Where it clearly helped
Proposal structure, consistently. Every quote went out with the same sections in the same order: system size and equipment, production estimate with its assumptions stated, itemised price, incentives applied and how they are claimed, timeline, and what is excluded. Before, each proposal was assembled from the last one and drifted; a fixed template removed the drift and stopped assumptions disappearing between jobs.
Permit and interconnection cover letters. These repeat almost word for word apart from the address, the system spec and the code references. Generating them from a fixed template with the variables filled in cut the writing to a few minutes and, more usefully, stopped omissions — the letter always remembered to state the mounting method and the equipment listings because the template contained them.
Rebate and incentive explanations. Customers do not read the programme rules; they read the one paragraph in your proposal. Drafting that paragraph so it says what the incentive is, who claims it, when it arrives and what happens if it does not, made a real difference to how many follow-up calls we got. The tool was good at the shape; the amounts and deadlines came from the current programme documentation.
Where it nearly went wrong
Savings projections. The serious one. Generated proposal text turns a production estimate into a confident annual saving, then into a twenty-year total, and does it without stating the assumptions that make it true — utility rate, rate escalation, actual consumption, shading, degradation. A projection written that way is not a projection, it is a promise the customer will hold you to in year three. Every figure now comes from the proposal software, and the paragraph states the assumption alongside the number.
Code and permit statements. Drafts wrote confident sentences about what the local authority requires, what the utility allows, and which equipment is listed. Some were right; the failure mode is that they were all written in the same confident voice regardless. Code references, utility requirements and equipment listings go in from the actual documents, never from a draft.
Warranty language. Generated warranty paragraphs are consistently broader than the manufacturer's actual warranty, and unlike a savings figure nobody notices until there is a claim. Workmanship warranty, equipment warranty and production guarantee are three different documents with three different scopes; each is quoted, not summarised.
The one paragraph to write yourself
The production estimate and everything derived from it. A proposal's credibility rests on one page: system size, orientation, shading assumptions, expected annual production, and how that was calculated. That page comes from your design tool, and the words around it should describe the calculation rather than embellish its result. When a draft writes "you can expect to save approximately", the problem is not the number — it is that the assumptions have gone missing.
Editing time, from our 30-day benchmark
Our 30-day test measured roughly 22 minutes of editing per 1,000 words on the low-cost dedicated writer against about 8 minutes on the general assistant — near $7 per piece of your time at $30 per hour. For a solar installer the saving lands in paperwork and consistency, not in the sales argument: permit letters and proposal structure get faster, while every number still comes from your design output.
A workflow that holds up
Keep one proposal template where every assumption has a named field, and refuse to send one with a field left blank. Generate the permit and interconnection letters from a fixed template, filling address, spec and code references from the actual documents. Write the incentive paragraph from the current programme page, with the date you checked it, because those rules change and a stale rebate figure is a phone call you do not want. Quote the three warranties rather than describing them. Then read the finished proposal as a sceptical customer would: is every number traceable to something you calculated or looked up?
Template the paperwork, calculate the numbers
Proposals and permit letters repeat; savings figures do not delegate.
Try Rytr →Frequently Asked Questions
Can AI write a solar proposal?
It can produce a consistent structure with every section present and every assumption fielded. The production estimate and all savings figures have to come from your design software and the current utility rate.
Is it safe for savings projections?
State the assumptions next to the number — rate, escalation, consumption, shading, degradation. A projection without its assumptions reads as a guarantee and gets treated as one.
What generated wording causes the most trouble?
Warranty language. Drafts consistently describe broader coverage than the manufacturer or workmanship warranty actually provides, and the gap surfaces at claim time.
Can it handle permit paperwork?
Yes, as a template with variables. Fill address, equipment listings and code references from the actual documents rather than letting a draft supply them from memory.
What should a small installer set up first?
The proposal template with mandatory assumption fields, and the permit cover letter template. Both repeat on every job and consistency is what protects you.