Commercial Solar Feasibility Study: What to Verify Before Bidding

A commercial solar feasibility study should answer one practical question before bidding: is the project defined well enough for bidders to price the same opportunity and the same risks? The answer is an evidence-based proceed, redesign, investigate, or stop decision—not a persuasive sales report.

The word feasibility has no useful meaning unless the scope is written down. A remote screen, site walk, roof observation, structural analysis, electrical review, utility pre-application, production model, and financial model are different tasks. They may be performed by different parties at different stages. Before relying on a study, confirm who performs each task, the qualifications required, what records they reviewed, what they did not verify, and whether another approval is still needed.

This guide is a neutral owner checklist for a South Carolina commercial property. It does not state that Sunburst Solar Solutions provides every study, site visit, engineering review, utility filing, or report described below. Ask any adviser or contractor—including Sunburst—to define its assessment scope, exclusions, deliverables, reliance limits, and third-party responsibilities in writing.

A feasibility study is a decision gate, not a bid or final design

The best way to control scope is to name the project stage. The U.S. Department of Energy’s Federal Energy Management Program places project validation before procurement in its current six-phase distributed-energy process. During validation, the project team refines screening results, investigates barriers, and chooses a procurement path; procurement and contract award follow later. Although that framework was developed for federal facilities, the separation is useful for any owner trying to avoid bidding an undefined project. DOE’s project-validation guidance identifies site, roof or land, interconnection, utility policy, load profile, tariff, environmental constraints, and economic analysis as common feasibility subjects.

Keep these evidence levels separate:

Evidence level	Question it can answer	What it does not prove
Portfolio or desktop screen	Which sites or concepts deserve more work?	Site condition, structural capacity, a buildable electrical path, utility approval, or price
Feasibility investigation	Is a specific concept mature enough to proceed, redesign, investigate, or stop?	Final engineering, final cost, permit approval, interconnection approval, or contract performance
Bid basis	What common scope, assumptions, alternates, and risk allocation should every bidder price?	That a bidder’s proposal is complete or the best offer
Detailed design	How will the selected system be engineered and constructed?	A permit, utility permission, or satisfactory construction
Permit and utility review	Does the submitted design satisfy the responsible authority’s requirements?	That all owner, lender, insurer, lease, or operating conditions are resolved
Commissioning and acceptance	Does the installed project meet defined tests and closeout requirements?	The accuracy of every long-term financial assumption

The study should therefore be detailed enough to prevent bidders from inventing incompatible assumptions, but honest about conclusions that belong after bidder selection or to an authority, engineer, roofer, electrician, attorney, insurer, tax adviser, or utility.

DOE also distinguishes a screening from a site-specific feasibility study, a feasibility study from later design review, and independent interconnection assistance from a utility’s own study. Its distributed-energy services framework warns, in effect, that each stage develops a different decision. An owner should not relabel a conceptual roof plan as engineered design or a utility information report as permission to construct.

Define the decision before collecting solar data

A project team can gather hundreds of pages and still have no decision. Begin with a one-page owner statement that establishes what the facility is considering and what would make further development worthwhile.

Record at least:

• the exact property, building, parcel, parking area, or meter group in scope;
• the entity expected to own or purchase the system, if known;
• the party that owns or controls the property and the party named on each utility account;
• the operating objective, such as daytime energy supply, a capital-improvement goal, a separate resilience investigation, or emissions reporting;
• planned facility changes that could alter load, roof use, parking, land use, service equipment, or occupancy;
• the required in-service window, if there is one, and why it matters;
• internal approval parties, budget authority, procurement requirements, and acceptable risk;
• explicit exclusions, including battery storage, roofing, carports, EV charging, service upgrades, or off-site work when they are not part of the base case.

Avoid a vague goal such as “see whether solar saves money.” That combines technical feasibility, utility billing, cost, financing, tax treatment, and corporate capital policy into one undefined promise. The feasibility packet should instead establish whether credible inputs exist for each later analysis. The complete cash-flow decision belongs in the commercial solar ROI methodology, not in a preliminary site opinion.

The decision statement also needs an expiration rule. A study based on an old tenant load, a roof scheduled for replacement, a prior utility program, or a concept that facilities staff have since changed should not quietly remain the bid basis. Put an “information current through” date on the register, and identify which changes require revalidation.

Build one evidence register before you build a narrative report

The most useful feasibility deliverable is not necessarily a long report. It is a controlled evidence register that lets a reviewer trace every important conclusion to a document, observation, model, or responsible party.

Use one row per issue:

Field	What to record
Decision issue	The precise question, such as roof-life alignment or meter ownership
Status	Verified, observed but unverified, assumed, open, excluded, or superseded
Evidence	File name, drawing number, bill period, photo, correspondence, model version, or official page
Source and date	Who supplied it, when it was created, and when it was checked
Responsible reviewer	Owner, facility engineer, utility, AHJ, licensed contractor, structural professional, roofer, counsel, insurer, or another named party
Reliance limit	What the evidence can and cannot establish
Next action	Review, field verification, application, study, redesign, allowance, alternate, or no further action
Bid effect	Base scope, owner-furnished information, bidder responsibility, allowance, alternate, exclusion, or hold

This status vocabulary prevents a familiar mistake: treating “we did not see a problem” as “the issue was verified.” A roof may look orderly in aerial imagery while its membrane warranty, deck condition, drainage, loading, or planned replacement remains unknown. A switchboard label may be photographed while fault-duty, capacity, protection, ownership, or tie-in feasibility remains unreviewed. An evidence register preserves that distinction.

Store superseded files rather than overwriting them. Label conceptual layouts and models by date and revision. When a new finding changes usable roof area, system size, interconnection point, or operating assumptions, reviewers should be able to see why the decision changed.

Verify authority, site control, and the utility account first

Technical work can be wasted when the wrong entity is authorizing the project. The first gate is not irradiance; it is legal and operational authority.

For an owner-occupied property, confirm the legal property owner, the project decision-maker, the utility customer, and any lender, insurer, tenant, management agreement, easement, or board consent that can restrict work. For a leased site, identify lease duration, renewal options, roof rights, access rights, restoration duties, utility-account control, submetering, assignment, and who can sign an interconnection agreement. Route legal conclusions to counsel rather than letting an installer interpret the lease.

For a multi-building or multi-meter site, create a meter map. Match each account number and service address to the physical meter, building, tariff, account holder, and load served. Do not assume that the building owner pays every account or that one array can economically or legally offset several meters. The exact arrangement needs utility and legal confirmation.

The interconnection applicant may also need evidence of site control and an authorized signature. Santee Cooper’s current generator-interconnection page identifies a site-control verification form for applicable requests. Dominion Energy South Carolina’s current business solar application guidance also identifies site control, account, design, insurance, and authorization information for specified project sizes. Those are utility-specific examples, not statewide assumptions.

Pause the technical study when ownership is disputed, the lease is silent, the account holder will not authorize data access, or a future sale or redevelopment conflicts with the intended project life. The owner may be able to resolve the issue, restructure the project, or choose another site. Until then, a precise production model only makes an unauthorized concept look more certain.

Validate load, meters, tariff, and future operations

Annual consumption is useful, but it is not the complete commercial load basis. Collect the most complete available billing record and interval data, then document gaps. At minimum, retain the original bills, interval export, account/tariff identifiers, meter mapping, units, interval duration, timestamps, time zone, missing intervals, estimated readings, and reconciliation results.

The analysis should distinguish:

• energy consumption in kilowatt-hours from measured or billing demand in kilowatts or kilovolt-amperes;
• actual interval data from a synthetic profile;
• the account’s present tariff from an assumed future tariff;
• imported electricity, on-site generation, and any separately metered loads;
• recurring operations from shutdowns, storms, vacancies, expansions, or abnormal periods;
• current load from approved future load such as HVAC, process equipment, fleet charging, or a tenant change.

Reconcile interval totals and recorded peaks to bills before using them. A file with shifted timestamps, omitted demand channels, mixed units, or a meter change can produce a polished but wrong conclusion. When the account has demand charges, ratchets, time windows, contract demand, or power-factor terms, preserve the tariff mechanics for the later bill model. The commercial demand-charge guide explains that validation boundary in detail.

Do not let the feasibility study decide future operations on behalf of facilities staff. If a warehouse will add refrigeration, an office will lose a tenant, or a plant will change shifts, model that as a separately approved case. Record the business owner of the forecast, its evidence, and its uncertainty. The base case should remain reproducible from observed data.

Finally, verify the utility serving the exact meter. South Carolina utility territories and account arrangements cannot be assigned from the city name alone. Use the current bill and direct utility confirmation, then consult the Sunburst utility hub for relevant local starting points.

Document site, roof, electrical, and construction evidence without overstating it

A feasibility packet should make physical uncertainty visible. It should not turn a preliminary observation into a licensed professional’s conclusion.

Roof and structure

For rooftop solar, collect available roof drawings, structural drawings, reroof date, roof assembly and deck information, warranty and installer records, leak/repair history, planned capital work, drainage locations, rooftop equipment, fall-protection features, fire/access paths, parapets, expansion joints, and known loading restrictions. Photograph or map obstructions and areas that must remain serviceable.

DOE’s current PV procurement guidance says site screening should consider usable area, ownership, weather, topology, access, hazards, and future plans. Its commercial rooftop solar materials also treat roof condition, structural integrity, drainage, maintenance access, wind loads, warranty, and replacement timing as material issues.

Those sources support the questions, not a universal answer. The packet must say whether a qualified structural evaluation is:

• already complete and attached;
• commissioned separately by the owner;
• included in the feasibility scope;
• deferred to the selected bidder or later design stage;
• required only after a conceptual system reaches a defined threshold; or
• excluded, with bidding paused because the omission is material.

An aerial screen can identify apparent space and obstructions. A site walk can record visible conditions. Neither should be presented as proof of structural adequacy unless the appropriately qualified reviewer performed and documented the required evaluation.

Electrical system

Collect existing one-line diagrams, service and meter information, switchboard/panel schedules, transformer ownership and available records, generator or UPS connections, known fault or power-quality studies, equipment ratings, available spaces, photos, cable-route constraints, equipment-room access, and planned electrical changes. Mark the proposed point of interconnection as conceptual until the responsible electrical professional and utility accept the relevant design.

The feasibility question is not merely “is there a panel?” It is whether the records and observations are sufficient to define the next electrical review and to prevent bidders from assuming different tie-in points, shutdowns, conductor routes, protection work, or owner/utility responsibilities.

Ground-mount and carport sites

For land or parking areas, collect a current survey when available, ownership and easement records, setbacks, drainage/stormwater information, flood and environmental records, subsurface-utility information, soil/geotechnical status, grading/slope, access, security, fire lanes, ADA routes, delivery/staging space, traffic patterns, and future development plans.

Do not treat a map polygon as usable construction area. DOE’s PV project-validation guidance specifically identifies access, construction logistics, stormwater, erosion and sediment control, zoning, land use, fire/ADA lanes, glare, and electrical infrastructure as screening issues. The responsible local and professional reviewers determine which requirements apply.

Business continuity and constructability

Interview facilities and operations staff before freezing the concept. Record shutdown limits, noisy or restricted work hours, tenant access, food/pharmaceutical or clean-process constraints, roof access rules, crane/staging options, parking requirements, emergency routes, seasonal operating peaks, cybersecurity or network rules for monitoring, and responsibility for future O&M access.

A technically possible array may need redesign if it conflicts with production, tenants, roof replacement, vehicle circulation, future expansion, or a non-negotiable shutdown policy. That is a useful feasibility result—not a failure of the study.

Make the production model traceable and appropriately limited

Production modeling should test a clearly labeled concept. It should not compensate for missing site facts or become a savings promise.

For every modeled case, record:

• property coordinates and weather-data source;
• model name and version;
• DC array size and AC inverter capacity;
• module and inverter assumptions or generic equipment class;
• roof, ground-mount, or carport geometry;
• tilt, azimuth, row spacing, and ground-cover assumptions where relevant;
• usable-area basis and excluded zones;
• shading source and method;
• total loss assumption and its components;
• clipping, availability, curtailment, export-control, and degradation treatment;
• monthly and annual output, plus the time resolution needed for later load matching;
• unresolved constraints that could change the layout or output.

NREL’s PVWatts V8 calculator expressly cautions that its predictions include assumptions and uncertainties and do not capture site-specific characteristics beyond the entered inputs. That makes PVWatts useful for a transparent screen, not evidence that a roof is buildable or that future production is certain.

Keep four statements separate:

1. the model estimates how much AC energy the defined system could produce under its inputs;
2. interval comparison estimates how much may be consumed on site or exported;
3. a tariff model estimates bill effects under a specific rate and operating case; and
4. a contract may or may not create a separate enforceable performance obligation.

Feasibility should disclose the first set of assumptions and identify what is needed for the next sets. It should not present production, savings, or financial viability as certain. The commercial solar ROI guide owns the complete year-by-year financial test.

Verify the South Carolina utility and approval path before bidding

Interconnection uncertainty can change the concept, schedule, responsibility, and cost. It deserves its own register rather than a generic line that says “utility included.”

Record:

• the exact utility and account;
• the proposed generation type, AC/DC size, export behavior, and point of interconnection;
• the current tariff or solar program under consideration;
• the current interconnection procedure and applicable appendix or utility standard;
• pre-application availability and status;
• application data, drawings, signatures, site control, equipment, insurance, and fees expected at the next stage;
• screening, study, upgrade, metering, telemetry, witness-test, or inspection risks identified by the utility;
• which party prepares, signs, submits, pays, responds, and owns correspondence;
• whether the project has only information, an accepted application, a study result, an agreement, construction permission, inspection, or permission to operate.

Do not collapse those milestones into “approved.” The South Carolina Energy Office’s interconnection overview directs owners to the interconnection process and applicable utility. Current procedures differ by provider and project.

For example, Santee Cooper says new generating-facility requests should be submitted at final design and before construction. It encourages a pre-application report to identify potential issues and separately lists system-impact and facilities-study documents. Dominion’s business-solar page publishes different application paths and supporting-document requirements by system size. These are examples of why the exact account matters, not a menu that applies to every South Carolina project.

The South Carolina Public Service Commission approved revised generator-interconnection procedures in Order 2025-497 dated August 7, 2025. Obtain the current implementation document from the relevant utility. A pre-application report is informational and non-binding under the current SCGIP form; it does not reserve a queue position, eliminate later study, or establish available capacity when the formal request is reviewed.

If utility information is not mature enough for firm bidding, the honest choices are to conduct the available preliminary inquiry, state a defined allowance or alternate, narrow the bid to preconstruction services, or pause. Asking each bidder to silently guess an interconnection outcome defeats comparable pricing.

Confirm code, permit, zoning, fire, and licensing boundaries

The authority having jurisdiction controls the applicable submittal and review. A statewide code page is an essential starting point but not a municipal permit approval.

As of August 10, 2026, the South Carolina Building Codes Council’s building-code adoption page publishes the 2021 South Carolina building and fire code family and the 2020 National Electrical Code as the code set implemented January 1, 2023, while it also posts 2024-code adoption and modification materials. Because code cycles, effective dates, statewide modifications, and valid local modifications can change, the project team should verify the code applicable to its submission date directly with the Council and local authority.

The feasibility register should identify—not resolve by guesswork—the expected:

• building and electrical permit authority;
• fire official and access/setback review;
• zoning or land-use review;
• historic-district, architectural-review, or property-association review;
• stormwater, grading, erosion-control, environmental, or floodplain review for land-disturbing work;
• airport/glare inquiry when relevant;
• plan format, professional seals, calculations, fees, inspections, and closeout milestones;
• current code edition and modifications used for the concept.

Licensing also follows the regulated work. The South Carolina Energy Office’s current solar licensing guidance identifies commercial electrical, roofing/building, structural-framing, and ground-mount classifications that may apply to different portions of a project. The owner should verify the entities proposed for regulated work with the relevant state board and confirm local business-license requirements. A sales representative’s familiarity with solar is not a substitute for the qualified party responsible for a technical conclusion.

Put every study and conclusion in a responsibility matrix

The feasibility scope should show who does what. A line saying “roof review included” is not enough. Does that mean reviewing an aerial image, walking the membrane, checking roof records, obtaining a roofer’s condition report, performing calculations, or sealing a structural evaluation?

Use a matrix like this before authorizing work:

Work item	Minimum scope question to answer in writing
Desktop screen	Which imagery, plans, bills, and assumptions will be reviewed, and what requires field verification?
Site visit	Which areas will be accessed, who escorts, what measurements/photos are taken, and what is excluded?
Roof condition	Is this a visual observation, roofing-contractor report, warranty review, moisture survey, or another defined service?
Structural review	Who is the qualified professional, what drawings/field data and loads are used, and is the output preliminary or sealed/final?
Electrical review	Who reviews service equipment and tie-in concepts, what tests/calculations are included, and what remains for detailed design or utility review?
Survey/civil/geotechnical	Which mapping, boundary, drainage, subsurface, grading, soil, or foundation questions are included?
Production model	Which software, inputs, shading method, system cases, uncertainties, and files will be delivered?
Load/tariff analysis	Which accounts, bills, intervals, tariffs, reconciliations, and future-load cases are included?
Utility work	Is the task a phone inquiry, pre-application, formal request, study support, or agreement review, and who signs/pays?
Code/permitting screen	Which AHJ and officials are contacted, what is confirmed, and what remains an interpretation or later submittal?
Financial analysis	Which costs, ownership, financing, tax, rate, O&M, and risk assumptions are owner/adviser inputs?
Final packet	Will the owner receive source files, model inputs, open-issue register, responsibility matrix, and a signed decision record?

Also define reliance. Is the output for internal screening only, suitable to attach to an RFP, or intended to support a financing or board decision? Which items expire when the design, utility rule, code, tariff, tenant, roof, or operating plan changes? Who is allowed to rely on each professional report?

Sunburst’s commercial solar service is a logical place to discuss a South Carolina project’s initial fit. However, this guide does not establish that any particular desktop task, site visit, structural analysis, electrical study, utility filing, or formal feasibility report is included. Confirm the actual scope and third-party responsibilities before authorizing the assessment.

Choose proceed, redesign, investigate, or stop

A feasibility study should close with one controlled decision. “Promising” is not a decision status.

Proceed to bid

Proceed when authority and site control are sufficiently clear; accounts, loads, and tariffs are mapped; the concept and exclusions are bounded; site and system assumptions are traceable; material roof, electrical, utility, code, and operating issues are resolved or allocated; and all bidders can receive the same documents, base scope, alternates, allowances, and open-issue list.

Proceed does not mean the project is certain to receive permits, interconnect, meet a budget, or pass investment review. It means the owner has a fair basis for the next procurement step.

Redesign the concept

Redesign when the objective remains valid but the present configuration conflicts with roof life, usable area, structure, drainage, operations, parking, access, the electrical path, utility constraints, or future facility plans. Preserve the rejected concept and reason. Then issue a revised layout, model, and evidence register rather than editing the old case without a record.

Examples include shifting from roof to carport, reducing the base PV case, separating storage as an alternate, changing the tie-in concept, sequencing roof work first, or moving to a different property. Each alternative needs its own assumptions; it does not inherit the previous conclusion automatically.

Investigate before bidding

Choose this status when a missing fact can materially change project size, construction method, approval path, schedule logic, or risk allocation. Common triggers include unclear site control, missing lease consent, an unidentified utility tariff, unreconciled meters, absent roof records, unknown service equipment, no credible access plan, or an undefined structural/electrical study.

The action should be specific: name the question, the responsible reviewer, the required evidence, a decision date, and what happens if the answer is unfavorable. “More due diligence needed” without an owner is an indefinite delay.

Stop the concept

Stop when the authorized team concludes that a fatal constraint cannot be acceptably resolved. That might be lack of site authority, a future property plan that conflicts with the array, an unacceptable finding from the responsible technical professional, a utility or permitting barrier that defeats the concept, or an operating restriction the project cannot accommodate.

Stopping one configuration is not the same as declaring that solar cannot work anywhere for the organization. Record whether the decision closes the property, the layout, the procurement model, or the timing. This makes the work reusable if circumstances change.

Hand procurement a controlled packet, not a promise

Once the project passes the pre-bid gate, issue bidders the same evidence. Include the owner decision statement, document index, meter/load package, site records, conceptual cases, utility and AHJ register, open issues, responsibility matrix, alternates, allowances, and a question process. Identify which information bidders must verify rather than warranting that every owner record is complete.

Do not ask bidders to conceal uncertainty inside one lump sum. If a material investigation is intentionally deferred, state whether it is owner-provided, included by the bidder, priced as an allowance, offered as an alternate, or required during a separate preconstruction phase. That produces a more intelligible commercial decision than pretending the unknown does not exist.

After proposals arrive, switch to the commercial solar proposal checklist. That page owns same-scope normalization, bidder evidence, contracts, warranties, acceptance, and award. For the project’s complete installed-cost boundary, use the commercial solar cost guide.

If your team needs help identifying what evidence should be gathered before requesting commercial bids, request a commercial assessment and ask Sunburst to confirm the assessment scope in writing. Bring the property address, utility bills and interval data if available, roof or site records, future facility plans, and your internal decision criteria. A useful first conversation can identify the next questions without pretending that every professional study or approval is already complete.

What a Sunburst feasibility engagement produces

Sunburst Solar Solutions runs feasibility as a gate rather than a formality. The deliverable is an evidence register — site control and authority, load and tariff verification, roof and structural observations with their limits stated, a traceable production model, the South Carolina utility path, and the code, permit, zoning and fire boundaries — followed by a plain recommendation and a responsibility matrix. Where the evidence does not support proceeding, the report says so and names what would change the answer.

We are a South Carolina company working from Daniel Island, which matters at this stage: the AHJ, fire-marshal and utility expectations differ noticeably between Charleston County, Richland County and the coastal Horry and Beaufort jurisdictions, and a study written without that context tends to under-scope approvals.

From here the path runs through proposal normalization, interconnection and closeout. See our commercial solar service or commercial solar by city, and request a commercial assessment to scope the study for your site.

Commercial solar feasibility study FAQ

Is a desktop solar assessment a feasibility study?

It can be one part of a defined feasibility scope. A desktop assessment can review imagery, bills, mapping, and records, but it does not by itself verify site access, hidden conditions, structural adequacy, the electrical connection, utility capacity, or permit approval. The provider should label which conclusions are desktop observations and which require field or professional review.

Does a commercial solar feasibility study require a site visit?

It depends on the decision and the reliability of existing records. DOE notes that some screenings are remote while detailed feasibility commonly needs qualified site investigation. If the study is intended to support bidding, the owner should identify every question that cannot be responsibly answered from records and decide whether a site visit, measurement, test, or specialist review is required before bidders price it.

Who should determine whether a commercial roof can support solar?

The responsible, appropriately qualified professional should make the structural conclusion using the information and analysis required for the project and jurisdiction. An installer or consultant may collect drawings, photos, roof history, and concept loads, but the packet must distinguish that support work from the final professional conclusion and permit review.

How much utility data should be collected?

Collect the original billing history and the most complete interval data available for every relevant account, then reconcile them. The appropriate period depends on operating cycles, meter changes, abnormal events, and future load. A full annual cycle is often more informative than a few bills, but data completeness and representativeness matter more than repeating a universal number.

Does a utility pre-application report prove a project can interconnect?

No. Under the current South Carolina generator-interconnection form, a pre-application report is a non-binding snapshot based on existing information. It does not reserve a queue position, replace the formal request or later studies, or establish that system conditions will remain unchanged.

Should a business request bids before a structural review?

Only when the owner deliberately defines how that uncertainty will be handled. A preliminary bid might assign the review to bidders, use an allowance, or authorize a separate preconstruction phase. If the structural answer could eliminate the concept or materially change every price, resolving it first may produce a fairer bid. The scope and risk allocation should be explicit.

Does feasibility include project cost and ROI?

A defined feasibility scope may include preliminary economics, but the inputs and limitations must be stated. SB-A084 does not establish a universal cost or return. Use the separate Sunburst cost and ROI guides to audit gross installed cost, cash flow, financing, tax timing, and sensitivity after the site and concept evidence is mature enough.

Can one study cover rooftop solar, carports, ground-mount solar, and batteries?

It can compare separate concepts if each has its own site, technical, utility, operating, and cost assumptions. Do not merge them into one undocumented total. A battery also needs a defined operating or resilience job, power/energy requirements, controls, electrical/fire review, and a distinct cost and financial case.

When should an owner stop a feasibility study?

Stop developing the present concept when an authorized decision-maker has enough credible evidence that a fatal constraint cannot be resolved within acceptable risk, authority, operations, or procurement limits. Document whether the stop applies to the site, design, ownership model, or timing so that the organization knows what would have to change before reconsideration.

Sources and methodology

This guide was researched on August 10, 2026. We reviewed the current Sunburst live sitemap and commercial content cluster for search-intent overlap, sampled current commercial-feasibility and site-survey results for buyer questions and format, and used official sources for technical, utility, code, licensing, and interconnection claims. DOE FEMP guidance is a federal-facility framework used here as a decision model; it is not presented as a private South Carolina procurement requirement.

Decision-critical sources include:

• DOE FEMP project validation, including the separation between feasibility and procurement.
• DOE FEMP PV procurement lifecycle, including pre-screening, site screening, technical specifications, and O&M planning.
• DOE FEMP distributed-energy services, which distinguishes screening, feasibility, interconnection assistance, procurement, and design review.
• NREL PVWatts V8, for production-model assumptions and uncertainty.
• South Carolina Building Codes Council adoption page, for the current statewide code boundary and adoption materials.
• South Carolina Energy Office licensing guidance, for commercial solar contractor-classification context.
• South Carolina Energy Office interconnection overview, for the separate utility-connection process.
• Dominion Energy South Carolina business-solar guidance and Santee Cooper’s generator-interconnection standard page, used only as current utility-specific examples.
• South Carolina PSC Order 2025-497, for the August 7, 2025 revised-procedure approval.

Utility programs, procedures, code editions, local permit requirements, site conditions, and professional scopes can change. Recheck them for the exact property, account, project size, design, utility, and submission date before relying on a feasibility conclusion.