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. 

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

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.

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. 

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

Gone are the days of relying solely on ground-level surveys. Today, high-resolution photographs and 3D models generated from aerial imagery paint a comprehensive picture of any given piece of land.

Location intelligence—the process of deriving meaningful insights from geospatial data—and aerial imagery are becoming more prominent in the solar industry. These tools are reshaping the solar power landscape, enabling developers to identify the best areas and layout for solar farms, as well as the optimal tilt of solar panels for increased sun exposure. These changes are not only bringing efficiency upgrades; they are paving the way for timely and relevant solutions to address ongoing climate issues that promise to propel the U.S. toward a more sustainable future.

Tech-driven solar solutions

In 2023, solar energy represented over half of all new electricity-generating capacity added to the U.S. grid, underscoring a strong societal shift towards renewable energy. The proliferation of solar energy projects benefits from advancements in aerial imagery technology and location intelligence, as aerial imagery offers a clear and comprehensive view from above. From these images, engineers can glean up-to-date information about the landscape and measure key areas remotely, enabling them to minimize costly and time-consuming on-site visits for peak efficiency.

Location intelligence provides detailed insights that reveal everything from subtle shading patterns to potential obstacles, empowering engineers to design solar farms with laser-sharp precision. This meticulous planning ensures optimal panel positioning, maximizing energy capture and ensuring every sunbeam is harnessed effectively.

And beyond efficiency, location intelligence aids in the integration of solar farms into local landscapes and communities, minimizing visual impact and fostering coexistence with residents. Solar farms, supported by local buy-in and the insightful application of technology, are set to become an integral part of the U.S. energy landscape.

Sustainability implications

Greater access to increasingly sophisticated aerial imagery and location intelligence technology can also help U.S. communities produce clean(er) energy and minimize carbon footprints to achieve sustainability goals. These tools are crucial in the solar panel installation process, as they help in identifying the communities and infrastructure that are most suitable for solar panel deployment.

Though solar farms are largely located in rural areas, increasing use and accuracy of location intelligence and aerial imagery technology is also helping cities become more sustainable. Picture this: Sleek, solar-powered facades seamlessly integrated into the design of skyscrapers, transforming them into self-sufficient powerhouses. These very advancements are happening today with the support of location intelligence.

For example, a rapidly evolving technology, building integrated photovoltaics (BIPV) is a material that, as the name implies, is integrated into the building either on new construction or retrofitted after construction is complete. First emerging in the 1970s as aluminum-framed photovoltaic modules, these building-integrated features now take the form of roof tiles, siding or windows that draw in solar rays and convert them directly into energy for the building.

And by analyzing detailed 3D models of buildings generated from aerial data, architects and engineers can then design and install custom-fit BIPV systems to complement the structure’s shape, orientation and energy needs. This ensures optimal energy capture while preserving aesthetics. Moreover, aerial imagery helps map potential shading obstacles like trees or neighboring buildings, allowing for adjustments in the BIPV design to maximize sunlight exposure. The result is stunning buildings that generate their own clean energy, reducing reliance on traditional power sources and contributing to a more eco-conscious society.

Innovative solutions

Location intelligence and aerial imagery technology have set a new standard for a world powered by sunlight, where innovation and environmental responsibility go hand in hand. As insights derived from aerial imagery become more accessible, the deployment of additional solar infrastructure, optimal panel placement, enhanced energy generation and project return on investment become a reality. Government officials and developers that effectively leverage aerial imagery and location intelligence insights are well-prepared to build a brighter future.

Shelly Carroll is vice president and general manager of Nearmap, a location intelligence and aerial imagery solutions provider.

As a serial entrepreneur and advocate for environmental stewardship, I’ve navigated the complexities of various industries, but few have been as challenging – or as rewarding – as the journey to establish a solar farm on Long Island; New York.

The Middle Island Solar Farm (MISF) stands today as a beacon of innovation and sustainability. Since its full operation in 2018, MISF has been generating 19.6 MW of electricity, equivalent to powering approximately 4,000 homes annually on Long Island.

Moreover, its clean energy output translates to removing the emissions of 6,000-8,000 cars from our roadways, a significant stride towards environmental sustainability. Witnessing the realization of my vision to utilize private investment for public welfare brings me immense satisfaction. However, the road to its success was fraught with obstacles that threatened to derail the project at every turn.

One of the most pervasive challenges we encountered was the Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) mindset prevalent in many communities. Despite the undeniable benefits of solar energy – including reduced carbon emissions and energy independence – local opposition often arises, fueled by fear and misinformation. Overcoming this resistance requires patience, perseverance, and a commitment to community engagement.

In addition to public perception, outdated zoning laws and bureaucratic red tape presented significant hurdles to the development of MISF. The arbitrary classification of solar farms as electric generating plants, coupled with convoluted regulatory processes, created unnecessary delays and added complexity to the approval process. Reforming these outdated laws and streamlining regulatory procedures are essential steps towards facilitating the growth of the renewable energy sector.

Furthermore, the influence of vested interests cannot be ignored. Established industries, threatened by the rise of sustainable energy, have wielded considerable power and resources to maintain the status quo. Lobbying efforts aimed at undermining clean energy initiatives perpetuate dependence on fossil fuels, hindering progress towards a greener future.

Despite these challenges, the case for clean energy investment remains stronger than ever. The economic and environmental benefits of renewable energy are undeniable, with solar power emerging as a viable alternative to traditional energy sources. However, realizing this potential requires a concerted effort to dismantle systemic barriers and create a more conducive environment for investment.

Education and community engagement are crucial components of this effort. By dispelling myths and highlighting the tangible benefits of clean energy projects, we can garner public support and overcome opposition. Moreover, fostering partnerships between government agencies, businesses, and local communities can help streamline the approval process and expedite the development of renewable energy infrastructure.

Additionally, policymakers must prioritize sustainability and incentivize investment in clean energy initiatives. By implementing policies that promote renewable energy adoption and phase out subsidies for fossil fuels, we can level the playing field and create a more equitable energy landscape.

As we confront the urgent challenges of climate change and environmental degradation, the need for decisive action has never been greater. By breaking down barriers to clean energy investment, we can pave the way for a brighter, more sustainable future for generations to come. It’s time to harness the power of innovation and collective action to build a world powered by clean, renewable energy. The time for change is now.

Jerry Rosengarten is a serial entrepreneur and advocate for environmental stewardship. He is the author of Jump on the Train: A Dyslexic Entrepreneur’s 50-Year Ride From The Leisure Suit to the Bowery Hotel and a New York Solar Farm.

‘Uncle Bob’ is that proverbial character who shares at family gatherings all he believes to be true about solar and why it just isn’t a good idea. Dan Shugar, founder and CEO of Nextracker, has had this experience. Based on his 33 years in the solar industry, he offers short, fact-based responses to Uncle Bob’s assertions, which range from “solar is taking coal jobs” to “solar is unreliable.”

In this part four of the series, Shugar debunks myths about solar using too much land.

The proverbial Uncle Bob asks, “What about all that land being used by solar, if we try to power the country with solar, the whole country is going to be covered with solar panels.”

You could say, listen Uncle Bob, if we were to power 100%, and I mean generate extra energy in the day so batteries are using their power at night for everything, solar would cover less than one half of 1% of the land area.

But of course, solar is not just on land. It is being put on rooftops on homes or businesses. It covers carports. We see those a lot of solar on schools and for systems that are on the ground, which typically follow the sun with a tracker, we’re seeing customers increasingly use dual-use applications. For example, one of our great customers, Silicon Ranch Corporation, has pioneered the idea of dual use with agriculture and ranching where we’re seeing many solar power plants grazing livestock, sheep, cattle, and pollinators.

There’s plenty of area out there and we’re creating economic value in communities where projects are being built. We’re not manufacturing things in a faraway land and dumping them in communities, but they’re being made in the communities in which they’ll be used.

One of the most gratifying projects we’ve done at Nextracker with our manufacturing partner, J.M. Steel, brought new life to a manufacturing facility in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania that had previously been a Bethlehem Steel facility, but it had been dormant for many decades. In fact, at that exact facility they made landing aircraft that were used to support the Normandy landing in World War Two. But we were able to use that existing technology with steel conveyors and equipment and infrastructure to start making modern solar plants. So, we’ve been able to create a new ecosystem.

It’s the ground zero of the new industrial revolution in clean energy.

Episode four: What about all that land being used by solar?

We’ll continue this series with fact-based responses to additional myths such as “solar takes too many coal jobs”.

Stay tuned as we unpack these objections, so you’re ready for your next dinner party with Uncle Bob.

View earlier episodes:

• Part one, “All panels come from China” here.
• Part two, “Solar is unreliable” here.
• Part three, “What about nuclear?” here.

From pv magazine global

A warm end to winter hit most of North America this February. In the west, during February mild air from the Pacific banked up clouds and depressed irradiance by 10-20%, according to analysis completed using the Solcast API. In the east, persistent high pressure in the upper atmosphere led to irradiance as high as 30% above normal, and new records for solar generation and temperature.

A clear east/west divide is present in the irradiance anomaly this month. A strong low pressure system sat further east than normal over the Atlantic which brought calm, drier and sunny conditions to the Eastern U.S. and Mexico. Sunnier than normal conditions delivered 20-30% more irradiance than normal from Texas to New England. On the west coast however, high pressure was further west over the Pacific, so that coastal low pressure systems pulled moist air from equatorial regions, leading to increased clouds, blocking irradiance.

Clear skies and higher than normal irradiance will have benefited both large and small scale, solar producers. Residential ‘behind the meter’ solar performed strongly this February all over the East Coast. Solcast’s Grid Aggregation model for NYISO shows residential solar peaked at 3.52GW, and saw 23% more solar generation than last year after adjusting for capacity increases. By contrast, CAISO’s residential solar generation was down 12% on the long term capacity-adjusted average.

Utility-scale generation in ERCOT also hit and surpassed their generation peak record, hitting 17.2GW on February 20th. A 50.1% increase in peak generation in February 2023, is mostly a function of capacity increases in the last year.

But it wasn’t just grid performance breaking recent records, temperature records were broken across the country, with the average temperature, more than 4 degrees above normal. Killeen in Texas saw a peak temperature of 38 C (100 F), and Jacaranda trees in Mexico City have been in full bloom all month, 6-8 weeks earlier than normal. Despite the heat further south, areas in Eastern Canada saw significant snowfall caused by a low pressure system stalling over the area, drawing in continuous cold air from the Atlantic. This caused one of the heaviest snowfall events in 20 years, blanketing parts of Nova Scotia with more than a meter of snow.

This extreme weather is reflective of an overall pattern being seen globally, as February 2024 was Earth’s warmest month on record for the 9th consecutive month.

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.

‘Uncle Bob’ is that proverbial character who shares at family gatherings all he believes to be true about solar and why it just isn’t a good idea. Dan Shugar, founder and CEO of Nextracker, has had this experience. Based on his 33 years in the solar industry, he offers short, fact-based responses to Uncle Bob’s assertions, which range from “solar is taking coal jobs” to “solar is unreliable”.

In this part three of the series, Shugar debunks myths about nuclear energy.

The proverbial Uncle Bob asks, “What about nuclear? That’s reliable runs all the time. Why don’t we do more of that?”

You could say, “Listen, Uncle Bob, there are things we like about nuclear. We know you don’t believe in global warming. But we like that nuclear is a zero-carbon option.”

Then explain that there are only two problems with nuclear. First, there’s radioactive waste, and second, it’s too expensive.

Let’s ignore the radioactive waste that is around for hundreds of years. Let’s talk about money.

A new nuclear plant today is about $180 a megawatt hour. A new solar plant today is $60 a megawatt hour. That’s about a third of the cost. And if you add batteries, it’s about $75 a megawatt hour. That’s well under half the cost rather than dollars per megawatt hour.

Now let’s just talk about money of real plants. When I started in my career, in 1985, the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant was just finishing the original budget of that plant was $380 million. And the plant was actually completed at five and a half billion dollars, half of PG&E’s net income was being absorbed by the interests of the plant.

In more modern history, the two Vogtle units, one of which is operational in Georgia and the other is supposed to come on online shortly, were under construction for over 10 years and had an original budget of about $14 billion. They came in at about $30 billion, which is very expensive.

Speaking as an environmentalist, I really hope nuclear can have a resurgence, including the modular nuclear power plant designs that have been under development for decades. But I want to underscore the bar keeps going up because solar and wind costs are going down. While reliability keeps improving nuclear power is just too expensive Uncle Bob.

Episode three: What about nuclear?…

We’ll continue this series with fact-based responses to additional myths such as: Solar takes too much land–there’s gonna be no room for farms if we have solar panels…

Stay tuned as we unpack these objections, so you’re ready for your next dinner party with Uncle Bob.

View earlier episodes:

Part one, “All panels come from China” here.
Part two, “Solar is unreliable” here.

From pv magazine global

The Chinese Module Marker (CMM), the OPIS benchmark assessment for mono PERC modules from China was assessed at $0.110 per W, stable from the previous week while TOPCon module prices were flat at $0.119/W week to week. Prices have held steady for the seventh consecutive week as market participants adopt a wait-and-see approach for a clearer price trend to emerge.

Market sentiment was mixed. There were some talks in the market of possible domestic Chinese price increases of CNY0.03-0.05 ($0.042-0.069)/W in March but other market participants were uncertain if the price hikes would materialize given ample inventory in the market.

Other market participants attributed the possible price hikes to suppliers’ reluctance to accept orders at previously lower prices and the fast conversion of p-type to n-type in the market had resulted in a drop in P-type supply. “Cell makers had increased P-type prices before the Lunar New Year but did not increase n-type prices”, a market source said.

One seller held on to the view that any price increases in the Chinese market would be for p-type modules as production had reduced and that N-type modules could see some price declines. However, other market participants said this remains to be seen.

The outlook for March was improving with demand expected to recover in Q2-Q3 as overseas projects usually start construction after winter, while in China, module tenders are generally carried out in the first half of the year and construction in the second half of the year, a solar veteran said. The Chinese market will see 30-40% of demand in the first half of the year, with most of the demand concentrated in the second half of the year, the veteran added.

Module makers are expected to increase their operating rates as demand improves in the coming weeks. China is expected to produce more than 50 GW of modules in March, according to the Silicon Industry of China Nonferrous Metals Industry Association.

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.

Texas and California lead the country in terms of solar energy generating capacity, while also maintaining major oil and gas production operations, which demonstrates that it is possible for these uses to successfully coexist, even if doing so can be complicated.

As solar energy projects cover almost the entire surface of the land that they utilize with solar panels, it is necessary to understand the rights of the mineral estate holders to utilize the surface, especially in areas with historical and current oil and gas production.. Any compatibility issues with the mineral estate holder(s) need to be addressed before a solar energy project can be constructed and financed.

Understanding the rights of the subsurface estate

When the mineral and surface estates are held separately in Texas, the subsurface owner has a right to use as much of the surface as is reasonably necessary to produce and remove the oil, gas and/or minerals below the surface. Similarly, in California, mineral estate owners are permitted to use the surface as is necessary and convenient to produce and remove the oil, gas and/or minerals below the surface. However, mineral estate owners in both states are generally not permitted to impose a greater burden on the surface estate than reasonably necessary for the mineral estate owner to fully exercise their rights. These standards have proved difficult to interpret and apply with predictability in practice, which causes uncertainty about how a surface owner’s and subsurface owner’s rights might intersect in a specific situation.

For any solar energy project, the solar developer must understand: (1) whether the mineral estate has been severed and who holds title, (2) the magnitude and nature of the risks related to possible surface use by the mineral estate and, (3) if there are risks, how to reduce those risks and/or obtain title insurance satisfactory to insure against the risk of forced removal of solar facilities.

Determining rights in the subsurface estate

Title companies will provide information and insurance for the ownership of the surface estate, but generally will not provide vesting information or insurance for the subsurface/mineral estate. Accordingly, project developers typically have to look to a “landman” to search the real property records to establish ownership of the mineral estate underlying the solar project lands.

Landmen, sometimes in conjunction with legal counsel, can help project developers obtain surface waiver agreements, surface use and/or accommodation agreements, and mineral estate purchase agreements to help procure a financeable project site with sufficiently secure surface rights.

Surface waiver and accommodation agreements

An effective surface rights waiver will prohibit the mineral interest holder, and its successors and assigns, from disturbing the surface of the solar project site. When possible, surface rights waivers should be absolute, waiving all rights of the mineral owner to use the surface of the property—including for exploration, testing, and general access—not just production. In addition, it should waive the right to use the surface to access any mineral or subsurface material, not just oil and gas. In order to fully bind sublessees, successors, and future grantees, a waiver of surface rights must also be recorded in the real property records.

When a mineral estate owner is unwilling to entirely waive its rights to the surface of the property, an alternative is to utilize an accommodation agreement that (1) sets aside certain areas on the property which are reserved for oil, gas and minerals activities, (2) includes a surface waiver from the mineral estate holder for the benefit of the surface owner on the remainder of the property, and (3) contains other agreements designed to allow the parties to share the use of the surface estate.

Alternatives to surface waivers or accommodation agreements

Ideally, a developer should obtain surface waivers or accommodation agreements from 100% of the mineral interest holders, but if this is not possible, a project developer should not despair.  Many oil and gas producers are unwilling to take mineral leases or develop minerals based on a lease from only a small, fractional mineral owner. As a result, it is often sufficient to obtain surface waivers or accommodation agreements from less than 100% of the mineral interest holders. While there is no established standard agreed to by title companies and attorneys in the industry as to what percentage of the mineral interest surface waivers is required to be sufficient, it is universally agreed that sufficient does not mean 100%.  In this situation, the developer may also pursue other strategies to ensure that it holds secure rights to the surface of the project site and obtain the title insurance it needs.

1. Review Regulatory Restrictions. Regulatory or property/locational specific factors, like zoning restrictions, should be reviewed as they may reduce or eliminate the likelihood that mineral estate development will occur on the property.
2. Drill Site Reservations. Another strategy is to proactively set aside reasonable drill site areas, along with access and utilities easement paths to serve the drills sites. The reserved “drill island” areas should be sufficient in number and size to reasonably accommodate the mineral estate holder’s ability to access and exploit the underlying mineral estate and should be designed with the help of a petroleum engineer or other oil and gas expert.
3. Likelihood of Commercially Viable Mineral Production. If the location of a developer’s planned project site is in an area with little or no oil, gas or mineral production historically, the developer may also want to engage a Landman or appropriate consultant to provide a short report summarizing the absence of any commercially viable oil, gas or mineral resources and production in the planned project site area, to provide support for the title company to underwrite the forced removal risk notwithstanding a lack of surface waivers or accommodation agreements.

Title insurance related to mineral rights risk

Title insurance covering the mineral risk issue will be required in order to obtain construction financing for a project. Texas has four different types of promulgated title insurance endorsements to address mineral issues when a title insurance company issues a lender’s or owner’s title policy with an exception or exclusion for mineral estate coverage: Forms T-19, T-19.1, T-19.2 and T-19.3. In California, the ALTA Form 35 endorsements (ALTA 35, 35.1, 35.2, 35.3) are typically used to address mineral issues.

Note also that these endorsements insure against some of the losses that a solar energy project owner or lender may be exposed to related to the mineral estate, such as coverage for the value of the real estate rights and improvements lost if mineral development forces the solar project operator to relocate or remove solar facilities. However, the endorsements don’t provide coverage for the revenues and profits the project may lose as a result of the forced removal, or for project downtime or other business-related aspects of the project. Other forms of commercial insurance may be available to address such risks.

Dirk R. Mueller is a partner and Alyssa Netto is an associate with the law firm Farella Braun + Martel LLP in San Francisco. Will Russ is a partner with the law firm Barnes & Thornburg LLP in Dallas. 

The adoption of solar energy in the United States is increasing, and with it, the opportunity for notable market expansion for the companies and field services teams that site, install and service these projects.

Spurred by growing business and consumer demand for clean electricity, technology advances, and favorable federal and state policies, 63 GW of new utility-scale solar power generation is expected this year, adding significantly more than the 40 GW added in 2023. However, solar energy accounts for just 3.4% of all U.S. electricity generation, meaning there is room for significant expansion.

Customers now have multiple options to choose from when deciding how they deploy and use solar power. Large businesses can integrate solar power with battery energy storage systems, capturing, storing, and flexibly deploying this green power source as needed. Advances such as transparent solar panels and thin-film technology also promise to make solar energy more suitable for various business and consumer applications.

Despite these promising trends, challenges stand in the way of boosting solar adoption. High costs, unskilled or inaccessible labor, and negative public sentiment could prevent solar from growing at the rates predicted.

• Solar costs are slowing growth: Installation costs are a vital concern for cities, commercial and residential developers, and landowners who approve these projects. Deploying utility-scale solar installations ranges from $16/MWh to $35 MWh —comparable with other energy forms used to generate electricity. However, as any student of renewables knows, solar typically adds to, rather than replaces, traditional energy sources because of its intermittent nature. So, these costs are additive to overall energy investments rather than subtractive for project owners. In addition, deploying solar power requires specialized labor, including project developers, energy analysts, solar and electrical engineers, electricians, project managers, operations and maintenance technicians, thermal engineers, and software developers. As a result, labor costs are estimated to constitute 7% of a project’s total price.

• Project owners have difficulty accessing skilled labor: The rapid growth of the solar industry is outpacing workforce availability and skills. While the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act will create 100,000 new clean energy jobs, solar project developers will likely be hard-pressed to fill them. In addition, current workers will need to be upskilled on new technologies and processes.
• Navigating negative public opinion: Corporate solar energy adoption has grown steadily over the past few years, accounting for nearly half of all new deployments since 2020. However, consumers and other business leaders may believe solar energy is expensive, doesn’t provide immediate results, requires extensive maintenance, and can be easily damaged.

The good news is that there are strategies to address these issues to grow solar energy adoption and accelerate the country’s transition to green energy.

Strategy 1: Deploying technological solutions to manage solar energy cost challenges

The average cost to deploy solar panels residentially has been estimated at around $25k, but final costs vary depending on panel type and model; auxiliary equipment costs; and federal or state incentives. In addition, homeowners need to budget for ongoing system maintenance, cleaning, and repair.

Technology can improve solar power efficiency and performance. Internet-enabled sensors on solar panels and components provide a continuous stream of data on the system’s energy production levels, temperature and efficiency. Then, artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) algorithms analyze sensor data, detecting anomalies that could indicate a need for proactive or predictive maintenance.

With intelligent monitoring capabilities, operators can detect problems in real-time, decreasing system risks and operating and maintenance costs.

Strategy 2: Addressing labor challenges in solar energy through technology
A recent survey found that nine in 10 U.S. companies are struggling to find the skilled labor forces they need, and job growth continues to outpace the existing talent base.

Solar development companies can use technology to help bridge this gap in several ways. These firms can use tools, such as generative AI copilots, knowledge bases, and web and mobile field services apps to train workers on the latest technologies, methodologies and practices. Workers leverage intuitive interfaces and natural-language queries to learn about new processes, such as implementing new technology or using intelligent monitoring systems.

In addition, workers can use data analytics and AI-powered systems to plan projects, optimize task performance and chart progress. Field service software streamlines projects, from managing work orders; to scheduling, dispatching, and monitoring their workforces; to estimating and invoicing. This integrated functionality helps companies optimize task assignments based on skills and location and ensure that projects are completed promptly and efficiently.

Solar development companies can also use these tools to tap gig workers for assignments, gaining access to an on-demand talent pool and filling skills gaps as needed.

Strategy 3: Shaping public opinion on solar energy through tech-enabled transparency and engagement

Utility-scale solar and wind projects are facing increased headwinds. In Michigan, community members have blocked more than two dozen large-scale projects, while across the U.S., 35 states have implemented 228 restrictions to do likewise.

Solar development companies can leverage field service software to help foster positive public sentiment about solar energy by increasing transparency about planned projects. They can provide real-time data and operational insights about planned projects, building community trust that they will proceed as promised. With this strategy, they can help educate the public about how solar energy works and the benefits it will provide to their communities.

Field service technology 

With the recent passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, solar credits for qualifying projects have soared to 30%, providing a compelling reason for businesses and consumers to adopt this technology.

Solar development companies can cash in on this boom by using field service technology to manage and reduce project costs, access new talent pools and upskill workers, and positively influence public opinion about the worth of these projects. Companies that adopt all three strategies and use field service technology can win new projects, manage them to successful completion, and scale their businesses.

Raghav Gurumani is CTO & Co-Founder, Zuper, a specialist in field service management software.

From pv magazine global

Solar cell FOB China prices have stayed unchanged, with not much real trading taking place as price negotiations for orders delivered in March are still ongoing. Mono PERC M10 and G12 cell prices trended flat at $0.0482 per W and $0.0473/W, respectively, while TOPCon M10 cell prices remained constant at $0.0584/W week to week.

According to a market participant, neither the supply nor the demand for cells has changed significantly as of right now. What will be clearer by month-end is the change in operating rates set by cell and module producers, the source added.

A manufacturer that had already sold Mono PERC M10 cells for the high price of CNY0.4 ($0.056)/W prior to the Lunar New Year said that, although they intend to raise prices even more, their ability to do so will depend on how order talks play out over the next two weeks.

Another source from the cell segment is skeptical about whether cell prices will continue to rise, saying that increases are restrained by the present price and potential future price of modules.

The fact that an increase in end-user demand in 2024 cannot be substantial will weigh on cell prices, according to an upstream insider. “The most bullish forecast I’ve heard so far is that end-user demand would rise by roughly 20% in 2024” compared to 2023, the source added.

Even if prices rise in response to increased demand, only integrated businesses are able to ensure sales volume and profitability, a market observer stated, who went on to say that stand-alone cell producers can only strive for profits by lowering the purchase prices of wafers.

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 solar industry matures, pressure for asset owners to deliver higher returns continues to mount.  Not surprisingly, so has the demand to improve operations and maintenance (O&M) efficiency – the single largest component of a utility-scale solar asset’s post-construction budget. 

Whether an asset owner performs O&M in-house, outsources to a third-party, or utilizes a hybrid mix of the two, getting strategically smart about O&M can substantially boost efficiency. Four strategies to consider are people, equipment, construction and technology.

#1 – People strategy: Know what business you are in  

Hiring and retaining competent people is one of the biggest threats that could impede the global transition to clean energy. In 2022, 44% of solar industry employers said it was “very difficult” to find qualified applicants. That’s the highest such percentage ever recorded in the U.S. Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC) National Solar Jobs Census. Competition, a small applicant pool, and lack of training and technical skills all contribute to the peril.

With 16,585 reported solar operations and maintenance jobs in the U.S. that’s a hefty challenge, which falls heaviest on asset owners who aren’t technically in the ‘people business’. But O&M service providers are — especially large national players.

It’s complicated. Getting bogged down in the day-to-day of hiring, training and managing talent can be a risky distraction for asset owners, steering their focus away from their number one priority: performance and production of the solar asset. It’s especially challenging when the asset resides in remote, or less desirable locations. Yet, ensuring preventative and corrective maintenance is mission-critical to the asset’s performance. And that requires highly trained people with superior technical and safety skills. 

One solution for asset owners is to get out of the people business, and instead leverage resources whose business is people: third-party O&M service providers. For staffing challenges, service providers with a national presence have the ability to pull the right resources to meet immediate needs. And for remote assets, they may already service density in the area, meaning they might already have other assets they operate and maintain nearby. 

Outsourcing to a qualified partner alleviates an asset owner’s workforce development headaches too. Becoming a master solar field technician takes years, and with the proliferation of new technologies, the learning curve never stops. While inhouse solar installers may amass years of experience building projects, they are not likely to develop all of the skills needed to become a field technician, much yet to climb the company’s career ladder and move into critical project management roles. Asset owners provide limited opportunities to field technicians requiring  specialty electro-mechanical training or mentoring.

Alternatively, O&M service providers are in the business of growing talent at scale. Larger, national firms have invested heavily in workforce development infrastructure – from breaking ground on a multimillion-dollar renewable energy training facility to a mobile university that takes the training right to the job site. 

Ensuring that technicians receive vital safety training, certifications, and recertifications needed to comply with OSHA requirements is squarely in the service provider’s wheelhouse as well. 

#2 – Equipment strategy: Think O&M first

Solar supply chain issues have been a new-world reality since the pandemic. Even as availability concerns ease, managing panel, inverter, and other equipment inventory to meet preventative and emergency maintenance needs at multiple field sites is a major challenge, especially for owners of large asset portfolios.  

Ten different projects could require maintaining inventory from 20 different panel and inverter suppliers – not surprisingly as the projects were likely built by different EPCs who sourced parts from those available at the time. Unfortunately for the asset owner, that adds up 100 different types of parts  – or 200+ spares to ensure swift replacements and avoid dreaded and costly downtime. That’s a big challenge for asset owners who maintain their own spare parts inventory. Even if they’ve outsourced to a third-party spare parts provider, they’d face the daunting task of contracting separately for each project.

As the solar industry matures, forward-thinking asset owners are factoring their equipment needs into their O&M strategy. They are standardizing requirements for new projects. When replacing worn out panels and inverters, they contractually require EPCs to source from a short list of preferred manufacturers and OEMs. By leveraging similar equipment across  multiple projects, asset owners can allocate capital to make bulk purchases of fewer types of panels and inverters to alleviate spare parts and inventory challenges. Or, if they outsource spare parts inventorying to a third party O&M provider, they can put a master service agreement in place to cover all projects and substantially reduce the time and effort associated with contract negotiations.

Not only does this strategic approach lessen inventory issues for spare parts, it enables asset owners to proactively ensure that their projects are being built with the highest quality components, and optimize procurement pricing in bulk. Training needs diminish too, as technicians are servicing fewer types of equipment. Less equipment variation also results in faster knowledge transfer and more rapid deployment of technicians from one project to another for corrective maintenance or some unforeseen catastrophic issue.

 #3 – Construction strategy:  Pick two – Fast, cheap, or high quality

Selecting an EPC is one area where the old adage of ‘pick two: fast, cheap, or high quality ’ holds true, especially from an O&M perspective. Fast and cheap have the potential to lead to long-term issues that erode the performance and productivity of an asset, not to mention catastrophic failures.

Choose an EPC with a reputation and history of delivering quality projects on time and on budget. Be sure to have a 100 percent complete site design before entering into the EPC contract. Don’t leave the final details to chance – that’s where panels get installed and where the wiring and cabling takes place and where many O&M nightmare begin. 

That’s because some EPCs normally employ a handful of experienced in-house professionals and outsource a lot of the labor to install panels and wiring. When it comes to labor, make sure the EPC isn’t picking cheap over quality.  

#4 – Technology strategy: Automate monitoring & data analytics

Condition monitoring is a vital O&M task which requires sifting through and analyzing substantial amounts of data – from power outages to identification of faulty modules, calculation of module efficiency, and compliance to grid standards – to ensure optimal PV system performance.  

Traditionally, condition monitoring has been manual and dispersive. Fortunately advancements in condition monitoring automation and data performance analytics are changing that. Today, sophisticated asset owners are turning to remote condition monitoring software to inform their O&M strategies and corrective maintenance plans. Monitoring takes place in remote operations centers – like the Pearce world-class NIRC/CIP Remote Operating Center, designed to meet the North American Electric Reliability Corporation’s (NERC) Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) standards. At these centers, performance analytics specialists have a bird’s eye view of multiple production sites at once.  

Automated condition monitoring gives Pearce 24×7 visibility into any site’s performance levels, identifying inefficiencies and performing data analysis to pinpoint the root cause of a problem. Analyzing and diagnosing a challenge remotely without sending a technician to the job site to assess the situation helps manage cost. And it accelerates the ability to get a project online faster, significantly reducing downtime.

Condition monitoring systems are making O&M servicing smarter and more efficient. Armed with data about the exact point of failure – whether a dirty filter panel, a faulty PV connecter, or a malfunctioning inverter – the asset owner or their outsourced O&M service provider can deploy a technician with the right knowledge to exactly the right place to resolve the problem faster. 

The journey continues

Utility-scale solar has come a long way since the first solar park was built nearly four decades ago. As the industry continues to evolve, O&M best practices and technology will too, paving the way for asset owners to deploy smarter strategies and achieve greater  performance.

Daryl Ragsdale is vice president of business development for Pearce Renewables, a national provider of operations, maintenance, and engineering services for mission-critical infrastructure. For more than a decade he has specialized in delivering innovative, simple solutions to solve complex challenges in the wind, battery energy storage, and solar industries.

At the RE+ 2023 conference in Las Vegas, vendors from across the globe displayed their largest, thinnest, bi-facial solar modules, showcasing achievements in photovoltaic cost efficiency. Boasting wattages once unthinkable, the cost reduction juggernaut of solar has marched forward.

For those of us who have designed a solar module and performed mechanical load testing, there is one head-scratching detail that sticks-out and begs for further exploration. These massive modules come equipped with some of the smallest module frames ever seen.

The previously ubiquitous 2- by 1-meter module with a frame height of 50mm is now approximately 55% larger in surface area with frame heights as low as 30mm. How is this possible when mechanical load ratings have remained constant, and the height of a beam is of paramount importance to its strength? Those physics hold true for bridges, buildings, and even the frame of a solar module. Wind and snow loading rise proportionally with the increased surface area, but the latest, longest-ever module frames see a height reduction of ~40%, severely reducing its load-carrying capacity.

Modules are tested to various standard mechanical load tests for certification. These tests apply loads to the front-side and back-side of the module to rate them for withstanding real-world environmental conditions. The current industry standards (UL 61730-2, IEC 61730, IEC 61215-2) all generally agree on mechanical load testing procedures. Many of the modules on the conference floor advertise compliance with these standards and the industry-leading testing labs perform these certification tests with the utmost care and diligence.

While the large-format modules meet these standards in the lab, the lab is not the real-world. The field loading applied to a solar module depends on the structure on which it is mounted and the terrain of the project. The greater the wind zone, the greater the load on the module.

Less obvious is that larger tilt angles typically also increase wind loading on modules and that this varies across locations throughout the array. Picture a ship with its sails raised versus lowered during a storm. Which one has more force to project their vessel forward?

Snow can often have the opposite effect. Panels of a higher tilt angle will often shed more snow than lower tilt panels and thus be more favorable to module loading from snow. Any house roof in a northern latitude will showcase this phenomenon. The project designers must carefully check that the modules selected work with the mounting structure at every location on the project site.

Therefore, to understand the engineering gap at hand, a marriage of large-format module frame design and structural design of racking systems is key. Because module loading is dependent on the supporting structure (e.g., tilt angle, among several variables), structural vendors typically specify expected module loading in project design. Many structural vendors are good at validating that the module itself falls within the certification rating. However, is it possible that some vendors are still missing peak module loads for wind?

Image: Azimuth Advisory Services

A SETO-funded research project being carried out through a joint venture of the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and UC Berkeley has determined that vendors need to look at smaller effective wind areas than the spans between foundations (not what is shown in Figure 1 A) when estimating individual module loading. PV modules can be broken if attributable areas as small as one-quarter of the module are overloaded (individual fastener level loading – D in Figure 1) and this can be shown to occur at maximum project design conditions for many projects getting installed today. While the evaluation typically carried out is around a maximum design loading, the SETO-funded research team is currently exploring how a lower, uneven cyclical loading can lead to structural failures as well.

If understated peak module wind loading has been common practice in project design for the last 15 years, then module failures should be rampant, no? In practice, older module frames have been pulling double-duty masking this oversight. Some of those module frames were designed with safety factors of 3. Today, large-format modules appear to be designed to safety factors of 1.5 based on reviews of some module manufacturers datasheets and industry standards. This allows the modules to be competitive in the downward march on cost.

When a certification laboratory tests a module to an actual 2,400 Pa of back-side loading, the maximum design pressure it is certified for is 1,600 Pa. It is critical to check if the module rating advertised is what was tested (including safety factors) or if it is what the maximum allowable design pressure is (without safety factors). 1,600 Pa of pressure on a module is approximately equal to a 72-mph wind gust for a module pressure coefficient of 3. The LBNL / UC Berkeley research team has determined that this coefficient is achievable at row ends for module tilts over 15 degrees. This is hardly a sufficient design for any project in the U.S. based on the latest ASCE 7-22 wind maps. If a designer mistakenly used 2,400Pa to be the design pressure, this would increase the allowable wind gust to 88-mph. Thus, it is important to understand what the module rating includes.

Load capacity

The market has driven module load capacity to its breaking point. This seems to be particularly the case regarding backside (wind uplift) loading. Combining legacy engineering assumptions, larger module areas, smaller module frame heights and unclear manufacturer ratings yields a recipe for failures. The goal is not to lay blame, but to understand the technical issues at hand and offer guidance on what stakeholders can do.

Here are tangible ways that developers, financiers, insurance companies, owners, asset managers, structure manufacturers and module manufacturers can manage these risks:

1. Make sure sufficient independent engineer (IE) budget and time is allocated per project (particularly smaller projects) so key details about module loading can be checked not only per project, but at every location on the project (e.g., exterior rows, corners, fasteners).

2. Structure manufacturer due diligence should confirm that:

• Clip and bolt loads for module retention use “module clip loads” (D in Figure 1) instead of average row areas (A in Figure 1) or even module-level areas (B in Figure 1). See the wind tunnel testing coefficients for more details.
• Module loading should not be assumed to be the same across the array for wind. The wind loads on modules at the end of the rows are typically higher than those on the interior. This is true for both tracking and fixed tilt systems. [See the latest SEAOC PV2 Wind Design for Loading Arrays]
• Clip/bolt loading should not be assumed to be the same at each location on the module. Loading on one half of the module is often quite different than the other. The fasteners may end up being the same design, but they should be designed to withstand the highest loading and not a lower average load distributed across the four fasteners.
• Module rails should be sized accordingly as well, with particular emphasis on exterior module rails and their appropriate rail-level area loading (C in Figure 1) and with assumptions for uneven module loading.

3. Module due diligence should confirm:

• Whether the module datasheet front-side / back-side mechanical load rating includes the test safety factor (typically 1.5). If it does not, reduce the load rating by the appropriate safety factor and confirm that the structural loading demand does not exceed that new, lower rating based upon the module wind/snow stow angle (tracker) or installation tilt angle (fixed tilt).
• That the module frame is designed to withstand the extra forces that come with uneven loading for the wind/snow stow angle (tracker) or installation tilt angle (fixed tilt) of the system.
• The mounting method exactly matches the module certification mounting method and is listed in the module installation manual. If not, the module manufacturer should be requested to issue a letter that the unapproved mounting method will uphold the warranty under the project conditions. Testing may be necessary.

‘Uncle Bob’ is that proverbial character who shares at family holidays all he believes to be true about solar and why it just isn’t a good idea. Dan Shugar, founder and CEO of Nextracker, has had this experience. Based on his 33 years in the solar industry, he offers short, fact-based responses to Uncle Bob’s assertions, which range from “solar is taking coal jobs to “solar is unreliable”. In this part one of the series, Shugar debunks the myth that “all those solar panels are made in China”.

Uncle Bob may have said at Thanksgiving dinner, “well, all these solar panels, they’re coming from China”.

How do you respond? “That’s wrong,” Shugar says. “You say I love you, Uncle Bob. But that’s not what’s happening.”

The facts are:

• The largest manufacturer of solar panels for the United States is a U.S. company that was started over 20 years ago called First Solar and headquartered in Arizona.
• Now in addition to First Solar, over 18 solar panel factories in the United States are manufacturing to meet U.S. demand.
• After the Inflation Reduction Act legislation was passed in 2022, there have been over 50 new solar panel factory announcements, representing over $14 billion of investment.
• Solar, by the way, was invented in the U.S. by Bell Labs in the 50s. And it’s great to see a resurgence of manufacturing activity in the United States.

Episode 1 

For more on domestic manufacturing, read How the IRA is changing the U.S. solar manufacturing landscape.

We’ll continue this series with fact-based responses to additional myths such as:  What about when the sun doesn’t shine? What about nuclear–that’s clean and reliable? And solar sounds great, but it’s too expensive. Right? Solar takes too much land. There’s gonna be no room for farms if we have solar panels.

Stay tuned as we unpack these objections, so you’re ready for next Thanksgiving dinner (or other dinner parties) with Uncle Bob.

Dan Shugar is founder and CEO of Nextracker. For over 30 years, he has been a leading voice in business, technology and climate policy, advancing solar and climate technology solutions in the U.S. and around the globe. He has numerous patents and published 50 technical papers. He currently sits on the Board of Directors of the American Clean Power Association (ACP) and the Solar Energy Industry Association (SEIA).

Solar tracker design has become more challenging than ever as some utility-scale solar projects require larger module arrays, while others contend with complex terrain, unique environmental conditions, and ongoing pressure to control costs.

The actuation system in utility-scale solar trackers, the part that drives the tracker motion, will have an outsized impact on project performance. But many solar professionals may struggle to spot the differences between one actuation system and another. How can you know if the actuation system in your next project will be optimized according to need?

An actuator or drive should not be viewed as a one-size-fits-all component. It’s not a good idea to source actuation systems by comparing some data points on a product spec sheet and assuming that all similarly sized drives are alike. First, be sure to understand the solar project’s structural requirements and the torque demands that will be placed on the actuation system throughout its operating lifetime.

Basics of torque

Torque is a measurement of the force that causes something to rotate around a point. It is most often expressed in kilonewton (kN) for solar applications since one kilonewton represents approximately 224.8 pounds of force (lbf). This measurement is used to size the torque required to rotate something, like a 15,000-lb. array of solar modules attached to a steel tube for example. Torque is also measured by the force needed to hold that same array in a stationary position ensuring the array can survive forces such as wind or imbalances of the array when tilted.

It’s essential for large-scale solar projects to optimize actuation systems according to structural loads and other design parameters. Oversizing the actuation system means taking on unnecessary added costs for the project. Under sizing the system means taking on unnecessary risk, putting plant reliability and longevity in jeopardy.

Why torque matters

During normal operations, single-axis tracker systems can be expected to make small changes in module tilt angle throughout the day to optimize energy output. In the early morning and the late afternoon, the module array may point as much as 60+ degrees from horizontal. The system might also perform backtracking, reversing the tilt angle to reduce energy losses due to shading. Or it might make other adjustments to optimize yield using bifacial modules or to account for variable terrain. All these conditions can apply forces that measure in the hundreds of kN or tens of thousands of pounds of force.

Torque plays a critical role in enabling systems to carry out routine maintenance and respond to extreme weather. Technicians might need to reposition the array to inspect equipment, perform module cleaning, carry out vegetation management, or complete other tasks that increase yield and maintain system uptime. The threat of hail may require the array to be tilted more than 70 degrees to mitigate damage, at the same time ensuring there is enough torque to withstand the increased impact of wind due to the increased tilt angle.

For a system that rotates twice a day reliably for 25+ years, the potential for failure is always present. What do you do if actuator system performance might become less reliable long before the project reaches its expected lifetime?

To safeguard projects from system failure, from having to choose between replacing drives or reverting to a fixed-tilt configuration, product engineers can design in a margin of safety. The safety margin should come from a robust set of field data and thorough, solar-specific testing.

What’s in your actuator?

One of the biggest mistakes you can make when considering what actuator to use would be to evaluate a drive based on a single number and relying on generic engineering and testing not specific to the operating conditions for solar infrastructure. Testing procedures for different applications can vary considerably, even if they generate similar numbers on the product datasheet. You ought to know inputs and outputs. How were the test results derived? How applicable are they to large-scale solar applications?

Product engineers who test actuation systems for solar tracking applications design test plans based on real-world scenarios. Following the concept of Pareto efficiency, engineers look for opportunities to increase loads for one set of scenarios without decreasing loads for other scenarios. This process continues until it reaches an optimal state where no further improvement can be made without an equivalent tradeoff.

Engineers perform static and dynamic testing to measure all the ways that actuation systems perform under various loads. They perform accelerated life testing to detect failure points in the lab faster than would be possible out in the field. They also monitor system performance throughout testing so we can analyze results and improve understanding of how systems will respond to conditions at the project site.

To make sure the system you are designing as tracker manufacturer or specifying as an EPC or developer is optimized according to need, work with suppliers who provide project-level consultation. Make sure your supplier understands solar applications and builds drives specifically for solar infrastructure. Without test results or the underlying data to support the figures you see on a product spec sheet, ask yourself: What else don’t I know about this drive?

Kyle Zech is senior vice president, advanced manufacturing technology at Kinematics, where he leads the development and implementation of manufacturing technologies, systems, and processes. Under his guidance, Kinematics has increased annual production volumes tenfold while simultaneously improving product quality by 4 levels (AGMA). Kyle is named on multiple Kinematics manufacturing technology patents. 

From pv magazine global

Most of North America saw irradiance below average, primarily due to the stormy conditions that prevailed during the second half of January, according to data analyzed by Solcast via the Solcast API. Despite a cold and dry start in the north, low pressure over the Pacific drove moisture across the West Coast, delivering below-average irradiance. Humidity in the Gulf led to cloud and rain over Florida, but left a wide strip of clear dry conditions and high irradiance from Mexico to the Carolinas.

In January, northern latitudes typically receive the lowest monthly irradiance they will all year, due to short days and the sun being low in the sky, as well as winter storm fronts. This means that in locations further north even large increases relative to the average, might be low in terms of daily irradiance received or power generated by solar assets.

The early days of January were dominated by a polar vortex that brought a surge of cold air across the North Western region, pushed by a high-pressure system in the Pacific. This caused Vancouver’s record-breaking low temperature, with morning lows down to -16 C. On the other side of the continent, a similar low-pressure system led to cold and dry conditions in the North Eastern tip of the continent.

Mid-month, a sudden shift brought about by a deep low-pressure system north of Hawaii reversed the patterns earlier in the month, driving moisture and cloud from the Pacific onto the West Coast. This pattern prevailed, leading to the lower-than-average irradiance seen in the total monthly results. Just a few weeks after the record low, Vancouver saw record January high temperatures at 14.3 C.

From Baja to the Carolinas, there was a band of higher-than-normal irradiance. Other than Florida, the Gulf Coast received irradiance 10 to 20% above average for January. A stream of humidity across Central America led to rain and cloud across Florida and the Caribbean. This pattern also led to the drier conditions further north.

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 information is used by more than 300 companies managing over 150 GW of solar assets throughout the world.

On December 22, 2023, the IRS opened the pre-filing registration portal for credits to be claimed under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA). Registration through the portal is required to obtain a registration number to be included on the income tax return filings needed to claim the tax credits.

This registration impacts both tax exempt entities going the elective pay route to receive a direct cash payment from the IRS and those entities seeking to transfer credits to a third-party buyer in exchange for cash.

IRA background

The IRA has breathed new life into energy credits. Prior to the IRA, solar and other clean energy tax credits that had been in place for many years were starting down a path to sunset.

Two of the most significant new components embedded within the IRA legislation is the ability for non-profit entities to pursue elective pay credits, and for-profit entities to transfer tax credits earned in exchange for cash. However, like many of the other new aspects of the tax code promulgated through the IRA, it has come with new processes and requirements for those seeking to take advantage of these opportunities.

Prior experience suggests we should expect a bit of turbulence as the tools created by the IRS go live.

The registration process

The IRS released a 73-page registration guidebook outlining the details of the rules. Moving forward on energy projects requires the guidance to be broken down and a detailed review of the new guidebook will map the process for thousands of taxpayers over the next decade. All registrations will be processed through a newly created IRA pre-registration filing portal.

One taxpayer – one registration

Organizations and taxpayers are allowed only one pre-filing registration for the applicable tax period. As such, a taxpayer must apply for the registration numbers for every credit it intends to claim within one filling.

This pre-registration can be amended or updated, but only after the review of the initial submission has been reviewed by the IRS. Once a registration number has been assigned to a taxpayer, updates or amendments to that registration number must be made prior to it being used in a filing.

Pre-filing registration should occur after a project is “placed in service” and at the beginning of the tax period in which the tax credit is earned. In terms of a “deadline,” it is suggested that a pre-filing registration should be submitted at least 120 days prior to the due date for the tax return on which the credit will be reported, including any allowable extension periods.

The details

Taxpayers will need to fill out two sections to complete the pre-filing registration. The first section collects general information regarding the taxpayer. The second section, based on the inputs from the general section, will allow the taxpayer to input all relevant information for specific credits to be claimed.

The first section asks for basic information, such as: the tax period of the election; the filer’s EIN; any information about subsidiaries included in a consolidated group of corporations; the entities name as it will appear on the ultimate tax return; the entities (not project) address (this must be the address used on the last income tax return filed by the entity, if this isn’t a newly formed organization or first time filer);bank account information.

In a situation where there is a parent of a consolidated group of corporations as the registrant, the EIN and name must be that of the parent. Information regarding the subsidiaries can be captured during the subsequent credit-specific information input. The parent of a consolidated group of corporations will register on behalf of itself and will act as an “agent” for subsidiaries included in the group. When entering subsequent credit-specific information, the parent corporation will provide the subsidiary name and EIN for each facility or property being registered that is owned by the subsidiary.

I’m through the General Registration Section, now what?

This is where the fun really starts. The IRS portal offers two options at this juncture, manual entry or bulk upload. Think of this as the difference of entering a set of an individual set of data for a single project (on a project-by-project basis) versus uploading a spreadsheet file with all of this information for each project embedded into it.

Project information required for this section includes; choice of election (e.g., elective pay or transfer); if applicable, confirmation of the entity as a subsidiary in a consolidated group of corporations; the date construction began; the date the project was placed in service; the property location; details on any joint ownership in the project; and finally (and an interesting requirement) the sources of funds.

You aren’t done yet!

Aside from the information discussed in the “general” and “detailed” sections, each credit type will request supporting documentation. With the IRA, a number of new and enhanced credits are going to be registered, including: Section 30C (alternative fuel refueling property), Section 45 (production tax credit), 45Q (carbon oxide sequestration credit), Section 45U (nuclear power production), Section 45V (clean hydrogen), Section 45W (commercial clean vehicles), Section 45X (advanced manufacturing production), Section 48C (qualifying advanced energy projects), and the Section 48 energy investment tax credit we have all come to know and love.

The additional supporting documentation required to register includes:

• Proof of ownership of the facility/property with respect to which the credit is computed
• Construction permit showing commencement of construction
• Permits to operate from utility (only if connected to the grid, or if not connected to the grid electrical permits to operate from an authority having jurisdiction)

A learning process

As more and more guidance comes out, the associated requirements that come along with the opportunity to harvest substantial tax credits will be a learning process.

While elective pay or transferable credit registration requirements don’t appear to be significant, they are another step that needs careful consideration. Complete registrations are more likely to be approved and not questioned for resubmittal.

Prior experience indicates that there may be delays in turnaround of registration requests regardless, those that don’t register with correct and complete information can only anticipate even longer delays prior to ultimately accessing the credits. And in this case, time is literally money.

Joel Laubenstein is a principal and a leader in Baker Tilly’s Development and Community Advisory – Energy practice. He and his team specialize in compliance, energy, and infrastructure project execution advisory, outsourced grant writing, outsourced project development, and additional capital procurement.

From pv magazine global

2023 was not only the hottest year in modern records, but was also the sunniest year so far this century, according to analysis by Solcast.

2023’s margin as the sunniest year of the century was particularly large for non-polar landmasses – the places we live, and the places
where our solar PV systems are located, as El Nino kept moisture and cloud over the Pacific Ocean, and deviations in the Arctic circulation pulled low pressure systems further north into the Arctic Ocean. Large regions were 10% or more above long term trends, including Western and Northern Europe, Eurasia, much of China, Southern Australia, the Midwestern and Southern US, Central and most of South America.

2023: Sunniest year so far this century

Analysis by Solcast reveals that for the entire planet, 2023 saw the highest total solar irradiance of any year this century, using data from Solcast and ECMWF ERA5. 2023 saw total solar irradiance near 0.5% above the long-term average – a small percentage, but equating to an increase of solar energy received of approximately 16,000 TJ.

The anomaly was 1% for combined non-polar land areas, a much larger deviation than any seen in the last 15 years. This deviation was larger than the global total, due to increased cloud formation over the oceans offsetting some of the reduced cloud formation over non-polar land areas.

Americas

The Americas saw above average irradiance, as an early El Nino created a lot of moisture and cloud over the tropical Pacific Ocean, pulling cloud away from the surrounding land areas.

In Central and South America, Brazil and neighboring countries to the north saw the highest irradiance in over 15 years, in a year marked by significant drought in the Amazon. Argentina and Chile further south saw near or slightly above average irradiance. In total, 13 countries in the Americas saw the highest irradiance year in over a decade, including Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, Guatemala, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Nicaragua and Costa Rica.

North America saw slightly above average irradiance in total, although the North-West and North-East United States both saw cloudier than average conditions. In the North-East conditions will also have been impacted by aerosols, from the Canadian wildfires that burned
for much of the year.

In the U.S. this was offset by large areas of above average irradiance in the Mid-West and South. This was good news for solar production in Texas, which had another record year of solar capacity installations and generation according to the SEIA.

Africa, Europe and the Middle East

Western Europe and Northern Europe saw well above average irradiance, due to Arctic circulations contracting north, reducing the intensity of associated cloud from low pressure systems. Estonia saw the sunniest year they have seen in over 10 years. Whilst these patterns delivered several large and intense storms, cloud cover was lower than average.

Eastern Europe and the Middle East saw below average irradiance as moisture from both the Eastern Mediterranean and Indian Ocean was pushed onshore. Much of Africa saw a relatively normal year for irradiance, with only small deviations relative to average. Despite small deviations, Tunisia, Liberia, Eritrea, Kenya, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, and Rwanda saw more irradiance in 2023 than they have for any other year in the last decade.

Asia

China saw above average irradiance, with some areas seeing 110% of long term averages, although this was less intense towards the coast. Japan saw the highest national average irradiance in over a decade, especially along the eastern coast near Tokyo, as anomalous westerly winds kept Pacific moisture offshore.

A positive Indian Ocean Dipole contributed to overall below average irradiance across most of India, although the south-western Indian states saw above average irradiance. Across Asia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Bhutan, and Japan saw higher irradiance than the last 10 years.

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 information is used by more than 300 companies managing over 150 GW of solar assets throughout the world.

ERA5 is the fifth generation ECMWF atmospheric reanalysis of the global climate covering the period from January 1940 to present. ERA5 is produced by the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) at ECMWF.

Despite the infrequent failures and ‘thermal events’ that are verifiably caused by solar, the hundreds of thousands of solar ecosystem members globally suffer when an issue with a solar site gains media attention. In most cases, a sober root-cause analysis will uncover a relatively minor issue that started a cascade of other, more serious problems. However, most resulting mainstream media coverage and industry scuttlebutt oversimplifies or ignores the root cause entirely; that’s easier to write about, makes for better headlines, gets more clicks, and helps disperse blame.

A similar thing happens with self-driving cars. Of the 6.7 million reported car accidents on U.S. roadways in 2019, only 327 accidents involved self-driving vehicles. Even in the face of this miniscule percentage, the latter received outsized attention in the media and rarely is the coverage truly nuanced.

For the reported thermal events in the United States, fire departments around the nation responded to an average of 346,800 home structure fires from 2015 to 2019. According to the National Fire Protection Association, the top five leading causes of home fires, in order, are cooking, heating, electrical distribution and lighting equipment, intentional fire setting, and smoking materials. Note that electrical distribution includes electrical outlets, outdated/worn electrical wiring, cords and electrical circuits, old appliances, light fixtures, and portable heaters and does not account for rooftop solar systems.

Fires caused by rooftop PV systems are historically underreported, but the Solar Energy Industries Association maintains that spontaneous combustion from a PV system is extremely rare. The quantitative analysis determined an annual fire incident rate of 0.0289 per MW. A 2022 fault tree analysis published in the Journal of Building Engineering revealed that modules, isolators, inverters, and connectors play a significant role in igniting PV fires, with connectors contributing to 17% of incidents.

The reality is that fires found to have been caused by solar equipment are vanishingly rare. Just like how a self-driving car that crashes on the highway makes the evening news, there is no shortage of media attention when there is a presumption that a structure fire was caused by solar. In the face of the challenge of misconceptions about solar equipment, the industry must come to terms with the reality of collective responsibility and modify its behaviors and practices accordingly. The outcome will be fewer bad headlines for solar and a more unified solar sector overall.

Embracing responsibility, together

One of the challenges with attributing responsibility for a problem on a solar installation is the number of companies involved in the value chain. A fertile ecosystem of blamestorming develops when equipment from half a dozen vendors is deployed at an installation, a seventh designs the system, an eighth installs it, a ninth maintains it, and a tenth owns it. In some cases, this number is even larger. For any individual entity, the path of least resistance is to point to one of the others for culpability. In reality, the companies technically all share responsibility. Reputationally, however, the entire solar industry suffers; all are punished.

To protect the next round of growth, the industry must come to terms with the fact that solar is a team sport. Reliable and efficient solar energy systems depend on the expertise of installers and engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) companies. These installers, in turn, lean on quality system design and skilled labor for their success. Hardware and software providers occupy a pivotal role in delivering solutions that are not only reliable but also user-friendly and feature rich. The points at which the work of these entities intersect, however, have been too transactional for too long.

‘Crosstalk’ and the solar value chain

Since stating a problem without suggesting a (possible) solution is not productive, here is a recommendation for every company involved in the solar industry: According to the Department of Energy (DOE), solar system quality issues fall into three categories: design flaws, faulty installation, and equipment defects. Any possible solution, therefore, should address one, several, or a combination of these three possible causes. A worthy and real example through which to investigate the blame-reputation dialectic is ‘crosstalk.’

Any large electrical system with long wire runs and multiple transmitters is susceptible to crosstalk. The term is solar industry shorthand for electromagnetic interference (EMI), created by the interaction of two or more electromagnetic fields of adjacent energized cables. The phenomenon is present in wired communications in home automation, automobiles, or entertainment systems in commercial buildings and residences.

Crosstalk can be minimized, even eliminated, when several preconditions are met, starting with well-trained engineers who design systems such that crosstalk does not occur. In large-scale C&I solar installations, the most efficient wire layouts often require that home runs to inverters share cable races. When array voltage increases towards the inverter-side of the cable run, as multiple strings come together, the close proximity of these cables can result in mutual EMI radiation. That is not a big issue for shielded cables that only carry current, but this type of interference can cause problems for data communications signals.

The installation process is another node in crosstalk mitigation. Installation teams must be well-trained, follow equipment vendor installation guidelines, use high-quality components, and install those components correctly. For systems that were designed according to crosstalk avoidance strategies but were not installed properly, diagnosis and rework are usually costly, margin-eroding exercises that can foul reputations and sour customer relationships.

The final piece of the quality puzzle is the quality of the products being deployed. Suppliers should have a continuous improvement approach to quality with a systematic root cause corrective action analysis, thorough documentation, and a great support team.

Hanging together

Although a single self-driving car accident damages the reputation of all purveyors of self-driving cars, we do not impugn the automobile industry at large. In reality, self-driving car accidents are rare, just like fires caused by solar equipment. Perception, however, often becomes reality. Every company in the value chain has a role in upholding the reputation of solar energy. And that goes for every step in the solar value chain, too; from engineering, procurement and construction to installation teams and distributors.

By prioritizing quality in design, installation, equipment, and service, we collectively propel the growth and success of solar energy solutions. This shared commitment contributes significantly to paving the way for a more sustainable future powered by the brilliance of solar innovation.

Beyond our close-knit solar community, any hiccups in commercial installations tend to cast a spotlight on ‘solar’ as the culprit. This holds true for the customers we collectively serve. Whether for better or worse, we find ourselves sharing the same ‘solar’ identity, which implies that our fortunes and misfortunes are connected. The solar industry is maturing rapidly, and the quality across every aspect of the value chain is good, but focusing on continuous improvement is critical.

JD Dillon is chief marketing officer at Tigo Energy. His experience spans the U.S. Armed Forces, semiconductors, solid-state drive, and the solar industry. His functional leadership has had an impact on pricing, new product introduction, customer experience, and communications at all levels.

Most of the time when residential PV systems are designed, they are optimized within the limitations of the already-built roof. It is not often that roofs are designed to optimize PV production. But that is the exact opportunity that I get while building not your average dream home.

With years of experience in solar, I assumed that this would be one of the easiest parts of the process – especially for a one-story home with such a high roof surface area to square footage ratio. I thought that all I would need is the right azimuth and tilt. Well, I quickly learned that it’s a bit more complicated.

Luckily, the azimuth was straightforward since the lot is completely open without any obstructions. However, since most houses are designed to align with the road, completely ignoring this rule of thumb feels contrarian. At the same time, using solar orientation and the sun’s ecliptic feels both organic and instinctive to this process. It made me take a step back and wonder how society has distanced itself so much from the natural world that we use something as arbitrary and temporary as a road to orient something as important as our homes. But there was no time for philosophizing when there were important calculations and opportunity costs regarding the roof angle and energy production to consider.

When I was originally dreaming up the house design, I had envisioned a single-pitch roof, with an angle optimized for solar. Since Minnesota has a latitude of about 45°, that is typically the recommended angle for solar panels since that puts them horizontal to the sun during the equinox. But a roof with such a high angle introduces several setbacks. Such a steep roof adds extra volume, increasing build and system installation costs, and therefore the system payback period. Plus, it would create a very inaesthetic and unbalanced building design, with the north exterior wall being double the height of the south wall. In terms of power density, the higher angle creates more surface area, supporting a small C&I system at a 30 kW – much larger than I need.

That’s when we evaluated the clerestory roof, with two differently-angled sloping sides and a vertical, dividing wall. This roof type adds in some additional lighting and ventilation options, while also overcoming many of the challenges of the shed design. Unfortunately, it also creates some weight-bearing structural complications at such a high angle that make the build cost inefficient.

After that, we tried a saltbox roof, which is a pitched roof with unequal sides, one short and high and the other long and low. The thought around this design is that it creates a large surface for a power dense roof.

According to SolarEdge’s Designer tool, if the long, south-facing side were at 34°, I could fit a whopping 55 solar panels for a 22 kWp system to achieve 33 MWh of annual energy production. But this angle is significantly lower than the standard recommendation of 45°, meaning that the energy density would be compromised.

According to Chris Bunch, VP of design and engineering at Powur, the 45° recommendations is “only part of the equation. I think the more important thing is when is electricity going to be used. Is it mostly in the summer? Is mostly in the winter? What sort of energy is driving the heating in the winter and the cooling in the summer? And the anticipated electrical demand throughout the year is important.”

Unfortunately, without an electric bill to show energy usage patterns, this type of information is hard to know in a new build. And it can be even more difficult to estimate for a passive house that is specifically being designed to reduce energy demand. However, in general, houses in Minnesota have a higher energy load in the winter due to the extremely cold weather. And as I’m planning for the house to be all electric, with no gas connection, this will likely hold true. As we were contemplating options, other suggestions arose such as a flat roof or even a ground mount PV system.

But then lightning struck when I suggested turning the saltbox roof 180°, so that the short and high side of the roof would face the south. While that leads to less surface area at a higher angle of 40°, making it less power dense, it becomes more energy dense and better optimized for the higher energy demand in the winter.

With this new roof design, I can fit on a 12 kWp PV system with an annual yield of 18.6 MWh. While this would be 55% the size of the 22 kWp systems mentioned above, its yield would be 56% of the 34° roof and 59% of the 18° roof. And an added benefit of a steeper roof angle according to Bunch is that it can help with snow shedding.

With Minnesota being a standard net-metering incentive structure, this process was more straightforward than it would have been if I were building in a state with a more complex rate structure, such as time of use. As Carina Brockl, CRO of Aurora Solar noted, “Generally south-facing PV systems with less shade are going to do well, but certain net metering programs like the Net Billing Tariff in California actually favor a southwest orientation.”

The other benefit to designing the roof for optimal solar production per Bunch is the ability to plan for all the ventilation and plumbing to be on the north-facing side to both maximize system size and prevent any energy losses from shading.

Now that I have a roof to put over my head, I still need to decide on the components and appliances for energy production, consumption and potentially storage. I’ll be diving into the product choices and the different types of appliances, plus energy efficiency considerations further into the process.

Jessica Fishman is a strategic marketing leader with nearly 20 years’ experience, including seven years as head of global public and media relations at inverter maker SolarEdge. Passionate about addressing climate change by accelerating the clean energy transition, she has worked at leading renewables companies, building marketing and communications departments.

Read the first in the series Building not your average dream home. The second in the series on finding an architect can be viewed here. The third in the series on finding a builder can be viewed here.

As solar capacity increases, the grid impact of subsequent major solar events also increases. On April 8, a total eclipse will pass from Mexico, across Texas and up the East Coast, with most of the continental U.S. experiencing a significant drop in solar generation. The eclipse will occur from Noon to the early afternoon, when solar generation is at its highest. It is too early to predict weather conditions for the day, in particular high-resolution cloud modeling, so this analysis is based on clearsky data via the Solcast API.

Areas in the totality, where the moon completely blocks the sun, will see a 100% loss in solar generation for the duration of the totality. However, the overall effects of the eclipse will cost up to 16% of daily total clear sky irradiance in areas most affected.

While it is too early to predict the precise cloud impacts on the day, Grid Operators will already be preparing for the maximum potential impact, a temporary total loss of solar generation and a fast ramp of solar decreasing then increasing. For areas directly in the path of the eclipse, the maximum duration will be over 90 minutes of impacted generation, and a total loss of up to 6 minutes. In every grid analyzed, the rate at which solar generation drops off and then picks back up again, is faster than grids normally see in the morning and evening.

Due to the large proportion of utility scale assets in ERCOT, Texas will be heavily impacted by the effects of the eclipse. Individual assets will lose up to 16% of their daily irradiance, but the wide area covered by ERCOT means that the overall loss to the grid will be up to 11.7% of daily utility scale solar generation. At current capacity, that would be 16.9 GWh, though the rapid increase in capacity in ERCOT, and known projects coming online before April makes it likely this number could be higher. Solcast’s grid aggregation model shows that the ramp will be slightly steeper than normally seen in the morning or evening, peaking at a rate of 250 MW/minute. The fast change in generation is what can cause instability in the grid, so asset managers, energy traders and grid operators will be working to maintain stability whilst making the most of volatile energy prices.

As the eclipse moves up the East Coast, it will impact both NYISO and ISO-NE. These regions have less utility scale solar than Texas, so the impact will mostly be seen in ‘behind-the-meter’ residential rooftop solar generation. For each grid, the impacts are fairly similar. NYISO will lose up to 10.91% of their daily rooftop generation, and up to 3.1 GWh of power. Being further south, and hit by the eclipse slightly earlier explains the difference with ISO-NE. New England will lose up to 9.85% of its daily behind-the-meter generation, though differences in installed capacity make this a higher 3.7 GWh. Notably the ramp rate is much higher than the morning or afternoon ramps, as irradiance will drop from almost the daily maximum to zero in approximately 40 minutes. This will require active management from the grid operators to maintain stability.

CAISO in California will also see impacts from this eclipse, though being so far from the path of totality, the effects will be less than seen in the partial annular eclipse in September 2023. Despite seeing a lower proportional effect from grids in the North-East, only 5.72% of daily generation, increased levels of rooftop solar in California mean that the energy losses will be greater than either NYISO or ISO-NE, up to 4.0 GWh.

While the impact of this eclipse is significant, it is predictable, and grid operators are already preparing and planning for the impacts. Large storm events, snow dump events and large heavy cloud fronts are less spectacular but can have even bigger impacts on whole-day solar generation. These events are also harder to plan for and predict, which makes it more important for asset owners and grid operators to plan and manage the impact of weather on solar generation as solar increases in the generation mix.

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 information is used by more than 300 companies managing over 150 GW of solar assets throughout the world.

This article was amended to correct the figure in this statement: “the wide area covered by ERCOT means that the overall loss to the grid will be up to 11.7% of daily utility scale solar generation”.

As progressive as the Empire City is, up until recently NYC’s transition toward renewable energy had suffered paralysis by its own laws and regulations. For example, despite much of the city’s suburbs’ flat-topped roofs being ideal to house rooftop systems, the city’s stringent zoning restrictions allowed for the majority of rooftops to only be outfitted with small, unsubstantial systems.

But at the close of 2023, the city passed a series of zoning amendments, as part of Mayor Adams’ ‘City of Yes for Carbon Neutrality’ initiative, which will relax burdensome zoning restrictions on solar development. These changes unlock 5 gigawatts of previously undeveloped capacity for rooftop solar development across more than 50,000 buildings and more than 1 million homes in NYC. In addition, 8,500 acres of parking lots will be re-zoned to allow for solar installations – equivalent to 10x the acreage of Central Park.

The relaxed zoning restrictions will usher in a new wave of solar development in time for homeowners to take advantage of a wide variety of federal and state incentives aimed at making solar installations affordable for all. For residents of New York City, there is an additional incentive of note. Beginning in 2024, the city’s property tax abatement (PTA), which was set at 20%, will be increased to cover 30% of the cost of a solar installation, over the course of four years. And the 30% rate has been extended through 2035.

The laxed zoning restrictions and financial incentives will make solar installation both logistically and economically feasible for property owners throughout the five boroughs, a necessary feat given New York State’s aggressive climate goals and the city’s implementation of Local Law 97. Local Law 97 (LL 97), which took effect at the start of the year, requires buildings greater than 25,000 square feet to reduce carbon emissions by 40% by 2030. Buildings that exceed emissions limits or fail to meet adequate reductions in emissions will face monetary penalties. Solar energy will play a significant role in ensuring buildings meet LL 97 regulations, and the zoning changes adopted by the City of Yes Carbon Neutrality amendments and the city’s increased property tax abatement are crucial to LL 97’s practicality and success.

These regulations and incentives have come together to create a “solar mecca” in the Big Apple that will propel the city toward its emissions reduction goals, while driving significant economic impact. The city’s comptroller predicts that the influx of solar-development will create 13,000 clean-energy jobs over the course of the next 8 years with experts predicting a potential market opportunity of more than $23 billion.

T.R. Ludwig is a clean energy leader with over a decade of experience in various management and executive roles within the solar industry. He is the CEO and co-founder of both Brooklyn SolarWorks and Brooklyn Solar Canopy Co. and serves as treasurer for NYSEIA. He has led solar companies both large and small, with a focus on sales, marketing, and finance, and helped pioneer solar lending in the Northeast market. T.R. received his MBA from the Maastricht School of Management in the Netherlands and was among the first solar professionals in the United States to become NABCEP Technical Sales certified.

This article was amended to say that the opportunity is worth $23 billion rather than million.

From pv magazine global

There are no holidays for solar production. As many cultures around the world prepare for a holiday season, the Solcast team has run a long-term analysis on historical average irradiance on Christmas day, and a look ahead at the forecasts for Europe and the US, using data from the Solcast API.

Christmas Day is just a few days after the Solstice, when the day is at its longest in the southern hemisphere and shortest in the northern hemisphere. This is the driving factor in the long-term average irradiance trends, where you can see much lower levels of total irradiance in the northern hemisphere.

Whilst the amount of irradiance available is based on the length of the day, long-term cloud patterns are also present in the data, which you can see on the western coasts of South America, Africa and Australia. Sub-tropical latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere see more easterly winds as the sub-tropical ridge pushes further south, keeping moisture offshore on the west coast and bringing more moisture and cloud to the east coasts.This year, much of the eastern US will receive below-average irradiance over Christmas, as an eastward-tracking low-pressure system brings rain and snow across the continent. However, the system likely won’t make it to the northeastern USA during the daytime,
leaving New England to see above-average irradiance. A high-pressure system following the rain and snow will bring sun to the Midwest and West Coast of the US, delivering average to above-average irradiance for the day.

Europe will see more variation than the US compared to long-term averages. Low-pressure systems in the North Sea will push westerly winds and Atlantic moisture across the British Isles, northern France and Germany. Further south, light winds and a high-pressure system
will keep skies clearer and sunnier than usual. This will feel like a typical December day, as the Mediterranean coast has relatively less cloudy winters than further north.

Particularly noticeable in the long-term average is the difference between Spain and Southern France, as the Pyrenees mountain range shields the Iberian peninsula from moist and cold northerly winds.

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.

As solar power has been developed and popularized across the globe over the last several decades, the industry has given way to more recent innovation that allows for higher efficiency in irregular places: thin-film solar cells. These lightweight, flexible cells are capable of attachment to surfaces of nearly any shape or design, thanks to their flexibility, while requiring minimal structural supports, due to their light weight. With this technology, solar power is able to be harnessed in a variety of applications and places where previously thought impossible, due to the rigid structure and heavy nature of traditional solar panels.

And now, thin-film solar modules are ready to take on their next challenge: agrivoltaics.

As the impacts of climate change worsen each year, domestic farmers have begun to struggle to keep their crops healthy, as the sun beats down on them with punishingly-high temperatures. Thankfully, a new use of solar technology, known as agrivoltaics (APV), have come to help.

Farmers need elevated coverage to provide partial shade for their struggling crops and solar modules need ample space to soak in the sunlight to generate power. APV combines these two needs, by placing arrays of solar modules above areas of crop growth, to provide partial shade, which reduces sunburn on the land, reduces water evaporation, and insulates the crops from extreme cold and extreme heat, all while giving farmers the primary benefit of solar power utilization: a second revenue stream through power generation.

And now, thin-film solar PV is ready to supercharge this powerful relationship.

Current challenges facing agrivoltaics 

If you were to set up your agrivoltaic system with traditional, rigid solar panels, it’s possible you will run into some logistical issues. Traditional panels are quite heavy, requiring substantial support structures, and are so large that they provide more shade than necessary for most crops, and can stifle their health and growth. The goal of a balanced APV system is to provide just the right amount of shade that keeps the land from dehydration while also allowing the proper amount of sunlight to shine through and help the crops grow. Unfortunately, the rigid nature of traditional solar panels limits the ability to strike this delicate balance.

Most current APV installations that utilize rigid panels will typically consist of a row of solar panels next to a row of crops, taking about half of the land out of production, and make crop care and harvesting quite difficult. Heavy machinery employed in standard maintenance and harvesting processes often must be replaced by expensive manual labor to avoid damage to the solar system.

Lastly, the electrical conduit for traditional solar modules is installed underground; this disables flood irrigation and therefore can limit the variety of crops that are able to be grown in symbiosis with a traditional solar array. If only certain crops can work within the module, then it may end up not being a good fit for an otherwise interested farmer.

Key benefits of thin-film for agrivoltaics

In contrast with traditional panels, thin-film solar cells are much more adaptable to these agricultural situations, thanks to their flexible, lightweight design. Thin-film agrivoltaics overcome the challenges of their rigid, heavy counterparts by consisting of a series of solar crossbars covered in solar that are elevated high above the protected crops, which allows for:

1. The full area to be used for growing crops
2. The full area to receive partial sun and shade during daylight hours, rather than the full sun or full shade situation offered by traditional solar panels, which stifles crop growth
3. The crops to be serviced and harvested using whatever machinery that is typically used, thanks to thin-film solar’s lightweight design allowing for the technology to be implemented at such a high elevation

Agrivoltaics, using thin-film solar technology, allow for the proper distribution of shade and sunlight onto the ground beneath it.

The use of thin-film solar cells also allows for greater energy savings, a healthier crop yield, and increased water savings.

Perhaps best of all, is the ability for thin-film modules to continue functioning after being struck, impaled or damaged. Climate change continues to bring about dangerous, unpredictable weather phenomena, where high winds carrying various items and debris is common. When a traditional solar cell suffers an impact, its glass coating is often shattered, creating a costly mess, the need for swift, expensive repair, and the total lack of energy production until it is properly fixed. But thin-film solar cells don’t have these same drawbacks; if a cell is punctured or damaged by outside forces, the rest of the cell will continue to function just fine, leaving only the small, damaged area in need of repair, rather than taking the whole array out of commission.

The future of thin-film for agrivoltaics

As more and more domestic farmers turn to agrivoltaics as a viable solution to increase revenues per acre, reduce on site energy costs and to bolster crop yields, we will start to see a greater embrace of thin-film solar to get the job done.

While there are plenty of applications and situations where large, traditional, rectangular solar panels are the optimal choice for solar power generation, agrivoltaics is an area that requires the flexible nature of thin-film solar technology to deftly handle the delicate relationship between crops and their need for shade and sunlight. Soon, farmers across the nation will begin to see not only the lucrative energy-saving benefits of thin-film agrivoltaics, but also the crop health benefits of it as well.

Paul Warley is CEO of Ascent Solar Technologies, Inc., maker of flexible thin-film solar panels. Prior to Ascent, Warley was president of Warley & Company LLC, a strategic advisory firm that provided executive management services, capital advisory, and M&A to middle-market companies in the service, construction, technology, oil & gas, clean energy, food, retail and green-building sectors.

In recent years, the United States has made substantial progress in embracing a renewable energy revolution, positioning itself on a path toward a more sustainable future. This transition is being propelled by a convergence of factors, including environmental concerns, economic opportunities and advancements in technology.

With the introduction of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), the U.S. is accelerating its move toward clean energy solutions.

To illustrate the extent of this progress, consider the following key statistics: In 2022, the share of renewable energy sources (RES), including hydroelectric power, in the nation’s electricity generation had reached approximately 22%; furthermore, the share of RES in the total electricity generation capacity had increased to approximately 30%.

Notably, in the transportation sector, there is also a growing awareness among consumers, who are increasingly opting for zero-emission fuels, such as electric vehicles. In 2022, the battery electric vehicles (BEVs) share in new vehicle registrations stood at 5.6%, and by the first half of 2023, the share had surged to 7.1%, according to EUPD Research estimates.

The U.S. has set ambitious targets, including achieving 100% carbon pollution-free electricity by 2035 and aiming for economy-wide net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by no later than 2050. These targets are expected to provide a significant boost to the clean energy sector in the country, further reinforcing its commitment to a sustainable and environmentally responsible future.

IRA and BIL fueling the boom

The IRA and BIL mark an epochal shift in the landscape of clean energy policy, heralding a new era for the solar and energy storage sectors in the U.S. The IRA allocates substantial resources toward addressing the climate crisis, bolstering domestic clean energy production, and solidifying the U.S. role as a global leader in clean energy manufacturing.

According to U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), a substantial investment exceeding $120 billion in the U.S. battery manufacturing and supply chain sector has been announced since the introduction of IRA and BIL. Furthermore, plans have been announced for the establishment of more than 200 new or expanded facilities dedicated to minerals, materials processing and manufacturing. This is anticipated to create over 75,000 potential job opportunities, strengthening the country’s workforce.

After the introduction of IRA and BIL, solar PV manufacturing in the U.S. has also seen a substantial surge in planned investments, amounting to nearly $13 billion, according to the DOE. Furthermore, a total of 94 new and expanded PV manufacturing plants have been announced, which could potentially create over 25,000 jobs in the country.

Surging solar sector

In recent years, the solar sector in the U.S. has outpaced other energy sources, including wind and natural gas, in terms of capacity growth. EUPD Research estimates reveal a noteworthy upward trajectory in the contribution of solar capacity to annual power capacity additions. This trend has seen a rise from 37% in 2019 to 38% in 2020, further increasing to 44% in 2021, and reaching an impressive 45% in 2022.

Annual PV capacity in the U.S. has been steadily rising in the past years, albeit with a temporary setback in 2022 caused by pandemic-related delays, enforcement of trade laws, disruptions in the supply chain, and increasing costs. (The country installed 21.1 GWdc of PV capacity in 2022, as compared to 23.1 GWdc in 2021.)

The U.S. now is on track to make an historic addition to its PV capacity in 2023. According to EUPD Research’s 2023 forecast, the U.S. is poised to achieve its largest-ever expansion in PV capacity, with an estimated 32 to 35 GWdc, if all the planned utility-scale capacity gets installed. Moreover, in the period from 2023 to 2028, the U.S. is estimated to add approximately 233 GWdc of PV capacity.

To learn more about how EUPD collects historical installed PV and storage data and make projections for future installed capacity, see EUPD Research’s Global Energy Transition (GET) Matrix.

In terms of cumulative installed PV capacity (utility-scale + C&I + residential) on a state-by-state basis, California holds the top position followed by Texas, Florida, North Carolina and Arizona. Notably, Texas is rapidly expanding its utility-scale PV capacity, and it is poised to potentially surpass California within the next two years.

Rapid expansion of battery storage

Battery energy storage has emerged as the dominant and rapidly expanding source of energy storage in the U.S. in recent years. The proportion of battery storage in the country’s energy storage capacity has surged dramatically, climbing from a mere 3% in 2017 to a substantial 36% in the first half of 2023.

In the U.S., battery storage capacity additions have been dominated by utility-scale installations. The rise of intermittent energy sources like solar and wind has made utility-scale batteries increasingly important. According to the DOE, the majority of planned utility-scale battery storage capacity is being installed alongside solar and wind facilities in the U.S.

At the end of 2022, around 9 GW/23.24 GWh of utility-scale battery storage capacity was installed in the U.S., as per EUPD Research estimates. Our projections show that in the year 2023, the U.S. is estimated to install a substantial 9.6 GW/26.4 GWh of utility-scale battery storage capacity, surpassing the cumulative installed capacity up to 2022.

In terms of total installed battery storage capacity (utility-scale + small-scale), California at present holds the top position followed by Texas, Florida, Hawaii and Arizona.

Unveiling the top installers

Crucial to the flourishing solar and storage industry in the U.S. are the downstream players, specifically installers. These entities play a pivotal role in driving sector expansion and shaping its trajectory. To ensure continued growth and success, understanding the landscape of the top installers in the country is imperative.

Against this context, EUPD Research in its recently published report “Market Leadership Study: The United States 2023” came out with a ranking of the top installers in the U.S. distributed generation market. We also conducted a comprehensive evaluation of top installers, creating a data-driven snapshot of their competitive positioning. The installers were ranked using a rigorous methodology that considers various critical factors, such as installed capacity, sector coupling, vertical integration, financing options, and more. Each of these factors was assigned a specific weighting to determine the final rankings.

EUPD Research is pleased to reveal the names of the top 10 distributed installers in the U.S., according to our report. Topping the list are industry giants Sunrun, Sunpower, and Tesla Energy, in positions 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The remaining companies in the top 10 are: Sunnova, ADT Solar, Palmetto Solar, Freedom Forever, Trinity Solar, Titan Solar Power, and Momentum Solar.

In conclusion, the U.S. stands at the cusp of an energy revolution, propelled by ambitious targets and landmark legislation. The solar PV and energy storage sectors are witnessing unprecedented growth, guided by substantial investments and a surge in installations. With industry leaders driving innovation and sustainability, the nation is poised to achieve its clean energy goals, reaffirming its commitment to a greener future.

Markus A.W. Hoehner is the founder and CEO of EUPD Research. Markus has over three decades of extensive expertise in top-level research and consulting, with a particular focus on renewable energies, the clean tech sector, and sustainable management. He is a dedicated advocate of the global energy transition and has actively championed this cause by spearheading various initiatives, projects, and enterprises aimed at fostering the expansion of sustainable industries on a global scale.

According to the latest World Energy Outlook 2023 from the International Energy Agency (IEA), clean energy technologies such as solar, wind, electric cars, and heat pumps are reshaping how we power our world. By 2030, the IEA foresees almost ten times more electric cars on the roads, solar generating more electricity than the entire current US power system, and renewables nearing a 50% share of the global electricity mix.

While developed countries like the EU, the U.S., and Canada are leading the way in decarbonization and electrification efforts, the challenge lies in extending these benefits to developing nations around the globe. The IEA’s projections highlight the urgency of addressing worldwide energy challenges, exploring progressive battery chemistries, and emphasizing the need for international cooperation to accelerate a clean energy future.

The unequal distribution of clean air and water worldwide highlights the need for equitable access to carbon-neutral energy. Although we have seen commendable progress, such as the share of the global population without reliable electricity access dropping by more than half between 2000 and 2023, challenges persist as 746 million individuals still lacked access to electricity in 2023. Across the globe, communities grapple with an uneven distribution of environmental resources, exacerbating health risks and perpetuating a cycle of inequality. Regions such as Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia heavily depend on diesel and coal, contributing to disproportionate environmental and wellness impacts on vulnerable populations.

Pollution-related challenges continue to affect those with fewer resources, amplifying existing social disparities. Delving into the root causes of pollution unveils deeper systemic issues, including unequal supply distribution and inadequate infrastructure. Ensuring equitable access means guaranteeing that the benefits of the energy transition are not exclusive to privileged countries but are extended to every individual and community, allowing them to benefit from cleaner energy sources.

Beyond lithium-ion

Lithium-ion batteries, currently the dominant player in energy storage, have multiple limitations. The production of lithium-ion batteries greatly impacts the environment because extracting materials like lithium, cobalt and nickel can cause significant deforestation and water pollution. The resources for these batteries are often found in vulnerable, developing countries, further highlighting the risks of exploitation. The mining process also raises ethical concerns because it has been linked to child labor and human rights violations, demonstrating that there are problems with the entire supply chain.

Lithium-ion batteries are expensive because making them involves complex processes, and the materials are costly to extract and refine. The increasing demand for electric vehicles (EVs) and renewable energy storage adds to their relatively high market price. The intricate manufacturing methods and stringent safety standards further contribute to their overall cost, making lithium-ion batteries less affordable, especially with the rising interest in EVs and renewable energy solutions in richer nations.

The increasing demand for EVs is causing concern, especially among communities facing socio-economic challenges, due to the limited global supply of critical materials required to produce lithium-ion batteries. S&P Global Mobility projects that EV sales will reach around 40–50% of total passenger car sales by 2030 in the United States. The growing popularity raises issues about the long-term sustainability of lithium-ion technology. It highlights the need to explore alternative battery chemistries that use more sustainable and readily available materials.

Beyond resource scarcity, there are also end-of-life challenges. Despite the evolving recycling methods for lithium-ion batteries, recovering materials still requires significant energy. This further accentuates challenges about the technology’s overall environmental footprint. Considering the drawbacks of lithium-ion batteries, it is crucial to invest in and explore alternative battery chemistries that address issues related to the environment, ethics, and resources. If we are to sufficiently foster an inclusive clean energy future, the well-being of vulnerable populations and landscapes must be prioritized as decisions on new technologies are made.

Innovative approaches to energy storage

Exploring alternative battery chemistries is critical to addressing the restraints brought on by current technologies. The environmental impact and supply challenges associated with lithium-ion batteries emphasize a need for innovative approaches to energy storage. Research must focus on discovering new battery technologies and chemistries that offer greater sustainability and cost-effectiveness while reducing environmental impact.

Researchers and innovators aim to uncover materials and processes that present unique advantages regarding resource efficiency, longevity, affordability, and ethical considerations by investigating beyond traditional lithium-ion. Innovation is at the heart of this exploration as it is the driving force behind sustainable energy solutions. Start-ups are already advancing battery technology and demonstrating creative thinking and problem-solving skills to shape a cleaner, more equitable, and more resilient energy future.

Mukesh Chatter is the CEO and co-founder of Alsym Energy, a technology company developing a low-cost, high-performance rechargeable battery chemistry that is free of lithium and cobalt.

In a world increasingly defined by geopolitical complexities and economic interdependence, the United States finds itself at a critical juncture, navigating the delicate balance between energy security and global supply chain dynamics. The current landscape is one marked by strategic considerations and intentional policymaking.

In recent analysis, attention is drawn to a significant element: The incorporation of Foreign Entities of Concern (FEOC) within the Infrastructure Law. Notable nations covered by this provision include China, Russia, North Korea and Iran. This inclusion aims to curtail their influence in the burgeoning domestic battery supply chains.

Against this backdrop, the impending unveiling of the EV tax credit revolution in January 2024 and the enactment of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) in August 2022 emerge as catalytic forces propelling transformative shifts.

Just 16 months after the passage of the IRA, the largest federal investment in alternative energy and sustainability in American history, we are witness to historic climate action and an investment in America to create good paying jobs and reduce costs. Encouraged by the IRA, the private sector has announced over $110 billion in new clean energy manufacturing investments. over $70 billion in the electric vehicle (EV) supply chain and more than $10 billion in solar manufacturing. The private sector has invested in over $240 billion in new clean energy manufacturing investments since President Biden was elected.

Amidst the changing currents of U.S. energy policy and supply chain reform, the states of Nevada and Arkansas stand center stage in the development of lithium projects. Nevada, renowned for its arid landscapes and abundant natural resources, has become a crucible of innovation, hosting ambitious initiatives which harness the vast potential of lithium.

Nevada aims to become epicenter of lithium mining

Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo’s five-year strategic plan focuses on expanding the state’s electric vehicle production, technological innovation and new infrastructure. He believes that claystone lithium will emerge as the key critical element in Nevada’s energy transition as he seeks to make the ‘Silver State’ the epicenter of lithium mining in North America.

Unlike traditional lithium production from brine or hard rock sources, claystone lithium extraction represents a distinct approach that taps into the geological characteristics of regions in Nevada.

Arkansas’ role in powering America’s future

In the heartland of America, Arkansas is actively carving out its role in the energy sector by spearheading critical elements projects. A noteworthy development unfolded in November 2023 when ExxonMobil laid out ambitious plans to establish itself as a key player in lithium production. The company embarked on a significant venture by drilling its inaugural lithium well in southwest Arkansas, marking a strategic move toward bolstering the nation’s lithium supply. Under the brand Mobil Lithium, this endeavor underscores the transformative potential in regional initiatives.

These local initiatives are tangible examples of the groundswell of activity underway, attesting to the decentralized nature of the U.S. push toward energy independence and supply chain resilience.

The heightened need for the U.S. to source as much sustainable, “homemade” lithium as quickly as possible, with America’s natural resources and supportive policies able to bring new mines online, will ensure its place in history as the leader in America’s secure and sustainable new energy paradigm.

America’s road to energy metal independence is long and full of hurdles, both on the supply and processing side. While the United States holds about 8 million metric tons of lithium in reserve, ranking it among the top five countries in the world, right now only a fraction of the world’s supply is produced at one solitary lithium brine mine in Nevada called Silver Peak, run by Albemarle Corp.

As we dissect the intricate web of national policy, it becomes increasingly apparent that Nevada and Arkansas are not just states on the map; they are vital players in the quest to reshape domestic supply chains and elevate the nation’s energy security.

America’s legislative strides are engines of change, steering the nation toward a future characterized by a robust, self-sustaining ecosystem in the sourcing, manufacturing, processing, and recycling of energy metals. As the gears of progress are set into motion, America’s drive for domestic resilience is a paradigm shift actively reshaping the nation’s energy landscape.

Graham Harris is chairman and director of Surge Battery Metals Inc., a pure-play lithium company focused on its flagship project Nevada North Lithium Project in Elko County. He was previously founder, chair and director of Millennial Lithium Corp., which was acquired by Lithium Americas. Based in Vancouver, BC, Canada he can be reached at gharris@surgebatterymetals.com.

Long has the renewable energy industry waited for this moment: Riding the momentum of the past decade, dominant renewable technologies have reached cost-competitiveness with fossil fuels, and other emerging technologies that support the decarbonization of food, water, and waste are diversifying a quickly evolving and expanding market. And, of course, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) unlocked historic federal funding levels and established unprecedented legislative certainty for long-term industry support. Stronger and with more capital than ever, experts agree that the market is primed for rapid and explosive growth. 

Critical to this growth will be project management software for renewable energy development that provides seamless documentation and data management while enabling banks, lenders, and developers alike to manage complexity, mitigate risk and maximize returns at scale. 

But despite the clear need for innovation, traditional financial institutions have historically resisted adopting new technologies for project finance, opting instead to augment archaic legacy systems with spreadsheets, emails and PDFs. Bluntly put, this approach is short-sighted, inefficient, and expensive. These processes require too much time and manual labor from already slim teams while exposing counterparties to increased complexity and higher risk. In fact, a single loan can require 150 hours of unnecessary labor while also losing up to 70 bps.

Banks clinging to yesterday’s outdated tools will be woefully underprepared to scale efficiently for tomorrow’s challenges and profit from the market’s imminent growth, especially as assets become more distributed. With higher volumes of transactions comes higher mountains of paperwork that can critically delay a deal or wash away the margins with overhead.

The good news? Unlike the multifaceted issues of transmission infrastructure expansion or interconnection reform, this can be addressed primarily with technology: The industry can adopt a digital data management and risk monitoring strategy that leverages today’s automation and optimization technologies. 

By bringing project finance tools into the 21st century, financiers can increase transparency and liquidity, tighten timelines and overhead, and reduce barriers to entry, fostering a flourishing, diverse, and scalable sustainable infrastructure market. 

Need for better tools  

Historically, traditional utility-scale energy infrastructure deals have relied on a Frankensteined combination of multiple on-prem systems bolstered by webs of spreadsheets and other static documents. This translates to time-consuming manual processes, workflow redundancy, and opaque, disorganized data management. 

Already highly cumbersome for managing large deals, this approach becomes prohibitively costly when investing in smaller distributed projects that have more data, contracts, and counterparties: The overhead required to finance a single $1 billion deal pales compared to the overhead required to finance 1,000 $1 million deals. A lack of deal transparency further stifles market diversity, as significant, entrenched players have typically been the only ones with the specialized industry knowledge to confidently assess project risk, track covenants and navigate other deal complexities. 

While industry experts agree that the IRA’s legislative certainty and dedicated funding will undoubtedly accelerate market growth, the reality is that its tax credit, adder eligibility, and ongoing reporting requirements add multiple layers of complexity and risk that necessitate more organized and robust data management than what traditional tools can offer. 

Other areas of finance have certainly benefited by adopting automation, digitization, and other advancements in fintech. In a recent industry report, over 35% of American businesses reported that payment automation saves their finance teams more than 500 hours per year on average. These same gains in efficiency and cost savings can be achieved across renewable energy project finance; in fact, one green bank will save over 1,400 processing hours across 30 reduced steps by replacing its manual systems with end-to-end software. 

Three steps for growth

We’ve identified three steps that the sustainable infrastructure industry can take today to increase operational efficiency, decrease overhead, and accelerate deal velocity by adopting today’s technologies:

1.Initiate digitization today to build the foundation for future workflow automation.

Most challenges associated with today’s data management stem from siloed systems and the need for manual auditing, copying, and pasting. With a simple upgrade to centralized and digitized data management, organizations can prevent human error and minimize data inconsistencies and redundancies.

This simple step can not only lower the cost of capital and increase velocity and liquidity but also afford significant efficiency gains that accelerate market growth. For example, thanks to the digital data collection and automation afforded by fintech advancements, it now can take only minutes, instead of weeks, for a business to apply for and get approved for a commercial loan. Why can’t we do the same for project finance? 

2.  Create standardization to minimize risk and overhead, enabling a greater diversity of opportunities.

With a suite of tax credits that improve project economics for a wide range of technologies, the IRA is opening doors to more diverse opportunities within the sustainable infrastructure market – in particular, smaller deals in the 1 MW to 5 MW range are becoming more bankable. However, these opportunities are severely hampered by the bespoke nature of smaller projects that, combined with today’s inefficient processes and outdated tools, create barriers to investment in even the most low-risk, high-impact deals. 

While complete standardization of sustainable infrastructure may not be possible today, some modularization of deal components can be achieved. By identifying similar components across deals, banks can decrease complexity and create greater predictability, which in turn can improve workflow efficiency and reduce perceived risk, lowering barriers and creating more opportunities for new entrants to participate. 

3. Digitize compliance to take advantage of tax credits and manage ongoing requirements.

Today, Deal teams, often already small and overworked, must contend not only with increased volumes of opportunities but also with the mountains of data and documentation needed to track and measure eligibility for the IRA’s tax credits and adders. To be able to take full advantage of IRA benefits while also meeting requirements with auditable, organized documentation, the industry should increase transparency through centralized tracking and preparation of ongoing obligations.

In particular, a cloud-based data room can serve as a single source of truth, providing an infallible system of record and facilitating 360-degree visibility across all counterparties. This means that organizations can not only ensure an organized approach for evaluating and tracking tax credit eligibility with a clear digital audit trail of relevant documents but also hedge against future changes in guidelines and requirements. 

Evolve today to scale tomorrow

Today, more opportunities exist in the sustainable infrastructure market than ever before, and they are only predicted to grow in volume and diversity over the next decade. However, the industry’s slow adoption of more advanced, flexible, and accessible project finance tools will continue to limit deal velocity and increase barriers to entry, hindering the acceleration of market growth. To fully capitalize on C&I opportunities, the industry first needs to embrace existing technology to not only improve data access and management but also kickstart much-needed gains in operational efficiency, deal transparency, and standardization. 

As we start to reap the benefits of the IRA, it will become increasingly urgent to evolve project finance management tools. Bolstered by advanced technologies, we can bring capital more efficiently and cost-effectively to a liquid, diverse and scalable sustainable infrastructure market. 

Amanda Li, COO of Banyan Infrastructure, has over a decade of experience across sustainable infrastructure investing, management consulting in tech and finance sectors, and engineering. She leveraged experience from Generate Capital and McKinsey & Co. to co-found Banyan Infrastructure with CEO Will Greene in order to reduce the barriers for sustainable infrastructure financing through the company’s purpose-built project finance software. 

In the previous article in this series, I had spent a few months working with an architect on the first design stages of not your average dream home. This included positioning and azimuth of the home on the lot, a detailed interior layout, and other passivhaus considerations, such as exterior wall thickness, south-facing passive solar, air circulation, thermal mass, underground water cistern placement, and even an integrated indoor garden.

Now that I have these initial plans, since I am using a separate architect and builder, I am sharing them with builders to get quotes. Prior to the design process, I began searching for a builder through the Minnesota Green Path, which has a list of builders committed to energy-efficient residential home construction, including RESNET’s HERS (Home Energy Rating System) index and air exchange ratings.

I interviewed 13 builders from the Minnesota Green Path designated builder list. All of the builders were very knowledgeable on Minnesota’s Energy Code and often spoke about reducing the Air Changes per Hour (ACH), but many did not have the knowledge of or experience with the type of high-performance building principles that I am looking to achieve. For some builders, I needed to define the meaning of passivhaus. A German word, translated to passive house, that is a building practice of reducing energy demand (instead of offsetting it) through an airtight exterior, passive solar, thermal mass, and air exchange to maintain a comfortable temperature.

The interview process felt long and tedious and– at times– a bit like speed dating. But that is what is needed to find the right fit. As Justin Riddle from Paltrin recommends, “Interview different people and find what you think is a good fit for you at that moment. I always joke that it is a little bit like dating, you are about to get into a relationship with that company.” Riddle continued by explaining that a relationship with a builder will be a long-term one. While building may only take six months, the planning stages may take a year or more, and then there are questions post build for another few years.

During my first call with Riddle, I felt like I finally found my perfect builder match. He was the first builder who not only understood all the building practices that I wanted to achieve, but had implemented many of them. We ended up extending our thirty-minute phone call to an hour, geeking out about different types of energy efficiency and temperature control techniques – such a geothermal versus earth tubing.

Demonstrating his deep knowledge of sustainable building practices, Riddle explained “Some of the elements are the same wherever you are building, such as air quality, material choice or onsite power generation. In northern climates where the heating demand dominates, you can adjust the design to pick some passive solar heat via window sizing and glazing choice on the southern side.”

And being at the forefront of the sustainable building industry, Riddle noted that “there are lots of cool developments happening now where people are trying to advance materials, such as reducing the carbon footprint in concrete production, distribution models, and manufacturing methods using more modularity.”

Riddle, who has a PhD in Chemistry, is the founder and owner of Paltrin LLC, a boutique organization offering design-through-construction services, including energy analysis and mechanical design for custom home builds in the Twin Cities metro region.

“Our outcome is focused on delivering a home that our clients love. To do that we work with people wherever they are in their journey. Some people come to us with a blueprint and land, so we build a home for them. Others are more upstream from that so we get more involved in the design of the home and planning stages,” Riddle stated.

Previously in R&D at 3M for 14 years, Riddle transitioned into sustainable and energy efficient buildings after a chance encounter at a tradeshow when he learned about the USDA Biobased certification program. Now after seven years building sustainable homes, Riddle considers it his superpower where he can combine his formal scientific training with his love of construction to help people and society.

When it comes to sustainability and project scope, Riddle thinks about it on a continuum. “A sustainable home is working to minimize its ecological footprint, reduce operating costs, and provide a healthier, more environmentally responsible living space for its occupants. It’s about minimizing your impact now and in the future. This is typically achieved by working to minimize energy consumption, conserve water, use materials that are produced locally or with more renewable content, and to utilize renewable energy.”

During my first conversation with Riddle, I could tell he is as passionate as I am about high-performance buildings, and he believes that having this type of alignment between a builder’s motivation and clients is important. He also recommended a few certifications to ask about, including EnergyStar, Zero Energy Ready Home, and PHIUS (Passive House Institute US, Inc.) or PHI (Passivhaus Institut).

Out of the thirteen builders that I initially interviewed, four demonstrated some knowledge of the building practices I want to achieve so I’ve shared the preliminary plans from the architect with each of them, including Riddle. The quoting process for each is different, with all offering a square foot estimate for free and some also providing a more detailed quote based on subcontractor bids for free. Others have a fee of a few thousand dollars for the more detailed quote. While the free square foot estimate is nice to have, the detailed quote is necessary for the next step of understanding the budget and adjusting the design to fit the budget.

Riddle advised that the cost of building a sustainable home typically “does cost more upfront because you are likely selecting materials that are higher performing so they are more of a premium. In addition, there are generally more steps and details to pay attention to versus a code-built home, so there is more labor involved.” This can include working with municipalities and subcontractors who are not used to high-performance building practice and may require time and education. However, Riddle confirmed that the upfront cost tends to pay off in the long run, especially with higher inflation, which he said “seemed to surpass the cost difference of the sustainable features.”

With the quoting process from builders expected to take three to four weeks, I am eagerly waiting to hear back. In the meantime, I’ve been busy learning about soil health and regenerative farming with terra.do so that the house won’t just be net zero, but the land will be a carbon sink. Plus, I’ve been digging into the right roof angle and weighing a number of considerations that I’ll dive into in the next article.

Jessica Fishman is a strategic marketing professional with nearly 20 years’ experience, including seven years as head of global public and media relations at inverter maker SolarEdge. Passionate about addressing climate change by accelerating the clean energy transition, she has worked at leading renewables companies, building marketing and communications departments.

Read the first in the series Building not your average dream home.

From pv magazine global

Data analyzed by Solcast, via the Solcast API, shows there was unusually high irradiance in large swathes of Northeast North America due to anomalous high pressure that kept Atlantic moisture offshore. In contrast, the Gulf Coast received notably lower irradiance resulting from atmospheric shifts and cloud formation produced by the same high-pressure system.

The North-East saw clear skies, reaching irradiance levels up to 30% above the long-term November average. This was an unusually strong and widespread anomaly stretching from Oklahoma US to Quebec Canada. The driving force behind this high irradiance is the anomalous high pressure across the continental US that kept Atlantic moisture and resulting clouds from impacting solar assets located in these regions.

The Gulf Coast experienced cloudier conditions from Florida to the east coast of Mexico, with irradiance around 20% below the long-term November average. The anomalous high pressure system that brought increased sunshine farther north, induced lower pressure in the Gulf of Mexico, leading to increased atmospheric instability and cloud formation, reducing solar potential.

The Sierra Madre Occidental mountain range played a major role, shielding western Mexico from the Gulf’s moisture. The large disparity caused by the mountains can be seen in the average daily GHI data, with areas west of the mountains averaging 4-5 kWh/m2 across the month in clear contrast to the 3-4 kWh/m2 east of the mountains.

Despite the cloud-inducing impacts of the developing El Niño weather pattern along the US West Coast, a balance was achieved as the drying effects of the anomalous high pressure countered its effects. This pattern allowed solar asset operators on the US West Coast to still enjoy irradiance levels typical for November. However, further north along the west coast, the same high-pressure system diverted Pacific moisture away from the continental United States and towards British Columbia.

This redirection resulted in irradiance as much as 40% below the long-term average in British Columbia. Though significant in relative terms, this represented a small absolute reduction, considering the total solar potential in this region is only around 1 kWh/m2/day this time of year.

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.