[solardev]

Yes, you have a point there, but I think my gripe is that the numbers are so tiny as to be potential rounding errors on an otherwise pretty self-evident hypothesis: that solar subsidies (like direct pay) increase solar installations. We've known that for decades already.

If there were something special about HoW that make them disproportionately susceptible to subsidy-driven PV, that would be an interesting finding... but I don't think you can make that determination on 1.9% of 0.6%.

Still, you have a point. If nobody studied this, we wouldn't know if that was 1.9% of 0.6% or 90% of 50%. And maybe the numbers will change in the coming years, and this gives us a great baseline starting point.