tariff lower tariff lower tariff, green feed-in tariff
donation fund

Revenue model Project Project Project Rental, solar Monthly tariff Fee for services Commission to Excess power Commission to
(supplier or development and development and development and leasing utility and tariff revenue, green platform
intermediary) management operation charged implementation to system owners credits sell
(transaction costs) as subscription,
fee for services

Upfront and System owners Third-party, utility, System owners Third-party Utility Third-party Local community Donors, NPO, Investors
operation costs government solar community
members, utility
grants, state
programs,
homeowners

Example Pharmacy chains Enercred (BR), Enterprise with Environment MGPs (IN) University Park Sacramento California Habitat Citizenergy (EU),
and banks (BR) EMGD (BR), Órigo multiple consumer Leasing of private Community Solar Municipal Utility for Humanity (US) Sunexchange
(BR), Mori (BR), units (BR), banks (BR), LLC (US) District (US) (global), Solar
CEMIG Sim! (BR), multi-family multi-family Green Power (NL),
Tucson Electric households (SE), housing Ecopower (BE),
(US) shared PV complexes (KR) United PV (CN)
apartment
buildings (AU)

BR: Brazil; US: United Stated; SE: Sweden; AU: Australia; KR: South Korea; IN: India; EU: Europe; NL: Netherlands; BE: Belgium; CN: China

3. Results and discussion

The results of the methods can be summarized by the com-

prehensive list of shared PV business models, together with a
discussion of their characteristics, adoption potential, barriers,
and associated transaction costs.

3.1. Main business models of shared PV

Based on the CANVAS blocks, we propose nine categories of

Fig. 4. Transaction cost features values considered in the analysis in terms of
reduction levels.
all the financing issues and upfront cost regarding buying a PV
system, which tends to input to them higher transaction costs
than third-party owned systems.
Therefore, the total amount of transaction cost level y for each
category can be estimated by summing up the values of each
feature:
3
∑ opment and management, system installation and maintenance,
ŷ = xi
i=1
Therefore, to assess transaction costs reduction and assuming
equal weights in this paper for the features, if a BM contributes
in the reduction of the 3 features, it will have a higher score
in ŷ. Fig. 4 depicts how the transaction cost feature values will
be considered in this analysis in terms of transaction cost level
reduction.
shared PV business models, which are summarized in Table 1. The
categories used here were based on literature and existing shared
PV projects. Even though some of them might carry only one
block of the CANVAS (e.g. renting of PV Systems is quite related to
the revenue streams) or diverge from literature (e.g. community
solar is different from community shared solar), they all differ in
terms of value proposition together with some of the other CAN-
VAS fundamental blocks used to their classification. Moreover, the
divergences from literature notation are explicitly stated when
applicable.
3.1.1. Integration model
In this model, depicted in Fig. 5, solar integrator companies of-
fer turn-key solutions to consumers, which include project devel-
(1) and documentation required by utilities (Thakur et al., 2019).
These companies focus on reducing consumers’ transaction costs
and delivering convenience to the customer. Besides offering the
complete PV system and installing it, they provide all necessary
services required to connect, operate and maintain the system.
Among those services, achieving technical and administrative
compliance to the distribution utility rules, to obtain access to
the electrical grid and export the PV energy in excess, requires
specific expertise in electrical energy concepts and regulation of
1607
L. Marques, H.B. da Silva, J. Thakur et al.
Fig. 5. Integration business model.
the electricity sector that most consumers do not have. The PV
system project and development requires knowledge of the local
market to be able to obtain a good performance–cost relationship
when integrating the many components that form the system.
In the residential sector, this business model is very popular
for singular PV systems, in which homeowners are interested in
installing a distributed generation on their rooftop and are able
to pay for the upfront cost. On the other hand, for shared PV
systems, this model suits better commercial and industrial con-
sumers with multiple facilities or franchises in different locations.
Those consumers are able to install a larger but distributed PV
system in one of their units and use the excess energy to offset
the consumption of other sites. System owners are responsible
for paying the upfront and operation costs, and are paid back
through virtual net-metering or feed-in tariff in those multiple
locations. The intermediary companies receive a payment for the
project development and management and, in many cases, for
maintenance. In Brazil, commercial companies, such as pharmacy
chains (Bernardo, 2018) and banks (X., 2021), install a larger
PV system in one of their units and offset consumption in their
subsidiaries. Community based Solar power plant in Rampura
is developed by Development Alternatives, an NGO (Joshi and
Yenneti, 2020), is an example of integration model. In India,
on-bill financing business model is similar to integration model
aids consumers, wherein consumers are benefited in the form
of reduced overall cost of system and service, lower transaction
costs, and also safeguards operations and management services.
3.1.2. Renting of PV systems
In this model, depicted in Fig. 6, third-party entities develop
shared PV projects, install and manage the PV systems, and offer
subscription to consumers (Coughlin et al., 2011; Thakur et al.,
2019; Michaud, 2020). The third-party can be a PV company, the
utility, or the government. They are responsible for the upfront
cost of the distributed system, as well as all the transaction costs
related to its installation and operation. The idea is to be able to
offer the benefits of PV generation to consumers who cannot own
the system, because of the high upfront costs, unavailability of
roof space, households that live in an apartment or as tenants,
lack of knowledge about PV systems, among others. Therefore,
the target consumers are small businesses, industries and house-
holds just mentioned. Subscribers can benefit from virtual net
metering or feed-in tariffs, depending on local policies. Moreover,
the system owner charges subscribers a monthly fee for services
to cover the implementation and operation expenses, and the
owner’s profit. Examples of this business model are: Enercred
(2022), EMGD (2022), Órigo Energia (2022), Mori (2022) and
Sim! (2022) in Brazil, and Tucson Electric in U.S (Coughlin et al.,
2011).
1608
Energy Reports 10 (2023) 1602–1617
Fig. 6. Renting of PV Systems business model.
Fig. 7. Community solar business model.
3.1.3. Community solar
This model, depicted in Fig. 7, resembles the integration one,
with the difference that multiple consumers join a community
agreement to own a shared PV system, instead of having one
owner with one (multiple) system (s) using the generation to
offset consumption in multiple units, as in the integration model.
Consumers must negotiate the terms of the agreement to de-
fine participants’ shares, the system location, which integration
company will install and operate the system, the revenue policy,
among others (Perger et al., 2021). In this case, consumers can
be of various types, such as residential, commercial, and indus-
trial (Mehta and Tiefenbeck, 2022). Because the members are the
owners of the shared system, they must pay for the upfront and
operation costs, as well as the transaction costs related to forming
and managing the community. Moreover, their investment is
paid back by virtual net metering or feed-in-tariff, depending
on local policy. The intermediary company is only responsible
for developing the project and installing the system, being also
able to get revenue from future maintenance. Examples of this
business model are: enterprises with multiple consumer units
(EMUCs) in Brazil (BlueSol, 2021), multi-family households in
Sweden (Sommerfeldt et al., 2016), and shared PV for apartment
buildings in Australia (Roberts et al., 2019).
One should not confound the ‘‘community shared solar’’ (CSS)
programs in the literature, as in Coughlin et al. (2011), Chan
et al. (2017), with the category proposed here. CSS is broader and
might include almost all other business models (e.g. renting of
PV systems, leasing, RESCO/PPA, utility re-seller, non-profit, and
crowdfunding) depending on design choices such as ownership,
subscription model, site selection, etc.
3.1.4. Leasing
This model, illustrated in Fig. 8, resembles the renting of PV
systems, but subscribers have the opportunity to buy the system
L. Marques, H.B. da Silva, J. Thakur et al.
Fig. 8. Leasing business model.
at the end of the leasing period. In a lease, consumers pay a fixed
monthly rate regardless of how much electricity is generated in
the system (CSE, 2020). In the residential sector, this is a very
popular model for singular systems, specially when upfront costs
are high. However, in the case of shared PV, this model is more
difficult to implement, considering that flipping the ownership of
only a share of a system involves building complex agreements.
As in the other models, consumers benefit from virtual net me-
tering or feed-in tariffs. Moreover, the system owner (considered
as an intermediary) gets revenue from renting and later leasing
the solar system. This third-party entity is responsible for the
upfront system cost, and its operation while owning it. Environ-
ment Leasing of private banks in Brazil (Bradesco, 2022) is an
example of this model. In India, RESCO-owned rooftop systems
involves complete development of solar projects, and they own
and operates the project.
In South Korea, a high rate of multi-family housing com-
plexes accounting for 68% of the electricity consumption in the
country’s residential sector is an interesting reason to boost the
leasing business for shared PV (Hong et al., 2018). The different
consumption rates among the families can be an obstacle to
implementation, because the requirements to buy the system
could be achieved at different times by the families. Moreover,
some families could decide not to buy their part.
Therefore, good leasing contract designs should foresee a sit-
uation in which parts of the PV system are owned by some
consumers and other parts are leased, for instance, by indicat-
ing the creation of a special purpose entity with well-defined
responsibilities and rights for both kind of consumers.
3.1.5. Microgrid model
In this model, Fig. 9, utilities offer turn-key solutions as an
off-grid microgrid to communities without access to electric-
ity (Thakur et al., 2019). Its main goal is to provide energy to
residential consumers, specially of rural towns in developing
countries located far away from the electrical grid (Wouters,
2015). When providing electricity through the main grid involves
costs that cannot be afforded by the consumers, or when the
access to the geographic place is very difficult, isolated microgrids
are an option to offer electricity to low-income populations. In
these cases, a distribution utility could be the best agent to im-
plement a solution, keeping ownership of the system, and being
responsible for its upfront and operation costs. Consumers benefit
from having access to energy, paid as a monthly tariff. The utility
may develop technical expertise in microgrids or, probably better,
it can involve itself in public–private partnerships to develop and
install the systems.
This community PV model is very important to improve en-
ergy access where the main grid is not present in countries
1609
Energy Reports 10 (2023) 1602–1617
Fig. 9. Microgrid business model.
Fig. 10. RESCO/PPA business model.
such as India, which has examples of this model (Government of
India - Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, 2022). Utilities
plays a vital role in microgrid, by providing grid to avoid extra
expenses in the form of electricity storage, along with provision
of procuring electricity during electricity deficit scenario (Ahmad
and Alam, 2018).
3.1.6. RESCO/PPA
In this model, Fig. 10, Renewable Energy Service Compa-
nies (RESCOs) offer turn-key solutions installed in consumers’
premises, who pay a pre-defined monthly per kilowatt-hour
tariff, typically competitive with the local utility tariff, to benefit
from the system’s generation through a Power Purchase Agree-
ment (PPA) (Thakur et al., 2019). The RESCO installs and operates
the system on consumers’ property, keeping the ownership of the
system. As in some aforementioned models, RESCO businesses
are popular in singular residences, in which homeowners cannot
afford the high upfront cost, but want to enjoy the benefits from
distributed generation. In the case of shared PV, the system can
be installed in communities’ buildings, as churches and schools,
and in multi-family buildings, and the RESCO sells the energy
generated in PV systems to community’s participants. Community
members profit from a lower tariff and access to renewable
energy. The intermediary (RESCO) is paid for its investments and
operation costs with this fee for service. Also, utilities can sponsor
this type of business model. An example of this model is the
University Park Community Solar LLC in the U.S. (Higuchi, 2015;
Coughlin et al., 2011).
3.1.7. Utility re-seller
In this model, shown in Fig. 11, utilities buy energy from
local communities’ shared solar and resell the energy to their
consumers. The local community solar has the ownership of the
L. Marques, H.B. da Silva, J. Thakur et al.
Fig. 11. Utility re-seller business model.
system, and the utility plays a role of intermediary between
the system owners and the final consumers. Moreover, upfront
and operation costs are sponsored by the local community solar,
which is paid back through selling the energy to the utility. The
final consumers can get credits for buying the energy from the lo-
cal community through the utility, or a lower tariff than the retail
market. Utilities can charge a commission for mediating services.
An example of this model is the Sacramento Municipal Utility
District (SMUD) with its SolarShares Program (SMUD, 2022).
3.1.8. Non-profit
In this model, as depicted in Fig. 12, supporters of the Non-
profit Organization (NPO) help finance the system through tax-
deductible donations or direct investments in the project (Cough-
lin et al., 2011). The upfront costs are paid by donors, the NPO,
utility grants, state programs, or even community members or
homeowners. For the last two, the NPO gives consumers access
to ‘‘cheap’’ loans. Depending on the arrangement, the system
can be owned by the NPO, community members, or donors.
Community members benefit from virtual net-metering, lower
tariff, or green donation funds. On the other hand, some inter-
mediaries (e.g. donors and NPO) can have revenue from selling
excess power and green credits, or deducing taxes (Chan et al.,
2019). An example of this business model is California Habitat
for Humanity, which built a shared PV system on the rooftop of
a building with multiple home units. While the individuals in the
Homeowner Association own a panel of the roof-mounted solar
array, the Homeowner Association holds additional solar panels
in common areas to offset the remaining electricity costs (Chan
et al., 2019).
3.1.9. Crowdfunding
In this model, as depicted in Fig. 13, an online platform
matches investors with consumers interested in PV generation
or shared PV projects. Different types of projects can be offered
in the crowdfunding platform, having similar business models
to the aforementioned ones. However, the presence of this new
intermediary makes crowdfunding a new model, connected to
the idea of sharing economy (Ritter and Schanz, 2019). More-
over, investors can be from multiple groups, especially ordinary
citizens across the globe. This generates a big change in the
financing model of shared PV projects because the high upfront
costs do not need to be paid directly by consumers, third-party,
or utilities, through bank loans, government grants, NPO projects,
or self capital. Multiple small investors are able to invest in
shared PV projects using the crowdfunding platform. Therefore,
the PV system can be owned by a utility, government, third
party, community members, consumers, or NPO. In addition, final
consumers can be benefited from virtual net-metering, feed-in
1610
Energy Reports 10 (2023) 1602–1617
tariff, lower tariff, energy access, or green donation funds. The
platform gets commissions from project developers to support its
maintenance.
There are multiple types of crowdfunding for PV projects, in-
cluding donation-based, reward-based, lending-based, and
equity-based (Lam and Law, 2016). Crowdfunding model has a
potential to generate funds for PV diffusion. It can generate 2.5
to 4% of the total cumulative funds need for PV in Singapore by
2050 (Lu et al., 2018). There are several platforms specialized in
PV projects, e.g. Citizenergy (2022), and Sunexchange (2022).
Examples of this business model include Solar Green Point in
the Netherlands and Ecopower in Belgium (Lam and Law, 2016).
There is also a Chinese company, United PV, which introduced
crowdfunding initiatives in the PV market, according to Li et al.
(2018).
3.2. Transaction costs in PV business models
These business models have been developed in the shared PV
sector as a way to bridge the gap between PV systems and non-
specialist consumers under different regulatory frameworks. They
have been developed to decrease either the purchase costs or
the transaction costs for final PV consumers. In PV systems, the
purchase costs tends to be the largest cost and biggest barrier
for consumers, but in the shared PV, transaction costs plays
an important role as well. For example, managing a group of
household connections can take some time and effort from the
consumer.
In this section, we highlight how shared PV business models
decrease these costs to consumers for a comparative purpose.
Three main features could be responsible for how large the
transaction costs are borne by the company in favor of the con-
sumers: compensation of electricity, adoption decision and own-
ership.
Table 2 presents each configuration of these features and how
large the level of transaction costs borne by companies in each
category, and therefore reduced to the consumers. We consider
here binary values for each feature, summing them up to obtain
this transaction cost reduction level ŷ of each category. For this
paper, we have assumed that the three main factors have equal
weight in the calculation of TC reduction level.
As explained in Fig. 4, three dimensions were considered in
the evaluation of each business model: compensation scheme,
adoption decision and ownership. The transaction cost reduction
level depends on the adherence of each BM to each category.
Microgrid model, non-profit, crowdfunding and integration
model were classified with a higher level of transaction cost
reduction, with ŷ = 2. Then, we have renting of PV systems,
leasing and RESCO/PPA, with ŷ = 1. Finally, community solar and
utility reseller were classified as the business model categories
with lower transaction cost reduction levels, with ŷ = 0. Fig. 14
depicts the classification in this analysis considering the cubic
framework presented in the methodology.
4. Case study
The analysis of the main PV business models and the major
challenges they face are important methods to provide policy
recommendations to a specific market. We discuss what would be
the main barriers and challenges for Brazil and India. Initially, the
distributed generation (DG) general context is described together
with data on market characteristics and size. Then, the shared PV
business models adherent to each country’s regulations are iden-
tified. Finally, the main barriers and challenges for non-applicable
business models are indicated.
L. Marques, H.B. da Silva, J. Thakur et al. Energy Reports 10 (2023) 1602–1617

Table 2
Transaction costs (TC) level borne by shared PV categories depending on transaction cost features.
Compensation Adoption Ownership (x3 ) TC reduction Business model categories
scheme (x1 ) decision (x2 ) level (ŷ)
Remote Single Third-party 3 –
Local Single Third-party 2 Microgrid Model, Nonprofit,
Crowdfunding
Remote Joint Third-party 2 –
Local Joint Third-party 1 Renting of PV systems, Leasing,
RESCO/PPA
Remote Single Self-owned 2 Integration Model
Local Single Self-owned 1 –
Remote Joint Self-owned 1 –
Local Joint Self-owned 0 Community Solar, Utility
Reseller

Fig. 12. Non-profit business model.

Fig. 13. Crowdfunding business model. Fig. 14. Shared PV business model category classification in terms of transaction
cost reduction.

4.1. Brazilian market

4.1.1. Regulatory context of distributed generation in Brazil
The Brazilian regulation for DG up to 1 MW was established
in 2012 by the Normative Resolution 482/2012 (Brasil, Agên-
cia Nacional de Energia Elétrica (ANEEL), 2012), issued by the
electricity sector regulator, the National Electrical Energy Agency
(ANEEL), and revised and modified in 2015 and 2017. More re-
cently, a legal framework for DG was established by the federal
law 14.300/2022 (Brasil, 2022), and regulated by the Normative
Resolution 1059/2023 of ANEEL (Agência Nacional de Energia
Elétrica (ANEEL), 2023) that revoked previous resolutions. DG is
classified into micro DG (up to 75 kW) and mini DG (between
75 kW and 5 MW, or 3 MW for not dispatchable new units)
and only renewable sources hydro, solar, wind, biomass, and
1611
high efficiency cogeneration are enabled. Net-metering mecha-
nisms, called energy compensation schemes, are applied to cope
with energy valuation. Monthly consumption is compensated by
the energy generated by DG units, following some rules. For
consumers under binomial time-of-use (TOU) tariffs, in general
medium voltage consumers with mini DG, the volumetric part
of the tariff is used to value the DG generation. If in a certain
month electricity consumption exactly matches DG generation,
the prosumer must pay only the demand part of the tariff. If not,
the positive difference (net generation) is credited or the negative
difference (net consumption) must be paid. On the other hand,
for prosumers under monomial volumetric tariffs, which are the
majority of low voltage consumers with micro DG, the federal
law introduced important modifications. The old rules allowed a
one-to-one compensation in which the value of the DG energy
L. Marques, H.B. da Silva, J. Thakur et al.
Table 3
Net-metering schemes for distributed PV generation in Brazil as in February/2023.
Net-metering scheme
Individual with local compensation
(ILC)
Individual with remote compensation
(IRC)
Shared with local compensation (SLC)
Shared with remote compensation
(SRC)
was given by the whole energy tariff, and a small availability
payment was established to cope with network operation and
expansion costs. Under law 14.300/2022 only 70%, approximately,
of the whole energy tariff will be considered to value the energy
generated from micro DG. The remaining 30% of the tariff refers
to operation and expansion costs of the distribution system.
Therefore, low voltage prosumers with micro DG will have to
contribute to network costs. Notice that, even the federal law was
issued early in 2022, this modification takes place one year later
and in a progressive form, increasing the network payment up to
30% in six years.
There are four different net-metering mechanisms that de-
pend on the DG system location and on the quantity of con-
sumption units that benefit from the generated energy. Table 3
summarizes these schemes. In the local compensation scheme,
consumption and generation occur in the same location, and in
remote compensation the DG location is different from that of
the consumption units that benefit. Both local and remote energy
compensation is possible for shared DG models. A shared with
local compensation scheme involves different consumption units
located nearby on the same plot, e.g., a condominium. A shared
with remote compensation scheme considers consumption units
in different locations that are organized in a consortium, coopera-
tive or any other civil organization instituted for this purpose, and
the generating unit is located in one of the consumption units.
Shared schemes are allowed since the regulatory review of 2015.
The Brazilian market of micro and mini DG has grown a lot in
the last years, and PV energy dominates the market. By February
2023, there are more than 17,973.00 MW of DG installed power,
from which 99.9% are PV systems, as informed by the regulatory
agency (ANEEL, 2023). The distributed PV market, considering the
number of PV grid-connected systems, is almost 30 times greater
than in 2018, with 1,699,010 units. On the other side, shared
PV models (both local and remote compensation) account only
for 0.61% of the installed PV power (almost 108.20 MW), and
0.24% of the total number of PV system units, although almost
half of this power has been installed during 2022. The shared
with local compensation (e.g. condominium) installed power is
all PV (ANEEL, 2023).
4.1.2. Shared PV business models adherence to Brazilian local regu-
lation
Table 4 presents the adherence of each business model of
Table 1 to the Brazilian regulation. Rows contain business models
as defined in Section 3.1 evaluated in relation to CANVAS pil-
lars, under the perspective of shared arrangements viable in the
Brazilian market.
The Integration Model suits industrial and commercial con-
sumers with multiple facilities which can adopt the IRC net-
metering scheme: the company will install the PV system in
one of its facilities and compensate the energy also in the other
facilities. The Renting of PV Systems Model can be implemented
for SRC net-metering scheme fulfilling all six pillars. Community
Solar and Leasing Models can also be implemented in Brazil for
both local and remote shared schemes.
Energy Reports 10 (2023) 1602–1617
Description
net-metering with electricity credits compensated in the
generation unit
net-metering with electricity credits compensated in a remote
consumption unit of the prosumer in the same utility area
net-metering with credits compensated locally among several
consumption units
net-metering with credits compensated remotely among
several consumption units
However, Microgrid, RESCO/PPA, Utility Reseller, and Non-
profit models do not support all six pillars under Brazilian DG
market rules. The Microgrid Model as defined in this paper could
be implemented as SLC net-metering scheme; however, the Value
Proposition pillar does not apply, because utilities cannot offer
turn-key solutions to non grid-connected consumers, since they
cannot own generation assets. The cost structure does not apply
also: microgrids can be implemented under Brazilian regulation
but they cannot be owned by a distribution utility due to the
generation assets ownership restrictions. On the contrary, both
revenue pillars RM-C and RM-SI are valid. Notice that LOW ad-
herence is indicated, because only less than 1% of Brazilians
consumers are off-grid. The RESCO-PPA business model is not
allowed under Brazilian DG regulation since third parties, like
RESCOs, cannot sell energy to consumers served by utilities. The
Utility Reseller model cannot be implemented as defined in this
paper; however, a variant will be possible in the near future, as
discussed in next section. The Non-profit business model fails to
adhere to the CANVAS pillar related with supplier or intermediary
revenue, because excess DG generation cannot be commercialized
and there are no green credits nor reduced taxes mechanisms.
4.1.3. Barriers to business models
The Microgrid model, as defined in this paper, refers to com-
munities without access to electricity. In Brazil this model is
explored under specific government programs, because utilities
cannot own generation assets (Brasil, 2004).
Utility re-seller model has low adherence to the Brazilian reg-
ulation due to the regulatory model of the distribution segment
which prevents utilities to buy electricity from consumers or
group of consumers. However, federal law 14.300/2022 allows
them to buy micro and mini DG energy under a public procedure
that still needs to be regulated by ANEEL. Therefore, it is expected
that in the future this model could be applied in Brazil. Moreover,
it is expected that utilities should use this scheme as a non-wire
approach to system expansion and operation improvements.
The RESCO/PPA model cannot be applied to low voltage con-
sumers, because their energy must be provided by the local
utility, thus they cannot buy energy from third parties. Recently,
the Ministry of Mines and Energy issued the ordinance 50/2022
(Brasil, Ministry of Mines and Energy (MME), 2022) that allows
medium voltage consumers to adhere to the wholesale energy
market, starting in January 2024, so those consumers will be able
to choose their energy provider. Moreover, there is a law project
under study to extend this possibility to all consumers.
Additionally, law 14.300/2022 allows for new and more flex-
ible forms of consumer union, as civil societies, that can group
both individuals and legal entities, and the consortium of con-
sumers. However, they are not well defined from the legal point
of view yet. Another barrier is financing, because this new busi-
ness is not completely understood by financing institutions. Re-
garding grid access, negative impacts on the operation of the grid
are observed in many cases, because some shared PV projects,
when looking for locations with good solar potential, install PV
1612
L. Marques, H.B. da Silva, J. Thakur et al. Energy Reports 10 (2023) 1602–1617

Table 4
Business models adherence according to regulation in Brazil as in February/2023.
Business Business model adherence Final Brazilian
model VP TC OWN RM-C RM-SI CO adherence scheme

Integration Model ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ High IRC

Renting of PV Systems ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ High SRC
Community Solar ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ High SLC, SRC
Leasing ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ High SLC, SRC
Microgrid Model ✗ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗ Low SLC
RESCO/PPA ✗ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ None –
Utility Re-seller ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ None –
Non-profit ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ Medium ILC, IRC, SLC, SRC
Crowdfunding ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ High ILC, IRC, SLC, SRC

VP: value proposition; TC: target consumers; OWN: ownership model; RM-C: revenue model (consumers); RM-SI: revenue model (supplier or
intermediary); CO: costs; ILC: individual with local compensation; IRC: individual with remote compensation, SLC: shared with local compensation;
SRC: shared with remote compensation.

systems in regions with weak electrical grid. Two approaches

are possible to cope with this problem, reinforcing the grid and
requiring the participation of PV systems in distribution grid
operating actions, by using their inverters control capabilities.
This latter option is envisaged by law 14.300/2022 when allows
distribution utilities to buy ancillary services from micro and
mini DG, but still needs to be regulated by the electricity sector
regulator.
In brief, the new law 14.300/2022 introduces many new pos-
sibilities for shared business models expansion in Brazil, but
specific regulation for some cases still needs to be defined.

4.2. Indian market

4.2.1. Regulatory context of distributed generation in India

At present, India’s total installed electricity generation capac-
ity is approximately 412 GW as of February 2023 (Ministry of
Power, 2023), which will be approximately 820 GW by 2030,
however, the target of renewable capacity is expected to grow
by 500 GW by 2030 (TERI, 2022). Expansion of centralized gen-
eration will be a sufficient and feasible solution. DG is identified
as a solution that caters to reliable supply to the loads.
Ministry of New and Renewable Energy has promoted the
adoption of renewable energy initiative in India with the help
of various schemes like Pradhan Mantri Kisan Urja Suraksha
Evam Utthan Mahabhiyan (PM KUSUM), Rooftop Solar Program,
Solar parks, Green Energy Corridor, and Greening of Islands like
Andaman and Nicobar and Lakshwadeep (MNRE, 2020). However,
at present, India’s power generation is centralized, leading to
transmission losses and high dependency on consumers. The
distributed renewable energy model can provide a consistent,
sustainable power supply solution, especially because the poten-
tial of renewable energy in India is high. To promote the dis-
tributed generation, Indian government has promoted schemes
like Rooftop Solar Scheme and Solar Agri pumps, solar cold stor-
age, Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure using rooftop solar
(RTS) and Productive use appliances (MNRE, 2023).
Rooftop solar plays an important role in decarbonization of
electricity sector, considering the high cost of electricity and dete-
riorating environmental quality. In 2014, the Ministry of New and
Renewable Energy introduced ‘‘Grid-connected rooftop and small
solar plant scheme’’ to promote solar installations at rooftop and
commercial buildings. This scheme was promoted by State Nodal
Agencies (SNAs), Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI), Public
Sector Units (PSU), Distribution Companies (DISCOMS) and other
organizations. Parallelly, the government of India is providing
40% percentage subsidy for residential consumers for systems
up to 3 kWp capacity and 20% subsidy for 3 kWp to 7 kWp
capacity (Rooftop, 2023).
India’s Ministry of Power amended the Electricity (Right of
Consumers) 2020 Rules and permitted 500 kW capacity for
1613
Fig. 15. Distributed Solar Business Models in India.
rooftop solar installations as per Electricity (Rights of Consumers)
Amendment Rule, 2021. Also under the new Electricity Amend-
ment Rules, 2021, the state government has the right to make
regulations related to net metering/net billing/gross metering.
Finally, as per new regulations, consumers are persuaded to
install energy storage. India installed around 13,956 MW of solar
in the year 2022, out of which rooftop solar capacity is 1.9 GW
and around 700 MW of off-grid capacity by the end of the year
2022 (Magazine, 2023).
4.2.2. Rooftop business models in India
Decentralized solar energy involves mainly two stakeholders:
utility and consumers. Utility plays an active role in development,
installation, investment and facility development, and act as in-
terface between consumer and the grid. There are two types of
business models in decentralized solar energy: namely, utility-
focused solar business models and customer-focused business
model. Both are depicted in Fig. 15.
Utility centric business models based on the role of utilities
can be categorized into anchored-procurement, on-bill-financing,
utility as super-RESCO, and Payment Assurance Model. Anchored-
procurement model provides complete rooftop service to con-
sumers via a third party. This model provides economies of scale,
better installation, service and quality, with lower transaction
costs and payment risks. It can be categorized into two: the
facilitated procurement model and Engineering, Procurement,
Construction (EPC) Contractor Model. In facilitated procurement
model, the utility aids in signing EPC agreement with the third
L. Marques, H.B. da Silva, J. Thakur et al.
party and the utility gains facilitation fee, whereas, in EPC con-
tractor model, the utility signs an EPC agreement with both the
vendor and the end consumer. On-bill financing model involves
mainly three stakeholders: the consumer, the lender and the util-
ity. This model supports consumers willing to develop self-owned
solar roof-top projects and is mostly preferred by residential
consumers. Key benefits of this business model includes the role
of utility as a facilitator between consumer and lender/financial
institutions, cheaper debt and lower EMIs (Mishra et al., 2018).
Utility as a super-RESCO involves three stakeholders, namely,
the utility, consumer and third-party developers. In this model,
the utility supplies power to consumers by utility-owned rooftop
solar panels of third party developers. This model is also cat-
egorized into two: Utility-owned Rooftop Systems and RESCO-
owned Rooftop Systems. Under Utility-owned Rooftop Systems,
the utility develops rooftop solar panels on consumer premises,
who agrees to purchase the electricity generated. RESCO-Owned
Rooftop models involve three stakeholders, namely, the utility,
consumers and RESCO. In this model, the utility does not own
the solar setup but consumers lease the premises to the utility
and the utility sub-leases it to RESCO. Electricity generated is
purchased by the utility, which is later sold to consumers (Mishra
et al., 2018).
In the Payment Assurance Model, the utility acts as a facilitator
between the consumers and vendor (lender/RESCO/developer).
Here, vendor owns and operates the system, consumers purchase
the electricity, and the utility ensures the timely payment from
consumers (Mishra et al., 2018).
Customer-focused solar business models can be categorized
into two: Consumer (rooftop owner)-owned (CAPEX), and Re-
newable energy service company owned (RESCO). CAPEX and
RESCO are dominating solar business models in India. CAPEX
are self-owned rooftop solar projects and shares 84% rooftop
solar installed capacity. RESCO involves a third party which han-
dles finances, installation and operations and gains payment for
energy generation. However, RESCO faces issues like high trans-
action costs and upfront costs. Multi Meter Single System is also
customer focused business model, consists of two stakeholders,
namely, community and utility, wherein community owns the
solar setup and is responsible for maintenance; and utility dis-
tribution of electricity among the community members (Thakur
and Chakraborty, 2016).
In 2022, the Ministry of New & Renewable Energy proposed
new regulations related to solar rooftop net metering. In vir-
tual net-metering, the entire energy generated through the solar
rooftop system is exported to the grid, whereas in group net
metering, surplus energy generated from the solar rooftop system
is exported to the grid. As shown in Table 5, in both cases, the
electricity bill is credited based on the energy imported.
4.2.3. Examples of shared PV projects in India
Raheja Eternity Apartments in Mumbai is an example of shared
PV business, wherein the community owns the rooftop solar sys-
tem and group net metering is used by the community. However,
solar PV installation at Utkal University is the classic example
of a third party RESCO gross metered model. At the community
level, Shiv Bhole Society in New Delhi is the classic example
of RESCO for housing society (National Portal for Rooftop Solar,
2019). Community solar microgrid at Satlejia Island in Sundar-
bans supported by World Wildlife Fund Inc. (WWF) (WWF, 2020)
not only facilitates the electricity demand of the community but
also acts as an example of a successful community solar micro-
grid. Another successful example of shared PV business model
in India is Community Solar Power Plant (CSPP) Rampura owned
by local community members was developed through Build–
Own–Operate–Transfer (BOOT) model, wherein communities are
responsible for operation and maintenance also Joshi and Yenneti
(2020). Thus, at present shared solar projects in India, mostly
adopts the rooftop business models.
1614
Energy Reports 10 (2023) 1602–1617
4.2.4. Shared PV business models’ adherence to Indian local regula-
tion
Table 6 presents the PV business models and its adherence as
per Indian local regulations. Business models presented in table
are aligned with Section 3.1. The integration model is appropriate
for both commercial and residential projects in India and can
adhere to GNM scheme. Considering high upfront costs, renting
PV systems are a feasible option and also have high adherence
to Indian local regulation, and both GNM and VNM schemes are
applicable to this business model. Community solar is not a part
of the current PV business model, but they are the future of the
shared PV business model in India. Microgrid are highly accept-
able and has high adherence to Indian local regulations. Similarly,
RESCO and Utility resellers are part of Indian PV business model.
Non-profit and crowdfunding business model supports revenue
model for both consumers and intermediaries and schemes GNM
and VNM are feasible options are per Indian local regulations.
4.3. Barriers to distributed solar business model in India
In literature, many barriers are identified in scaling up so-
lar projects. Recently, twelve major barriers in scaling shared
PV were identified and business model was identified one of
the most important barrier (Thakur and Wilson, 2022). Indian
government has taken many initiatives and amended many reg-
ulations to scale up the adoption of rooftop solar PV, and aims
to increase the installed capacity of solar energy in power gener-
ation. However, there are many challenges and barriers that are
hindering the uptake of a solar rooftop system. Some of the major
challenges include:
• High upfront cost: Although the government is providing
subsidies to promote the adoption of the solar rooftop
system, there is less uptake due to the high down pay-
ment. Financial Institutions have difficulty issuing finances
as there are no benchmarks available for the viability of solar
projects (Tyagi et al., 2019).
• Ambiguous policies related to net-metering: The Indian gov-
ernment has promoted various schemes to scale up the
adoption of rooftop solar systems. However, each state has
individual policies related to net metering and solar guide-
lines. Unclear policies further confuse financial institutions,
dealers, developers, utilities and consumers, and hinder the
growth of rooftop solar projects (Tyagi et al., 2019; Rathore
et al., 2019). Technological, infrastructure and financial poli-
cies also act as challenges in the Indian PV industry (Ra-
jshree and Manan, 2021).
• Technological Barriers: Lack of skilled workforce, lack of
financial support and poorly designed policies hinder the
technological advancement and research and development
at PV manufacturing facilities (Rajshree and Manan, 2021).
• Inexperienced players in the solar market: Nascent develop-
ers are handling solar projects to take advantage of various
solar schemes and subsidies. However, these solar projects
are proved financially unsuccessful. This further constrains
the acceptability of solar projects and curb the new entrants
in the market (Tyagi et al., 2019; Rajshree and Manan, 2021).
• Lack of awareness among end-consumers: End-consumers
are unaware of advantages, subsidies and schemes related
to rooftop solar panels. Also, there is a lack of education,
stakeholders related to training and development (Rathore
et al., 2019), and support from local authorities or utilities’
representatives to promote solar rooftop projects.
L. Marques, H.B. da Silva, J. Thakur et al.
Table 5
Net-Metering schemes for distributed solar in India as per New Regulations proposed in year 2022 by (MNRE).
Net-metering scheme
Group Net-Metering (GNM)
compensation
Virtual Net-Metering (VNM)
Consumption
Table 6
Business models adherence according to regulation in India.
Business Business model adherence
model VP TC OWN RM-C
Integration Model ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Renting of PV Systems ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Community Solar ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Leasing ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Microgrid Model ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
RESCO/PPA ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Utility Re-seller ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Non-profit ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Crowdfunding ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
VP: value proposition; TC: target consumers; OWN: ownership model; RM-C: revenue model (consumers); RM-SI: revenue model
(supplier or intermediary); CO: costs; ILC: individual with local compensation; IRC: individual with remote compensation, SLC: shared
with local compensation; SRC: shared with remote compensation.
5. Conclusion
Sharing Photovoltaic (PV) systems with multiple players
presents an opportunity for the diffusion of this technology
worldwide, because consumers have adoption incentives as re-
duced upfront costs, economies of scale, energy independence,
and environment benefits. Different shared PV business models
exist and understanding their potential, their applications, as
well as the barriers to their implementation, help boosting the
diffusion of this sustainable innovation. In this paper, we have
proposed a categorization of shared PV business models, based
on the business model CANVAS, to be used as a framework for
analyzing, operationalizing and boosting PV adoption, as well as
to help understanding the barriers to their implementation. We
have put together different classifications from the literature, as
well as examples from the real world, and proposed 9 categories
of shared PV business models that encompasses the industry’s
practices. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study
proposing a complete categorization of the available shared PV
business models. We have also analyzed these models in terms
of transaction costs, considering compensation schemes, adoption
decisions and ownership as important features to define the level
of reduced transaction costs that are delivered to consumers.
A mathematical relation was developed and assigned to each
category of the shared business model category.
To demonstrate the relevance of the proposed classification,
we have presented a case study discussing the adherence of
each category to Brazilian and Indian regulations, and the main
barriers of the business model categories in these markets. In
both countries, polices were identified as hindering the scaling
of shared PV projects, and if they are to boost the non-adherent
categories of shared PV business models, they have to overcome
these regulatory barriers not allowing their implementation. For
instance, In Brazil, 7 out of the 9 proposed categories can be di-
rectly applied to the country’s market with the current regulation,
although some are more appealing to the local socioeconomic
context. The other two are not possible because of how utilities
are regulated and how the retail market is regulated. In India,
there is a need for specific solar policy, which is at present state-
specific, leaving the responsibility of scaling solar projects to
states, thus fostering geopolitical risks and PPA related issues.
1615
Energy Reports 10 (2023) 1602–1617
Description
Electricity monthly bill credited based on net
consumption of electricity (difference between surplus
exported to grid and electricity imported from grid)
Electricity monthly bill is credited based on net
consumption (difference between the entire electricity
generated exported to grid and electricity imported)
Final Indian
RM-SI CO adherence scheme
✓ ✓ High GNM
✓ ✓ High GNM, VNM
✓ ✓ High GNM, VNM
✓ ✓ High GNM, VNM
✓ ✓ High –
✓ ✓ High GNM, VNM
✓ ✓ None VNM
✓ ✓ High GNM
✓ ✓ High GNM, VNM
Moreover, the subsidy policies change frequently, which creates
ambiguity, and slows the process of solar projects adoption. Poli-
cies supportive throughout the life time of projects should be
promoted. Moreover, solar cells are imported in India, which
highlights the need for policies promoting local manufacturing.
These findings are in line with the literature so far, which
has dealt with specific shared PV business models. For instance,
Moner-Girona et al. (2018) has shown that, for off-grid PV busi-
ness models in Sub-Sahara Africa, there is a need to improve
the supporting regulatory and institutional framework, and to
reduce transaction costs for rural electrification using such busi-
ness model. In addition, Engelken et al. (2016) has identified
shortcomings in legal frameworks of developing countries as
one of the main barriers to renewable generation business mod-
els. Furthermore, Stauch and Vuichard (2019) has demonstrated
experimentally that community solar business models can be suc-
cessful in increasing the PV adoption. Finally, Heirani et al. (2022)
identified the high cost of PV power generation and PV equipment
supply as main barriers to PV adoption in Iran. Although these
studies corroborate our findings, they focused on specific business
models. We extended the analysis to the 9 types of shared PV
business models, which means this work can be a benchmark for
future shared PV studies.
Future research can be done in the area of transaction costs,
exploring different ways to evaluate each of the features, in-
cluding different weights for each one. They might also explore
the main regulatory barriers of each shared PV business model
category in other countries in the developing and developed
world. Moreover, the development of an innovative shared PV
business model might lead to the addition of an extra category
in the future.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Luciana Marques: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software,
Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & edit-
ing. Hendrigo Batista da Silva: Conceptualization, Methodology,
Writing – review & editing. Jagruti Thakur: Conceptualization,
Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Wadaed Uturbey: Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing
– review & editing. Pragya Thakur: Methodology, Visualization,
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
L. Marques, H.B. da Silva, J. Thakur et al.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article
References
Agência Nacional de Energia Elétrica (ANEEL), 2023. Resolução Normativa N◦
1059, de 7 de Fevereiro de 2023.
Ahmad, F., Alam, M.S., 2018. Economic and ecological aspects for microgrids
deployment in India. Sustain. Cities Soc. 37, 407–419.
Allen, D.W., 1991. What are transaction costs? Rsch. L. Econ. 14, 1.
Amit, R., Zott, C., 2001. Value creation in e-business. Strateg. Manag. J. 22 (6–7),
493–520.
ANEEL, 2023. Distributed Generation, Brazil. https://www.gov.br/aneel/pt-br/
centrais-de-conteudos/relatorios-e-indicadores/geracao.
Asmus, P., 2008. Exploring new models of solar energy development. The Electr.
J. 21 (3), 61–70.
Augustine, P., McGavisk, E., 2016. The next big thing in renewable energy: Shared
solar. Electr. J. 29 (4), 36–42.
Bernardo, K.B., 2018. Rede de farmácias recorre à energia solar para alimentar
mais de 140 lojas. https://www.gazetadopovo.com.br/economia/nova-
economia/rede-de-farmacias-recorre-a-energia-solar-para-alimentar-mais-
de-140-lojas-8rux5bjrg3t8fw9hebm9but2v/. (Accessed 25 March 2022).
BlueSol, 2021. Guia: Como Multiplas UC podem dividir os custos e lucros da
energia solar. https://blog.bluesol.com.br/multiplas-unidades-consumidoras/
#:~:text=Empreendimento%20com%20m%C3%BAltiplas%20unidades%
20consumidoras%20%28condom%C3%ADnios%29%3A%20caracterizado%
20pela,de%20propriedades%20de%20terceiros%20n%C3%A3o%20integrantes%
20do%20empreendimento. (Accessed on 04 April 2023).
Bradesco, 2022. Leasing ambiental. https://banco.bradesco/html/classic/produtos-
servicos/emprestimo-e-financiamento/leasing/leasing-ambiental.shtm.
(Accessed 28 March 2022).
Brasil, 2004. Lei N◦ 10.848, de 15 de Março DE 2004. https://www.planalto.gov.
br/ccivil_03/_ato2004-2006/2004/lei/l10.848.htm (Accessed 31 March 2022).
Brasil, 2022. Lei N◦ 14.300, de 6 de Janeiro DE 2022. https://in.gov.br/en/
web/dou/-/lei-n-14.300-de-6-de-janeiro-de-2022-372467821. (Accessed 30
March 2022).
Brasil, Agência Nacional de Energia Elétrica (ANEEL), 2012. Resolução normativa
N◦ 482, de 17 de Abril de 2012.
Brasil, Ministry of Mines and Energy (MME), 2022. Portaria N◦ 50/2022, 27
Sept. 2022. https://www.gov.br/mme/pt-br/acesso-a-informacao/legislacao/
portarias/2022/portaria-normativa-n-50-gm-mme-2022.pdf/view.
Chan, G., Evans, I., Grimley, M., Ihde, B., Mazumder, P., 2017. Design choices and
equity implications of community shared solar. Electr. J. 30 (9), 37–41.
Chan, G., Morgan, J., Streitz, R., 2019. Solar for Humanity: Nonprofit Solar
Partnerships with Habitat for Humanity. Tech. rep., Humphrey School of
Public Affairs, University of Minnesota.
Citizenergy, 2022. Your power: Take part in the European energy revolution.
https://citizenergy.eu/. (Accessed 28 March 2022).
Coughlin, J., Grove, J., Irvine, L., Jacobs, J.F., Phillips, S.J., Moynihan, L., Wiedman, J.,
2011. Guide to Community Solar: Utility, Private, and Non-Profit Project
Development (Fact Sheet). Tech. rep., National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL),
Golden, CO (United States.
CSE, 2020. Financing options. https://sites.energycenter.org/solar/multifamily/
financing-options. (Accessed 08 December 2020).
Curtius, H.C., 2018. The adoption of building-integrated photovoltaics: Barriers
and facilitators. Renew. Energy 126, 783–790.
Drury, E., Miller, M., Macal, C.M., Graziano, D.J., Heimiller, D., Ozik, J.,
Perry IV, T.D., 2012. The transformation of southern California’s residential
photovoltaics market through third-party ownership. Energy Policy 42,
681–690.
EMGD, 2022. Energia solar compartilhada. https://emgdenergia.com.br/como-
funciona-energia-solar-compartilhada/. (Accessed 28 March 2022).
Enercred, 2022. Energia limpa por assinatura. https://enercred.com.br/. (Accessed
25 March 2022).
Engelken, M., Römer, B., Drescher, M., Welpe, I.M., Picot, A., 2016. Compar-
ing drivers, barriers, and opportunities of business models for renewable
energies: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 60, 795–809.
Feldman, D., Margolis, R., Brockway, A., Ulrich, E., 2015. Shared solar: Current
landscape, market potential, and the impact of federal securities regula-
tion. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/63892.pdf. (Accessed 08 December
2020).
1616
Energy Reports 10 (2023) 1602–1617
Fina, B., Auer, H., Friedl, W., 2019. Profitability of PV sharing in energy
communities: Use cases for different settlement patterns. Energy 189,
116148.
Foroozandeh, Z., Ramos, S., Soares, J., Vale, Z., 2021. Energy management in smart
building by a multi-objective optimization model and pascoletti-serafini
scalarization approach. Processes 9 (2), 257.
Frantzis, L., Graham, S., Katofsky, R., Sawyer, H., 2008. Photovoltaics Business
Models. Tech. rep., National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL), Golden, CO
(United States.
Funkhouser, E., Blackburn, G., Magee, C., Rai, V., 2015. Business model inno-
vations for deploying distributed generation: The emerging landscape of
community solar in the US. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 10, 90–101.
Government of India - Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, 2022. Solar
schemes - solar offgrid. https://mnre.gov.in/solar/schemes/. (Accessed 28
March 2022).
Heirani, H., Moghaddam, N.B., Labbafi, S., Sina, S., 2022. A business model for
developing distributed photovoltaic systems in Iran. Sustainability 14 (18),
11194.
Higuchi, Y., 2015. University park community solar LLC – the first community
solar power initiative. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/university-park-
community-solar-llc-the-first-community-solar-power-initiative. (Accessed
28 March 2022).
Hong, T., Yoo, H., Kim, J., Koo, C., Jeong, K., Lee, M., Ji, C., Jeong, J., 2018. A
model for determining the optimal lease payment in the solar lease business
for residences and third-party companies–with focus on the region and on
multi-family housing complexes. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 82, 824–836.
Horváth, D., Szabó, R.Z., 2018. Evolution of photovoltaic business models:
Overcoming the main barriers of distributed energy deployment. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 90, 623–635.
Huijben, J.C., Verbong, G.P., 2013. Breakthrough without subsidies? PV business
model experiments in the netherlands. Energy Policy 56, 362–370.
Joshi, G., Yenneti, K., 2020. Community solar energy initiatives in India: A
pathway for addressing energy poverty and sustainability? Energy Build. 210,
109736.
Lam, P.T., Law, A.O., 2016. Crowdfunding for renewable and sustainable energy
projects: An exploratory case study approach. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
60, 11–20.
Li, Y., Zhang, Q., Wang, G., McLellan, B., Liu, X.F., Wang, L., 2018. A review of
photovoltaic poverty alleviation projects in China: Current status, challenge
and policy recommendations. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 94, 214–223.
Lu, Y., Chang, R., Lim, S., 2018. Crowdfunding for solar photovoltaics de-
velopment: A review and forecast. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 93,
439–450.
Magazine, P., 2023. India installed almost 14 GW of solar in 2022 – pv magazine
international.
Mah, D.N.-y., Wang, G., Lo, K., Leung, M.K., Hills, P., Lo, A.Y., 2018. Barriers and
policy enablers for solar photovoltaics (PV) in cities: Perspectives of potential
adopters in Hong Kong. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 92, 921–936.
Masson, G., Kaizuka, I., 2020. Trends in Photovoltaic Applications 2020. IEA-PVPS.
Matisoff, D.C., Johnson, E.P., 2017. The comparative effectiveness of residential
solar incentives. Energy Policy 108, 44–54.
Mehta, P., Tiefenbeck, V., 2022. Solar PV sharing in urban energy communities:
Impact of community configurations on profitability, autonomy and the
electric grid. Sustainable Cities Soc. 87, 104178.
Michaud, G., 2020. Perspectives on community solar policy adoption across the
united states. Renew. Energy Focus 33, 1–15.
Ministry of Power, 2023. Power sector at a glance ALL INDIA | government of
India | ministry of power.
Mishra, A., Chaturvedi, A., Khanna, R., Chandra, R., Awasthi, S., Sood, S., Deol, B.,
Kala, V., Kaur, K., Kumar, S., 2018. USAID Program Managers Technical Team
Editorial Team. Ministry of New and Renewable Energy.
MNRE, 2020. Annual report 2019–2020.
MNRE, 2023. Schemes | ministry of new and renewable energy, government of
India.
Moner-Girona, M., Solano-Peralta, M., Lazopoulou, M., Ackom, E., Vallve, X.,
Szabó, S., 2018. Electrification of Sub-Saharan Africa through PV/hybrid
mini-grids: Reducing the gap between current business models and on-site
experience. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 91, 1148–1161.
Mori, 2022. Como participar. http://www.morigd.com.br/#como-participar.
(Accessed 28 March 2022).
National Portal for Rooftop Solar, (2019). Identification of Rooftop Solar PV
Business Models with High Replication Potential in India,
Nolden, C., Barnes, J., Nicholls, J., 2020. Community energy business model
evolution: A review of solar photovoltaic developments in England. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 122, 109722.
Nolden, C., Sorrell, S., Polzin, F., 2016. Catalysing the energy service market: The
role of intermediaries. Energy Policy 98, 420–430.
Órigo Energia, 2022. Advantages of being Órigo Energia. https://origoenergia.com.
br/en. (Accessed 28 March 2022).
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., 2010. Business Model Generation: A Handbook for
Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers. John Wiley & Sons.
L. Marques, H.B. da Silva, J. Thakur et al.
Paiho, S., Abdurafikov, R., Hoang, H., Kuusisto, J., 2015. An analysis of different
business models for energy efficient renovation of residential districts in
Russian cold regions. Sustain. Cities Soc. 14, 31–42.
Perger, T., Wachter, L., Fleischhacker, A., Auer, H., 2021. PV sharing in local
communities: Peer-to-peer trading under consideration of the prosumers’
willingness-to-pay. Sustainable Cities Soc. 66, 102634.
Peters, M., Fudge, S., High-Pippert, A., Carragher, V., Hoffman, S.M., 2018.
Community solar initiatives in the United States of America: Comparisons
with–and lessons for–the UK and other European countries. Energy policy
121, 355–364.
Rajshree, B., Manan, S., 2021. Solar photovoltaic energy in India: business
feasibility study and analogy of policies. Int. J. Energy Water Res. 5, 133–144.
Rathore, P.K.S., Chauhan, D.S., Singh, R.P., 2019. Decentralized solar rooftop
photovoltaic in India: On the path of sustainable energy security. Renew.
energy 131, 297–307.
Rindfleisch, A., Heide, J.B., 1997. Transaction cost analysis: Past, present, and
future applications. J. Market. 61 (4), 30–54.
Ritter, M., Schanz, H., 2019. The sharing economy: A comprehensive business
model framework. J. Clean. Prod. 213, 320–331.
Roberts, M., Bruce, A., MacGill, I., 2019. Opportunities and barriers for pho-
tovoltaics on multi-unit residential buildings: Reviewing the Australian
experience. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 104, 95–110.
Rooftop, S., 2023. Solarrooftop.gov.in | solar rooftop subsidy scheme Yojana –
apply online (mnre.gov.in) - PM jan dhan yojana.
Savaresi, A., 2016. The Paris agreement: A new beginning? J. Energy Nat. Res.
Law 34 (1), 16–26.
Schleicher-Tappeser, R., 2012. How renewables will change electricity markets
in the next five years. Energy policy 48, 64–75.
Sifakis, N., Daras, T., Tsoutsos, T., 2020. How much energy efficient are renewable
energy sources cooperatives’ initiatives? Energies 13 (5), 1136.
Sifakis, N., Savvakis, N., Daras, T., Tsoutsos, T., 2019. Analysis of the energy
consumption behavior of European RES cooperative members. Energies 12
(6), 970.
Sim!, C., 2022. Deixe o Sol Trabalhar pela sua Economia de Energia. https:
//cemigsim.com.br/produtos. (Accessed 28 March 2022).
SMUD, 2022. Neighborhood SolarShares for developers and builders.
https://www.smud.org/en/Business-Solutions-and-Rebates/Neighborhood-
SolarShares-for-developers. (Accessed 28 March 2022).
1617
Energy Reports 10 (2023) 1602–1617
Sommerfeldt, N., Muyingo, H., af Klintberg, T., 2016. Photovoltaic Systems
for Swedish Prosumers: A technical and economic analysis focused on
cooperative multi-family housing. KTH Royal Institute of Technology.
Sorrell, S., 2007. The economics of energy service contracts. Energy policy 35
(1), 507–521.
Stauch, A., Vuichard, P., 2019. Community solar as an innovative business model
for building-integrated photovoltaics: An experimental analysis with swiss
electricity consumers. Energy Build. 204, 109526.
Strupeit, L., Palm, A., 2016. Overcoming barriers to renewable energy diffusion:
Business models for customer-sited solar photovoltaics in Japan, Germany
and the United States. J. Clean. Prod. 123, 124–136.
Sunexchange, 2022. Earn with purpose: Join a global community creating a clean
energy future. https://thesunexchange.com/. (Accessed 28 March 2022).
TERI, 2022. TERI experts draw up a roadmap to India’s 2030 decarbonisation
goals | TERI.
Thakur, J., Chakraborty, B., 2016. Sustainable net metering model for diversified
India. Energy Procedia 88, 336–340.
Thakur, J., Batista da Silva, H., Silveira, S., Uturbey, W., 2019. Rooftop PV business
models in India and Brazil - a comparative analysis. In: 9th Solar Integration
Workshop.
Thakur, P., Wilson, V.H., 2022. Analysis of barriers affecting the adoption of
community solar from consumer’s perspective: A hybrid ISM-DEMATEL
approach. Energy Environ. 0958305X221122930.
Tyagi, V., Dwivedi, P., Gupta, A., 2019. Solar rooftop PV systems-markets, policies
and future potential. Int. J. Renew. Energy Res.(IJRER) 3 (6), 1686–1691.
Williamson, O.E., 1980. Organizational Innovation: The Transaction Cost Ap-
proach. University of Pennsylvania, Center for the Study of Organizational
Innovation.
Wouters, C., 2015. Towards a regulatory framework for microgrids—The
Singapore experience. Sustainable Cities Soc. 15, 22–32.
WWF, (2020). Community solar micro grids provide a ray of hope | WWF India,
X., E., 2021. Enel X e Bradesco fecham acordo para construção de nove
usinas de energia solar. https://www.enelx.com/br/pt/conteudos/enel-x-
e-bradesco-fecham-acordo-para-construcao-de-nove-usinas. (Accessed 25
March 2022).
Zhang, S., 2016. Innovative business models and financing mechanisms for
distributed solar PV (DSPV) deployment in China. Energy Policy 95, 458–467.