As clean energy professionals, we’re rightfully proud of the rapid progress being made in deploying solar, wind, and battery storage technologies. The plummeting costs and increasing efficiencies of renewables mean that greening the grid by 2050 is now a realistic goal. This is cause for celebration.

However, we must also reckon with an inconvenient truth: even if we achieve 100% clean electricity by mid-century, atmospheric CO2 levels are still on track to reach around 450 parts per million (ppm) by 2050 – far above the 350 ppm level considered safe for humanity. The painful reality is that the clean energy transition, while absolutely necessary, is not sufficient on its own to avert climate catastrophe.

This is the stark message of Peter Fiekowsky’s recent book Climate Restoration, which argues that we must go beyond emissions reductions to actually remove a trillion tons of legacy CO2 from the atmosphere. Only by restoring CO2 to pre-industrial levels below 300 ppm can we ensure the long-term survival and flourishing of human civilization.

Fiekowsky, an MIT-educated physicist and entrepreneur, contends that relying solely on emissions cuts to stabilize CO2 around 450 ppm is far too risky. Humans have never lived long-term with CO2 that high. The last time levels were similar was over 3 million years ago, when sea levels were 60 feet higher and global temperatures 5-8°F warmer. Allowing CO2 to remain elevated for centuries risks crossing irreversible tipping points in the climate system.

The good news is that CO2 removal at the necessary scale is technologically feasible and surprisingly affordable, costing an estimated $1-2 billion per year. Fiekowsky identifies four main approaches that could restore atmospheric CO2 to safe levels by 2050:

1. Ocean iron fertilization to stimulate plankton blooms that absorb CO2
2. Seaweed permaculture to grow and sink carbon-sequestering kelp
3. Synthetic limestone manufacture using captured CO2
4. Enhanced atmospheric methane oxidation

These nature-based and biomimicry solutions harness and accelerate the Earth’s natural carbon cycle processes. Importantly, they are permanent, scalable, and financeable – key criteria for viable CO2 removal approaches. When you consider that New York City (just one major coastal metro) is currently debating whether to spend $20 to $50 billion dollars on an ocean barrier system to prevent future storm surges from flooding the city, the $2 billion/yr price tag on climate restoration seems like a better bet.

As clean energy professionals, we must expand our focus beyond just greening the grid to include large-scale carbon removal. Here’s why:

First, it’s a moral imperative. We have an obligation to restore a safe, stable climate for future generations. Stopping emissions is necessary but not sufficient – we must clean up the trillion-ton legacy CO2 mess we’ve already created.

Second, it’s risk mitigation. Relying solely on emissions cuts without CO2 removal is an enormously risky bet on humanity’s ability to thrive in a radically altered climate state. Carbon removal gives us vital insurance.

Third, it’s economic opportunity. CO2 removal solutions like synthetic limestone can produce valuable products, creating new industries and jobs. The transition to a circular carbon economy will require major infrastructure investments.

Fourth, it’s technically synergistic. Many carbon removal approaches like ocean fertilization or seaweed cultivation could be powered by offshore wind or floating solar, creating virtuous cycles.

To be clear, carbon removal is not an excuse to slow down the clean energy transition – both are essential. But the clean energy community must broaden its vision to champion carbon removal alongside renewables deployment.

Specific actions we can take include:

• Advocate for updating climate policy goals to include restoring CO2 to pre-industrial levels (300 PPM of CO2 is worthy goal), not just emissions cuts
• Support R&D funding and commercial deployment of CO2 removal solutions
• Explore integrating carbon removal with renewable energy projects
• Educate ourselves and others on the need for atmospheric CO2 cleanup

The coming decades will be pivotal for humanity’s future. By combining a rapid shift to 100% clean energy with large-scale deployment of carbon removal solutions, we can create a true climate restoration future – one with a healthy, livable planet for generations to come. But we must act quickly and decisively. The clean energy industry has shown it can innovate and scale rapidly when needed. Now we must apply that same spirit to carbon removal. Our children’s future depends on it.

Tim Montague leads the Clean Power Consulting Group and is host of the Clean Power Hour podcast. He is a solar project developer, cleantech executive coach and consultant, mastermind group leader, entrepreneur and technology enthusiast. 

From pv magazine Global

Summer weather and a heat dome have brought increased irradiance to both US coasts, with the strongest impact in the North East, while New Mexico and regions through the midwest experienced below-average irradiance due to increased cloud cover and atmospheric disturbances, according to analysis using the Solcast API.

Much of the continental United States saw irradiance moderately above average, 5-10% above historical June averages, with the increase most notable along the East Coast. The “heat dome” that dominated much of June was accompanied by upper-atmosphere subsidence which suppressed cloud formation, allowing more sunlight to reach the ground. In contrast, the Gulf of Mexico experienced increased precipitation and cloudiness. However, prevailing winds kept most of these clouds offshore, except for the tip of Florida. The area around the Great Lakes saw up to 10% below average irradiance due to the additional heat enhancing evaporation and cloud formation.

Despite the heatwave, New Mexico saw irradiance 5-10% below typical levels. This deviation was caused by a tropical disturbance in the Gulf of Mexico, which was observed on June 19. This disturbance brought moisture and atmospheric instability, triggering thunderstorms over New Mexico a few days later.

These thunderstorms caused flash floods and large hail in the region. While these events are not widespread enough to fully extinguish the wildfires across the state, it has impacted solar panel performance. Hail can damage and destroy solar panels, but many utility-scale solar farms in this latitude employ single-axis tracking systems that can stow panels in a vertical position to reduce damage risk. Smoke from wildfires also impacts irradiance by soiling panels and reducing light transmission through the atmosphere.

This year, the Summer Solstice happened on June 20. As the sun reaches its highest point in the sky in the Northern Hemisphere, irradiance also typically peaks around this time of year across North America. However, in Central America, this is somewhat offset by the
increased cloudiness of the tropical wet season.

Solcast produces these figures by tracking clouds and aerosols at 1-2km resolution globally, using satellite data and proprietary AI/ML algorithms. This data is used to drive irradiance models, enabling Solcast to calculate irradiance at high resolution, with typical bias of less than 2%, and also cloud-tracking forecasts. This data is used by more than 300 companies managing over 150GW of solar assets globally.

From pv magazine Global

The Chinese Module Marker (CMM), the OPIS benchmark assessment for TOPCon modules from China was assessed at $0.100/W, down $0.005/W week-to-week. Mono PERC module prices were assessed at $0.090/W, down $0.005/W from the previous week. The new record lows for both prices according to OPIS data comes as market activity remains subdued on low demand.

Module makers have reduced prices in a bid to secure new orders and maintain cash flow with tradable indications for TOPCon modules heard at $0.10/W Free-on-Board (FOB) China.

Solar modules exported to Europe continue to contend with elevated freight rates on matters in the Red Sea. OPIS heard freight rates of about $0.0164-0.0175/W (about high $6,000s-$7,000/FEU) for shipments from Shanghai to Rotterdam. While this has affected shipments, it presents an opportunity for module sellers to reduce their inventories in Europe.

A market observer said that prices during Intersolar did not move and remained around $0.10/W FOB China (+/-0.3cts) and that despite the high installations season just starting, the installation demand for Europe this year did not seem very strong, at least in the utility-scale space.

Latin America continues to look weak with the price competition in this market described as “intense” by a module seller. Prices in the Brazilian market are generally lower than in other markets as buyers are price-sensitive. TOPCon prices to Brazil had fallen to the range of $0.08-0.09/W FOB China with prices at the low end offered by Tier2-3 module sellers, the module seller added.

A buyer noted that current U.S. Delivered Duty Paid (DDP) TOPCon prices have risen to the low-to-mid $0.30/W range. This pricing includes the 201 bifacial tariffs but excludes the new antidumping/countervailing duties. With the exemption set to lapse mid-week, another market source told OPIS that “any new deals would be subject to the 14.25% Section 201 tariffs and will likely push pricing into the mid $0.30s/W in 2024”.

Domestic Chinese demand remained weak amid mounting inventory pressure. Further price cuts in the coming weeks were expected as module sellers clear inventories to generate cash flow. The majority of market participants OPIS surveyed expected TOPCon prices to drop below CNY0.8/W or $0.099/W on a FOB China equivalent, which is the current cost of production for integrated producers.

The operating rates of integrated module sellers remained between 60-80%, according to the Silicon Industry of China Nonferrous Metals Industry Association. Estimates of June module production capacity stood at 50 GW, down from 52 GW previously expected and down 5 GW from May, the association said.

China exported 83.3 GW of modules in the period January-April marking a year-on-year increase of 20%, according to latest data from China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology. The total value of the module shipments for the period January-April reached $12.7 billion.

Looking ahead in the FOB China market, broader bearish conditions prevent any upticks in module prices in the short term although continued production cuts into July could give some respite to supply pressures.

OPIS, a Dow Jones company, provides energy prices, news, data, and analysis on gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, LPG/NGL, coal, metals, and chemicals, as well as renewable fuels and environmental commodities. It acquired pricing data assets from Singapore Solar Exchange in 2022 and now publishes the OPIS APAC Solar Weekly Report.

From pv magazine Global

IEA PVPS Task 12 (PV Sustainability Activities) has released an updated Fact Sheet, shedding light on the environmental impacts of photovoltaic (PV) electricity. This Fact Sheet, titled “Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity from PV Systems“, offers crucial insights into PV sustainability and highlights key advancements as well as current data in PV technology.

Life Cycle Assessment: A Comprehensive Overview

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a detailed method used to quantify and assess the material and energy flows, as well as emissions, throughout the life cycle stages of PV systems. These stages include manufacturing, transport, installation, use, and end-of-life. The manufacturing phase encompasses resource extraction, raw material production, and the creation of wafers, cells, panels, inverters, and mounting structures. Transport covers the distribution logistics, while installation involves setting up roof-mounted systems and cabling. The use phase evaluates the system’s performance over a typical 30-year operational period, including maintenance. Finally, the end-of-life stage addresses dismantling, recycling, and waste management processes.

The updated Fact Sheet primarily focuses on a typical residential PV system in Europe. This system is defined by a roof-mounted PV setup, an annual production rate of 976 kWh/kW, and an in-plane irradiation of 1,331 kWh/m². It includes PV panels, cabling, mounting structure, inverter, and installation, with a linear degradation rate of 0.7% per year and a service life of 30 years for panels and 15 years for inverters.

Evaluating PV Module Technologies

IEA PVPS Task 12 assesses four PV module technologies, each with distinct efficiencies: Cadmium-Telluride (CdTe) at 18.4%, Copper-Indium-Gallium-Selenide (CIS/CIGS) at 17.0%, Multi-crystalline Silicon (multi-Si, BSF) at 18.0%, and Mono-crystalline Silicon (mono-Si, PERC/TOPCon) at 20.9%. These efficiencies are critical in determining the environmental impacts and performance of each technology.

Key Findings from the Fact Sheet

Non-renewable energy payback time (NREPBT) is the period required for a renewable energy system to generate an amount of energy equivalent to the non-renewable energy used in its production. The study reveals an NREPBT of approximately one year for the evaluated PV systems, indicating a swift return on energy investment.

PV systems dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions compared to fossil fuel generators. The carbon footprint for producing 1 kWh of solar electricity ranges from 25.2 to 43.6 g CO2 equivalent, far lower than the up to 1 kg CO2 per kWh emitted by fossil fuels. The study also examines additional environmental impacts, including resource use of fossil fuels (0.35 to 0.52 MJ per kWh), resource use of minerals and metals (4.6 to 5.3 mg Sb equivalent per kWh), particulate matter (1.0 to 4.0 incidences per kWh), and acidification (0.18 to 0.36 mmol H+ equivalent per kWh).

When comparing current data with previous years, the study highlights significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by up to 17% in some technologies, thanks to improvements in manufacturing and an increase in module efficiency.

Conclusion

The detailed life cycle assessment methodology employed in this study provides valuable insights into the entire life cycle of PV systems, from manufacturing to end-of-life management. This holistic approach ensures that all environmental impacts are considered, enabling more informed decision-making for both policymakers and industry stakeholders.

Please download the Fact Sheet here.

IEA PVPS Task 12 aims to quantify the environmental profile of PV systems relative to other energy technologies and address critical environmental, health, safety, and sustainability issues to support market growth.

For further information please contact the IEA PVPS Task 12 Managers: Garvin Heath and Etienne Drahi.

From pv magazine Global

A new white paper from research and consulting firm Exawatt examines and contrasts key module parameters across various technologies to assess the potential value these technologies may offer for residential and commercial applications. The white paper, authored by Molly Morgan and Alex Barrows of Exawatt, draws on analyses from the company’s Solar Technology and Cost Service.

The paper reveals that, in the modelling performed, back contact (xBC), heterojunction (HJT), and tunnel oxide passivated contact (TOPCon) technologies may exhibit meaningful improvements in lifetime energy generation compared to mono passivated emitter rear contact (PERC) technologies. Through detailed modelling exercises, the document evaluates how xBC, HJT, and TOPCon contribute to increased clean energy generation and potential financial savings depending on specific system parameters.

In both residential and commercial system modelling scenarios, the authors found that xBC stands out as the top performer, showing an average increase of 16.0% over mono PERC, while HJT and TOPCon offer generation gains of 11.4% and 8.2%, respectively.

Furthermore, the white paper delves into the profitability of residential and commercial installations through assessments of payback time and levelized cost of electricity (LCOE). Despite their premium pricing, xBC, HJT, and TOPCon technologies demonstrate enhanced profitability in both modelling scenarios in comparison to the previously mainstream mono PERC. Among these technologies, xBC emerges as the frontrunner, boasting an average 9.7% shorter payback time and 10.7% lower LCOE across all modelled locations.

While small cost reductions may still be achieved in the current PV industry, the white paper outlines that these are relatively minor in comparison to the potential efficiency gains offered by advanced technologies. High module efficiency is key to driving down system cost-per-watt, payback time, and LCOE, since it can drive down the per-watt costs of many key non-module costs such as labor and mounting.

The white paper underscores the importance for distributors, installers, and system owners to grasp the value proposition of high-performance technologies for informed decision-making on which technology has the greatest value for a specific application.

The authors conclude that as the industry continues to prioritize performance improvements over cost reductions, embracing high-performance PV technologies can pave the way for enhanced efficiency, cost savings, and sustainable energy solutions.

From pv magazine 6/24

Tariff and trade tensions, tempered by favorable industrial policies courtesy of the US Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), have prompted multiple solar and storage manufacturers to announce plans to set up facilities in the United States, some for the first time.

To date, most firms eyeing US ventures are in China, reflecting the global dominance of Chinese PV and storage companies. Companies based in India are in the mix, too, followed by European producers and a roster of businesses from across Southeast Asia and South Korea.

With all this interest comes the realization that many business practices that are considered normal in the United States, differ – sometimes in big ways – from other parts of the world. Take employee parking, for example. Companies based in parts of the world where private vehicle ownership is not the norm may look at the acres of car park space at US manufacturing sites and see wasted potential.

On the other hand, some non-US employers are surprised when they hear worker dormitories are not standard at manufacturing sites. Or that the open labor market, not a government ministry, is the primary source for workers. Some find it a foreign concept that most Americans are willing to commute a significant distance to a job they secured on their own.

Other cultural differences include the layers of decision-makers who need to sign off on manufacturing plants, the subtle differences between product and equipment standards, and the emergence in some parts of the United States of opposition to any investments by Chinese companies.

Location and equipment

Site selection provides another challenge. Many available buildings were originally built for warehouse or distribution purposes. Such operations typically use little energy, at least when compared with solar and battery production lines. Electrical service upgrades often become necessary, with upgrades sometimes required all the way to the substation. In other cases, new substations need to be built from scratch.

That means the prospective manufacturer must work with local utilities to secure upgrades. Sometimes this can be done relatively quickly, with the utility able to locate transformers within a year.

However, equipment acquisition often proves more difficult. In the case of transformers and related substation equipment, wait times of several years are becoming more common. That means a non-US manufacturer needs to be something of a utility expert, able to understand and work not only across multiple business types (investor-owned, cooperative, municipal, and so on), but also with regulated or unregulated regimes which vary by state.

Even when it comes to commonplace equipment such as a facility’s air conditioner, lead times of two to three years are increasingly reported for 40-ton units and larger. Fewer than a dozen suppliers exist that manufacture equipment of this size for the US market and each typically produces only a handful of units each week, to meet global demand.

Matter of standards

Even for European companies, different quality, certification, and manufacturing standards need to be addressed. That’s because companies working in the European Union typically are more familiar with the bloc’s CE mark for health, safety, and environmental protection. Products that have received the CE mark are not automatically UL (Underwriters Laboratories)-listed for sale in the United States. In part, this is because some product types with the CE mark do not have to be third-party certified and are not necessarily compliant with US standards.

Rarely does a one-to-one equivalency exist so qualification testing often needs to be performed for European products and equipment to be used in the United States.

A further layer of complexity often exists here. The certification must satisfy not a federal or state official but, in many cases, an official as local as a fire marshal. These local code administrators are instrumental in deciding whether every aspect of a facility complies with a host of safety standards. Only after a fire marshal signs off can a manufacturing plant be occupied and begin production.

Multiple logistical issues can also surprise non-US firms. For example, an industrial site in the middle of the country might look like an ideal solution and then be rejected because it is too far from a deepwater port, which adds to transportation expenses and delays. Or an industrial site close to a deepwater port on one of the coasts may have an unacceptably large risk of suffering natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods. A site in the fast-growing and sunbaked Southwest of the United States may lack access to long-term, reliable water supplies.

Managing differences

Any company looking to base itself in the United States should develop a set of qualifying categories that rank the importance of a range of inputs, from available real estate to utility service upgrades to workforce availability, as they pertain to specific projects.

One outcome of such an exercise is that it’s rare for two seemingly similar businesses to favor the same site, let alone the same state. While many factory projects look the same from the outside, their specific needs can be quite different. One emerging factor is the policy – written and unwritten – in some states that discourages Chinese-owned factories. There are still states that welcome Chinese ownership, however.

At the federal level, there is the No Official Giveaways of Taxpayers’ Income to Oppressive Nations (NO GOTION) Act. This is a bill in the House of Representatives that would prohibit companies affiliated with certain regimes around the world from benefiting from IRA tax credits. It is likely that companies that have begun manufacturing prior to the bill’s passage will be affected differently.

Renewed interest in, and support of, domestic US solar manufacturing is opening attractive opportunities for foreign-based companies to set up production lines. Cultural differences exist, however, and need to be proactively addressed to help ensure a project’s profitability.

About the author: Mark Hagedorn is the vice president of manufacturing services for Clean Energy Associates.

In Europe, there are still large stocks of modules produced in 2023, or earlier with distributors and installers themselves. If these have the smaller dimensions commonly used for rooftop systems in Germany, they are selling poorly due to low power output classes. Building owners usually want to see a high wattage and the latest technology installed in their systems, which makes it much more difficult to sell existing inventory.

Despite the supposed reduction in module production, and European import volumes, it appears that more Asian panels are still reaching the European market than are currently in demand. This, in turn, is causing inventories to grow, even in high-performance classes, exerting additional pressure on module prices, especially on old modules which were produced and purchased at significantly higher prices.

The ability to devalue old stock varies greatly from company to company, resulting in vastly different prices for modules with passivated emitter rear contact (PERC) cell technology. The overall price differences between model categories is shrinking.

Shelf warmers

It is very difficult to get rid of these older modules in markets outside Europe without accepting a massive loss in value. Africa and Southeast Asia are also likely to be oversaturated with modules and Chinese-made products cannot easily be sold to the US market. One strategy that is becoming increasingly established is to enable concessions in the soft factors of the trade business. There can be some room to move in payment and delivery terms. Instead of offering the modules at a lower price, a credit line is granted – often without requiring collateral – and delivery can be offered for free. That said, it is doubtful that this tactic will work over the long term. Many smaller companies are on the brink of insolvency and the possibility of defaults cannot be ruled out. The pressure to sell should, therefore, not override common sense and tempt providers to take incalculable risks.

Some suppliers are also attempting to take refuge in online marketplaces where they hope to sell quickly to international customers without incurring sales and marketing costs. However, the competitive pressure there is also high and the goods can often only be sold at dumping prices.

Online business models come with further risk. They seldom provide solid opportunities to get to know the potential business partner in advance – sellers just take what they can get. Misunderstandings can arise in business transactions, especially across national borders and the platform operator is not always available to provide support and advice. The effort involved in an online transaction can quickly become greater than buying or selling within an established business relationship. Everything can go smoothly but that does not necessarily mean that it will.

Notes: Only tax-free prices for PV modules are shown, with stated prices reflecting average customs-cleared prices on the European spot market. Source: pvXchange.com

Project sales

One possibility for making good use of surplus old solar modules is to install them in larger open-space projects or rooftop systems. Smaller formats may not be a bad choice in areas with higher wind or snow loads. Although the material and installation costs increase slightly, easier handling during installation makes up for this disadvantage. There is another undeniable advantage here – that the modules are already in stock. This guaranteed availability means there can be no ­delivery problems and therefore no delays in the construction process. Add in a few unsold inverters and cable reels and the components are in place for a working PV system.

Once a system has been installed and connected to the grid, nobody will care whether the solar modules belong to the very latest generation or not. The resulting asset can then be marketed better than the 400 W PERC modules in the current market situation. This can also be done via an online brokerage portal, for companies not yet properly set up for project sales.

About the author: Martin Schachinger has a degree in electrical engineering and has been active in PV and other renewables for almost 30 years. In 2004, he founded online trading platform pvXchange.com, enabling wholesalers, installers, and service companies to buy solar panels, standard components, and inverters that are no longer manufactured but which may be urgently needed to repair defective PV plants.

Nearly two years following passage of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA), Treasury and the IRS released the unpublished version of the final rule (Final Rule) for compliance with the IRA’s prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements (PWA requirements).

Taxpayers seeking to claim the highest available investment and/or production tax credits for renewable energy projects must comply with the PWA requirements. A taxpayer must ensure that laborers or mechanics employed by the taxpayer or any contractor or subcontractor in the construction, alteration, or repair of a qualifying facility comply with the PWA requirements.

The Final Rule concludes the federal rulemaking process for the PWA requirements. (Note: The Final Rule is scheduled to be officially published on June 25, 2024, and therefore this article relies on the unpublished version.)

The Final Rule will replace the previously-issued Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (released August 30, 2023) (NOPR), which replaced the Initial Guidance (released November 30, 2022). Overall, the Final Rule is generally consistent with the NOPR, providing helpful clarification on industry concerns raised in comments to the NOPR. However, the Final Rule expressly declines to address industry-specific concerns, emphasizing that determinations of compliance with PWA requirements will be made based upon specific facts and circumstances. It therefore leaves several questions open to interpretation, including whether commissioning work is subject to PWA requirements and to what extent certain post-operational work may be subject to PWA requirements.

Clarifications

First, with respect to when PWA requirements apply, the Final Rule provides two useful clarifications:

Its supplementary information notes that “unrelated third party manufacturers who produce materials, supplies, equipment, and prefabricated components for multiple customers or the general public” are not subject to PWA requirements. In other words, most suppliers (absent performance of construction, alteration or repair on a project site) will not be subject to PWA requirements.

It also clarifies that apprenticeship requirements only apply to the construction of a qualified facility, and do not apply to alteration or repair of a facility after the facility is placed in service. In other words, most operations and maintenance vendors will not be subject to apprenticeship requirements.

Second, with respect to payment of prevailing wages, the Final Rule outlines regulations consistent with the NOPR: A taxpayer must ensure that laborers or mechanics employed by the taxpayer or any contractor or subcontractor in the construction, alteration, or repair of the facility are paid prevailing wages for the specific type of construction in the geographic area where the facility is located. The definitions of “laborers and mechanics” and “construction, alteration or repair” provided in the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. § 3141 et. seq.) apply to the PWA requirements. General wage determinations issued by the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division on www.sam.gov provide the appropriate prevailing wages for PWA requirements. The Final Rule lists Form WH-347 (the Davis-Bacon form for certified payroll) as one example of a record that may demonstrate compliance with PWA requirements.

Notably, however, the Final Rule distinguishes prevailing wage requirements from Davis-Bacon Act requirements – noting that prevailing wage requirements pursuant to the IRA are not a mirror of the Davis-Bacon Act, but instead may be merely in harmony with Davis-Bacon requirements. Treasury and the IRS therefore declined to implement certified weekly payroll, public notice, and other Davis-Bacon Act requirements as part of the PWA requirements.

While the Davis-Bacon Act focuses on the “site of the work” to determine when prevailing wages must be paid, the Final Rule uses a similar concept of “the locality in which a facility is located.” The locality in which a facility is located is the physical place or places where the facility will be placed in service and remain – commonly understood as the project site. It also includes secondary locations where a significant portion of the facility is constructed, altered, or repaired – but excludes secondary locations for fabrication or manufacturing that are not established specifically or dedicated exclusively for a specific period of time to the facility.

Significantly, the Final Rule largely resolves the question of which prevailing wage applies to a facility. It confirms that the prevailing wage in effect at the time the agreement for construction, alteration or repair of the facility is executed is the wage that applies for purposes of the PWA requirements. The same wage general wage determination may still be used if the contractor is given additional time to complete its original commitment or if additional work is incorporated into the agreement that is “merely incidental,” which provides reassurance with respect to usual course of business change orders during construction of a facility. If, however, the agreement is modified to include “additional substantial construction, alteration or repair work not within the scope of the work of the original contract,” or if the agreement is modified to “required work to be performed for an additional time period not originally obligated,” including exercise of an option to extend the terms of an agreement, a new general wage determination will be required.

For wage determinations needed and not covered by a general wage determination, the Final Rule generally follows the NOPR’s outline for submission of supplemental wage determination requests to the Wage and Hour Division. The Final Rule notes that taxpayers, contractors or subcontractors may submit supplemental wage determination requests. Such requests should be submitted no more than 90 days before the expected execution of a construction contract (or at any time following execution), and will remain effective for 180 calendar days after they are issued (or for the duration of the time the supplemental wage determination is incorporated into the contract).

The Final Rule also provides that the Wage and Hour Division will resolve supplemental wage determination requests, or notify the requester that additional time is necessary, within 30 days of submission of a request. If a supplemental wage determination is issued after construction work has started on the facility, it applies retroactively to the date construction started.

Third, with respect to apprenticeship requirements, the Final Rule incorporates many proposed regulations from the NOPR, including the three-pronged approach necessary to comply: taxpayers must ensure the labor hour requirement, the ratio requirement, and the participation requirement are each satisfied.

Many of the ambiguities raised in comments to the NOPR regarding apprenticeship focused on the Good Faith Effort Exception, and the Final Rule addresses several of them. Requests made to registered apprenticeship programs must be made in writing and sent electronically or by registered mail. Initial requests must be made no later than 45 days before the qualified apprentices are requested to start work, and subsequent requests must be made no later than 14 days before the qualified apprentices are requested to start work. The content of each request remains as outlined in the NOPR.

The Final Rule extends the period between requests on which a taxpayer may rely on the Good Faith Effort Exception to a full calendar year. In the event a request to a registered apprenticeship program is either denied or not responded to, a taxpayer will need to ensure an additional request is submitted annually in order to rely on the Good Faith Effort Exemption. There is no limit on the number of requests that may be submitted to a program, and there is no requirement to make subsequent requests to the same program (or to follow up on requests that are not responded to).

If a request to a registered apprenticeship program is partially denied, in order to satisfy the Good Faith Effort Exception requirements, the requesting party must accept the qualified apprentices offered (and may then consider the remaining portion as labor hours performed by qualified apprentices). An employer-sponsored registered apprenticeship program may not be used by such employer to satisfy the Good Faith Effort Exception requirements, unless the employer submits compliant requests to at least one registered apprenticeship program that it does not sponsor.

Finally, the Final Rule outlines in a separate recordkeeping section a list of records that may be sufficient to demonstrate compliance with PWA requirements. It notes that taxpayers may satisfy such recordkeeping requirements by collecting and physically retaining the records; providing them to a third-party vendor; or having each party physically retain relevant records (unredacted copies of which must be made available to the IRS upon request).

It confirms again that taxpayers are entitled to a rebuttable presumption of no intentional disregard if a taxpayer makes the appropriate correction and penalty payments before receiving notice of an examination from the IRS with respect to a claim for the increased credit. While continuing to emphasize that findings of “intentional disregard” of the PWA requirements will be made based on specific facts and circumstances, the Final Rule also provides 15 examples (for prevailing wage compliance) and 13 examples (for apprenticeship compliance) of facts and circumstances that may be considered in such a finding, including whether the failure was a pattern of conduct, whether the taxpayer took reasonable steps to monitor, review and correct compliance efforts, whether the taxpayer incorporated provisions in its agreements requiring compliance with the PWA requirements, and what documentation and records the taxpayer collected to ensure such compliance.

The Final Rule also establishes a 180-day limit for the taxpayer to pay correction and penalty payments following a final determination from the IRS that the taxpayer has failed to satisfy PWA requirements.

Overall, the Final Rule provides helpful clarity to renewable energy developers and contractors enacting and enforcing PWA requirements throughout the industry. However, leaves open industry-specific questions such as what scope of work constitutes “repair” rather than “maintenance,” particularly during operation of a facility. It also fails to address whether on-site commissioning work constitutes “construction, alteration or repair” sufficient to trigger obligations to comply with PWA requirements. These questions will remain subject to assessment based on specific facts and circumstances, and prudent industry developers and contractors will need to carefully consider and document how they approach compliance with PWA requirements consistent with prudent industry practices.

Monica Dozier and Jennifer Trulock are partners at Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP and regularly advise clients on labor and employment issues in the renewable energy industry.

From pv magazine Global

The Global Polysilicon Marker (GPM), the OPIS benchmark for polysilicon outside China, was assessed at $22.567/kg this week, unchanged from the previous week on the back of buy-sell indications heard. The price has held steady for four consecutive weeks.

According to a source knowledgeable about the polysilicon market outside of China, the trading status of global polysilicon in the spot markets is currently largely stagnant, with buyers awaiting the preliminary ruling from the U.S. anti-dumping and countervailing duties investigations expected in July.

A major global polysilicon buyer reported receiving spot prices from certain sellers lower than long-term agreement prices for the same specifications. However, due to uncertainty in US trade policy, they have refrained from placing an order.

This information was corroborated by a global polysilicon supplier, who expressed concern: “We are worried about inventory accumulation.”

Nevertheless, there are still optimistic voices lingering in the market, with sources reporting ongoing positive sales experiences. One of the sources explained that the solar supply chain features three distinct supply-demand relationships: between polysilicon and wafers, wafers and cells, and cells and modules.

“It’s argued that applying the current pessimism from the module market to the global polysilicon market is unjustified,” the source added. “Only the relationship between polysilicon and wafers directly influences the pricing of global polysilicon, which has been proven to be stable without notable fluctuations.”

China Mono Grade, OPIS’ assessment for polysilicon prices in the country, remained steady at CNY33 ($4.54)/kg this week, marking the fourth consecutive week of stability.

The market participants generally believe that current polysilicon prices do not need further reduction, as it would not significantly stimulate sales. Wafer companies are constrained by their operating rates and cash flow, limiting their ability to accelerate polysilicon procurement. “We are currently facing a loss of approximately 0.20 yuan for every piece of wafer produced,” a major wafer producer disclosed.

Multiple sources have confirmed that while nearly all Chinese polysilicon manufacturers are undergoing equipment maintenance, production cuts, or shutdowns, one major manufacturer is operating at full capacity with a 100% operating rate.

As a result, this company is incurring a monthly loss of CNY600-700 million in the polysilicon manufacturing segment, a source commented, noting that due to the factory’s large production capacity, operating at full capacity will keep overall polysilicon inventory levels high, casting uncertainty over the prospects for polysilicon prices.

Sources indicate that in addition to operating at full capacity, the company’s new production capacity is also ramping up as scheduled. This strategy underscores the company’s robust cash flow and its intent to leverage scaled capacity and cost advantages to squeeze the survival space of smaller companies in the ongoing price war.

According to an industry watcher, the current situation of selling polysilicon at a significant cash loss is unsustainable. By the end of the year, prices are expected to stabilize slightly above the average cash cost in the market, the source noted, who further anticipates that at that point, some excess production capacity, particularly high-cost or outdated facilities, will likely be phased out effectively.

OPIS, a Dow Jones company, provides energy prices, news, data, and analysis on gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, LPG/NGL, coal, metals, and chemicals, as well as renewable fuels and environmental commodities. It acquired pricing data assets from Singapore Solar Exchange in 2022 and now publishes the OPIS APAC Solar Weekly Report.

From pv magazine 6/24

The Invesco Solar exchange-traded fund (ETF) underperformed compared to other stock indexes in April 2024. The solar ETF was down 11% and the S&P 500 and DJIA decreased 4%. That fall followed a 3% gain for the Invesco Solar ETF in March 2024.

The top three performing April 2024 solar-related stocks in the United States were Atlantica Sustainable Infrastructure plc, up 5%; First Solar, Inc. up 3%; and Clearway Energy, Inc., up 1%. The three worst were Maxeon Solar Technologies, falling 39%; Daqo New Energy Corp., down 32%; and SunPower Corp., down 29%.

Residential solar stocks dropped 18% in April 2024, having dropped 2% in March 2024. This extended the 2024 fall for residential solar stocks to 44%. The companies in this measure are Enphase Energy Inc., SolarEdge Technologies., Sunnova Energy International Inc., and Sunrun Inc.

The situation was similar for utility scale solar equipment stocks, down 15% in April 2024 and 22% year to date. The companies in this measure are Array Technologies Inc., Shoals Technologies Group Inc., NEXTracker Inc., FTC Solar Inc., and First Solar Inc.

Independent power producers (IPP) fared better than utility scale or solar stocks. IPPs were down 8% for April 2024 and 22% year to date. This was despite poor performances from Emeren Group Ltd. (-22%) and Altus Power, Inc. (-24%).

The U.S. solar industry is experiencing a gray market for discounted Enphase products, fueled by large installers and rising competition from other microinverter brands. Chinese manufacturers are pricing and financing utility scale battery storage, challenging international firms.

For utility scale projects, rising module prices and uncertainty about retroactive duties are causing delays. Some firms have reassessed plans. Distributors are hesitant to take on new stock, leading to slower inventory clearance, contributing to market disruption. Within the IPP sector there has been an uptick in merger and acquisition activity, however.

From pv magazine Global

With signs of a possible switch to La Niña conditions, solar asset and grid operators will be looking to understand the impact this change could have on US solar production. Based on currently available data, the Atlantic hurricane season is expected to intensify to look more like a La Niña year, leading to more frequent hurricanes. La Niña years typically result in below-average solar irradiance in the Gulf of Mexico, while increasing solar irradiance along the Atlantic Coast of the USA, according to analysis using the Solcast API.

In La Niña years, the Gulf of Mexico historically sees irradiance levels up to 10% below the long-term average due to increased storm activity. La Niña, characterized by cooler sea surface temperatures in the equatorial Pacific, impacts the Atlantic hurricane season on the
other side of the continental USA by shifting weather patterns. The cooler temperatures in the Pacific shift the jet stream further north, reducing vertical wind shear in the Atlantic. Normally, higher wind shear suppresses hurricane formation by disrupting their vertical
structure. However, with reduced wind shear, more hurricanes can form and develop more intensely. These conditions lead to more hurricanes, convection and cloudiness in the Gulf of Mexico, resulting in decreased solar irradiance. Whether or not we actually see a shift to La Niña in 2024, these patterns are already forming, indicating a likely reduction in summer irradiance for the Gulf Coast.

In contrast, the Atlantic coast of the USA has historically seen up to 5-10% above-average irradiance during summer months in previous La Niña events. Despite the higher number of hurricanes that can transition into mid-latitude cyclonic storms along the East Coast, the
periods between these storms experience relative stability. In between these large storms, the reduced cloud convection and rainfall lead to longer periods of clear skies. These calm periods outweigh the impacts of increased hurricane activity, leading to higher average overall solar irradiance along the East Coast for summers impacted by this weather pattern.

Using this climate analysis, it is possible to apply these possible weather patterns to the current distribution of solar generation across the US. Analysis using the Solcast API shows that a typical La Nina summer would mean 2.7% more rooftop solar generation for the New York ISO (NYISO), and 2.1% for New England ISO (NEISO). In contrast, the large number of utility scale assets in the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) sees lower production in a typical La Niña summer, down by -1.6%.+

Grid Aggregation models are built using available production information, and applying Solcast’s irradiance data to those models. Solcast produces these figures by tracking clouds and aerosols at 1-2km resolution globally, using satellite data and proprietary AI/ML algorithms. This data is used to drive irradiance models, enabling Solcast to calculate irradiance at high resolution, with typical bias of less than 2%, and also cloud-tracking forecasts. This data is used by more than 350 companies managing over 300 GW of solar assets globally.

The recent announcement of the $7 billion Solar for All grants on Earth Day, April 22, 2024, heralds a significant milestone in the United States’ clean energy journey. With 60 awardees committed to delivering $350 million in annual savings to low-to-moderate-income (LMI) households, this initiative marks a pivotal moment for multifamily housing, historically underserved in the landscape of clean energy transitions.

Traditionally, multifamily housing has faced barriers in accessing solar energy initiatives. The sector’s dynamics, with multiple tenants and landlords, create what is known as the “split incentive” problem. Landlords often hesitate to invest in solar systems when tenants are the direct beneficiaries, leading to a gap in low-to-moderate-income access to solar energy.

However, recent developments present avenues for change. Initiatives like Justice 40 underscore the federal government’s commitment to directing resources to LMI households. Moreover, the Biden-Harris Administration’s emphasis on Solar for All signifies a fundamental shift towards inclusive clean energy policies.

One of the key advantages of multifamily housing lies in its scalability. Portfolio-wide implementation allows for the efficient deployment of solar projects across numerous units, maximizing impact. Additionally, the national nature of real estate ownership facilitates state-by-state fund deployments, ensuring broad accessibility.

Innovations such as SolShare offer promising solutions for on-site solar generation and consumption, directly benefiting apartment renters. These technologies align with a vision where solar energy becomes as integral to apartment amenities as air conditioning or in-unit laundry.

Policy measures, including tax credits and solar mandates, provide further impetus for multifamily solar adoption. California’s Title 24 mandate, for instance, requires newly constructed multifamily buildings to integrate solar panels, signaling a proactive approach to address the split incentive challenge.

Looking ahead, initiatives like Solar for All promise a future where multifamily housing is at the forefront of the clean energy transition. By bridging the gap between landlords and tenants, these programs not only reduce energy costs but also contribute to environmental justice and climate resilience.

The $7 billion Solar for All grants represent more than just a financial investment; they symbolize a commitment to equitable and sustainable energy solutions. As multifamily housing emerges as a key player in the solar revolution, it is poised to not only benefit from but also drive positive change in the clean energy landscape.

Mel Bergsneider is executive account manager at Allume Energy, responsible for business development in the U.S. market. As the first U.S.-based employee at Allume, Mel leads the Australian startup’s expansion across its target markets in the U.S. Mel works closely with affordable housing providers, solar installers, and real estate developers to provide solar energy benefits to tenants.

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) makes available several new financial incentives to encourage the installation of clean energy projects in economically stressed locations. One such incentive is a bonus federal tax credit for projects built on brownfield sites. The brownfield credit is available for wind, solar, geothermal, and other renewable power projects, as well as energy storage facilities, green hydrogen projects, and biogas manufacturing plants.

The brownfield credit is significant. Project owners receive a 10% adder on top of either a Section 48 investment tax credit (ITC) or a Section 45 production tax credit (PTC). A project qualifying for the base 30% ITC would earn an additional 10% ITC, for a total 40% ITC tax credit, while a project receiving the base PTC would earn an additional 10% increment on top of the PTC.  Thus, a project qualifying for a PTC of $27.50/MWh would receive an additional $2.75/MWh.

A project developer that wants to qualify for the brownfield credit should be careful not to present a case that also exposes it to potential cleanup liability or environmental remedial actions, thereby undermining the economic value of the tax credit. The IRS has published guidelines that are helpful to understanding how to walk this hazardous line to sidestep potential liability and still qualify for the brownfield credit. Notice-23-45.pdf

What qualifies as a brownfield site?

A brownfield site is one of three categories eligible for a new “energy community” bonus tax credit.  The other two categories are:

1. Areas that had significant employment related to oil, gas, or coal activities;
2. Census tracts or adjoining tracts in which a coal mine closed or a coal-fired electric power plant was retired after December 31, 2009.

The energy community tax credits were created to encourage developers to build clean energy projects at sites that are disproportionately found in historically economically disadvantaged areas, and to repurpose environmentally distressed properties while providing other economic benefits to the community.

For purposes of receiving the tax credit, the IRS defines a “brownfield site” differently from the definition used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for Superfund liability and federal brownfield cleanup purposes.

The IRS definition of brownfield site is found in Section 39(A) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, or CERCLA,  42 U.S.C. § 9601(39)(A).  The IRS defines a brownfield site as:

Real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant (as defined under 42 U.S.C. § 9601) and certain mine-scarred land (as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 9601(39)(D)(ii)(III)). A brownfield site does not include the categories of property described in 42 U.S.C. § 9601(39)(B).  Notice-23-45.pdf.

The Section 39(B) exclusion generally covers Superfund sites and other contaminated sites that are currently the subject of a court or administrative cleanup order, consent decree, or closure or removal action under designated federal laws.

Unlike the EPA cleanup program, the brownfield definition under the IRA does not include contamination from Controlled Substances (i.e., chlorofluorocarbons and other ozone-depleting substances) or petroleum products.

The EPA, however, recently expanded its definition of hazardous substances under CERCLA to include polyfluoroalkyl substances, otherwise called “PFAS.” PFAS are a group of chemicals found in a wide variety of consumer products, commonly referred to as “forever chemicals” due to their persistence in the environment.

The inclusion of PFAS in the brownfield definition significantly expands the number of potential sites that could be eligible for the brownfield credit. By the same token, it raises the risk that developers qualifying for the brownfield credit due to the presence of PFAS could end up becoming potentially responsible parties in a cleanup obligation under CERCLA. The EPA has carved out exceptions to incurring such liability. The prudent approach, however, is to carefully thread the needle to avoid opening up a project to this cleanup obligation in the first place.

Applying the safe harbor rules

The IRS definition of a brownfield site has three parts. The taxpayer must show:

1. The presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant on the site.
2. That the presence or potential presence “complicates” the site’s reuse or redevelopment.
3. That the site does not fall within the excluded category of properties in CERCLA Section 39(B), i.e., sites designated as Superfund sites or that are the subject of a court or administrative cleanup order, consent decree, closure, or removal action.

To simplify the process of qualifying for the brownfield credit, the IRS has established three “safe harbor” categories that it will consider as brownfield sites if a project satisfies any one of the categories and the site does not fall within the Section 39(B) exclusions:

1. The site was previously assessed through federal, state, territory, or federally recognized Indian tribal brownfield resources as meeting the definition of a brownfield site under 42 U.S.C. §9601(39)(A). Examples of these sites can be found in the category of Brownfields Properties on the EPA’s Cleanups in My Community website or on similar websites maintained by states, territories, or for federally recognized Indian tribes.
2. An ASTM E1903 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (Phase II ESA) is completed for the site using the most currently applicable ASTM standards that confirms the presence on the site of a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant as defined under CERCLA.
3. If the project has a nameplate capacity no greater than 5MW (AC), an ASTM E1527 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) has been completed for the site using the most currently applicable ASTM standards, and the Phase I ESA identifies the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant as defined under CERCLA.[3]

How must a contaminant “complicate” use of a site?

The IRS safe harbor guidelines provide a straightforward way to qualify for the brownfield credit. Notably, the guidelines do not explicitly require a showing that the second prong of the statutory brownfield definition is satisfied, i.e., that the contaminant “complicates” reuse or redevelopment of the site.

The IRS seems to suggest that if one of the safe harbor conditions has been met it will presume that the “complicates” prong is satisfied (The IRS “will accept that a site meets the definition of a brownfield site…if it satisfies at least one of the [three safe harbor] conditions and the site is not described in [CERCLA Section 39(B)].” Notice 2023-29.)

It nevertheless may be prudent for a taxpayer to provide evidence that the presence of contaminants at the site complicates its development or reuse. Such a showing also will be necessary where a project does not fit into the safe harbor categories.

The word “complicate” is a fairly broad term and is not defined either in the IRA or in CERCLA. The term, however, has been interpreted by the courts and the EPA in the context of CERCLA’s brownfield definition. It has been construed to mean “can add cost, time or uncertainty to a redevelopment project,” or make redevelopment “more complex, involved, or difficult in some way.”

These cases make clear that the phrase “may complicate” does not have to rise to the level of a recognized environmental condition, or REC, which can trigger a cleanup obligation or remedial action under federal or state environmental laws.

Thus, the New York Court of Appeals in Lighthouse Point, interpreting the CERCLA brownfield site definition, held that the “statutory definition does not, on its face, mandate the presence of any particular level or degree of contamination.”  Rather, the property will qualify as a brownfield site, “as long as the presence or potential presence of a contaminant within its boundaries makes redevelopment or reuse more complex, involved, or difficult in some way.”

There are several ways to potentially demonstrate how the presence of a contaminant will increase the cost or otherwise make redevelopment of a site more difficult. An environmental consultant who finds the presence (or potential presence) of a contaminant in a Phase I or Phase II ESA, for example, can recommend that the developer or landowner:

• Use protective equipment or take other precautionary measures for workers on the site.
• Exercise caution and take protective measures to not unduly disturb soil or groundwater when installing e.g., project foundations, pilings, conduits, frameworks, etc.
• Undertake testing procedures or install monitoring equipment to check for contaminants.
• Place transmission lines and other conduits above rather than underground to avoid soil disturbances.
• Reroute roads and other easements to avoid potential contaminated areas.
• Apply other common-sense restrictions to site development such as prohibiting installation of drinking wells, residential structures, playgrounds, day care facilities, etc. on the property.

How close to a contaminated area must a project be located to qualify for the brownfield credit?

For the other two “energy community” categories, the IRS looks to see where the energy project will be built to determine whether it is actually “located in” an energy community. For example, the IRS rules use a nameplate capacity test to require that at least 50% of the project’s footprint is located within the census tract that had significant employment related to oil, gas, or coal activities.

Similar locational language does not appear to be applicable to brownfield sites. The IRS instead will permit a project to be located anywhere on a site where a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant is present without requiring that the project be located on the contaminated portion of the site. The IRS states that:

A brownfield site is delineated according to the boundaries of the entire parcel of real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. A brownfield site is not limited to only the portion of a parcel of real property that has or may have a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant that complicates redevelopment.

Accordingly, if a project satisfies the safe harbor rules, or demonstrates that the presence or potential presence of contamination on the site may complicate its redevelopment or reuse, then the project will be eligible for the brownfield credit, whether or not the project is located on the contaminated portion of the brownfield site.

Merrill L. Kramer is an attorney and partner at Pierce Atwood in Washington D.C. He represents energy project developers, private equity companies, and institutional lenders on the development, financing, sale, acquisition, and investment in energy projects and portfolios. He has been ranked as one of the top energy lawyers in the country by Best Lawyers, Martindale-Hubbell and The Legal 500and recently was awarded the National Law Review’s “Go-To Thought Leadership Award” for his detailed and cogent analysis of the impact of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 on the clean energy industry.

From pv magazine Global

Market activity quieted down in the Chinese cell market as most market participants stood on the sidelines unsure if prices had bottomed out. Demand remained tepid as most market participants were not in an urgency to replenish cargoes.

The majority of cell manufacturers are facing cash flow problems and although wafer prices have reached an all-time low, these cash-strapped cell manufacturers were unable to take advantage of the lower wafer prices to build up their wafer inventories, a market veteran said.

Integrated manufacturers who had previously produced their own solar cells were more inclined to acquire cells from the market now as buying cells was cheaper compared to in-house production, the source added.

Some cell manufacturers have turned to OEM manufacturing to maintain operating rates despite production losses. The fee of M10 TOPCon cells OEM cell manufacturing had fallen to CNY1.4 ($0.19)/pc which is below the production costs of CNY1.6/pc, a market veteran said.

OPIS assessed the FOB China Mono PERC M10 prices stable at $0.0390/W,  FOB China Mono PERC G12 prices are unchanged at $0.0414/W while FOB China TOPCon M10 prices were assessed lower by 1.73% at $0.0398/W, week-to-week.

High inventories are expected to exert further downward pressure on cell prices in the coming weeks even if cell manufacturers reduce operating rates in a bid to restore supply and demand balance. Moreover, module manufacturers are expected to reduce their operating rates further in June and this would result in less demand for cells.

China cell production in May stood at 62 GW, according to the Silicon Industry of China Nonferrous Metals Industry Association.

In the Chinese domestic market, Mono PERC M10 cells were priced at about CNY 0.313/W while TOPCon M10 cells stood at about CNY0.320/W, according to OPIS market survey.

OPIS, a Dow Jones company, provides energy prices, news, data, and analysis on gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, LPG/NGL, coal, metals, and chemicals, as well as renewable fuels and environmental commodities. It acquired pricing data assets from Singapore Solar Exchange in 2022 and now publishes the OPIS APAC Solar Weekly Report.

When you picture a solar farm, you might imagine a vast, flat desert landscape adorned with neat rows of solar panels.

For years, this image has epitomized the ideal solar site. However, as the demand for renewable energy grows, such “ideal” sites are becoming increasingly scarce. Traditional solar farm site selection criteria focused on flat topography as well as large, contiguous parcels, lack of land features, and mild climate. These criteria often limited the potential sites. Advancements in solar tracker technology are now reshaping the landscape of solar farm site selection and opening up new possibilities for developers.

For example, slopes beyond five degrees were historically considered “unbuildable.” This is because traditional solar trackers typically used continuous torque tubes that don’t flex. Even as torque tubes are being forced to flex, these trackers have limited ability to adapt to undulating terrain, requiring developers to grade the land before installation or use variable foundation reveal heights.

Flattening the land requires bringing in bulldozers and dump trucks, adding to the cost and complexity of the project, as well as creating a negative environmental impact. Some states require significant civil engineering and stormwater management measures to even approve grading, including large and expensive retention ponds, topsoil testing, revegetation measures, and more. Satisfying these requirements can be so expensive that developers may avoid the state entirely.

Solar sites can be disqualified for development for being located in a floodplain, wetland or protected area. The site may also have an increased risk of differential settlement due to earthquakes, soil instability, or a history of underground mining. With trackers more capable of following natural, or shifting, terrain, these issues can be managed.

Solar sites in areas at risk of hurricanes, flooding, and high winds have also historically been ruled out due to the potential damage they can cause to traditional solar trackers and other PV system equipment.

New tracking technologies eliminate the need for costly and time-consuming land grading. Unlike traditional solar trackers that require level ground, an all-terrain tracker can adapt to the land’s natural shape.

Even if a flat site is found, or created, to build a solar power plant, things can change. Over a project lifespan of 30 to 40 years, the ground under a solar project can shift and eventually break or damage long continuous torque tubes.

Think of a sidewalk — when the concrete is freshly poured, everything is perfectly flat and even. But over time, the ground shifts, raising or lowering tiles. Often the rigid sidewalk tiles crack over time from the relative motion.

The same can happen to a solar array if you install a rigid traditional tracker on land affected by differential settlement. By installing flexible bearings instead, the steel piles can shift without disrupting the plant’s performance.

Breaking the paradigm of the long, continuous torque tube required a string of innovations. In addition to the articulating hardware, we needed to reimagine the tracking technology and software controls to ensure that panels can optimally track the sun’s location given the changing slope from bay to bay.

We had to develop tools to enable engineers and contractors to design a construction plan on non-flat terrain, since all of the prior software and modeling tools were only for flat terrain.

An all-terrain solar tracker also offers environmental benefits by reducing the amount of earthwork required. For example, the 170 MW Bartonsville Energy Facility solar project was recently awarded a gold medal by Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality for going beyond regulatory requirements to improve the environment and promote sustainability. By using a flexible all-terrain tracker to fit to the natural landscape, the project was able to eliminate grading, exceeding the state’s notably strict regulations.

We need to continue to scale up solar development to reach net zero goals. As solar projects are built increasingly in populated areas, community pushback against solar development has become a major risk to our sector’s growth and achievement of climate targets. Solar development need not create negative local environmental consequences for the communities it’s built near.

By allowing solar installations to fit the land in its natural form, we can remove one of the most significant sources of pushback. We shouldn’t have to protect nature from solar development. With responsible development practices, we can actually protect nature with solar development.

One of the most significant benefits of all-terrain solar trackers is their ability to preserve the topsoil on agricultural land. Traditional solar installations often require the removal of topsoil, rendering the land unsuitable for farming in the future.

With all-terrain trackers, the rich topsoil remains intact and native plants can grow around the panels, maintaining and even improving the land’s agricultural value over time. A solar array can be used as a “cover crop” to protect the land for future generations from more permanent forms of redevelopment.

With their ability to adapt to the land’s natural shape, innovative trackers are making solar energy more accessible, cost-effective, and environmentally friendly than ever before. And they’re opening up a world of new possibilities for solar developers.

Yezin Taha is founder and CEO of Nevados, a solar tracker specialist. Prior to Nevados, Taha worked in engineering design and management, project development, energy consulting and bankability for solar projects from GE, Trane, and Black & Veatch. While at Black & Veatch, he discovered major unmet needs in the solar industry for a better mounting solution and he left to form Nevados Engineering to bridge that gap. 

FOB China prices for M10 wafers continued their downward trend this week. Prices for Mono PERC M10 and n-type M10 wafers declined by 5.37% and 7.95% week-to-week, reaching $0.141 per piece (pc) and $0.139/pc, respectively.

FOB China prices for G12 wafers stayed relatively steady this week, with both Mono PERC G12 and N-type G12 wafer prices remaining flat at $0.236/pc and $0.238/pc, respectively.

According to OPIS’ market survey, the average transaction prices of Mono PERC M10 and N-type M10 wafers in the Chinese domestic market have descended to around CNY1.13 ($0.16)/pc and CNY1.12/pc, respectively. Even at this price point, the volume of transactions remains minimal, according to an upstream source. Another industry insider even cited an offer of CNY1.05/pc for n-type M10 wafers, suggesting the potential direction of n-type wafer prices in the immediate future.

The current wafer selling price has notably diverged from production cost considerations, with the main emphasis being on securing sales, according to a market participant.

The wafer inventory remains high at more than 5 billion pieces, equivalent to about 40 GW and twenty days’ production, according to multiple market sources. Against the backdrop of high wafer inventories, reports emerged this week of certain manufacturers reducing their operating rates. Consequently, the overall operating rates of wafer producers have decreased to between 50% and 60%, with a monthly output expected to range between 55 GW and 62 GW.

Recent discussions have emerged about cell manufacturers stockpiling wafers, suggesting that a bottom price for wafers may have been reached. However, a source from the cell market suspects this could be a deliberate attempt by wafer manufacturers to spread misinformation. The source considers this move “unnecessary”, noting that “even if they do hit rock bottom, there’s no basis for a price rebound.”

As a result of shifts in international trade policies, there’s an expectation that orders for cells and modules exported from Southeast Asia to the U.S. will face obstacles in the near future. This development has prompted discussions within the industry regarding the digestion of Southeast Asian wafers and the potential source of wafers for the U.S.’ future cell production.

“It is anticipated that until local cell production capacity is established in the U.S., policies will not completely block the import of Southeast Asian cells. Consequently, the impact on Southeast Asian wafers is not expected to be too significant in the near future,” a source from the global polysilicon market disclosed to OPIS during the China Polysilicon Development Forum (CPDF) held in Leshan, Sichuan, China on May 23 and 24.

In the global market, market insiders have disclosed that a vertically integrated manufacturer’s initial phase 3.3 GW wafer project in the U.S. is slated for completion this year. The factory has already secured the necessary amount of polysilicon for its annual production capacity. Additionally, other wafer manufacturers are exploring the viability of establishing factories outside Southeast Asia, such as in the United Arab Emirates, to navigate the complexities of the international trade environment, sources disclosed to OPIS during the CPDF.

OPIS, a Dow Jones company, provides energy prices, news, data, and analysis on gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, LPG/NGL, coal, metals, and chemicals, as well as renewable fuels and environmental commodities. It acquired pricing data assets from Singapore Solar Exchange in 2022 and now publishes the OPIS APAC Solar Weekly Report.

A strong polar jet stream and a record-breaking heat dome in May resulted in a stark contrast in irradiance patterns across North America. The western and central USA, along with Mexico, experienced higher than normal irradiance, while the Gulf and East Coast regions faced lower irradiance, according to analysis using the Solcast API.

The persistent heat dome over the Gulf of Mexico has led to hot conditions across Mexico, with irradiance levels reaching nearly 130% of climatological averages. Most of Mexico and many Central American states are undergoing a record-breaking heat wave, exacerbated by
clear skies due to a weak subtropical jet stream. This situation is aggravating existing conditions that followed from the dry winter Mexico has experienced. The heat dome is expected to persist into June, shifting its influence towards the southern USA.

In the southeastern USA, wind and stormy weather has led to irradiance levels being almost 20% below average. The East Coast has also seen a drop of around 10% in irradiance from long term May averages. Southerly winds from the tropics brought warm and moist air
northward, contributing to the unusually warm conditions and lower than normal irradiance in Gulf states like Texas, Mississippi, Georgia, and Alabama. This is a preview of the anticipated stronger-than-normal hurricane season, which will not bode well for solar energy production due to the risk of damage, increased cloudiness and temperature-induced losses. The moist, hot air has also resulted in severe storms, such as those that hit Texas earlier this week and adjacent states over the weekend. These storms put pressure on the grid, leading to numerous outages and leaving many without power in the above average temperatures.

In contrast, the strong polar jet stream has created favorable conditions for asset and grid operators in the western USA. The jet stream over the North Pacific caused unseasonably cool temperatures in the Northwest, bringing chilly temperatures and higher than normal
irradiance. Solar irradiance in this region is up by almost 20% compared to long-term averages. This cool weather, coupled with long daylight hours, has provided optimal conditions for solar energy generation before the anticipated hot and dry summer.

Solcast produces these figures by tracking clouds and aerosols at 1-2km resolution globally, using satellite data and proprietary AI/ML algorithms. This data is used to drive irradiance models, enabling Solcast to calculate irradiance at high resolution, with typical bias of less than 2%, and also cloud-tracking forecasts. This data is used by more than 300 companies managing over 150GW of solar assets globally.

Solar import tariffs aim to level the playing field by addressing the market price disparities of solar power hardware originating from China, while supporting domestic manufacturers. This strategy is part of the United States government’s broader efforts to protect national security and combat climate change.

Recently, these tariffs have ranged from symbolic warning shots to upward price adjustments that might increase the cost of solar modules and energy storage. Additional looming tariffs on solar panels, aluminum, steel, and other materials could further escalate industry costs.

Canadian Solar is a global company whose products bear multiple import tariffs. As well, in response to the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), Canadian Solar plans to begin manufacturing solar cells in Indiana and assembling modules in Texas.

During a case initiated by the global Hanwha Q Cell at the U.S. International Trade Commission, Jonathan Stoel, a partner at Hogan Lovells LLP and counsel for Canadian Solar’s U.S. Module Manufacturing Corporation, made a statement they also provided to pv magazine USA. He argued that the case was “brought entirely on false pretenses and based on fundamentally erroneous predicates.”

Stoel outlined the perceived inaccuracies:

• The assertion by other petitioners that 36 GW of solar panels are at stake in this ruling is a significant overestimation, likely intentional.
• The claim that the majority of the solar manufacturing industry supports the tariffs is misleading. In reality, only three companies – major one though – have advocated for the tariffs. It was noted that most companies planning to assemble solar panels in the U.S., due to the IRA incentives, oppose the import tariffs on solar cells because they rely on importing these components.
• Solar cells and solar modules are distinct technologies. Stoel cited evidence that Hanwha’s Q Cell operates two separate facilities for manufacturing solar cells, while also importing solar modules. It is important to note, as pv magazine USA adds, that the nation’s largest solar manufacturer, First Solar, integrates the production of solar cells and modules in a single process. However, this case specifically addresses crystalline solar cells, which First Solar does not produce.
• Stoel emphasized that Hanwha’s expansion in Georgia was primarily motivated by government incentives, which is the very thing that this case seems to push back against.

In response to the points raised, Stoel urged the court to recognize several key aspects of the case: (1) it was filed on dubious grounds; (2) major manufacturers, not a majority, are opposed to imports; (3) modules and cells are distinct products; (4) the import volumes are far less significant than suggested and have not caused material harm; (5) adverse price effects have not been observed; (6) the court should consider the financial health and growth of the industry, spurred by incentives introduced by the IRA; (7) many US companies involved, including Hanwha’s Q Cell which initiated the case, have substantial international connections.

Despite the claims regarding the absence of adverse price effects, the cost of solar cells and modules in the United States has dramatically decreased. This reduction is due to a collapse in Chinese polysilicon pricing and a rapid increase in manufacturing capacity. Since even Chinese manufacturers, such as Longi, have acknowledged that this surge in capacity is negatively affecting their business, it can be fairly inferred that competing companies might perceive these developments as disadvantageous.

Ultimately, while the tariffs are presented as protective measures for domestic industries, their effectiveness is debatable. The global dynamics of the solar market and strategic responses by manufacturers suggest that these measures might serve more as diplomatic signaling than impactful economic barriers. Historically speaking, as noted in the above chart, tariffs alone haven’t shown to grow the U.S. solar manufacturing base – however – the IRA did.

The powerful solar storms of May 2024 were a sign of the sun’s increasing activity as it nears the peak of its 11-year cycle. These events can disrupt satellites and power grids, highlighting the importance of solar weather monitoring and preparedness.

Predicting solar flares and geomagnetic storms is challenging. Current technology struggles due to the sun’s constantly changing magnetic field, making it difficult to pinpoint the exact location and intensity of an eruption. However, agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the US and the European Space Agency collaborate to monitor solar activity and issue forecasts based on past observations and real-time data, helping us prepare for potential impacts.

Whilst solar storms are difficult to predict accurately ahead of time, we do know this solar cycle is expected to reach its maximum in 2025, meaning that there are more intense solar flares and geomagnetic storms on the way in the coming months and years.

For solar energy, for strong solar events the potential impacts on power grids, and the impacts on solar’s enabling technologies like GPS are very real. Solcast is sometimes asked about the impacts on solar irradiance and PV power production. Do we see an increase in irradiance at the peak of the 11-year cycle?

The answer is yes, but only slightly. The peak of the solar cycle does tend to increase the earth’s average annual extra-terrestrial irradiance, but only by a very small amount. Extra-terrestrial irradiance refers to the intensity of sunlight reaching the Earth’s upper atmosphere, essentially the amount of solar energy we would receive without any atmospheric interference. This value is often represented by the “solar constant,” which has a traditionally accepted average of around 1361 W/m². However, this isn’t a truly constant value. The Earth’s orbit around the Sun isn’t perfectly circular, but slightly elliptical. This means the distance between Earth and the Sun varies throughout the year. When Earth is closer to the Sun (perihelion in January), the extra-terrestrial irradiance can reach highs of about 1410 W/m². Conversely, when Earth is farthest from the Sun (aphelion in July), the irradiance dips to around 1320 W/m². This variation amounts to roughly a 3.5% fluctuation in the intensity of sunlight reaching the top of the atmosphere. This fluctuation is very accurately modeled in the irradiance modeling used by the Solcast API, DNV and other leading solar resource agencies.

Whilst the annual cycle of extra-terrestrial irradiance causes a steady, predictable and significant 3.5% change through the seasonal cycle, the peak of the 11-year cycle of solar activity causes a smaller, more sporadic and unpredictable set of fluctuations.

The net result of these increased fluctuations is an increase in extra-terrestrial irradiance (and therefore also the irradiance we receive at the ground) of only around 1 W/m² (i.e. only about one-tenth of one percent) when averaged over a year! The very small size of this effect, along with the random nature of the fluctuations, means there is very little value in attempting to even include the effect in solar irradiance modeling calculations.

Solcast produces these figures by tracking clouds and aerosols at 1-2km resolution globally, using satellite data and proprietary AI/ML algorithms. This data is used to drive irradiance models, enabling Solcast to calculate irradiance at high resolution, with typical bias of less than 2%, and also cloud-tracking forecasts. This data is used by more than 300 companies managing over 150GW of solar assets globally.

Excitement about the IRA continues to surge, with developers and tax credit investors poised to leverage unprecedented growth opportunities while accelerating the country’s clean energy transition. The IRA has attracted $110 billion in private investment and has created close to 100,000 jobs across the U.S.

The key to ensuring expected financial returns from the IRA comes down to a single word: compliance.

Tax credit compliance is fraught with risk and complex to manage. Tax credit investors and transfer buyers, including those utilizing the new T-Flip structures and corporate buyers leveraging tax transfer marketplaces, are all subject to IRA audit risk and the associated tax credit losses and/or expensive non-compliance penalties.

Who holds the risk?

In terms of risk management, tax credit transactions tend to focus on protecting the investor from recapture audit risk, but compliance risks affect the entire clean energy project value chain.

Risks across the value chain:

• Tax credit insurers ultimately hold claim risk, but do not have oversight over EPCs, sub-contractors, or supplier compliance.
• Investors do not have insight into whether or not their investments are compliant with IRA requirements.
• Project developers need to protect investors but don’t have a way of understanding or reporting whether engineering, procurement, and contractors (EPCs), sub-contractors, or suppliers are compliant.
• EPCs can’t guarantee prevailing wage and apprenticeship (PWA) compliance for projects.
• Sub-contractors do not have capabilities to comply with PWA requirements- they rely on contractors for this.
• Suppliers are hesitant to share the confidential cost data required for IRA domestic content compliance.

Risks passed across the chain

What can developers do to mitigate risks? They can provide sponsor indemnifications, require EPC contracts to guarantee PWA compliance, hire an accounting firm to do an AUP (Agreed Upon Procedures) review, and even offer to pay for insurance, but none of these methods fully protect investors. In other words, even with all of these efforts, a tax credit buyer could still fail an IRS recapture audit, which would trigger a cascading set of insurance claims and lawsuits through the entire project value chain.

Risk assessment

Pre-IRA, traditional energy project risk mitigation typically began with a series of questions about a developer’s track record and the project technology size and scope. The questions then focused on an EPC’s history, supplier bankability, and supplier technology risk.

IRA tax credits have created a new, additional layer of risk. Tax credits can be worth 30%, 40%, or even 50% of the value of a project, but need to be protected from IRS recapture audit risk with meticulous proof of compliance throughout a project’s lifecycle.

False comfort

False comfort regarding compliance risk is perhaps the biggest of all.

A tax equity investor or transfer buyer may believe that a contract or an insurance policy mitigates recapture audit risk, when in reality, the investor has significant exposure. These are heightened by four key factors:

1. Unchartered territory: In a typical investment risk assessment, investors have resources like credit rating agencies, historical track records, and market expertise to evaluate internal and external risks. Since guidance on IRA tax credit’ compliance is new and still evolving, investors don’t have the same level of expertise or policies in place to mitigate these new risks.

2. The role of insurance: Because tax equity investors and corporate tax credit transfer buyers assume responsibility post transaction for IRA compliance, it’s common to assume they can use tax credit insurance to cover the risks of IRS audit failure and the resulting loss of tax credits plus any penalties.

However, the market capacity of tax credit insurance is limited, tax credit insurance can be expensive, and insurance companies still expect stakeholders to have some sort of active compliance management in place to reduce risk. In short, insurance companies are not the first line of defense in IRS recapture audit failure.

3. The limitations of accounting practices: Traditional accounting firms typically have limited risk management capabilities for IRA compliance. Because formal audits are prohibitively expensive, they offer AUP reviews, spot checks, and monthly reviews. Still, since they don’t work directly with project EPCs or subcontractors, they can’t sign off on actual compliance for the project PWA requirements.

4. Post-build compliance- Federal PWA requirements extend beyond initial construction phase compliance. Any alterations or repairs throughout the audit recapture period need to meet PWA compliance. Without adequate PWA programs and systems in place to manage operations and maintenance (O&M) contractors, asset management teams can jeopardize tax credits for the entire project.

Tax equity investors and transfer buyers can protect themselves from audit risk and recapture by seeking a platform that was designed specifically for the IRA compliance requirements across the entire project value chain.

The risk management imperative

Tax equity investors and corporate entities utilizing the tax credit transfer market will be held accountable for any error, omission, or lack of compliance from project EPCs and subcontractors. Without an active compliance verification program in place from the onset of a project, investors are taking on significantly more risk than they may understand.

How to approach risk mitigation

Similar to other federal requirements, there are dedicated software platforms designed specifically for IRA compliance. When combined with guidance from compliance experts, they can provide the maximum risk mitigation possible.

To best protect against risk, a single platform should be able to manage all of the intricacies of IRA compliance over the lifecycle of a project. It should be able to ensure compliance for PWA and the adders for domestic content and energy communities. It should also manage compliance for PWA from initial construction to O&M-phase alterations and repairs, and provide protection from recapture audits from the full five year (ITC) or 10 year (PTC) recapture audit periods.

The future of compliance risk management

Investors with the foresight to recognize the risks of IRA non-compliance and require a third-party compliance management system in place prior to construction kick-off will be ahead of the game. By leveraging IRA compliance software and data analytics, investors will be able to fully leverage their IRA tax incentives and reduce their IRS recapture audit failure risk while contributing to a solar-powered, decarbonized future.

Charles Dauber is founder and CEO of Empact Technologies, an IRA compliance management platform. Empact delivers software and services that ensure utility and community-scale project developers and investors are compliant with Prevailing Wage and Apprenticeship, Domestic Content, Energy Community, and Low-Income Community requirements. 

From pv magazine Global

There has been little movement in the price of solar modules in the low-performance class this month. However, there was a significant price adjustment for modules with efficiency levels of more than 22%.

The prices of these modules, which are now mainly equipped with n-type/TOPCon cells and double-glass, are increasingly aligning with those of mainstream modules. There are only upward outliers for some types with interdigitated back-contact (IBC) or heterojunction (HJT) technology, which are not considered separately in this analysis.

Production volumes in China for n-type cells and modules appear to have increased, but the new customs situation in the United States might already be having an impact. The question is, what will this do to the European market? Increasingly lower prices would mean that demand would continue to rise if it weren’t for several disruptive factors.

There are still larger stocks of modules produced in 2023 or earlier at distributors, but also among installers themselves. However, if these measure 2 sqm in size, they are selling poorly due to their low performance. Building owners usually want to see high performance and the latest technology installed in new systems, which makes it much more difficult for existing goods to sell.

Despite the expected reduction in module production and import volumes, more Asian modules are still reaching the European market than are currently in demand. This is causing inventories to grow, even for high-performance models, putting additional pressure on module prices.

Inventories of old modules, which were produced and purchased at significantly higher prices in the past, must therefore be continually devalued. However, this is not possible for all players, which means that there are very different prices for modules with PERC technology in the market. Overall, the price difference between these categories is increasingly shrinking.

Africa and Southeast Asia will probably also become oversaturated with modules and Chinese products cannot be sold to the U.S. market. One strategy that is becoming popular is to accommodate the soft factors of the commercial business – that is, payment and delivery conditions. Instead of offering modules at lower prices, credit lines are granted – often without requiring collateral – and free delivery is promised. However, it is doubtful that this tactic will work over the long term. Many smaller companies, in particular, are on the brink and imminent payment defaults cannot be ruled out.

Some suppliers also take refuge in online marketplaces, where they try to quickly sell their stock goods to international customers without incurring sales and marketing costs. But the competitive pressure there is also great and such goods can often only be sold at dumping prices. The other issue is that there is hardly any way to get to know the potential business partner in advance –you have to take what you get.

Misunderstandings can arise in business transactions, especially across national borders, and online platform operators are not always available to provide support and advice. The efforts involved in running an online business quickly become greater than purchasing or selling within an established business relationship.

My preference for using surplus older modules is clear: installing them in larger open-space or rooftop systems. The often smaller formats are not a bad choice, especially in areas with higher wind or snow loads. The material and assembly costs increase slightly in favor of better statics, but the easier handling makes up for the disadvantage.

And there is another undeniable advantage: the modules are already in stock and are therefore guaranteed to be available, meaning there can be no delivery problems and thus delays in the construction process. You may also find a few unsold inverters and cable reels, and then the components for your PV system are almost complete.

Once a system has been built and connected to a network, nobody is interested in whether the modules are of the very latest generation or not. In any case, the resulting assets can be sold.

Martin Schachinger studied electrical engineering and has been active in the field of photovoltaics and renewable energy for almost 30 years. In 2004, he set up a business, founding the pvXchange.com online trading platform. The company stocks standard components for new installations and solar modules and inverters that are no longer being produced.

Virtual power plants (VPPs) are attracting a lot of attention at the moment. Our upcoming 50 States of Grid Modernization Q1 2024 report documents numerous policy and program actions taken by several states, and our very own Autumn Proudlove moderated a session on VPPs at the 2024 North Carolina State Energy Conference. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Energy published an extensive report on VPPs last year, and even mainstream media is publishing articles on their potential. But what exactly are VPPs, and what are states doing to enable their development?

VPPs can incorporate a variety of technologies with different characteristics, leading to the challenge of adequately defining them. However, all VPPs share the common elements of quantity and controllability. At their heart, VPPs involve the aggregation of a large number of distributed energy resources (DERs), which can be collectively controlled to benefit the grid and potentially obviate a utility’s need to activate a traditional peaking power plant.

The Smart Electric Power Alliance (SEPA) groups VPPs into three general categories: Supply VPPs, Demand VPPs, and Mixed Asset VPPs. Supply VPPs involve electricity-generating DERs, such as solar-plus-storage systems, which can be aggregated and controlled as a single resource when needed. Demand VPPs build off traditional demand response programs by aggregating curtailable load at a scale that can have a meaningful impact on the grid. Mixed Asset VPPs include a mix of both supply and demand resources.

While the benefits of VPPs are clear, the pathway to greater deployment is not. However, state policymakers are currently testing a variety of methods to encourage their development. Common approaches include a mix of mandates for utilities to procure energy from VPPs, incentives for utility customers to deploy DERs and participate in utility programs, and market access reforms to allow third-party aggregators to participate. Different varieties of these approaches have been considered by several states and utilities over the past year.

California

The California Energy Commission (CEC) approved a new incentive program for VPPs in July 2023. The Demand Side Grid Support (DSGS) program compensates eligible customers for upfront capacity commitments and per-unit reductions in net energy load during extreme events achieved through reduced usage, backup generation, or both. Third-party battery providers, publicly-owned utilities, and Community Choice Aggregators (CCAs) are eligible to serve as VPP aggregators. At a minimum, each individual customer site participating in the program must have an operational stationary battery system capable of discharging at least 1 kW for at least 2 hours. Incentive payments will be made to VPP aggregators based on the demonstrated battery capacity of an aggregated VPP. VPP aggregators will then allocate incentive payments between the VPP aggregator and its participants based on their own contractual agreement.

California lawmakers are also currently considering legislation to stimulate the market for VPPs. S.B. 1305 requires the California Public Utilities Commission to estimate the resource potential of VPPs in the state, and to develop procurement targets for each utility to be achieved by December 31, 2028 and December 31, 2033.

Colorado

The Colorado Public Utilities Commission opened a new proceeding in September 2023 to explore third-party implementation of virtual power plant pilots in Xcel Energy’s service area. The Commission issued a decision in April 2024 requiring Xcel to issue an RFP for a distributed energy management system (DERMS), which would then be used to manage a VPP. The Commission stopped short of directing Xcel to file a VPP tariff, but speaks of their merit and suggests that Xcel should propose  separate “prosumer tariffs” for residential and non-residential customers, including different aggregation capacities.

Georgia

A stipulation agreed to by the Public Interest Advocacy Staff and Georgia Power in its 2023 Integrated Resource Plan Update proceeding commits the utility to developing a residential and small commercial solar and battery storage pilot program that will provide grid reliability and capacity benefits. Georgia Power will work with interested stakeholders to develop the program and will file it for approval with its 2025 Integrated Resource Plan.

Hawaii

In December 2023, the Hawaii Public Utilities Commission approved a new VPP program for the Hawaiian Electric Companies (HECO). The Bring-Your-Own-Device (BYOD) will replace HECO’s Battery Bonus Program and will provide varying levels of incentives based on the value of the grid services provided. The program will only allow energy storage systems at first, but may be expanded in the future to include other DERs.

Maryland

The Maryland General Assembly enacted a bill in April 2024, which opens the door to VPPs in the state. H.B. 1256 requires investor-owned utilities in the state to develop pilot programs to compensate owners and aggregators of DERs for distribution system support services. The programs must be filed for approval with the Public Service Commission by July 1, 2025.

Michigan

Michigan lawmakers introduced legislation in 2024 related to VPPs. S.B. 773 requires the Public Service Commission to develop requirements for programs that would allow behind-the-meter generation and energy storage owners to be compensated for services they provide to the distribution system, including through aggregators of DERs. Utilities would then need to file applications for these programs during their rate cases.

Massachusetts

In January 2024, the state’s three investor-owned utilities filed their Electric Sector Modernization Plans (ESMPs) with the Commission for approval. The three ESMPs include plans to invest in DERMS and customer programs to advance VPPs.

For more states, click here. 

Brian Lips is a senior energy policy project manager for the NC Clean Energy Technology Center. He manages the Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (DSIRE).

From pv magazine Global

In an age where the imperatives of sustainability and climate action dominate global discourse, innovative approaches at the intersection of energy and agriculture have garnered increasing attention. Among these, agrivoltaics, a practice of combining PV installations with agricultural activities, presents a unique opportunity to address pressing challenges in land use, climate resilience, and energy transition. Recognizing its transformative potential and how it cuts across many other areas of research, the International Energy Agency Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme (IEA PVPS) has established the Action Group on Agrivoltaics, an innovative format within the programme.

1. Advantages and Challenges of Agrivoltaics

The global surge in population has led to an increased demand for food, amplifying the pressure on available land for both agricultural and energy purposes. Concurrently, challenges such as water scarcity, extreme weather events, and rising temperatures due to the climate crisis have intensified, posing significant obstacles to agricultural practices. Farmers find themselves grappling with regulatory constraints and economic uncertainty, hampering their ability to safeguard water resources, protect wildlife, and maintain crop yields.

Agrivoltaics, the practice of co-locating solar panels with agricultural activities, presents a promising solution to these challenges. By maximizing land productivity through the combined use of land, and addressing concerns of land scarcity, agrivoltaics offer tangible benefits. Additionally, it enhances agricultural resilience by providing shade, reducing water evaporation, and mitigating the impact of climate change on crop yields. Consequently, agrivoltaics attracted significant interest from policymakers, researchers, and stakeholders worldwide.

Despite its clear advantages, agrivoltaics encounter barriers to widespread implementation. Legal obstacles impede the approval process for construction, and its often higher costs can hinder progress if there are not adequate incentives available. Moreover, varying levels of public support across regions necessitate concerted efforts to engage stakeholders and garner community backing for proposed projects.

1. Objectives and Outcomes of the new Action Group

The primary objectives of the Action Group are to assess the current state of agrivoltaics knowledge as well as provide a forum to foster international collaboration. By synthesizing existing research, fostering interdisciplinary and international dialogue, and producing comprehensive reports, the group aims to achieve three primary outcomes: optimizing land use efficiency, enhancing agricultural resilience, and fostering social consensus for solar energy adoption. The forthcoming public report, “Status Quo and Global Trends in Agrivoltaics,” scheduled for release in November 2025, will serve as a cornerstone in this endeavor, accompanied by internal recommendations to guide future IEA PVPS actions in the agrivoltaics domain.

2. Collaborative Endeavors: Approaches and Guiding Principles

Rather than conducting new research, the Action Group focuses on consolidating existing knowledge and fostering collaboration across IEA PVPS Tasks. Reflecting how agrivoltaics are a multi-disciplinary field, IEA PVPS Tasks are already working on this topic, such as Task 12 (PV Sustainablity Activities, Task 13 (Reliability and Performance of Photovoltaic Systems), and to some extent also Task 16 (Solar Resource for High Penetration and Large Scale Applications). Task 12 and Task 13 will deliver and publish reports on Agrivoltaics in 2024. The new Action Group aims to coordinate efforts and enhance synergies across different initiatives. Through literature reviews, virtual exchanges, thematic workshops, and summary reports, the group aims to bridge disciplinary boundaries and foster a vibrant agrivoltaics community within IEA PVPS. By harmonizing methodologies and defining common metrics, the group seeks to lay the groundwork for future research endeavors and international collaborative initiatives.

4. Phases of Action

The Action Group embarks on a journey spanning three distinct phases: formation, stakeholder engagement, and synthesis. During the formation phase, the group lays the groundwork, establishing key advisory and working teams, clarifying roles, and defining objectives. The subsequent stakeholder workshops serve as catalysts for engagement, fostering dialogue, and knowledge exchange. Finally, the synthesis phase culminates in the development of a comprehensive report, encapsulating the collective insights and recommendations of the Action Group.

If you flipped through the December 2023 issue of Time magazine, you might have seen an article focused on fraud in the solar industry and the bad actors perpetuating it.

In the 20 years since founding installer Independent Solar, I’ve seen these bad actors and their shady business practices firsthand. While I’m saddened to say that these companies have eroded some of the public’s trust in our industry, they aren’t the only ones to blame. Thanks to changing regulations, customers don’t always see their promised savings and if customers feel like solar power is just a bait-and-switch followed by an endless maze of shifting regulation, it’s no wonder fewer and fewer households are willing to sign solar contracts.

I’ve already seen that shift beginning. Regulatory winds are blowing and solar customers have been thrown into what can only be called a sea of confusion. This has been evident since it washed over California in April 2023 in the form of new net energy metering tariff NEM 3.0.

NEM 3.0

If you aren’t familiar with the situation, NEM 3.0 drastically reduced the amount of compensation solar homeowners receive for unused electricity which is sold back into the grid.

Before NEM 3.0, California did what most states do — it used one-to-one net metering, so customers were credited the same amount for exported solar power as they’d pay to use that amount of electricity from the grid. That meant that their electricity often paid for itself.

NEM 3.0 moved from net metering to net billing. It’s a small change in terminology but a big change in practice. With net billing, the reimbursement rate is calculated based on the day, time, and even month the customer uses the electricity. It’s a deliberately complicated system and the bottom line is that customers are being reimbursed about 75% less than they were before.

Industry suffering

As a result, some solar customers are, understandably, starting to panic. They aren’t alone. Research firm Wood Mackenzie has predicted that, in 2024, solar installation rates in California will decrease by 38%. Investment bank Roth Capital Partners expects something even more dire — a 50% contraction in the solar market in 2024.

Unfortunately, customers who purchased solar power systems for the savings are seeing those returns evaporate before their eyes. Under the new regulations, customers can still save almost as much as before by installing a battery but that is pretty costly so it’s not an option for everyone.

If you live in another US state, you might be relieved that you aren’t dealing with NEM 3.0 but the truth is that many other states are following suit. In fact, Arizona actually beat California to the punch when it came to lowering overall customer energy savings. It drastically reduced customer savings in 2016, far ahead of California.

Further hit

The Arizona legislature is now considering whether it should lower compensation rates even further. Sadly, I think it’s likely that Arizona will lower those compensation rates.

I believe this was always the legislative plan: incentivize homeowners to install solar panels with artificially low rates and then placate utility companies by reducing reimbursement levels. This is hardly a regional issue. Several other states – including Arkansas, Hawaii, Idaho, and North Carolina – have recently made similar changes to slash savings.

As a result, it’s an uncertain time for customers. Unless something changes, solar companies nationwide will see a continued reduction in solar power installations and this is especially true for states with turbulent legislation like Arizona, where panels are installed with the promise of significant savings, they are then reduced, and the legislature is already considering reducing them again.

I think the executive director of the Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association, Autumn T. Johnson, was spot-on when she said, “It’s hard to argue that you should invest $30,000 or $40,000 or $50,000 into a solar system on your home when you have absolutely no idea how the [public utilities] commission is going to treat that from a regulatory perspective tomorrow or next year because they cannot be counted on to maintain the decisions they’ve previously instituted.”

Incentive

Solar is a major upfront investment that is meant to reduce long-term costs but it only works in customers’ favor if they save enough on utility bills to make the solar panels pay for themselves. The less consumers save on energy, the longer that takes.

From a customer vantage point, if they’re still paying almost as much for utilities as they did before, why bother with the cost of solar power?

As an industry, we are responsible for showing our customers that solar is still good for their wallets. It’s still good for the environment, after all.

We also have a responsibility to advocate against billing adjustments that decimate consumer savings. NEM 3.0 might make solar power seem like a bait-and-switch, and without adjustment on our part, it will be. However, with trust, open communication, and intelligent advocacy, we can help customers move toward the new frontier of truly on-site solar power.

Randy French, owner and founder of Phoenix-based Independent Solar, began the company in 2003. 

The past two years have seen a surge in PV module production. Clean Energy Associates (CEA) expects a 15% increase in annual solar production capacity to May 2025, versus around 8% more demand.

Several factors have contributed to this imbalance. The prospect of additional antidumping and countervailing duties (AD/CVDs) from the U.S. government, with new countries potentially affected, further complicates the picture for solar module buyers.

With an election scheduled in the United States in November 2024, there may be further policy upheaval.

Tariff changes

Developers have enjoyed falling prices for the first time in a while but new tariffs could drive up U.S. prices despite plentiful supply.

The biggest global solar module manufacturers are accommodating UFLPA restrictions to ship more product than anticipated and U.S. module production is expanding. New manufacturers based in the United States and other nations unaffected by AD/CVDs – such as Turkey and Indonesia – would take time to adapt to new trade policy, as happened after the UFLPA’s introduction.

Solar developers might need new suppliers and will have to double down on quality assurance and factory acceptance testing to ensure quality.

Technology in transition

The industry is in the midst of a transition from passivated emitter rear cell (PERC) to tunnel oxide passivated contact (TOPCon) solar. Heterojunction (HJT) solar is changing, even in PERC modules, with new materials making panels more weather resilient. Developers have historically struggled to purchase insurance for projects in hailstorm-hit areas such as Texas. Now, a film can be applied to PV module glass during production to strengthen products. Such technological shifts add additional risk to supply agreements, however.

Favorable terms

After a 24-month to 36-month seller’s market, a turnaround could reopen favorable terms and conditions for buyers. When manufacturers held the upper hand, developers had a tough time persuading them to be importers of record, and thus responsible for getting products across borders by meeting U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) UFLPA traceability requirements. When shipments are detained, the importer of record is the responsible party.

If the buyer is the importer of record, they could face paying for products stuck in customs. If the supplier is responsible, payments don’t have to be made until panels are in-country.

The buyer could integrate a Delay Liquidated Damages clause in the supply contract to avoid such a scenario. If a shipment is delayed because it did not pass CBP requirements at the border, the seller would then have to reimburse the buyer for the additional costs incurred.

Product stagnation

Developers have to ask themselves, “If I do decide to lock in pricing, will these modules sit in warehouses for a long time?” That is one of the downsides of pre-planning and purchasing at lower prices. If a project is delayed, modules sit in warehouses where they may be repeatedly moved on forklifts, potentially causing damage. Developers can negotiate terms to limit risk associated with long-term storage, however.

There is also the risk of technology becoming outdated. Developers have learned the hard way in the past that when they have saved up a lot of equipment – transformers and modules – it has sometimes turned out that projects were canceled or delayed long enough for technology to evolve and for their product to become obsolete. As a result, developers have had to resell equipment for a fraction of the price they paid for it.

Regulatory uncertainty

Policy uncertainty presents another challenge. What will happen in the upcoming U.S. presidential election and how will that affect solar equipment supply and production levels? Developers have to plan for that uncertainty as well as thinking about keeping their projects on schedule.

The current surge in supply has occurred in such a brief period of time because of the tax credit incentives embodied in the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and because manufacturers are setting up facilities within the United States to avoid import restrictions.

The project development and construction worlds are currently not moving as fast as solar production and manufacturing. Even as challenges mount on the development side – projects are delayed, finance falls through, and planning regimes change – manufacturers are still moving forward at full speed.

The dynamics in Europe versus the United States are very different right now because of the UFLPA. There is no similar restriction in place yet in Europe, so the continental market is awash with low-cost modules. The pricing environment is in flux. Prices in Europe have dipped as low as $0.11/W of panel generation capacity. Prices in the United States still hover at around $0.24/W.

That difference in price is being sustained because many panel makers cannot yet export into the United States, as they are still trying to figure out the UFLPA import process. The industry is essentially setting up a differentiated North American supply chain.

Products may run through the same facilities but suppliers carefully segregate those that require full traceability to go to the United States. Many modules sitting in warehouses in Europe lack the full traceability required for United States import.

Engilla Draper is an expert in procurement and supply chains at Clean Energy Associates, which provides advisory services to developers and manufacturers in the renewables industry.

Climate change and air pollution rank among the most pressing issues of our time, impacting public health, ecosystems, and global economies. 

The shift toward renewable energy has emerged as a pivotal strategy not only addressing environmental concerns but also promising a sustainable and economically feasible future.[1] 

Solar energy, with its vast potential and increasing accessibility, stands at the forefront of this transformative journey. It promises a less polluted, more sustainable, and more equitable world.[2]

But, how exactly is this happening? 

The problem with fossil fuels

Burning fossil fuels releases a significant amount of greenhouse gasses, which trap heat in the atmosphere and lead to climate change. 

Plus, the byproducts of burning fossil fuels pollute the air, leading to health issues ranging from respiratory problems to heart diseases, contributing to millions of premature deaths annually.[

Fossil fuels have powered global development for centuries but at a great cost to our planet. They are the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to global warming and climate instability. Moreover, fossil fuels are finite. 

According to MET Group, an integrated European energy company, estimates suggest that we could deplete our available reserves within the next 50 to 150 years if consumption continues at current rates. The urgent need to transition to renewable energy is clear, not just to combat environmental issues but also to ensure a stable energy future.

The need to move away from fossil fuels is clear, but the path forward involves addressing both technological and economic challenges.

Renewables forging the path

Unlike fossil fuels, renewable energy sources produce little to no greenhouse gasses or other pollutants when generating electricity. The benefits of renewables extend beyond environmental impacts; they are increasingly seen as economically viable. 

Solar energy, for example, has become the cheapest form of electricity generation in many parts of the world, making it an attractive alternative to traditional power sources.

Growing role of solar energy

Fossil fuels dominate U.S. emissions according to the EPA but at the same time, solar power is increasingly becoming a prominent source of renewable energy globally. 

Unlike fossil fuels, which are limited and contribute to significant environmental degradation, solar energy offers a boundless and clean alternative. 

With technological advancements, solar panels are now more efficient and cheaper to produce, making solar energy a competitive and reliable energy source.

Challenges and opportunities for solar energy

While the transition to solar energy offers many benefits, it also comes with challenges. Integrating solar power into the existing energy grid, managing intermittent energy supply due to weather conditions, and the initial investment in solar infrastructure are significant hurdles. 

However, according to the United Nations, these challenges are addressable with continuous innovation and supportive policies that encourage solar energy adoption.

In addition, the production and disposal of solar panels can be carbon emission intensive, especially if the energy used for these steps in the lifecycle of the panel are conducted in nations where the primary source of electricity is coal burning facilities. 

Energy storage in lithium ion batteries has also come under scrutiny for the harmful impact the mining process can have on the ecology. However, experts agree that the gains from solar power outweigh the current drawbacks and innovation is helping to reduce and eliminate these every year. 

Economic and social benefits

Adopting solar energy can also drive economic growth. It creates jobs in the manufacturing, installation, and maintenance of solar panels. 

Solar energy can reduce electricity costs in the long term, being less susceptible to price fluctuations. 

Additionally, solar energy can provide power to remote areas without access to the traditional power grid, improving living standards and promoting equality.

When solar panels are placed on existing structures, the environmental impact is lessened and the economical and social benefits are increased. Moreover, as the technology becomes cheaper and more widespread, the cost of renewable energy continues to fall, making it a financially attractive option for many countries.

Global action

Countries around the world are recognizing the benefits of solar energy. Numerous governments have committed to increasing their share of renewables in energy production. 

Despite the benefits, the transition to renewable energy is not without challenges. One major hurdle is the intermittent nature of sources like solar and wind, which do not produce electricity consistently as fossil fuel-based power plants do. 

Energy storage technology such as batteries is one solution. Policies that support renewable energy development, like subsidies, tax incentives, and regulations that phase out fossil fuels, are also essential to accelerate the transition.

With the right policies and continued investment in research and development, solar energy can meet a significant portion of global energy needs.

Georgette Kilgor is content director at State Solar, a foundation committed to advancing green energy technologies, educating businesses and residents on solar panels, reducing reliance on fossil fuels, and providing sustainability training to promote a healthier, more sustainable planet.

FOB China prices for both mono PERC M10 and TOPCon M10 cells extended declines this week, assessed at $0.0417/W and $0.0494/W, respectively, marking a decrease of 5.01% and 4.45% from the previous week.

FOB China prices for mono PERC G12 have steadied this week, holding at $0.0448/W. This stability can be attributed to the recent initiation of several ground-mounted solar projects in China, which has spurred demand for this cell type. The constrained production capacity for these cells has led to intermittent supply tightness.

In the Chinese domestic market, mono PERC M10 cells were priced at around CNY0.335($0.046)/W, while TOPCon M10 cells stood at approximately CNY0.397/W, as per the OPIS market survey. According to a major TOPCon cell producer, the current price trend of cells is closely mirroring the price trend of wafers.

In addition, this source stated that there are no indications of any demand factors favoring a reversal in the price trend, and the only foreseeable solution to reverse the current sluggish market is to wait for some production capacity to be gradually phased out.

Discussions have been ongoing about module manufacturers planning to scale back production in May. This has raised concerns among some insiders about the potential accumulation of cell inventory. A prominent cell producer therefore anticipates that cell prices will keep decreasing in May, with TOPCon cells likely experiencing a more pronounced decline compared to the mono PERC cells, as the production output of the latter continues to shrink.

“The present scenario in the TOPCon cells market is proving to be quite challenging,” the source added, “with even Tier-1 cell manufacturers relying on accepting OEM orders to sustain their operations.”

Another smaller cell manufacturer shares a similar sentiment, indicating that the price of mono PERC cells may hit its lowest point soon due to the production capacity shrinkage. Adding weight to this argument is the intention of a leading cell manufacturer to further decrease the production capacity of mono PERC cells in May, according to the source. Conversely, this source anticipates that another round of price cuts for TOPCon cells in May seems unavoidable.

According to a market watcher, some cell manufacturers recently found investing in building TOPCon cell capacity less cost-effective due to the pessimistic price trend of this product. This source further elaborated that earlier this year, in order to mitigate losses, a leading integrated manufacturer in nN-type products chose to partner with another lesser-known manufacturer to establish TOPCon cell production capacity. The objective is to bolster the module production of this major n-type manufacturer.

This model, where major players support smaller producers, share risks, and engage in mutually beneficial cooperation, could potentially set the course for the future of enterprise operations, the source added.

On the product sizes front, two prominent cell suppliers have confirmed with OPIS that they are set to commence mass production of n-type 210R (182 mm x 210 mm) sized cells in May or June. One of them noted that these 210R products are anticipated to make noticeable strides in the market in the second half of this year, presenting a crucial parameter for boosting module power output.

OPIS, a Dow Jones company, provides energy prices, news, data, and analysis on gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, LPG/NGL, coal, metals, and chemicals, as well as renewable fuels and environmental commodities. It acquired pricing data assets from Singapore Solar Exchange in 2022 and now publishes the OPIS APAC Solar Weekly Report.

As the planet grapples with the escalating impacts of climate change, the urgency for innovative, global solutions has never been more critical. With 75% of the Earth’s surface covered by water, recent studies have shown that these vast aquatic expanses are warming at a significantly faster rate than terrestrial environments.

This increase in ocean temperatures is driving a cascade of environmental catastrophes, including the melting of polar ice caps, widespread coral bleaching, global glacial melting, widespread coral bleaching, and significant alterations in ocean currents. While to date less widely publicized, this third impact is crucial because these currents distribute heat around the globe through vast, conveyor-like systems in the sea, which are now being disrupted by changes in ocean density and increased by warming, leading to potentially irreversible shifts in their patterns.

One of the most significant impacts of ocean warming is the potential slowdown of the global thermohaline circulation, often referred to as the “global conveyor belt.” This system circulates ocean water worldwide, influencing climate patterns globally. Warmer water is less dense and thus has a lower capacity to sink, which can slow down this circulation. Models suggest that continued warming could lead to a weakening, or even a shutdown, of key components of this system, such as the North Atlantic Deep Water formation, which could dramatically cool the North Atlantic and Europe. Additionally, warming oceans have been linked to more intense and frequent El Niño events, which impact weather patterns globally, including increased rainfall in some regions and droughts in others.

As illustrated by the noticeable weakening taking place in the flow of the Gulf Stream, the changes in ocean currents induced by warming are not just a future prediction; they are happening now, and their effects are being felt worldwide. These changes necessitate innovative approaches not only to mitigate the sources of warming but also to adapt to and manage the consequences already in motion.

These alarming trends underscore the immediate, desperate need for effective strategies to cool down the oceans and mitigate their wide-ranging impacts on the global climate system. While necessary, traditional environmental protection and carbon reduction methods are no longer sufficient alone to halt or reverse global warming trends. As a result, the scientific community is turning toward more radical geoengineering technologies designed to intervene directly in the Earth’s climatic systems on a grand scale.

One such innovative approach is marine cloud brightening (“MCB”), which has recently gained attention as a potential method to reflect sunlight away from the Earth’s surface and reduce the heat absorbed by the oceans. MCB builds on natural phenomena where sea salt acts as cloud condensation nuclei, enhancing cloud formation and reflectivity. The approach, first proposed by British atmospheric physicist John Latham in the 1990s, suggests that spraying seawater into the atmosphere to create fine droplets could increase the albedo of marine stratocumulus clouds. This would reflect more sunlight into space, thereby cooling the Earth. Early technological advancements by Stephen Salter and extensive computer modeling throughout the 2000s have explored the feasibility and climatic impacts of such interventions.

The albedo effect, where lighter surfaces reflect solar energy as opposed to dark surfaces, which absorb it, becomes even more important as more reflective ice melts due to global warming. Massive regions at the two poles and diminishing glaciers that once reflected a significant amount of sunlight begin to absorb more heat, thereby exacerbating warming in a feedback loop known as “ice-albedo feedback.” By enhancing cloud albedo over the oceans, MCB seeks to leverage this effect to reduce solar heat absorbed by the Earth, providing a compensatory cooling effect to counterbalance the loss of ice. However, despite promising models, MCB research continues to wrestle with the complexity of predicting long-term climatic outcomes and the potential ethical questions that could arise from such geoengineering techniques.

Current research, including field trials by private groups and academic institutions, focuses on gathering empirical data to understand these processes better and refine this climate intervention strategy. While MCB holds promise, operational challenges remain, particularly in terms of scalability and environmental sustainability.

To address these challenges, the World Business Academy has proposed a novel solution: the deployment of autonomous, solar-powered catamarans equipped with aerosol dispersion technology to efficiently distribute sea salt particles across the oceans can address these challenges. These vessels are designed to maximize the capture of solar energy through expansive solar arrays integrated into their dual-hulled structure. This design provides increased stability and surface area and allows for greater energy generation capacity, which powers the propulsion, navigation, and aerosol dispersion mechanisms, ensuring continuous operation without the use of fossil fuels.

The Energy Observer, a 100-foot catamaran launched in 2017 with the support of global entities like Air Liquide and Toyota (who contributed to the development of the hydrogen fuel cell technology used onboard), provides a valuable blueprint for the development of such autonomous solar-powered catamarans. The integration of solar arrays, hydrogen fuel cells, and advanced navigation systems demonstrated by the Energy Observer offers practical insights into building efficient, sustainable catamarans capable of long-term, autonomous, carbon-free operations proposed for enhancing MCB efforts to effectively combat global warming.

Preliminary estimates indicate that these solar-powered catamarans can significantly increase the area covered by MCB interventions, potentially amplifying their cooling effect on the planet—particularly if guided by advanced navigation systems that calculate the most effective dispersion routes based on real-time climatic data and oceanographic conditions.

The autonomous operation allows for continuous, long-term deployment, minimizing human labor and operational costs. Energy efficiency calculations suggest that the solar arrays can generate sufficient power for both propulsion and aerosol dispersion, even in varying weather conditions. The vessels would ideally be directed toward areas with the highest sunlight exposure to maximize energy generation and optimize the effectiveness of the intervention.

Introducing autonomous solar-powered catamarans for MCB deployment addresses several challenges associated with geoengineering efforts to combat climate change. By leveraging renewable energy, this approach reduces the carbon footprint of climate intervention techniques and enhances their sustainability. Additionally, the scalability of this solution presents an opportunity for global implementation, offering a path toward a significant impact on the Earth’s climate system.

Such autonomous solar-powered catamarans provide an additional benefit to climate science since equipping each catamaran with advanced sensors and tracking technology can play a vital role in monitoring changes in ocean currents. By collecting data on water temperature, salinity, and currents across different ocean regions, these catamarans can enhance our understanding of how global warming affects oceanic systems. With this knowledge and the ability to program the routes each craft autonomously sails, the deployment of MCB techniques by these catamarans can cool specific regions, offering a method to directly mitigate the impacts of warming oceans on current patterns.

The use of these catamarans represents a symbiotic approach. While they aid in cooling the oceans and reducing the heat absorbed at the surface, they also gather crucial data that can inform climate models and future geoengineering initiatives. This dual functionality – and its ability to be targeted at specific regions such as along the equator, where natural ocean currents can distribute the cooling effect – underscores the potential of integrating this technological innovation with environmental conservation and decarbonization strategies to address the complex challenges posed by global warming.

Further research and development are necessary to optimize the design and operation of these vessels, with pilot projects being a crucial next step for testing and validation. These projects will help refine the technology and assess its effectiveness and environmental impact in real-world conditions, providing a critical basis for broader implementation.

The World Business Academy

The World Business Academy was founded in 1986 as a result of discussions centered on the role and responsibility of business in relation to critical environmental and social challenges. Since that time, the Academy has been a 501(c)(3) non-profit that engages the business community in better understanding and practicing the role of business as an agent for positive social transformation and solutions to humanity’s largest challenges.

The Academy’s focus on climate change, energy security, hydrogen, and optimized corporate governance through advocacy of shareholder capitalism, results from an analysis of the most important threats to human survival. Its 38-year track record of leadership includes the publication of cutting-edge books, articles, podcasts, and videos discussing these topics and many other issues of primary importance to the evolving role of business in society.

Rinaldo S. Brutoco, founding president and CEO of the World Business Academy, a nonprofit think tank and action incubator that explores the role of business in relation to critical moral, environmental, and social issues of our time. He is an economics and business expert specializing in energy policy, renewable energy, finance, innovation, and the causes of, and adaptation strategies for, climate change. For his entire career, he has been an international leader in advancing the nature of good corporate governance, corporate accountability, business transparency, and ways that corporations can fulfill their social compact by providing goods and services that the public needs in financially prudent ways that are simultaneously consistent with sustainable environmental and employee compensation policies. He received a Congressional Commendation to this effect in October 2010 for his outstanding contributions to the field of corporate responsibility. 

Demand for energy generation from renewable energy is growing exponentially which is fuelling demand for new, construction, more investment, and modern technology. Furthermore, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasts that solar and battery storage will make up 81% of new U.S. electric-generating capacity in 2024, solar accounting for 58% of that.

With rapid expansion, comes challenges such as policy uncertainties, grid infrastructure investment, administrative barriers, and financing in emerging economies. In addition, low efficiency has always been a concern for renewables – the wind does not always blow, the sun does not always shine. That is why it is particularly important in this industry to optimize performance and maximize the power output of these projects to meet energy demand and investor return expectations.

Let us examine the impacts of this growth on renewable energy businesses and how technology can help with project efficiency.

A rising headcount

As companies bring on more employees or contractors, processes and workflows need to be put into place. A few people can no longer do it all, so roles must be designated and allow for the passing of work from one set of hands to another. Maintaining continuity and balance in process and workflow improves efficiency.

A good technology platform designed for the renewable industry supports tailored workflows and has templates for processes which sets the expectation for how a project is handed from one team to another. It fosters a universal understanding of tasks, project details, and deliverables. It enforces continuity when staff changes over, when employees are out sick, and enables anyone to jump into a project to understand what has happened, what is happening, and what needs to happen.

An expanding portfolio

Every project that is added to the renewable portfolio adds a new universe of complexities. Some companies have a combination of renewable sources that bring different variables to the portfolio. Regardless of this, every project comes with managing dozens of people, data (and their sources), contracts and their deliverables, external organizations, and tasks.

Imagine a project as a haystack of information, varying in size and shape, a digital platform needs to centralize this data and pick out the needles quickly without sifting through each data point. project management tools need to track budgeted vs actual spend and forecast project performance based on real-time performance data.

Quenching the thirst for expansion

Most owners are looking for new land to expand operations. Potential new projects come with a series of tasks and details that need to be tracked including progress, stakeholders, contacts, and most importantly, payment contracts and parties involved (landowners in particular). There is a lot of spending and revenue to estimate, forecast and deliver.

A solid technology program builds out potential project profiles, allows tracking of progress, and increases the ability to close on new deals with all the boxes checked. Once delivered, a smooth handoff is critical to getting projects off on the right foot, and technology that ensures that new projects are staged for success is critical to support the transition.

Managing investment wisely

There is a lot of investment going into renewables and companies on the receiving end need to show accountability for managing those funds. Transparency and visibility into how our projects are performing keeps investors committed to the success of the project. Having data available in a technology platform gives owners and investors the ability to go deep and extract insights to show optimal performance.

More importantly, if performance is not optimal, the technology will indicate that, and provide the tools to determine why. Tracking the performance of dozens, or hundreds of individual assets across a portfolio is simply not sustainable without purpose-built software for renewable energy. When something is not working as it should, these solutions should enable asset managers to trigger operators to get on top of servicing or fixing the asset and prioritize work orders to target fixes that will have the largest revenue impact in the process.

Staying on top of evolving regulation and policies

Regulatory compliance is complicated, time-consuming, and mandatory. In addition, being a relatively new but critical industry, Federal and State regulatory bodies, (FERC and NERC), as well as state public utility commissions and regional entities continue to evolve standards and requirements, making it hard to stay on top of, especially if you are expanding into multiple states.

There are service providers that stay abreast of these changes and software programs that can help manage compliance. Technology platforms with compliance modules will provide tasks, documentation, and submission templates to ensure deadlines are met, and issues are anticipated. Based on your state, programs can be set up to align your project with the required entities’ standards and show where the gaps are to meet compliance.

Breaking the silos, and aggregating data

It’s not uncommon for an expanding company to add new tools as needed. It usually starts with every day communication tools, word and data processing tools, and document management platforms. As the company grows, it adds ERPs, CRMs, planning tools, project management tools, CMMS systems, construction tools, and may develop and acquire projects with their own SCADA/DAS systems, and communicate with partners via their various FTP sites. The more data that is added, the more systems are required to manage it, creating silos.

This results in the development team working in one system, the asset management team working in another, the finance team doing their thing, the construction team working elsewhere, and the O&M yet somewhere else. In addition, the more sources of data, the higher the risk of things falling through the cracks, duplicate work being done and delays in decision making as staff crawl from one data silo to another searching for information, and ensuring it is the latest version. This leads to no source of truth and no trust in the data and information available.

Aggregating data into a single platform that gets all team members working off one source of truth with visually easy to understand dashboards is the only way forward for an expanding company. A good digital technology platform integrates with other critical business systems and manages and stores all data in one central location, providing stakeholders with secure access to the level of information they require and supporting cross-functional workflows.

Sustainable growth is achievable

The global renewable energy market, valued at $881.7 billion in 2020, is projected to reach $1,977.6 billion by 2030, growing at a CAGR of 8.4% from 2021 to 2030. This demonstrates the significant economic potential and the pivotal role of renewable energy in shaping a sustainable future. Using the right tools, renewable owners can achieve optimal portfolio performance financially, and generate enough power for a carbon free clean energy future. This industry can profoundly and positively impact the environment, economy and society, and purpose-built modern technology solutions are critical to supporting the transition.

Author: Kurt Ferrell is in Business Development at Radian Generation. He works with renewable energy businesses, providing digital solutions and services that help renewable energy asset owners manage and optimize their development pipelines and operating assets, and maintain regulatory compliance and security.

From pv magazine Global

Replacing polluting fossil fuels with the light of the sun to fuel a car almost sounds too good to be true. Solar cars – electric vehicles that feature solar panels – promise to offer a low-carbon way to drive with less need for electric vehicle charging stations.

Meanwhile, U.S. company Aptera recently announced it had raised over $33 million to fund the initial stages of production for its solar electric vehicle, equipped with 700 W of solar cells and able to drive over 600 km on a single charge. Already, more than 46,000 reservations have been made, though it is not clear when it will be available. Meanwhile, in Japan, the Puzzle van, a tiny electric van using solar panels to charge its battery, was unveiled late last year and is due to be available for purchase from 2025.

But for these projects to be viable, the quality, performance and durability of the solar panels need to be assured. IEC International Standards provide internationally agreed specifications and guidelines to ensure the quality, safety and efficiency of products, services and systems. Conformity assessment determines whether a product, service or process complies with specified standards. Standardization also provides a common language and framework fostering interoperability, efficiency, safety and overall reliability.

IEC TC 82: Solar photovoltaic energy systems, produces international standards enabling systems to convert solar power into electrical energy. These include the 14-part IEC 60904 series of standards, which covers all the requirements and measurements of photovoltaic (PV) devices and their components. Recognizing the need for specific guidance documents in this area, the committee has formed a project team, IEC TC 82 PT 600, for vehicle-integrated photovoltaic (VIPV) systems to develop two new technical reports in this area.

Convenor of IEC TC 82 PT 600, Kenji Araki said, “It is the quality and performance of the solar panel that will dictate the value of the solar car. A fair and scientific measure of this quality, therefore, is essential. Without an internationally agreed measure, it is difficult to ensure the safe and performant deployment of this technology. There will be a greater risk of fake or low-quality components that will not only hamper the advancement of the technology but create safety risks.”

Araki added that it is important to have practical and reproducible testing methods specific to VIPV because the context in which solar panels are used and thus behave is very different from those in other situations such as on houses or buildings.

For starters, vehicles are not static, so the amount of sunlight they receive can change dramatically. Thus, there can be sudden changes in power outputs when a vehicle moves in or out of a shaded area, for example, so technology needs to compensate for this. “We need a calculation shift,” he said, “and this can be complex and challenging to understand so it is important to have a detailed and comprehensive procedure for manufacturers to refer to.”

Araki explained the project team is currently focusing on standards and guidance for testing, operation modeling and energy rating, but they are also preparing to address other challenges. One of those is environmental and mechanical load tests. Unlike standard solar PV devices, the VIPV receives huge mechanical loads and experiences different environmental conditions.

For instance, the current photovoltaic modules can dampen vibrations of around 0.1 to 10 Hz really well, Araki pointed out, which are typical frequencies in architectural structures, but the vibration of the vehicle roof can be as high as 2,000 Hz. “In these situations, the molecular chains in the module sealing materials cannot catch up with the moving speed, so there is a significant risk that there will be resonance in the solar cell itself.”

The standards being used could also be applied in other settings such as drones and high-altitude platform stations (HAPS) and may help in rating PV power plants installed in mountains and forests. “In such installations, the shading loss in winter may be huge, leading to a lower performance ratio and therefore a higher cost of producing the energy. But it is hard to estimate. The new technical reports we are working on will help to solve this problem,” Araki underlined.

Clare Naden is a writer at the IEC, with more than 25 years of journalism and communications experience in New Zealand, the UK, Australia and Switzerland.

The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) is a global, not-for-profit membership organization that brings together 174 countries and coordinates the work of 30.000 experts globally. IEC International Standards and conformity assessment underpin international trade in electrical and electronic goods. They facilitate electricity access and verify the safety, performance and interoperability of electric and electronic devices and systems, including for example, consumer devices such as mobile phones or refrigerators, office and medical equipment, information technology, electricity generation, and much more.

From pv magazine Global

A growing number of PV module manufacturers are threatening to shut down their production facilities in Europe due to the ongoing low-price trend. Some want to give up, while others want to move to the United States, where there are supposedly better market and funding conditions.

That’s not entirely wrong, because current module prices in Europe do not reflect a healthy, industry-friendly market situation. On the contrary, price levels are still dominated by warehouse clearance sales on a large scale.

This month, module prices no longer fell across the board. However, recovery to a level at which newly produced products in Europe can be offered competitively seems unattainable in the long term.

There is still too much stock left among distributors and manufacturers for second-tier or third-tier products. Due to the recent cold temperatures, demand has not yet returned to the levels expected for this time of year, so excess modules are only flowing out slowly.

The prices currently circulating in the photovoltaic market for passivated emitter and rear cell (PERC) products under 2 square meters up to 410 W are just under €0.10 ($10.66)/W, so they were assigned to the “low-cost” price point this month. This is basically the reason for additional declines in the price index.

Higher performance classes, as well as full-black and glass-glass modules, were still assigned to the “mainstream” or “high-efficiency” group, as these products can still be sold reasonably, although they offer lower performance. Only standard modules of around 400 W are increasingly becoming slow sellers and are often sold off with all possible force – there is no foreseeable lower price limit there.

To make matters worse, the elimination of a customs exemption for bifacial glass-glass modules is now being discussed in the United States. The reason is probably a request from Hanwha Qcells to the Department of Commerce in order not to endanger the planned expansion of production on the North American continent. If this petition is successful, the prices of non-Chinese modules in the United States will also increase significantly. Chinese modules will hardly find their way into the US market and, as a result, they will probably end up in Europe and further increase the pressure on already low module prices.

If local production is to remain in Europe in the foreseeable future, policymakers will really have to come up with something suddenly. Even if it won’t be a resilience bonus like the one recently scrapped in Germany, the course should be set in the right direction as quickly as possible – preferably at the European level. Currently, every day that no action is taken, a small part of our independence in the energy sector dies.

Price points differentiated by technology in April 2024, including changes from the previous month (as of April 20, 2024):

About the author: Martin Schachinger studied electrical engineering and has been active in the field of photovoltaics and renewable energy for almost 30 years. In 2004, he set up a business, founding the pvXchange.com online trading platform. The company stocks standard components for new installations and solar modules and inverters that are no longer being produced.

Earth Month reminds us that the move from fossil fuels to electrification continues to gain momentum through incentives and regulations, and it’s inspired by companies and homeowners who are committed to reducing their carbon footprint. Another strong motivator for businesses and consumers is the opportunity to introduce energy efficiencies that yield cost savings – such as heat pump-enabled Energy Star certified appliances that are ushering in the clean energy future.

This Earth Month is the ideal time to highlight the trend toward electrification and offer businesses and homeowners a viable path to get there.

Homeowners needs to be educated on the concept of electrification. A recent nationwide survey conducted by a third-party on behalf of LG Electronics USA surveyed 1,579 U.S. homeowners in January  2024. They found that only 16% of American homeowners are currently familiar with home electrification.

Given the number of appliances and whole-house systems in a typical residence – along with renewables including solar panels and EV chargers in a growing number of households – the road to electrification can be overwhelming.

A logical starting point is investing in an energy storage system (ESS). It’s a move that applies to existing users of PV products and can be an attractive stepping-stone for those who may be thinking about or planning to install solar for their home or acquire electric vehicles in the future.

The nationwide survey also reports that among homeowners with residential solar, 25% currently have an ESS while 80% of those who do not yet have one say it is a future priority; 12% say it’s the number one priority.

ESS advantages

Tying a home’s energy footprint together with an energy storage system is an excellent step toward electrification that allows the homeowner to realize a number of tangible collateral benefits beyond reducing emissions from fossil fuel-based energy sources. It enables homeowners to manage their energy and take control of its use.

It’s smart to guide homeowners to understand that the ESS can be used independently from the grid and can charge during the daytime when electricity prices are lower. Stored energy can then be utilized during peak consumption hours when prices increase in many geographic regions.

It’s important for homeowners to know that an ESS can provide backup power which can be essential in the case of power outages. In fact, the nationwide survey revealed that 67% of U.S. homeowners experienced a power outage in the past year and half of them experienced multiple outages, some lasting hours or longer. In certain ESS models an LED display on the front of the system allows owners to check the estimated battery state of charge and encourages mindfulness of electricity use during power outages.

Advances in technology and design have made the ESS a more versatile and attractive alternative to the traditional backup generator.  An all-in-one integrated system is incorporated into a complete smart home environment with appliances, electronics and HVAC systems. Management systems that allows the user to delegate how, where, and when the unit’s stored energy is used to maximize efficiency gives homeowners the ability to achieve pure independence from the grid, providing them with better control in managing their home energy needs.

This point is especially relevant to the surveyed homeowners who have expressed frustration over grid instability and concerns over the impact of extreme weather events.

Despite the need to educate the public at large on the benefits of ESS, the nationwide survey found that homeowners seeking to overcome the challenges of grid instability with an ESS are most interested in lowering their energy costs (90%). They also identify other appealing benefits of battery-powered ESS, including uninterrupted power supply (89%), less dependency on the utility (86%), potential to sell the energy back to the utility (84%), environmental benefits/sustainability (82%), and less dependency on fossil fuels (82%).

Incentives abound

In speaking with potential ESS customers, it makes sense to emphasize that investment in home electrification is rewarded by federal and state incentives. Residential ESS installations currently qualify for up to a 30% tax investment credit through the Inflation Reduction Act – a provision that not everyone knows will be in effect until 2033.

In addition, the U.S. Department of Energy has provided $8.8 billion in state funding for Home Electrification Rebates; these are expected to become available this year.

For business owners, a state-of-the-art, long-lifespan commercial ESS solution provides an all-in-one solution equipped with ready-to-deploy technology from storage with ESS, management with the PMS, and complementary systems such as HVAC. Commercial ESS can also qualify for up to a 30% tax credit through 2025.

The impetus can come from you

Interested homeowners are learning about ESS through various means: their own research, published news coverage on trends, products and incentives, and by speaking with neighbors and installers. Our research shows that homeowners want to be smarter about energy usage, fueled not only by a sense of responsibility to the planet but by the grim reality of rising energy costs. Two-thirds of our nationwide survey respondents reported rate hikes over the past year.

Those in the energy industry need to take the responsibility to help homeowners learn how to better manage their energy consumption and set them on a journey toward energy independence. By doing so, we can earn a position as a lifelong energy partner to our clientele. In the survey, two-thirds of those prioritizing ESS cited “a brand I can trust” as a highly important factor in their impending buying decision. Words to the wise during Earth Month 2024.

Jim Brown is senior manager, national sales, LG Electronics ESS. An industry veteran, Jim leads residential ESS business development in the United States for global innovator LG Electronics.

The energy sector is generally considered to be fairly conservative when it comes to adopting new trends and technologies. After all, much of the energy we consume still comes from sources that have been used for hundreds of years — oil, coal, and natural gas. 

However, in the recent push for sustainability in the energy sector, one technology emerges as a linchpin for the shift towards “green living”: artificial intelligence.

How AI will disrupt the energy industry for the better

Artificial intelligence seems poised to revolutionize the energy sector thanks to its superior data analysis capabilities. Data analysis is a fundamental aspect of any energy operation — from determining where the best sites for development are to how much energy has been consumed for billing. AI can perform all of this analysis at a much more efficient rate than human workers, allowing them to focus more of their efforts on implementing these solutions.

Artificial intelligence can also use the data it is fed to perform advanced predictive analytics. In the energy industry, this could prove invaluable, as the ability to better forecast consumption can allow energy companies to avoid the overuse of resources. Furthermore, as renewable energy resources have historically been somewhat unreliable due to their dependence on external factors such as weather, predictive analytics now powered by AI can allow energy companies to ease some of their concerns about the volatility of these renewable sources.

Using these tools, artificial intelligence could improve the sustainability of the energy sector by enabling the more efficient deployment of resources. Energy companies can both reduce waste and cut costs using analysis and forecasting generated by AI.

The most apparent use of artificial intelligence in the energy sector is “smart meters,” which help users better control their energy consumption and energy providers better understand and manage their load. Smart meters help the energy provider’s sustainability initiatives by reducing overall energy consumption, which will also benefit customers’ wallets. 

Something that must be understood about the shift towards renewable energy sources is that, as more renewable energy sources are introduced, it makes the grid more complex to handle this increasing number and diversity of sources. In turn, more technology is needed to manage it. This is where artificial intelligence emerges as a particularly valuable innovation in the solar power industry — as a tool to help manage the distribution of resources on the grid.

AI in the solar industry

Some more specific applications in the solar power sector show even higher potential. As solar developers continue to expand some reach, some exciting use cases for AI technologies include:

• Searching for solar-generating properties: AI models can analyze data much more efficiently than humans, making them ideal for identifying solar-generating properties. An AI model can be trained to cross-reference properties on the market with characteristics set by the user — for example, climate, open space, and proximity to grid infrastructure — to quickly identify ideal sites for development and installation. 
• Pre-construction planning and design: Artificial intelligence models can be used during the pre-construction planning and design process to ensure that solar power arrays are designed for optimal output. Producers can use this technology to test potential scenarios and layouts in advance, reducing the need for on-site labor and the expenses of on-site modifications and customizations.
• Real-time monitoring and data analytics: Solar power producers can use AI to power real-time monitoring and data analytics of their array’s output. This technology can help producers more efficiently identify and isolate any obstacles in their panels’ productivity, allowing them to conduct repairs much more quickly.
• Forecasting weather: One of the most exciting potential applications of AI in solar power is weather forecasting. Because the output and efficiency of solar panels are influenced directly by weather conditions, producers must be wary of any inclement weather that can interfere with the panels’ ability to generate power. Artificial intelligence can be used to predict weather conditions, allowing producers to adjust the amount of power being generated and stored during optimal conditions so that disruptions during suboptimal conditions can be minimized.
• Predictive maintenance: AI can also help enable predictive maintenance for solar panels. Regular maintenance is essential for solar power operations because a solar panel in disrepair cannot perform to its maximum potential. An artificial intelligence model can analyze historical trends and data on current conditions to indicate to producers when it is necessary to enlist a technician for maintenance.

The adoption of AI in the energy sector

AI can potentially revolutionize the energy industry with its advanced data analysis and predictive analytics capabilities. At this point, it is a matter of convincing the energy companies of the validity and necessity of these use cases. 

By better understanding our consumption and needs, the energy sector can be better prepared to adopt renewable energy sources such as solar power. Artificial intelligence is the key to unlocking this deeper insight.

Ed Watal is an AI thought leader and technology investor. One of his key projects includes BigParser (an Ethical AI Platform and Data Commons for the World). He is also the founder of Intellibus, an INC 5000 “Top 100 Fastest Growing Software Firm” in the USA, and the lead faculty of AI Masterclass, a joint operation between NYU SPS and Intellibus. Forbes Books is collaborating with Ed on a seminal book on our AI Future. 

As the world strives to combat climate change and embrace sustainable energy sources, community solar initiatives that allow multiple participants within a defined geography to share the benefits of the energy generated are a valuable way to both support and drive the clean energy transition.

Community solar projects – sometimes called “solar gardens” or “shared solar” – give communities, including residents and businesses, access to clean, affordable and reliable energy while also allowing them to reduce their carbon footprint. Yet the pace of these climate-friendly, forward-looking power sources has slowed due to challenges in attracting skilled Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) contractors needed to get these projects up and running.

The Power of Solar for Communities

Community solar projects help local communities take control of their energy supply. By decentralizing power generation, communities can reduce their dependence on fossil fuels and large-scale power plants and help decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Community solar has socioeconomic benefits too, allowing a broader range of individuals and businesses to benefit from renewable energy, regardless of income level. This is especially important for renters, low-income households in disadvantaged communities, and those with limited rooftop access to solar panels, because they can access clean energy and save on their electricity bills through various financial incentives and credits that are afforded to community solar projects. Businesses can benefit from lower utility costs as well.

Community solar projects also stimulate local economies, creating job opportunities and driving investment in the region.

What’s Hindering Widespread Solar Expansion?

Developers face several unique challenges when it comes to getting community solar projects off the ground, often due to the unique nature of these installations.

They are often smaller in scale than their utility-scale solar counterparts, so they can be less financially attractive to larger EPC contractors who want to optimize their resources for economies of scale and make their projects more profitable. The distributed nature of community solar, with numerous small installations spread across various locations, can also present logistical challenges that make the projects much more complex and ultimately reduce their profit margins.

Solving the Financing Puzzle

Financing the community solar projects can be challenging as well, with upfront capital and uncertain revenue streams limiting options for developers.  This, in turn, can further discourage large EPC contractors who seek stable and predictable ventures.

The relatively small scale of community solar projects compared to larger, utility-scale installations can make it more difficult for developers to qualify for and secure lender funding. Uncertainty in revenue streams due to fluctuating energy prices, regulatory unpredictability, and even the variations in how much a community will embrace the move to solar add to the complexity. It’s clear that innovative financing models and supportive policies are needed to make community solar financially viable and attractive to investors.

Offering portfolios of projects to Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) contractors can serve as a creative solution to help community solar developers obtain financing and drive down the cost of building community solar projects. By bundling multiple projects together, developers can leverage economies of scale, streamline procurement processes, minimize project risk, and negotiate more favorable terms with EPC contractors. This approach allows contractors to optimize their resources and reduce overhead costs, resulting in lower overall project costs. Additionally, portfolios of projects provide contractors with a steady pipeline of work, reducing their reliance on larger utility-scale projects and incentivizing them to prioritize community solar developments. Ultimately, this collaborative approach benefits both developers and contractors, facilitating the expansion of community solar initiatives and accelerating the transition to renewable energy at the local level.

Regulatory Landscape Adds More Challenges

EPC contractors, especially those who are used to dealing with larger, standardized projects often find that navigating the unique regulatory landscape of different communities remains a cumbersome area of concern as well.

For example, local zoning and land-use regulations can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and unlike utility-scale solar installations that are generally found on large tracts of unoccupied land, community solar projects can be sited in a variety of areas including both residential and commercial.

As a result, community solar developers are forced to navigate a patchwork of local regulations, which can differ significantly from one community to another. Zoning laws, aesthetic considerations, and community engagement requirements can vary widely, adding yet another layer of complexity to the development process.

Larger solar projects, often located in remote or designated solar zones, might have a more standardized regulatory environment, making it somewhat easier for developers to navigate the approval process maze. The decentralized nature of community solar, while beneficial for inclusivity, creates a unique set of challenges in complying with diverse local regulations.

Limited awareness and understanding of community solar projects among EPC contractors may hinder their willingness to engage with these initiatives, and they simply may feel more familiar and comfortable with traditional utility-scale solar projects

In a way, the beauty of community solar projects also brings their biggest challenges. But working with a solar EPC firm that understands the nuances of this market – that these projects are inherently localized and require engaging with diverse communities, each with a unique set of considerations and challenges, can make a huge difference.  Community solar EPCs must adeptly navigate the intricacies of smaller-scale installations, recognize the importance of community buy-in, and tailor their project designs to suit local landscapes. Simply put: the more a community solar EPC better comprehends the significance of community engagement, diverse financing models, and the necessity for flexibility in project execution, the better able they are to craft solutions that resonate with the specific needs and aspirations of the communities they serve.

Next Steps: Attracting EPC Contractors

Community solar developers should proactively seek partnerships with EPC contractors who have experience in smaller-scale solar installations or who are willing to diversify their portfolio. Collaborative efforts can combine expertise and resources to overcome challenges and deliver successful projects. Community developers should also target EPCs with shared values, and where there’s a true desire to establishing partnerships based on a collective commitment to community engagement, environmental sustainability, and innovative financing models. Hosting joint workshops, participating in industry events, and fostering open communication channels can facilitate a deeper understanding of each other’s objectives and capabilities.

Community solar developers – and EPC contractors – must actively work to build relationships founded on transparency and a mutual dedication to effective project development. They must align on the importance and unique aspects of community solar and get excited about working together to push forward solutions that bring economic growth and clean power, while reducing carbon emissions.

Financial incentives and attractive returns on investment can be highly effective in enticing skilled EPC contractors to participate, and innovative financing models, such as crowdfunding or public-private partnerships, can help to secure needed capital.

Community solar projects are critical links to help drive the energy transition toward a more sustainable future. Their ability to engage diverse communities, reduce emissions, and foster economic growth makes them invaluable components of the renewable energy landscape. While attracting skilled EPC contractors can pose challenges, concerted efforts by forward-thinking community EPC developers to streamline processes, offer financial support, and provide education and training can go a long way in enticing contractors to participate. By working together, stakeholders can accelerate the adoption of community solar and pave the way for a cleaner, greener, and more inclusive energy future.

William Tualau Fale is vice president, pre-construction & business development for Babcock & Wilcox Solar Energy, Inc., a commercial, industrial and utility solar EPC firm, and a subsidiary of Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc.

From pv magazine Global

CSP is experiencing a remarkable resurgence and India unveiled a 50% allocation for CSP in its renewable energy tender for the first quarter of 2024.

Scaling up CSP will bridge the gap caused by intermittent-generation PV and wind projects to help power the world’s most populous country with reliable, affordable, continuous renewable energy.

Rajan Varshney, deputy managing director of the National Thermal Power Corporation, India’s largest state-owned utility company said recently, “Now is the right time for CSP … As PV and wind capacity increases, increasingly more and more coal-based power will be required to make it firm and to supply electricity when the sun is not there. So by increasing PV, we cannot avoid coal unless we install CSP plus storage in Gujarat and Rajasthan.”

CSP’s resurgence may surprise industry insiders who consider the technology obsolete after problems with large scale sites, notably in California and Arizona.

While previous installations were massive, complex, custom-engineered, and not replicable, my company, 247Solar, has obtained finance for a modular version that solves for these challenges.

Our version operates on superheated air at normal atmospheric pressure. It stores energy using simple materials, not molten salt, and it can be mass-produced in 400 kW units for economies of scale.

The model shows promise to greatly shorten project cycles and resume the dramatic CSP cost reductions achieved in its early years and which slowed as the older technology matured.

Demand

Around-the-clock power demand has been rising because of growth in emerging economies and is accelerating due to data centers, cryptocurrency, and artificial intelligence (AI). As we move to electrify with electric vehicles, heat pumps, and industrial heat, CSP emerges as a viable solution to address those needs and provide continuous power.

Grid operators continue to grapple with the variability of photovoltaic and wind energy. Wind, if it blows at night, can help balance daytime solar but wind is much more variable than sunshine and requires long-distance, high-voltage lines to get to market, which can add cost and time to wind farm deployment.

Even large doses of lithium-ion batteries – meant to handle morning and evening peak loads, as gas peaker plants did before them – are nowhere near enough to store the energy it would take to keep the grid powered through the night and during bad weather, as coal plants have. Batteries may also feature conflict minerals, unlike our thermal energy storage systems.

CSP’s levelized cost of energy (LCOE) has fallen dramatically, by almost 70% since 2010, offering longer and more economical energy storage than batteries.

Concentrated solar has returned to projects that will pair it with PV to extend power output into the night, reducing overall LCOE by harnessing synergies between the two technologies.

Pioneers

Some of the high-profile early efforts at CSP got many things right, such as Abengoa Solar’s Solana plant near Phoenix, launched in 2013, or BrightSource’s Ivanpah plant in California, the world’s largest solar thermal site at the time, also in 2013.

Initial CSP plants focused the sun’s heat on a single point, reaching temperatures above 530 degrees Celsius. Our system pushes that limit to around 1,000 degrees Celsius.

Those pioneer sites also stored energy for six- to 12-hour operation at night, aiming for more straightforward, cost-effective technology than polysilicon-based PV modules.

CSP is no longer just huge installations of pipes and mirrors in the desert or towers as high as a wind turbine, however.

We are seeing new interest in 247Solar’s smaller, simpler, more flexible application of this technology.

Our turbines generate electricity from nothing more than superheated air so they don’t require a phase change of the energy from heat to steam as other CSP systems do.

Sustainable

We store the extra heat in cheap, inert materials such as sand, iron slag, or ceramic pellets. This eliminates the need for corrosive, high-maintenance molten salt, along with its other chemical and physical challenges.

Our proprietary thermal batteries provide 18-plus hours of storage for on-demand, industrial-grade heat and electricity. They can produce power during bad weather and, when fully discharged, the generators can even run on green hydrogen, natural gas, or diesel. With a capacity factor of 85%, however, that would occur far less often than in a system of PV plus batteries with a 40% capacity factor.

Our turnkey solution, which we call 247Solar Plants, is modular and factory-built for rapid cost reduction through mass production and easy, quick, on-site assembly.

Each module has 400 kW of generation capacity with 120-foot towers – half the height of earlier versions of CSP. With fewer moving parts than conventional CSP, our solar thermal power plant is also easier to maintain in a hostile environment.

We hold more than 30 patents worldwide, including a blanket patent just obtained in India, for our entire CSP system; as well as our proprietary solar collectors; ultra-efficient Heat2Power turbines, that use ambient air pressure; and inexpensive thermal battery systems.

Hybrid

This hybrid approach leverages the strengths of CSP and photovoltaics to generate uninterrupted power 24/7, with PV providing cheap electricity during the day while CSP stores its excess energy as heat for use at night.

Other companies, such as Heliogen, BrightSource Energy, and Acciona, are also pushing the boundaries of CSP with advancements in AI-enabled systems, alternatives to the shortcomings of molten salt storage, and lower-cost parabolic trough technology.

Potential applications for CSP include on- or off-grid combined heat and power, microgrids, ultra-heat for heavy industry, green hydrogen, and green desalination, as well as baseload power 24/7/365 – critical in fast-growing economies such as India’s.

“Emerging technologies such as solar thermal and concentrated solar power are essential for India to meet its renewable energy targets,” said India’s New & Renewable Energy Secretary Bhupinder Singh Bhalla, at the opening of the International Conference on Solar Thermal Technologies in New Delhi, in February 2024.

CSP is unmatched, especially when integrated with photovoltaics, for 24/7 dispatchability of flexible, dependable, and resilient zero-carbon power to meet the energy demands of tomorrow.

Bruce Anderson is a visionary in the solar industry for four decades, is founder and chief executive officer of 247Solar, which is commercializing a concentrating solar technology invented at MIT and which runs on superheated compressed air instead of steam. His career spans seven company ventures, a “New York Times” bestseller, and the American Solar Energy Society’s Lifetime Solar Contribution Award.

All stakeholders enter a commercial solar project with the goal of an on-time, on-budget delivery, but delays and overages are becoming widespread. Impeccable installation execution with an eBOS wire management system holds a key to timely and efficient delivery.

With an increasingly crowded solar market and more competition for solar projects, developers and EPCs can gain a competitive advantage by developing a track record of completed projects with minimal delays or overages. With the cost of a delay at $200,000 per MW, and PV solar installations delayed by an average of 4.4 GW each month, even a brief delay can take a significant toll on a project’s financials, and put profitability and capital management at risk.

While there are numerous external pressures that can delay a project, such as supply chain slowdowns or local ordinance issues, efficient installation is within a developer’s direct control.

The degree of installation success is driven in part by wire solutions. Wiring that integrates easily in the field can simplify installation, enhance both quality and longevity, and improve overall project efficiency. Wire solutions with a balance between customization and pre-fabrication can yield optimal results, including:

● The ability to pre-fabricate custom harnesses and source circuit lengths can significantly shorten installation time in the field.
● Wire stripping and adding connectors in the factory to controlled, manufacturer recommended tolerances will provide better longevity – enhancing a project’s financials in both the short-term, through faster installation, and in the long-term through better performance.
● Prefabricated and customized wire solutions have better consistency and reliability due to factory precision vs. manual fabricated on site.

The true cost of generic wire

While utilizing bulk wire solutions may seem like a fast and easy road to completion, it can slow down a project and cause installation delays. Every project has its own unique system design that requires a specific wire gauge, harness length and combiner box combination customized for each site. When evaluating wiring options consider the risks of using field-fabricated solutions, such as:

● Generic wiring that’s cut and fabricated on site lacks factory-assembled consistency, increasing the potential for connection issues and safety risks.
● Inconsistent tolerances and inefficient wire planning can necessitate procuring larger amounts of wire, creating budget creep and waste.
● Installing in the field requires more hours of skilled labor and entails on-site problem-solving instead of proactive planning ahead. This makes time and cost budgeting more unpredictable.

The bottom line – wiring options can make or break a project’s timeline and the quality of installation.

Assessing wire solution options

EPCs and developers that are assessing eBOS partners and wire solutions can benefit from these considerations:

● Assembly: Is assembly in-house, or managed via-subcontractors? In-house assembly allows a partner to have more control over quality and lead times.
● Design: Custom designed harness solutions can reduce the amount of wire required and therefore reduce overall eBOS cost.
● Plug-and-play: Does installation require manual cutting and problem-solving on-site, or can the solution be prefabricated for faster downstream installation and reduced labor costs?
● Project-specific solutions: What’s the degree of project customization? Problem-solving upfront and estimators who design tailor-made solutions will smooth installation and reduce risks of delays and budget overages.
● PV project lifecycle knowledge: Installation is only one piece of a much larger project with a much longer timeline. Does the wiring solution partner have a track record of success in complex PV projects, and understand the solar project lifecycle from upstream to downstream?

Wiring solutions can lay a foundation for ongoing success and an industry-leading reputation for timely, on-budget, and high-quality projects. As we move toward a clean energy future, competition among solar stakeholders is likely to increase, and developers and EPCs known for impeccable installation will stand out from the rest.

Case study: Cranberry fields forever

The Scenario: Installation execution was put to the test in Southern Massachusetts at a local cranberry wetland farm. Also known as cranberry bogs, these wetlands were designated as dual-purpose land (i.e., agrivoltaics). A leading solar developer was engaged to install 9-MW solar panels with 36-MWh storage over the fully-functioning bogs.

The Mission-Critical Task: Precision and accuracy were imperative, as installing solar panels over 150-year-old cranberry vines allowed zero room for error. The process required that arrays were high enough to prevent any damage to the cranberry crops below, while allowing for farming activities to take place without disruption. The complexities of this project simply could not be met with off-the-shelf-wire solutions.

The Challenge: A $53 million project set to power 1,800 homes was at stake. On top of that, there was a tight six-week delivery window, much shorter than a typical turnaround timeline. To meet the project requirements by the deadline:

● The solar arrays had to be mounted on 25 to 40-foot-long wooden,vwet terrain-resistant utility poles.
● The poles had to be driven 15 to 30 feet into the ground, keeping the solar modules at least 10 feet above the cranberry bogs. At this height, significantly more wire is required than the average solar project.
● The wiring solution needed to minimize long and heavy in-field installation activities to keep the cranberry bogs fully functioning.

The Solution: To ensure that the arrays would have solid foundations, durable racking structures, and be placed at an atypical height to minimize impact on crop growth, the deployed wiring solution had to be truly customized to every condition and variable: height, placement, quantity, human activity, and project timelines.

To meet the tight turnaround, the wiring was coordinated alongside the racking and module installations and the wiring was factory-assembled to ensure quick field installation. A total of 1,384 source circuit conductors (half positive, half negative) were cut to length and labeled in the factory with MC4 connectors installed on the panel end. It was blunt cut on the opposite end for field connection to combiners. The wiring was shipped on spools to the site, and the end-to-end connectivity of the wiring solution allowed for quick plug-and-play in the field.

The Outcome: The installation proceeded smoothly and efficiently, and the project was completed on time and on budget. Throughout the project, the cranberry bogs were fully operational and yielded a bountiful harvest.

Joe Parzych is eBOS product manager at Terrasmart. He brings over 15 years of product management experience to Terrasmart, focusing on wire management, product development, and production improvements. Terrasmart’s integrated eBOS solutions have delivered 23.5M feet or wire for solar projects across the country.

From pv magazine Global

FOB China prices for cells faced another round of declines this week, continuing to be impacted by widespread price drops across the upstream segments.

The FOB China prices of Mono PERC and TOPCon M10 cells were assessed at $0.0455 per W and $0.0545/W, respectively, marking a decrease of 1.09% and 1.98% from the previous week. Similarly, the price of Mono PERC G12 cells dropped by 2.20% week to week, reaching $0.0445/W this week.

According to the OPIS market survey, the prices of Mono PERC M10 and TOPCon M10 cells in the Chinese domestic market have fallen to approximately CNY0.365 ($0.50)/W and CNY0.437/W, respectively. High-efficiency TOPCon M10 cell prices as low as CNY0.42/W have already been reported in the market, indicating a continued decline in prices.

Additionally, a market source noted that besides the effects of upstream price declines, the TOPCon cell market is experiencing an expansion in production, further intensifying the perception of declining cell prices. Some manufacturers are investing in additional TOPCon capacity, while others are upgrading their outdated Mono Perc production lines to TOPCon.

According to a major TOPCon cell producer, the implementation of ground-mounted solar projects in China during April and May might have a limited impact on driving up demand and prices, given the substantial capacity involved.

Some sources conveyed a pessimistic outlook on the local market in Turkey after attending The International SolarEX Istanbul Fair held from April 4-6, describing it as “tepid.” It is unclear how large Turkey’s manufacturing capacity is, and a review of data points to anything between 12 GW to 40 GW of manufacturing capacity across the value chain, against a local installation market of around 2GW per year. According to a major cell manufacturer, there remains a significant inventory of Mono PERC cells in this market, which continues to be dominated by p-type products. Expanding into new markets and business ventures here will take time, the source added.

OPIS, a Dow Jones company, provides energy prices, news, data, and analysis on gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, LPG/NGL, coal, metals, and chemicals, as well as renewable fuels and environmental commodities. It acquired pricing data assets from Singapore Solar Exchange in 2022 and now publishes the OPIS APAC Solar Weekly Report.

New technology from an emerging company is adding hot water to the energy storage equation.

The surge in interest for storage alternatives beyond electro-chemical batteries—for reasons including efficiencies, longevity and recyclability– is raising the temperature on thermal technology as a means to store energy from PV and other sources.

Solar system designers and installers have long used hot water heating in tanks as a “diversionary load” to store excess PV-generated electricity. But such schemes required the installation of complex and costly plumbing infrastructure, between dedicated tanks and circulation systems. Newer thermal storage methods being discussed include so-called “T-Bat” thermal batteries using molten aluminum or alloys, hot silicon and thermo-chemical decomposition.  But these either remain mainly in the concept or early adoption stages, or face challenges in implementation based on the state of present technology.

PowerPanel is taking a different approach: that of combining simple, safe, and easy to manage hot water with advanced thermoplastic technology and architecture—eliminating both the issues with old-fashioned steel tanks and the inherent risks of the newer exotic, inorganic thermal storage schemes.

PowerPanel, based in Oxford, Michigan, was founded in 2007 by Garth Schultz and Rob Kornahrens, to commercialize their PV/thermal technology. Prior to Power Panel, Schultz worked in clean vehicle development on projects involving GM, Chrysler and Ford, as well as clean agriculture initiatives in Canada.  He heads up the manufacturing and engineering in the Michigan facility where all the products are made. Rob Kornahrens, CEO, was previously with thin-film solar panel maker Advanced Green Technologies.

PowerPanel’s Gen 20 thermal storage tank scraps the concept of the traditional steel tank, replacing it with durable, safe, stable and recyclable thermoplastics.  The result is a lightweight, secure, and rapidly-deployable thermal storage solution that can be set up in minutes and lasts for decades.

The company bundled the PV module and thermal together in one panel with the idea of combining two renewable energy streams, photovoltaic and thermal heating (PVT). PVT has been tried in the past, but it usually involved a PV module with a thermal “catcher” fixed on the back.  What Power Panel did was  “encapsulate” the PV with a flat-plate glazed solar thermal production unit.  It uses special materials developed for Power Panel, which gets molded into an enclosure; basically a PV ‘insert” is embedded into the thermal collector/circulatory architecture.

Along with collecting heat, it also cools the PV module and makes it even more efficient regarding electrical generation. The energy production output ratio of a PVT panel is roughly 1:4 PV and thermal, and about 2X decarbonization, compared to PV or thermal alone.  Because it harvests solar energy from two energy streams, the hybrid PVT panel is over 80% efficient at capturing the sun’s energy with combined electricity and hot water generation, much more so than PV panels on their own (about 23% depending on the type).

According to PowerPanel, the large PVT array at peak can produce 2.7kW of PV electricity and 12.7kW of thermal (hot water or another fluid) at the same time.  Both the foam storage tank and the hybrid PVT solar collector are covered by various patents.

The PowerPanel approach is based on replacing steel, glass and other materials with expanded polypropylene foam (EPP).  A molded material, EPP has a fraction of the weight of traditional materials , yet has up to twice the insulation capability at as little as 1/5^th the energy storage cost of conventional tank materials and up to twice the insulation capability—in fact, a Gen 20 Tank loses just a little over 2°C of heat over a 24 hour period.  It also has superior impact and chemical resistance compared to other designs. 

The patented PowerPanel Gen 20 tank is modular for ease of transportation and rapid on-site assembly. A standard shipping container can accommodate over 50 of the tanks for rapid deployment anywhere where needed.  Since both the exterior and interior liner are made from non-degrading engineered foam and plastics, the tank can be installed indoors or outdoors, or even buried at grade.

A uniquely innovative feature is the tank’s configuration for assembly.  It comes self-palletized and consists of an outer “hoop” and cover, into which the EPP foam sections are inserted along with a thermo-plastic liner.  All the pieces needed fit on the footprint of a standard pallet, making it easy to move the tank into a building or up onto a rooftop— in fact individual pieces can fit through a very small entrance, and the heaviest of them is just 10 pounds.

The entire tank assembly’s total weight just a little over 100 pounds, meaning that two people can easily unload and manage one under any field conditions.  And, the company reports that they can set one up in a matter of minutes.

The tank’s inventor Garth Schultz notes that “people in marketing always claim that something takes just ‘minutes’ without actually disclosing just how many minutes that is. But in the case of our Gen 20 Tank we’re being transparent: it takes two people all of 5 to 10 minutes—tops– to set one up.  To say our design saves valuable installation time is the understatement of the decade.”

Schultz also points out other advantages to PowerPanel’s unique storage topology.  “You can ‘cascade’ multiple tanks together using our connecting hardware to expand a system.  Since the tanks aren’t pressurized no pressure vessel certification is required.  Our system can take full advantage of the various tax and other credits out there.  We also have a range of upgrades available, including heat exchangers and water-purification systems for medical and other field uses.”

The adaptable materials that form the PowerPanel tank structure cover the range of thermal applications, enabling either hot or cold storage from 200 F to as low as -25 F.  Flexible options include customizing liners for different fluid use, depending on the need, the Applications for PowerPanel’s thermal storage and complete PV/thermal systems range from disaster relief operations to institutional and hospitality facilities—anywhere hot or cold pure water is essential to human health and well-being.  For more information contact

Real world use

The large integrated system can supply enough solar thermal water to supply an average sized hotel, along with generate supplemental electricity, and systems can be daisy-chained.  That configuration would be ideal for hospitals, campuses, and other facilities.

Some commercial users of the larger integrated system (multi PV panels and tanks) include Winward Passage, a resort hotel in Saint Thomas and BVQ Lofts in Cleveland,  an apartment complex in Ohio.

The small system has seen placement in relief operations by NGOs, notably in Puerto Rico following a hurricane as well as in Ukraine, serving communities with electricity to stay connected as well as hot water for everyday living.

Mark Cerasuolo has spent nearly 30 years in the electrical manufacturing and renewable energy industries, most recently at Morningstar Corporation, a leading brand in off-grid solar components. His prior roles include marketing, training and product development with OutBack Power and Leviton Manufacturing.

From pv magazine Global

FOB China prices for wafers have experienced a widespread decline for the third consecutive week, underscoring the prevalent oversupply in the market. Mono PERC M10 and n-type M10 wafer prices decreased noticeably by 9.79% and 10.53% week to week, reaching $0.212 per piece (pc) and $0.204/pc, respectively.

Similarly, Mono PERC G12 and n-type G12 wafer prices also dropped by 3.93% and 7.73% week to week at $0.318/pc and 0.334/pc, respectively.

According to OPIS’ market survey, the prices of Mono PERC M10 and n-type M10 wafers in the Chinese domestic market have fallen to approximately CNY1.70 ($0.24)/pc and CNY1.63/pc, respectively. “The prevailing price of wafers is resulting in considerable financial losses for wafer companies,” said an upstream source.

As per another market participant, certain wafer producers had initially assessed the bottom price for M10 wafers to be around CNY1.9/pc according to the production cost, and abstained from selling below this mark in March. This strategy proved to be flawed, leading to a significant buildup of wafer inventory. Consequently, they now find themselves compelled to sell wafers at even lower prices to regain some cash flow, the source explained.

A prominent wafer producer agreed, highlighting that sales representatives are currently on the move, visiting various locations to actively nurture and expand customer relationships.

The wafer market currently has an inventory level equivalent to approximately two to three weeks’ worth of production, according to a market watcher. The discussions surrounding the plan of wafer factories to reduce production over the past two weeks have yielded results this week. Multiple sources have confirmed that the majority of specialized wafer factories have implemented varying degrees of production cuts.

An insider within the polysilicon market has conveyed a relatively positive outlook, suggesting that with the decrease in wafer production and the gradual rollout of ground-mounted solar projects in China during April and May, the high wafer inventory may experience some relief by the end of April.

Another notable aspect of the current wafer market is the variety of sizes available, OPIS observed from its market survey. Wafers sized at 183.75 mm are being explored based on the M10 182 mm standard. Additionally, sources indicate the emergence of rectangular wafers sized at 182 mm x 210 mm, named 210R, gaining popularity in the market.

Amidst severe oversupply and intense competition, a market participant noted that exploring the production of differentiated products has been the alternative strategy of wafer producers, aiming to prolong their participation in this survival-of-the-fittest competition.

OPIS, a Dow Jones company, provides energy prices, news, data, and analysis on gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, LPG/NGL, coal, metals, and chemicals, as well as renewable fuels and environmental commodities. It acquired pricing data assets from Singapore Solar Exchange in 2022 and now publishes the OPIS APAC Solar Weekly Report.

From pv magazine Global

March presented a mixed bag for solar energy across North America as the continent moved from a warm winter into early spring. The solar regions of California, Nevada, Arizona and western Texas saw lower than normal irradiance, but March was a clear and sunny month from the midwest to the Carolinas and across most of Mexico. Analysis conducted using the Solcast API, shows peaks of 30% more irradiance than normal in Illinois and Missouri, whilst much of the rest of the US saw average or below average irradiance.

It was a bad month for Texas solar, despite average irradiance, several of the state’s large solar farms bore the brunt of severe hail storms, damaging panels. Even before the storms, much of the state has seen persistent haze from the Smokehouse Creek fire which burned for half of March, impacting clear sky irradiance and increasing PV panel soiling.

Western Canada and the US Northwest saw slightly above average irradiance thanks to a high pressure system in the middle of the month keeping things relatively dry. This did not extend far enough south to offset storms on the Pacific coast at the start and end of the month from dropping the March average to at or below average for most of the southern coast.

The midwest was sunnier than normal, as frontal systems full of Pacific moisture were somewhat blocked by the Rockies, leading to higher than normal irradiance inland. Storm systems from Canada and the Gulf delivered clouds that dropped irradiance below average for both the Northeast (-20%) and the Gulf coast (-10%).

Solcast produces these figures by tracking clouds and aerosols at 1-2km resolution globally, using satellite data and proprietary AI/ML algorithms. This data is used to drive irradiance models, enabling Solcast to calculate irradiance at high resolution, with typical bias of less than 2%, and also cloud-tracking forecasts. This data is used by more than 300 companies managing over 150GW of solar assets globally.

Power purchase agreements (PPAs) have emerged as the go-to financing tool for commercial and industrial (C&I) solar adopters looking to avoid upfront costs and realize immediate energy savings. While the mechanics may seem complex, the core PPA value proposition is simple – install solar with no money down and pay a lower rate for clean electricity (than you pay for grid power) from day one.

On a recent webinar, leading solar financing experts Marc Palmer of Conductor Solar and Nick Perugini of Solaris Energy shared perspectives on the state of the C&I solar PPA market and best practices for executing successful deals.

According to Palmer and Perugini, the two most important criteria for a bankable PPA are 1) the ability for the customer to save money versus grid power; 2) the customer’s creditworthiness and long-term outlook; and 3) developers should focus on aligning with financing partners that have experience with similar project profiles in terms of size, location and offtaker type. Each investor has requirements and preferences for where they invest and how aggressively. The right fit can make the difference between the project getting built or stopping in its tracks.

Customer criteria for C&I PPAs:

1. Customer savings
2. Customer credit
3. Finding the right investor

Minimum PPA project sizes vary by financier, but typically start around 150-200 kW, with multi-site portfolios enabling even smaller projects to transact. On the large end of the C&I spectrum, virtually any project size is viable in today’s market. Across the U.S., projects from 20 kW to 20+ MW are getting funded, spanning everything between residential and utility scale.

Palmer and Perugini stress the importance of engaging experienced and reputable financing partners early. Developers and EPCs should seek indicative PPA pricing to gauge customer interest, then work with financiers to firm up deal parameters and responsibilities, including project diligence and financing requirements. Detailed project modeling and a competitive process can take a few weeks. But they help all parties align from the start, prevent miscommunication, and avoid surprises later on.

For solar developers and installers new to PPAs, the experts also emphasized taking advantage of available modeling tools to assess project viability and listening to customer priorities for cues about financing preferences. Many customers benefit from an informed walk through of purchase and PPA alternatives.

Solar PPA Project Lifecycle (Graphic: Conductor Solar)

2023 was a banner year for C&I solar, with the segment installing 1.8 GW according to Wood Mackenzie and SEIA, up 19% from 2022 and the most since 2017. California led the pack, accounting for 35% of C&I deployment and doubling its typical installation volumes in Q4 as projects raced to lock in favorable net metering rates before switching to a new regime. Looking ahead, C&I solar is poised for continued expansion. Wood Mackenzie forecasts 12% average annual growth through 2028 as improving economics, corporate clean energy goals, and policies like tax credits and state-level incentives support demand.

As the C&I solar market expands, partnerships and platforms like Conductor Solar can help developers efficiently source PPA financing and benchmarking, streamlining the path to completed projects. With the right approach, PPAs offer an attractive way to bring more clean energy online while delivering tangible economic and environmental benefits for all stakeholders involved.

Solar connectors represent less than 1% of a typical solar bill of materials (BOM) but poor installation practices spark a problematic number of safety issues and performance concerns.

Why the mismatch? Pressured to lower the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of projects despite supply chain disruptions, many solar installers, developers, or asset owners feel they must reduce expenses wherever they can. Conflating small size with small importance, developers may think that connectors offer a place to cut corners, and thus save money, without compromising a project’s integrity.

Proper installation is key to product durability

Unfortunately, such penny pinchers are penny wise, pound foolish. Connectors’ small size understate their importance: well-constructed, well-designed solar connectors are essential to project durability. Sloppily-installed connectors may cost solar installations far more over project lifetime than they save upfront, even imperiling the safety of installation or maintenance personnel. Such malfunctions add avoidable hassle and expense.

Developers who truly want to optimize project economics should internalize the three pillars of proper installation. Investing in the right tools, training, and products upfront can save time and money over project lifetime, increasing safety and performance alike.

Pillar #1: Use the right tool for the job

Tool buyers may be tempted to decrease expenses by purchasing fewer, less specialized tools. Resist this temptation. Installers equipped with the right tools can do their job more smoothly, thoroughly, and accurately, reducing the chance of malfunction that might require repair down the line.

Pillar #2: Train employees thoroughly

Developers looking to minimize labor costs may scale back how much they train installers in solar connectors. Common missteps include poor stripping, poor crimping (often exacerbated by installers using the incorrect crimp tool), poor wire management, and either not torquing or over-torquing sealing caps. Developers can equip installers for on-the-job challenges by educating them on how to recognize and overcome such pitfalls.

Pillar #3: Match connector brands

Given the variety of solar connector brand price points, developers looking to maximize returns may go for the least expensive available brand, even if it doesn’t match the brand used for other connecting parts.

But with solar connectors contributing so low a percentage of system costs, the money saved by mismatching brands is not worth the damage (to budgets or to reputation) that safety or performance issues can entail. Until the industry establishes a common interoperability standard, the best way to ensure compliance with National Electrical Code 2020 is to select connectors that match in type and brand to other connectors in the system.

Reduce risk with connector inspections

Developers or asset owners newly alerted to solar connectors’ performance risk may wonder whether their already-installed connectors are poised for malfunction.

Maintenance professionals can gauge solar connector stress levels with infrared scanning or visual assessment. Personnel armed with thermal cameras can check for higher than average temperatures, while visual inspectors should look for mismatched connectors and/or defamation. (Ideally, inspections involve both infrared and visual checks.)

Pennies spent, dollars saved

Given the high labor cost of fixing or replacing malfunctioned equipment in the field, developers that spend just a few more cents on ensuring quality installations can save significantly over project lifetime.

As a best practice, look to work with suppliers that invest in solar component innovations targeted to decrease labor costs and boost ease of use. Researching available options beforehand will save time on installation and maintenance while improving the safety and performance of the solar project.

Presenting just 1% of the BOM, solar connectors are a pivotal component of a successful project well worth the additional upfront pennies to ensure equipment that merits confidence. Savvy developers will skimp elsewhere.

Eric Potter is a field application engineer at Amphenol Industrial. Founded in 1932 and headquartered out of Connecticut, Amphenol is a Fortune 500 company with more than 90,000 employees throughout the world. From the cell phone in your pocket and the car you drive, to the network equipment behind your favorite app and website, Amphenol products are everywhere.

A recent Wall Street Journal article calls out that the state of the solar industry is nearing collapse due to high interest rates and less-generous subsidies. That’s part but not all of the issue. The true problem in the industry is the bad or “good enough” data that solar companies use to sell installations. They pull information on shade analysis, sunlight analysis and a particular solar installation’s capacity to create electricity. While that data can look compelling to homeowners, it can backfire for the industry when the use of “good enough” data fails to prove out.

This is a challenge the industry needs to address. Solar  systems must be sold with more accurate representations of electrical production, appropriate saving estimations, and clear explanations of how the representations might fluctuate. Similarly, customers should be given benchmarks for how much electricity should be produced in order to determine if their equipment might be faulty (i.e., squirrels could be chewing on wires). If a homeowner is not seeing the electricity production or monthly savings, there is a chance that they might stop making payments but also that will negatively view their solar experience. And, both are detrimental to the industry.

Proper estimates of solar systems save solar companies time and money as well. It’s expensive for solar companies to send repair trucks to review solar panels and for electricians to inspect solar systems particularly when operating across large metropolitan areas. The more that companies can leverage precise site data throughout a project’s sales, planning, installation, and close-out phases, the more profitable they can become. High-quality site measurements will generally result in quicker sales cycles from lead through installation, which can help speed payment and cash flow. On the flip side, inaccurate site measurements may result in less profitable jobs in the best case and potential canceled contracts and lost referrals in the worst.

Everyone loses when the data cannot be trusted. Accurate roof and site data can help enable the design of optimized, high-performance systems that maximize the available roof space. When measurement and site data are more accurately collected, the potential results include not only larger systems, but also can help deliver more significant savings for the homeowner and improved return on investment.

Unfortunately, many  contractors use do-it-yourself software tools to design systems, and purposefully underutilize roof space to avoid issues at final design or installation. Undersizing a solar system may help mitigate risk but doing so may often leave money on the table for the contractor, and may negatively impact return on investment for the homeowner.

Advancements in remote measurement can help solar companies to bypass inefficient and error-prone site visits to measure and record roof dimensions, azimuth, pitch, and localized shading at a given site in a more consistent and repeatable manner. This helps homeowners and improves the industry.

Some remote measurement technology, such as aerial imagery, captures thousands of measurement points. The solar access value of a roof measured with a hand-held device typically has 5–10 measurement values per roof. In comparison, the same rooftop solar access value measured with software based on high-resolution aerial imagery generally has 6,000–24,000 measurement values per structure.

High-resolution site measurements can positively impact solar installations across the board. They allow solar companies to fit more modules on the average rooftop and inform designs that utilize optimal roof areas that maximize annual solar energy production.

The future of solar rests on trustworthy data. That data must be gathered, utilized and integrated into solar company workflows to give customers the highest level of accuracy and consistency. Anything less hurts the customer and will destroy the demand for solar adoption at large.

Peter Cleveland is vice president of solar at EagleView, a provider of aerial imagery, geospatial software, and analytics.

The Chinese Module Marker (CMM), the OPIS benchmark assessment for TOPCon modules was assessed at $0.121 per W, unchanged week to week while mono PERC modules from China were assessed at $0.112/W, stable from the previous week amid unchanged market fundamentals.

The past few weeks of price hikes in the Chinese market saw a slight respite this week with many market participants pointing out that market activity had quietened down and prices were starting to stabilize in the domestic market.

Overseas demand continued to remain firm as March and April are the start of a strong quarter for solar deployments across Europe, with many companies installing the backlog of contracts they had accumulated over the winter, a market source said.

Turkey has implemented anti-dumping measures on solar panel imports from Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand, Croatia, and Jordan where a guarantee fee of $25 per square meter will be levied on photovoltaic (PV) cells that are assembled in modules or arranged in panels originating from these countries.

According to OPIS sources, these measures would not have a big impact on Southeast Asia modules as the majority of Southeast Asia modules are destined for the U.S. market. The current U.S. Section 201 tariff exemption of bifacial modules from Southeast Asia that is set to expire in June was expected to have a greater impact.

Freight rates from Southeast Asia to the United States remained at $0.02-0.03 with some players locking in their freights at lower rates, a market participant said. About 30 GW of module inventory that was imported last year to the United States was distorting prices in the market as sellers dropped prices of these old stock in a bid to clear inventory, the market source added. According to the source, prices of mono PERC in the warehouses are sold at $0.17/W, down from $0.19/W previously in December.

New domestic U.S. module capacity is expected to come on stream in the fourth quarter of this year or the first quarter of 2025 and demand for US-made modules is expected to remain high which will support firmer prices of these products, the source added.

OPIS, a Dow Jones company, provides energy prices, news, data, and analysis on gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, LPG/NGL, coal, metals, and chemicals, as well as renewable fuels and environmental commodities. It acquired pricing data assets from Singapore Solar Exchange in 2022 and now publishes the OPIS APAC Solar Weekly Report.

From pv magazine Global

In 2022, the global solar photovoltaic (PV) generation experienced an unprecedented surge, marking a record increase of 270 TWh and reaching nearly 1 200 TWh worldwide. This remarkable growth underscores the pivotal role of solar energy in meeting the escalating global electricity demand while simultaneously mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. The driving force behind this was the establishment of new manufacturing capacities, alongside the transition from aluminum-back surface field (Al-BSF) cell technology to the more advanced passivated emitter and rear cell (PERC) technology around 10 years ago. The emergence of PERC as the standard technology is marked by its distinguishing features: an additional dielectric passivation stack on the rear of the cell and its possible bifaciality. This technology has replaced older cell structures like Al-BSF, primarily due to its improved efficiency gains in both PV cells and modules, leading to an increase in the nameplate power of modules. Moreover, there has been a notable rise in the adoption of Horizontal Single Axis Tracker systems, which offer higher kWh production per kW installed compared to fixed-tilt systems across various geographical locations. This shift towards more efficient and productive PV systems underscores a commitment to sustainable energy solutions.

Environmental Impact Assessment

While the energy production aspects of PV technologies have been extensively studied, a comprehensive understanding of their environmental footprint is essential. IEA PVPS Task 12 Experts have been employing their life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with PERC technology in comparison to AI-BSF technology. By utilizing primary data from an Italian manufacturer, the report “Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Passivated Emitter and Rear Contact (PERC) Photovoltaic Module Technology” provides an in-depth analysis of the complete life cycle of PV systems, encompassing manufacturing, installation, operation, and end-of-life phases. While based on analysis of data from only one manufacturer, the findings suggest that the transition from Al-BSF to PERC technology results in significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, and resource depletion throughout the life cycle of PV systems.

“The main thrust of our report is to analyze the impacts of the dominant technology in photovoltaics, using the LCA methodology and incorporating primary and up-to-date data,” Pierpaolo Girardi, co-Author of the report said. “This approach allows us to assert that electricity generated by PERC technology manufactured by an Italian company has a carbon footprint lower by 15% compared to electricity production with the currently most installed photovoltaic technology (Al BSF), and a 96% reduction compared to electricity produced by a typical Italian natural gas combined cycle power plant.”

Life Cycle Assessment Methodology

LCA is a structured, comprehensive method of quantifying material- and energy-flows and their associated emissions caused in the life cycle of goods and services. The ISO 14040 and 14044 standards provide the framework for LCA. IEA PVPS Task 12 subsequently developed guidelines, now in their 4th edition, to provide guidance on assuring consistency, balance, and quality to enhance the credibility and reliability of the results from LCAs on photovoltaic (PV) electricity generation systems.

Unveiling the Environmental Footprint

In their report, the Task 12 experts analyze two possible designs: (1) modules mounted on a horizontal single-axis tracker and (2) modules installed on a fixed structure. In addition, two possible PV locations with different irradiance levels are considered: one in the north of Italy and the other in the south of Italy; results shown here represent those for Southern Italy. The results, based on primary data from one manufacturer, are impressive:

1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Transitioning from Al-BSF to PERC technology can lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions per kWh produced across both locations. The additional passivation layer in PERC cells enhances energy conversion efficiency, thereby reducing the carbon intensity of electricity generation. Furthermore, the adoption of single-axis solar tracker systems amplifies this environmental benefit, as the increased energy yield per kW installed translates into lower emissions per unit of electricity produced.

The new IEA PVPS Task 12 report analyzes in detail the greenhouse gas emissions associated with using the PERC technology (see Fig. 1 for an example)

The PERC PV plant located in the south of Italy is responsible for 17 g of CO₂ equivalent per kWh produced. This figure illustrates the contribution analysis of the PERC PV plant based on primary data from an Italian PERC manufacturer. The percentages represent the contribution associated with each component/process. Note also that the tracking system is based on primary data from a manufacturer. The process/component highlighted in blue is associated with module production, which – from raw material to module assembly – accounts for 79% of the total life cycle of the plant.

When comparing the PERC PV plant to a typical Italian natural gas power plant (which accounts for about 50% of the Italian energy mix), the significant difference in greenhouse gas emissions becomes obvious (see Fig. 2). The comparison is made in terms of grams of CO₂ equivalent emitted per kWh produced by each plant.

                    Figure 2: Comparison of greenhouse gas emissions between different types of plants

1. Energy Consumption: Similarly, the shift to PERC technology is accompanied by a notable decrease in total energy consumption throughout the life cycle of PV systems. Improved cell efficiency and manufacturing processes contribute to this reduction, underscoring the importance of technological innovation in driving sustainability gains. Moreover, horizontal single-axis tracker systems exhibit higher energy yields per unit of land area, further optimizing energy production and minimizing energy consumption per kWh generated. Note also that the LCA of the tracking system is based on primary data from a manufacturer.

2. Resource Depletion: While both Al-BSF and PERC technologies rely on a similar suite of materials, the efficiency improvements associated with PERC cells mitigate resource depletion impacts. By maximizing energy output per unit of material input, PERC technology minimizes the extraction and utilization of finite resources, thereby alleviating pressure on critical minerals and metals.

Paving the Path to Sustainable Solar Energy

The study highlights the potential environmental benefits of PERC technology. Based on the results of this case study of one PERC manufacturer, by utilizing PERC, the solar industry can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, and resource depletion, while simultaneously increasing energy yields. Additionally, the analysis of different mounting systems reveals that modules mounted on a horizontal single-axis tracker can lead to preferable environmental outcomes, especially in latitudes similar to those in Italy.  Furthermore, a sensitivity analysis included in the Task 12 report suggests that extending the lifetime of PV panels can lower specific environmental impacts per kWh, emphasizing the importance of longevity in panel performance.

Moving forward, concerted efforts to promote the adoption of environmentally responsible technologies and optimize site selection can increase the realization of the full potential of solar energy as a cornerstone of the clean energy transition.

Download the full report here.

For more information on IEA PVPS Task 12 and Sustainability of PV Systems please click here.

This article is part of a monthly column by the IEA PVPS program. It was contributed by IEA PVPS Task 12 – PV Sustainability.

For many organizations, success comes as a result of balancing higher ideals with practical actions. Solar energy has always been held up as the ideal source of green, renewable energy and a way forward from our fossil fuel-reliant ways. It took a while for the practical side of things to catch up to that ideal—the technology was still improving and equipment was not cost-effective enough for wider adoption—but recent years have seen solar energy entering the conversation in a way that we’ve hoped it would for decades.

The production of solar energy equipment has cast shadows in recent years, though. There have been allegations that materials produced or mined with forced labor are often found in solar production supply chains. This is because the vast majority of polysilicon production, crucial to solar panel builds, comes from China. Much of China’s production of this material happens in the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region (XUAR) region which is reportedly rife with modern slavery abuses.

Solar production isn’t the only industry that imports heavily from China and might find themselves bringing materials made by forced labor to U.S. shores—textiles and apparel shipments are also often in question, as the Xinjiang region produces an inordinate amount of the world’s cotton. To improve transparency and prevent materials made with forced labor from entering the country, the United States has implemented the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA).

UFLPA requirements

Solar energy equipment manufacturers are no strangers to complex, multi-step supply chains that can span countries. Unfortunately, the more complex a supply chain is, the more work needs to be done to stay compliant with UFLPA, which in essence is there to require that companies do not import any materials tied to forced labor in the XUAR.

It’s not enough to claim there’s no tie between a company’s polysilicon imports and forced labor, though—the UFLPA wouldn’t be very effective if that’s all it took to comply. On the contrary, the numbers the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) publishes on its own site show it being aggressively enforced, with nearly $2 billion in goods delayed between June 2022 and the end of 2023 alone as shipments were held for closer inspection. About half of those shipments were denied entry.

Solar companies importing key components for their production have to prove their shipments don’t trace their origins to forced labor and demonstrate their efforts to keep such materials from their shipments.

In practice, the UFLPA looks for a handful of things. Officials will want to see the origin of the materials in any shipment, so a clear audit trail that can be furnished in the form of invoices and detailed production processes is important for solar companies to have available. These companies should also seek to gain transparency into the organizational structure and affiliations of their suppliers and sub-suppliers.

Certain suppliers have clear red flags that appear when one digs into them, such as affiliation with any entity listed on the UFLPA Entity List. Catching those early will allow solar companies to divest from those risky suppliers quickly— again documenting the process wherein suppliers with ties to forced labor are removed from the supply chain will help with compliance. A thorough outline of due diligence procedures, stated goals around ethical sourcing, and any other related initiatives taken may be required by CBP officials.

Since many raw materials crucial to the production of panels are frequently brought over from China, and the non-Chinese supply of these materials is so low, forgoing Chinese-based imports overall is often not an option. Chinese materials are, at least for now, often a necessary component. The question then becomes how to enable the above capabilities to determine which Chinese suppliers utilize forced labor farther upstream, and would put any company importing from them in violation of the UFLPA, and which do not.

Meeting compliance requirements

Gathering, organizing, managing, and reporting such detailed information on suppliers is a significant challenge for any company. Solar production companies can tap into recent automation innovations within their third-party management processes to survey current suppliers (and their own suppliers) and monitor their entire supply chain for potential risks of UFLPA violation.

Underlying the UFLPA’s requirement for transparency is the need to access, store, and report crucial documentation. With large and complex supply chains, this requires a detailed supplier map to be built. Such a map can lay out the dependencies and connections between entities, which helps in laying out a path forward when a potential violation is uncovered. If a supplier is found to be sourcing materials from another supplier who has been flagged for violations in the past, an automated system could flag that company to supply chain managers and show all the parts of the supply chain that are at risk of a UFLPA violation as a result. Solar companies should be sure to build out escalation procedures and mitigation strategies for such a situation beforehand so that the options available to fix the situation are clear and actionable.

Automation can also routinely monitor the ownership structure of suppliers to track any changes that might bring a previously green-lit supplier into violation. Ownership structures and corporate relationships change all the time; manual review of every corner of a vast supply chain is impractical and costly.

Overenforcement by the CBP could still hit even the most compliant of companies and delay shipments—since half of the held shipments in the example period above were ultimately denied, that means the other half were fully compliant but still were held up for weeks or even longer. But clear documentation available up front might help a company keep their shipments out of a detainment scenario.

And of course, the benefits of staying compliant are well worth it. Beyond avoiding a situation wherein a company’s imports are held up or even refused, the companies that are demonstrating adherence to the UFLPA can more easily pivot to higher-margin markets thanks to transparency in their ethical sourcing practices. And of course, there’s the worldwide benefit of the entire industry being encouraged to source ethically and stop funding those utilizing forced labor. If we’re going to put an end to forced labor around the world, adhering as an industry to regulations like the UFLPA is one of the key steps toward doing so.

Toward a brighter tomorrow

Many other worldwide bodies are considering similar legislation to combat forced labor, and we’ve recently seen actions taken in the European Union with this goal in mind. The consensus seems to be that detailed regulations and careful enforcement are the way forward as we look to put forced labor behind us as a global society.

With the solar industry’s inherent forward-looking and ethical nature, there is the potential for solar companies to play a leading role in shaping yet another aspect of the future, beyond the push for clean and renewable energy. A sustainable world that does not make room for human rights abuses can serve as a model for how to move beyond such practices—the international collaboration required to fully root our forced labor in the solar industry could be replicated elsewhere, ushering in not just a brighter, but a more humane future for all.

Jag Lambda is the founder and CEO of Certa, a third-party lifecycle management platform for procurement, compliance, and ESG. Certa is backed by Techstars and top global VCs. A Wharton and McKinsey alum, Jag lives in California, and loves hiking and playing soccer with his son. 

Over the past 20 years, commercial retail prices for electricity in the US have risen by more than 50 percent, and rates in several mid-Atlantic states increased by nearly a quarter between 2021 and 2022.

While few could have foreseen the turbulence, Wilson Chang, climate tech entrepreneur and CEO of Sunrock Distributed Generation, sees significant opportunity amid a rebound in growth for the US solar sector beginning in 2024. Here, Wilson shares his thoughts on the incredible energy demands of AI, why forecasters of recession have completely missed the mark, and why there will be a solar system on nearly every rooftop.

We are at the dawn of a dramatic increase in electricity consumption from electric vehicles, artificial intelligence, crypto, and a digitizing world.

The power grid is set to be strained more than ever before as electric vehicles are being plugged into the grid, but the smart money already understood that renewable energy is quickly displacing oil in vehicles. To put it in perspective, oil is only competitive with solar generation at $10 per barrel because of the unavoidable heat loss from combustion, and green electricity is set to get massively cheaper over time. This has become an increasingly relevant comparison in the last few years now that EVs have started to plug into the grid and demand massive amounts of energy.

Meanwhile, the endless fascination humans have over AI, crypto, and all things funded by Silicon Valley have led to massive increases in computing power needs. Generating a handful of AI images uses as much

energy as charging your cell phone, generating AI text could power an LED light, and even Bitcoin consumes around the same as the entire country of Norway – by comparison, the human brain uses as much energy as a light bulb. Before humans even contemplate AI taking over the world, AI will need to build out a lot more power sources first!

Escalating power demand will drive up retail power rates in 2024 and beyond, further exacerbated by geopolitical instability, and aging transmission infrastructure.

The inability of human beings to find peace is driving volatile energy prices across the world. As the violence in Ukraine continues, and the conflict over Gaza metastasizes into broader conflicts, geopolitical violence is driving instability and volatility in traditional energy prices. Sadly, this drives up both the human and capital cost of legacy power generation across the world.

Additionally, approximately half of retail energy prices are driven – not by the cost of energy – but by the aging cost of transmission infrastructure, which led to the bankruptcy of PG&E from the California wildfires. Accidents and surging transmission costs from a legacy centralized power grid will unfortunately continue until utilities and their regulators eventually and inevitably turn towards a more decentralized and distributed grid. However, good ideas don’t stand still, and this is already being pioneered by the many individuals and businesses putting in their own solar, storage, and electrification equipment.

The Inflation Reduction Act (along with other bills like the CHIPS Act) is preventing a recession and catalyzing the American economy towards greener infrastructure.

Economic forecasters reading the tea leaves of recession in 2023 were uniformly surprised by the strength of the underlying economy. With the recent holiday season being one of the strongest travel years on record, the resilience of the economy surprised many, when it shouldn’t have.

According to Goldman Sachs, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is unleashing $1.2 trillion of government spending and tax cuts into the economy, which is larger than the Interstate Highway Act of 1956 that built the American highway system and even larger than FDR’s New Deal which pulled the American economy out of the Great Depression.

While the cost of money has escalated in part because of the sheer supply of Treasury bills hitting the market, many economic forecasters did not consider the scale of the spending on the other end which is estimated to stimulate three times more private sector spending. The IRA will drive solar panel costs to pennies per watt (nearly free) by the end of this decade, and the CHIPS Act will drive a (partial) reshoring of an enormously complex semiconductor manufacturing industry.

Companies, real estate owners, and consumers are driving demand for sustainable products, energy, and buildings.

The green trend is fundamentally a grassroots movement and is growing rapidly. Consumer preferences for sustainable products are at an all-time high, and Gen X, Millennials, and Gen Z overwhelmingly prefer green and sustainable products and solutions.

The tide of ESG flows of capital will not be stopped by a handful of attempts at political grandstanding. The trend will change and adapt, but capital flows as a reflection of humanity’s search for a sustainable way to live on the planet will continue.

There will be a solar system on almost every rooftop in the near future and it will be built by individuals and the local community – not by utilities.

Even though 2023 was a brutal year for the U.S. solar industry due to rising interest rates and California’s change to the net metering regulations at the behest of its utilities, the future of the solar industry remains bright. Today businesses and individuals can install and build their own power generation systems using solar panels at lower costs than even state-protected utilities operating at scale can provide to us. The pace of innovation is accelerating, the changing tide is inevitable, and the future is clear.

As most building rooftops will ultimately have a solar system paired with batteries and EV charging, solar serves as the entry way to a more efficient, cleaner, and more reliable energy grid that is the most profitable part of the distributed electrification stack. Every $1 of behind-the-meter commercial solar spend today will lead to another $3 of storage, VPP, electrification, and additional infrastructure, representing a multi-trillion dollar opportunity. Solar panel costs continue to get cheaper, and many analysts estimate they will be approaching pennies per watt in only five years. Through its network of partners in all 50 states, Sunrock is helping businesses, building owners, nonprofits, and schools in local communities save money on their electricity bills by owning and managing complex generation systems on their behalf.

Wilson Chang was appointed chief executive officer of Sunrock Distributed Generation in February 2024. He was co-founder of Sunlight Financial. Bringing nearly two decades of experience in financing and building clean energy and technology companies, Chang is expected to spearhead Sunrock’s growth strategy in the U.S. by expanding both its new project pipeline and funding partnerships. 

The Global Polysilicon Marker (GPM), the OPIS benchmark for polysilicon outside China, remained steady at $23.813/kg this week, unchanged from the previous week, reflecting stable market fundamentals

A source familiar with the global polysilicon market told OPIS that prices are poised to fluctuate within a fair range, as the dynamics of supply and demand in the polysilicon market outside of China are not anticipated to undergo significant changes in the short term.

In parallel, it was reported last week that construction has commenced on a solar-grade polysilicon facility in Oman, boasting an annual output of 100,000 MT. According to a source with knowledge of this project, construction is expected to finalize by the third quarter of next year, with trial production slated to commence in the fourth quarter. If all proceeds as planned, the factory could potentially generate a polysilicon output ranging between 10,000 to 20,000 MT by the end of 2025.

According to a polysilicon market source based in China, the primary advantage of the Oman project, as a polysilicon plant outside of China, stems from its cost-effectiveness strategy. The production equipment was sourced from China and China National Chemical Engineering Sixth Construction was engaged as the project contractor. The latter has worked on numerous polysilicon projects by major Chinese companies. Furthermore, the industrial park housing the Oman polysilicon project accommodates an additional metal silicon project with an annual production capacity of 50,000 MT, further contributing to cost reduction of the polysilicon project, the source added.

A market observer highlighted that if the cells and modules manufactured using the low-cost polysilicon from the Oman factory in the future are deemed compliant with the regulation mandating supply chain traceability for products imported into the US, it could potentially exert pressure on prices across the global polysilicon market.

China Mono Grade, OPIS’ assessment for polysilicon prices in the country were assessed at CNY60.33 ($8.34)/kg this week, down CNY0.92/kg, or 1.50% from the previous week, reflecting buy-sell indications heard.

Numerous sources attribute the recent decline in polysilicon prices primarily to the influx of low-priced offers from Tier-2 and Tier-3 polysilicon factories, resulting in an overall market price decrease. These manufacturers are motivated by two factors: the need to clear existing inventory and the desire to prevent further stockpiling, driving them to actively sell their products at prices ranging between CNY55/kg and CNY58/kg.

Contrarily, prices from Tier-1 polysilicon companies remain relatively stable. This stability stems from their capability to produce premium P-type polysilicon, which is well-suited for n-type downstream products.

As noted by a market observer, there is currently an excess of 100,000 mt of polysilicon inventory in the market, roughly equivalent to more than two weeks’ worth of production. The bulk of this inventory consists of polysilicon unsuitable for n-type downstream products.

The source added that to address these inventories, some polysilicon producers have implemented a bundled sales strategy. This entails requiring customers interested in purchasing n-type polysilicon to also acquire P-type polysilicon simultaneously. To incentivize this, polysilicon producers offer a certain discount on the overall price of the bundled purchase.

According to a downstream source, the prevalent high inventory of wafers, along with deliberations by some wafer factories to scale back production, suggests a looming possibility of a short-term decline in polysilicon prices, owing to the anticipated weakening demand.

OPIS, a Dow Jones company, provides energy prices, news, data, and analysis on gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, LPG/NGL, coal, metals, and chemicals, as well as renewable fuels and environmental commodities. It acquired pricing data assets from Singapore Solar Exchange in 2022 and now publishes the OPIS APAC Solar Weekly Report.

Eyeing both environmental responsibility and the promise of a more reliable energy future, forward-thinking utilities, regulatory agencies, developers, integrators, and other energy stakeholders continue to explore and vet an increasingly diverse array of battery energy storage systems (BESS).

The most promising of these systems, though, must have the potential to achieve clean energy and financial goals, while also underpinning the long-term flexibility, stability, and resilience of our energy infrastructure.

But while many projects integrating modern distributed energy resources, microgrids, and energy storage can offer advantageous possibilities, meticulous planning is critical to navigate potential challenges and ensure the financial viability of any new BESS solution. Each unique application, location, and technology combination necessitates detailed analysis to accurately assess the impacts of a given BESS integration.

A project-level analysis of distributed energy resources is make-or-break for profitability

Before embarking on a new BESS project—one impacting decades of operations and finances—energy stakeholders need a clear-as-day road map. Shovels may not hit the ground for months, but understanding the project’s financial journey throughout its lifespan is crucial. Organizations striving for confidence in their BESS decision-making face several hurdles. These include addressing industry knowledge gaps and blind spots when analyzing energy storage, distributed energy resources, and microgrids at the project level.

Additionally, they must gather enough insights to evaluate across differing market perspectives, ranging from customer preferences to grid demands. They must also, of course, thoroughly compare grid-scale battery technologies to make a decision that can optimize a project’s returns.

The tools are there for accurate, long-range evaluations

Substantial resources are available to organizations still developing and refining methods for conducting project-level analyses. Utilities and other entities would be smart to leverage free and open-source analysis tools, such as the Electric Power Research Institute’s (EPRI) publicly accessible DER-VET solution for evaluating the technical merits and constraints of specific distributed energy resources.

Key data impacting BESS evaluations may include this distributed energy resource data on PV systems, controllable loads, and energy storage—as well as weather data for the potential project site, electrical thermal loads, and electricity and gas tariff data, along with time-of-use rates. Supported by this information, organizations can better analyze and predict the outcomes of strategies to minimize the costs of project operations, maximize reliability, defer the need for asset upgrades, and make the most of wholesale market participation.

Importantly, analyses must consider distributed energy resource-related constraints, along with power import/export caps, battery grid charging caps, and battery cycling limitations.

Leveraging these methods, organizations will better optimize their distributed energy resources and their hour-by-hour strategy for utilizing those resources in alignment with cost-benefit analyses. Finally, organizations can incorporate all relevant tax breaks, ERA incentives, and financing into their project-level assessments to ensure the best possible financial outcomes (and steer clear of projects that cannot provide them).

An example analysis: lithium-ion vs. NiH2 battery chemistries

In a recent demonstration of effective strategic analysis with ramifications for project-level energy storage, EPRI applied its open-source DER-VET tooling to model the net present value (NPV) of comparable lithium-ion and NiH2 battery technology utilizations for stationary storage.

Lithium-ion and NiH2 offer similar battery technologies from a grid perspective: they’re both inverter-based resources with similar efficiencies and quick-response capabilities. However, these technologies have unique project profiles when it comes to battery cycle life, charge/discharge ranges, material sourcing, climate resilience, operating and maintenance expenses, fire risks, and overcharge/discharge/deep-cycle capabilities.

The analysis simulated usage scenarios in energy and ancillary service markets, including data from the ERCOT market in Texas and the CAISO market in California, as applied to 2-,4-,6- and 8-hour BESS configurations. Specifically, the analysis focused on energy time-shifting and frequency regulation as revenue streams.

Looking at the results of these simulated scenarios, both lithium-ion and NiH2 were just above break-even net present value (NPV) in the energy time-shifting use cases in both markets, offering comparable value. However, adding in frequency regulation revealed a larger difference: NiH2 delivered a far superior NPV in all use cases and durations. In the CAISO market, lithium-ion achieved an NPV in the low hundreds of dollars per kW, while NiH2 reached the $2500-3000/kW range. The ERCOT market displayed a similar gap, with lithium-ion in the $500-700/kW range and NiH2 reaching a $3000-4000/kW NPV.

The determining factor was the difference in degradation between these technologies: lithium-ion batteries degrade faster and have a shorter lifespan, lasting 3500 cycles at 100% Depth of Discharge (DoD). NiH2 batteries last 30,000 cycles at 100% DoD, almost two orders of magnitude higher. For this reason, NiH2 battery systems can operate longer and gather more revenue—especially from regulation services. This is an example of a key finding that only robust analysis could prove out.

Predictive analysis is essential

With project lifespans and expected returns often exceeding 20 years, decisions about BESS shape an organization’s performance for years to come. Sound and thorough analysis, like in the example above, directly informs these investments and reveals important differentiation with clear long-term impacts. Those who optimize these investments today will continue to reap the rewards well into the future.

Randy Selesky is the CRO and EVP of Product Engineering at EnerVenue. Previously, he was SVP at Greensmith Energy Management Systems. Among his other industry experience are management roles at Rockwell Automation, Enernet Global, EnerNOC, and GE.