[Exclusive Report Vol.48] 95.1% of Solar and Battery Sales Staff Say Calculation Assumptions Are 'Standardized,' but Only 18.4% Standardize Electricity Price Escalation Assumptions

Kokusai Kogyo Co., Ltd. (Headquarters: Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo; President and CEO: Kyosuke Fujiwara), provider of the solar and battery economic impact diagnostic tool "Enegaeru" (https://www.enegaeru.com/), announces the results of a survey on the current state of standardization of calculation assumptions in the solar and battery industry. The survey targeted 103 sales professionals employed at companies that define their own simulation conditions (calculation assumptions) for economic impact assessments.

※ Survey results may be used provided the conditions outlined below are followed.

01｜93.1% of solar and battery sales staff report improved quality and justification in economic effect calculations

02｜95.1% say their company's calculation assumptions are 'well standardized,' yet only 18.4% have standardized electricity price escalation assumptions

03｜Over the past year, 62.1% were questioned by customers about the basis for electricity price escalation or unit rates, and 19.4% experienced stalled negotiations due to customer distrust in calculations

Download the full survey report here

Survey Overview

Survey Title: Survey on the Current State of Standardization of Calculation Assumptions in the Solar and Battery Industry

Methodology: Online survey planned by IDEATECH's research marketing platform "Risapii®"

Survey Period: June 9–10, 2026

Valid Responses: 103 sales professionals from companies that define their own simulation conditions (calculation assumptions) for solar and battery sales

※ Minor discrepancies may occur due to rounding of figures to ensure totals sum to 100%.

≪Conditions for Use of Survey Results≫

1. When citing, clearly state the source as "Survey by Enegaeru Operations Office."

2. For web use, include the following source link:

URL: https://www.enegaeru.com/

93.1% of Sales Staff Feel the Quality and Justification of Economic Effect Calculations Have Improved

When asked, "Q1. In your opinion, compared to a few years ago, do you think the quality of explanations and justification for economic effect calculations in the solar and battery industry has improved?" (n=103), responses were "strongly agree" at 34.9% and "somewhat agree" at 58.2%.

Q1. In your opinion, compared to a few years ago, do you think the quality of explanations and justification for economic effect calculations in the solar and battery industry has improved?

・ Strongly agree: 34.9%

・ Somewhat agree: 58.2%

・ Somewhat disagree: 4.9%

・ Strongly disagree: 1.0%

・ Don't know/No answer: 1.0%

95.1% Say Their Company's Standardization of Calculation Assumptions Is 'Well Advanced'

When asked, "Q2. Do you think the standardization of calculation assumptions (electricity price escalation, tariff plans, self-consumption rate, buyback price, etc.) at your company is sufficiently advanced?" (n=103), responses were "strongly agree" at 24.3% and "somewhat agree" at 70.8%.

Q2. Do you think the standardization of calculation assumptions (electricity price escalation, tariff plans, self-consumption rate, buyback price, etc.) at your company is sufficiently advanced?

・ Strongly agree: 24.3%

・ Somewhat agree: 70.8%

・ Somewhat disagree: 4.9%

・ Strongly disagree: 0.0%

・ Don't know/No answer: 0.0%

'Customer-Type-Specific Tariff Plan Branching' Is the Most Standardized Item at 60.2%

When asked, "Q3. Which calculation assumptions are currently standardized at your company? (Multiple answers allowed)" (n=103), the top responses were "customer-type-specific tariff plan branching (residential, commercial, high-voltage, market-linked)" at 60.2%, "rules for decomposing tariff components (basic charge, usage charge, fuel adjustment, etc.)" at 49.5%, and "evaluation methods for outage value and BCP value" at 35.0%.

Q3. Which calculation assumptions are currently standardized at your company? (Multiple answers allowed)

・ Customer-type-specific tariff plan branching (residential, commercial, high-voltage, market-linked): 60.2%

・ Rules for decomposing tariff components (basic charge, usage charge, fuel adjustment, etc.): 49.5%

・ Evaluation methods for outage value and BCP value: 35.0%

・ Solar buyback price and electricity selling rate: 30.1%

・ Use of multiple scenario presentations (base, optimistic, pessimistic, etc.): 15.5%

・ Templates for justification materials: 9.7%

・ Others: 0.0%

・ Nothing is particularly standardized: 0.0%

・ Don't know/No answer: 1.9%

Frequency of Reviewing Calculation Assumptions: 'Approximately Every 3 Months' at 35.9%

When asked, "Q4. How frequently does your company review its calculation assumptions?" (n=103), responses were "approximately every 3 months" at 35.9% and "approximately every 6 months" at 30.1%.

Q4. How frequently does your company review its calculation assumptions?

・ Monthly or more: 17.5%

・ Approximately every 3 months: 35.9%

・ Approximately every 6 months: 30.1%

・ Approximately annually: 9.7%

・ Irregularly: 2.9%

・ Less frequently: 1.0%

・ Never reviewed: 0.0%

・ Don't know/No answer: 2.9%

Responsibility for Reviewing Assumptions Lies Primarily with the 'Sales Headquarters' at 38.8%

When asked, "Q5. Which department or role is primarily responsible for reviewing calculation assumptions at your company?" (n=103), "Sales Headquarters" accounted for 38.8%, followed by "Sales Promotion/Sales Planning Department" at 27.2%.

Q5. Which department or role is primarily responsible for reviewing calculation assumptions at your company?

・ Sales Headquarters: 38.8%

・ Sales Promotion/Sales Planning Department: 27.2%

・ Marketing Department: 13.6%

・ Product Planning/Product Department: 8.7%

・ Management/Corporate Planning Department: 6.8%

・ Information Systems Department: 3.9%

・ Others: 0.0%

・ Not specifically defined: 1.0%

・ Don't know/No answer: 0.0%

96.1% Believe Their Company Has a System Ensuring Consistent Calculation Results Across Sales Staff

When asked, "Q6. Do you think your company has a system in place to ensure consistent calculation results regardless of the sales representative?" (n=103), responses were "strongly agree" at 22.3% and "somewhat agree" at 73.8%.

Q6. Do you think your company has a system in place to ensure consistent calculation results regardless of the sales representative?

・ Strongly agree: 22.3%

・ Somewhat agree: 73.8%

・ Somewhat disagree: 2.9%

・ Strongly disagree: 0.0%

・ Don't know/No answer: 1.0%

Time for New Hires to Reach Veteran-Level Calculation Explanations: 'About Six Months' for 44.7%

When asked, "Q7. How long does it take for new hires at your company to reach the same level of calculation explanation proficiency as experienced staff?"