Here is why resi solar currently does not make sense economically: https://www.lazard.com/media/2ozoovyg/lazards-lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf . It isn't just a Portland problem, it is nationwide. The LCOE of Resi solar is almost 5x that of Utility solar or wind.

I'm writing an article on this, as this problem is not technology, it is all about scale and Resi marketing. Fundamentally, Resi solar is expensive because the systems are only designed to provide cost avoidance for the single homeowner => Minimized output power.

The solution is that new large industrial users could be subsidizing many HOs in the local grid to overproduce 2-3x their individual homes thereby offloading the central generating facility to supply their large intensive needs. At 2x overproduction the LCOE should be equivalent to the C&I LCOE. For example, If we were to posit an industrial user needing 1MW that would be a minimum 100, 2x overproducing homes in the local grid. (Overproduction by 10kW. This using the deconstructed LCOE calculations in Lazards and assuming that the LCOE of the overproduction is the same as utility scale)

What I am saying is that this is all an accounting problem where costs, capital and product could be rearranged amongst the utility, HO, Resi Solar Developers and large users. In fact your Community Solar provider could though of as the combo of the utility and a "large industrial user".

The beauty of this proposal is that no "virgin" wilderness is harmed as the panels are being put in urbanized locations (already environmental disasters) and the time to power on could be 2-5 months as compared to the large utility scale, one year minimum (after siting, EIR, regulatory and grid interconnection).