Last week our Get Some Sun webinar featured the Center for Resource Solutions’ Robin Quarrier covering proposed “Green Guides” updates from the Federal Trade Commission. Robin’s presentation was a real eye-opener for our team and should be required viewing for anyone involved in marketing solar and other renewable generation here in the U.S. So read on . . .

For those who are new to the Green Guides, they’re the FTC rules that help marketers avoid making (and being sued for making) misleading environmental claims. They’ve been revised twice since they were first issued in 1992, and the FTC just issued its proposed updates for a new edition that is expected to be final in early 2012. For the first time, this latest set of guidelines explicitly covers renewable energy generation and carbon offsets. And although they may still change before they’re considered final, these proposed guidelines give us all a good indication of what the FTC is likely to require when talking about solar power production and consumption.

Central to the Green Guides’ provisions for renewables are the concept of RECs, the commodity that signifies the added environmental value that consumers place upon renewable energy. The FTC joins many other regulators and policymakers in following the golden rule that RECs + electrons = renewable electricity. Both components are absolutely necessary to be able to fairly make renewable power claims.

The need to exercise care when talking about renewably derived power without the RECs is nothing new. However, the FTC’s strict new guidelines for who and how gets to talk about ANY environmental benefit most definitely signals a change – and one with tremendous implications for describing the host role in the renewable energy industry.

Consider a scenario that will no doubt sound familiar to many solar developers and PPA providers out there. Business X decides to have a PV system installed on its roof and sell the RECs to the local utility to improve the system’s payback. Those RECs are then used by the utility to comply with its RPS requirements. By now, most marketers know that Business X can’t claim to be solar powered. Only the utility now gets to make that claim or else it would be double counting.

Instead, we’ve all gotten used to finding other creative ways to talk about the business’s solar efforts, typically by discretely calling the business a “solar system host” or “solar generator” and then moving on with the glorious details of the array and its many environmental benefits.

No longer. The FTC’s consumer perception research suggests that these kinds of claims can be misleading to consumers. Consequently, the new guides advise marketers against making any hosting claims whatsoever if the entity in question does not own the RECs. Even generator claims are highly suspect, although there’s some grey area in the existing proposed rules. Something like “the company generates solar electricity to be sold to others” falls onto this blurry legal ground. However, Robin warns, manufacturers in particular can assume that they’ll have little wiggle room as the FTC places “made with renewable power” claims under especially tough scrutiny.

So how navigate the new FTC policy? First, review the contract carefully to determine who exactly owns the RECs generated by the solar energy system. If the solar customer maintains the RECs, go ahead and spread the word about their solar commitment. But if those RECs are being sold elsewhere, proceed with extreme caution or risk facing the wrath of the FTC. Because the guidelines are intended to prevent deceptive marketing practices, the best path forward is to make the renewable marketing language specific and transparent. Be able to thoroughly support all of your claims, and if possible make that documentation readily available to the public.

Vote Solar is a non-profit grassroots organization working to fight climate change and foster economic opportunity by bringing solar energy into the mainstream.

Related posts:

• How Companies Can Pay $175 a Year to Boost Green Consumer Confidence
• Seven Strategies for Solar Sales and Marketing
• Solar Panels Get a Touch of Color
• Lights of America Dim in Face of LED Greenwashing Class Action
• USPTO Green Tech Pilot Program Begins Final Descent

For decades California has lead the US solar industry, and is home to half of the installed photovoltaic solar capacity for the whole country.  While California is known for its abundant sunshine, its affinity for solar power and its large solar market are based on far more than this.  One of the biggest reasons why California has led the US solar industry has been the subsidies the state has provided through the California Solar Initiative (CSI) and other programs before this.  But the subsidy outlook is changing in the months and years ahead, which may have a significant impact on the solar industry there.    

Subsidies have always played a major role in the solar industry (as they do for other energy resources as well), helping the industry to grow and costs to fall.

 A 30% federal tax credit and other incentives help solar businesses across the country, but state subsidies and utility rebates make a big difference in the solar market from state to state.  The California Solar Initiative was initiated in 2006 to reduce the cost of installing solar for customers of investor owned utilities, returning rebates of 9-14% for each installed PV system that qualified, on average.  The CSI was started with the goal of installing 1940 new MW of solar generating capacity between 2007 and 2016.  The growth of the solar market across the US was helped by California’s leadership, helping the solar industry to scale up, develop innovative solar solutions, and bring costs down.

The CSI has been a great success, so successful in fact that the solar rebate program is years ahead of schedule.   The rebates have already declined to about 4% of the system cost, as was scheduled in the CSI program as it proceeds.  Now that CSI is nearing its end this seems likely to change the California solar market once again. 

If no new state subsidies are put in place in California, the market for solar could slow and create increased competition among installers.  With growing competition, solar installers will find it increasingly important to differentiate themselves through cost, service, and additional services.  Financial models like solar leasing and PPAs are increasingly common as home equity loans are less available, helping the solar industry to adapt.

The changes are likely to create opportunities for solar companies in California as well.  One direction will be for solar companies to grow larger, pushing for economies of scale through consolidation and acquisition. 

Another trend may be for businesses to focus on various elements of the industry such as brokering sales, setting up relationships as a solar broker with a variety of preferred installers and manufacturers.  A solar broker is analogous to an independent insurance broker, working independently of specific installers to help clients through the solar sales process.  By getting multiple bids from different installers, a solar broker can provide residential and non-residential customers with options that no single installer can and make the whole process go more smoothly. 

Although the solar market may change in California with the decrease in state subsidies, it won’t go away.  The solar market has continued to grow in California even with the decreasing CSI subsidies, making it likely that the solar industry will continue to grow and innovate with new business models like solar brokers even as the CSI program concludes.  The possibility of new subsidies to replace the CSI is being discussed, hopefully long-term incentives that provide the stability that the solar industry needs.  On the east coast, states like New Jersey are using SRECs (solar renewable energy certificates) as solar incentives to meet the states renewable portfolio standard, providing for a major boom in the solar industry there.

As the need for clean energy becomes increasingly apparent across the country and around the world, the outlook for the solar power market should continue to shine even as subsidies change. The Japanese nuclear crisis, unrest in the Middle East, and the heavy environmental cost of coal worldwide have pushed governments, businesses, and homeowners to give solar a fresh look.  To the extent that government policies create a favorable business environment for solar in states like California, New Jersey and Maryland, solar will continue to provide strong a strong bottom line and opportunities for those with a good solar business plan and the ability to compete.

Glenn Croston is the author of “75 Green Businesses” and “Starting Green”, providing training and education for Prime Solar Network and helping businesses everywhere to start and grow green at Starting Up Green.

Related posts:

• Meeting California’s 33% Renewables Standard
• California Wants to Lead With Solar Initiatives
• California Exhausts Rooftop Solar Incentive Fund
• Two More Desert Solar Power Projects Approved in California
• Changing Lives With Clean Energy

What does solar cost? Pricing on utility contracts is often opaque–and there are some good reasons for this (e.g. to promote competition). An exception to this is in Nevada, where there are legal requirements to reveal contracts. Our friends at Evolution Markets recently sent out an email that culled some publicly available data.

NV Energy has applied for approval of several bundled PPAs, PEC-only purchases, and amendments. The highlights are as follows.

Doc: New PEC Contracts (Pecos Solar)
Price: $40/MWh + 1% Esc.
Provisions:5-yr term, 0.5 MW
Development Security = $13,610, Operating Security = $27,220; COD is 15 mos post PUCN approval.

What can we learn from this? Wholesale solar at this scale (20 to 30 MW) is around 12 cents/kWh (with 1% escalation). That’s a very competitive, scalable price for a lot of clean energy.

And the REC-only contracts are also a great deal from a ratepayer perspective. With these contracts, a customer installs a solar system designed to primarily serve on-site load. The main value of the system comes from reducing utility bills. In this scenario, the RECs are a marginal subsidy on top of the retail utility rate savings–they make up the difference to where the investment is economically viable for the customer. And in this instance, the ratepayers are making a very small investment–just $40/MWh, or 4 cents/kWh–to enable North Las Vegas Water Reclamation facility to get at 1 MW solar plant to treat LV’s effluent (insert jokes about clean energy for a very dirty job here). As the customer makes the bulk of the investment, this model is a very efficient use of limited incentive funds.

When we talk about creating both retail and wholesale markets, this is what we mean, and this is one of the reasons it matters.

Vote Solar is a non-profit grassroots organization working to fight climate change and foster economic opportunity by bringing solar energy into the mainstream.

Related posts:

• Small Solar Means Big Economic Benefits in Nevada
• Ormat and NV Energy Sign 30MW Geothermal Power Contract
• More Solar Consolidation – Recurrent Energy picks up 350 MW
• Nevada Becomes Home to US’s Largest PV Solar Plant
• From Sand to Solar

At least, Campbell’s Soup USA (creator of the slogan above) must think so, because they are adding a solar power system to their facility in Napoleon, Ohio.

The solar array will provide about 15 percent of the plant’s energy needs, and allow Campbell’s to save $4 million in energy costs, based on U.S. Department of Energy projections regarding the cost of future electricity in this area of Ohio.

It will also prevent about 10,557 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, which is the same as taking more than 2,000 cars off American roads, or planting about 270,692 seedlings and letting them grow for a decade.

The State of Ohio has already issued $10.5 million in bonds to help finance the project, which will create more than 200 temporary construction jobs in Ohio.

The system comes courtesy of BNB Napoleon Solar LLC, a local firm which has contracted to build the 9.8-megawatt photovoltaic (PV) solar array from 24,000 SunPower panels on 24 acres alongside Campbell’s largest plant (out of 11 production facilities across the United States and Canada).

The solar array will be operated under a power purchase agreement (PPA) and a land lease agreement with BNB – a wholly owned subsidiary of BNB Energy Holdings of Exton, Pennsylvania – owning the system, taking responsibility for every phase from financing to operation, and selling all of the power back to Campbell’s over the next 20 years. BNB Energy Holdings also owns Hudson Solar Renewable Energy.

Photo Credit: WorldNews

Related posts:

• Solar Panels Get a Touch of Color
• Top 3 Things You Should Do When Switching to Solar Power
• California Exhausts Rooftop Solar Incentive Fund
• India’s Solar Power Revolution Could Have Global Effect
• Solar Powered Schools for Small Town America

This year at the Intersolar conference, we had the pleasure of having lunch with Guy Snow, a seasoned installer from Las Vegas. As an installer, he works directly with homeowners and, therefore, has a good understanding of where the general public stands on solar education. We talked about what he sees as the major knowledge gaps for homeowners and what installers can do to provide accurate and transparent solar quotes

Homeowners need to know how to read their energy bill

People understand energy use when talking about miles per gallon (mpg) for vehicles, but they do not yet grasp cost per kilowatt-hour ($/kWh). Educating homeowners to be able to understand both the rate they are being charged and the amount of energy they are using, and how that energy is generated (fossil vs. renewable), is vitally important. With this knowledge, they can monitor their energy use and make informed decisions about how to reduce and offset this usage with renewable energy systems like solar or wind.

Standardizing the solar quote

For most people, reading and comparing solar quotes can be a daunting task. According to Guy and other installers with whom we have spoken, many solar installers are not providing comparable information on their quotes and, in some cases, are neglecting to include vital information. If we could arrive at an industry standard for solar quotes, it would make comparing quotes that much easier and go a long way to reducing homeowners’ confusion regarding installing solar. Without an industry standard, it will be difficult to instill wide-ranging consumer confidence, which is necessary in order to grow this budding market. Specifically, many believe it is important to report the cost of a solar project using cost per kilowatt-hour, rather than cost per watt figures. The main reason is that the $/kWh metric provides for a more accurate cost, because it is based on the solar project’s generation of electricity over a certain time period, rather than on the theoretical maximum output the solar power system might produce in optimum operating conditions.

Therefore, we propose that all solar quotes provide the following details, at a minimum:

• System size in DC Stand Test Conditions (STC) kilowatts;
• System size in AC California Energy Commission (CEC) kilowatts;
• What percentage of the current electricity usage the solar power system will replace;
• Total Cost both before and after all rebates and incentives;
• Cost per kW in both STC-DC and CEC-AC;
• The annual estimated production of the solar power system in kWh;
• Cost per kWh;
• Solar panels – number, make, model, and rating;
• Inverter – type, size, and efficiency;
• Where all components are manufactured;
• Estimated monthly cost savings;
• Financial metrics – payback period, and return on investment (ROI) and internal rate of return (IRR).

If the installer offers a solar lease or power purchase agreement (PPA), we would also expect to see the following:

• Monthly lease or PPA payment;
• Annual percentage increase in payments;
• Downpayment options;
• Term of lease or PPA;
• 15-20 year breakdown detailing costs and savings;
• All services included or excluded (i.e., monitoring and maintenance);
• All terms and conditions for early termination of contract, home sale, and end of lease/PPA options.

If you are an installer, let us know what you think of this proposal. What would you add or remove?

Related posts:

• Unleashing Rooftop Solar Energy through More Efficient Government
• How to Work with a Clean Tech Recruiter
• Big City Solar – Expensive or a Bargain?
• UN Report: Humanity Headed for a “Major Planetary Catastrophe”
• Alta Solar Cells Up Efficiency by Slimming Down

How can companies like SunRun, Sungevity, and SolarCity provide a zero down or $1000 down solar lease while charging less per month than a utility company? Sound too good to be true? It’s not. Here’s a high level overview of how solar leases (and PPAs) work.

First, let’s briefly review how a homeowner would purchase and install a solar system without the benefit of a solar lease or PPA.  A home owner purchases the system and pays for installation–either outright with cash or via some form of financing (e.g. a home equity loan). Disadvantages of this approach include the need for a significant amount of capital and the fact that the homeowner is responsible for maintenance and repair if anything goes wrong with the system that isn’t covered by a manufacturer’s warranty. However the advantages of buying a system outright are that the panels usually continue to produce energy well past their 25 year warranty, they often require very little maintenance beyond washing the solar panels twice a year, and once they pay for themselves everything you save after that is yours to keep.

The solar lease is designed to address two concerns of homeowners considering solar: the large upfront cost and the hassle/obligation of ongoing maintenance during the life of the system. Companies offering solar leases or PPAs purchase and operate the system on behalf of the homeowner–and take on all maintenance and repair obligations–in return for a the homeowner’s long-term (10-20 year) commitment to lease the solar equipment at a fixed monthly rate (solar lease) or to purchase the power produced by the system at a designated price per kilowatt-hour (solar PPA).

In order to make the business model work, solar leasing companies must raise significant amounts of capital, normally from tax equity investors or from commercial lenders.  This capital, often referred to as “project finance”, allows the solar leasing company to make the upfront purchase of solar components and to pay for installation. Solar leasing companies collect the federal “Solar Investment Tax Credit”, as well as any applicable state/local incentivesassociated with the project and handle the paperwork associated with installation and permitting of the new system.

The tradeoff homeowners should consider is the size of the upfront payment versus the long term savings.  Buying a system outright has the greatest long term savings, but requires a big up front cash (or finance) payment. The alternative is much smaller monthly lease payments which result in almost instant savings over the prior energy bill, but result in less money saved over 20 years when compared with an outright purchase.  It depends entirely on which approach better matches your financial situation and financial goals.

The question is, do you want to buy your solar power system outright or lease one?  Or if you already have solar panels on your house, how did you choose to pay for them and why?

Related posts:

• Solar Bubble: Are the Risks of Leasing Understood by the Consumer?
• Dept. of Interior Signs First-Ever Offshore Wind Energy Lease in U.S.
• BMW’s Electric Vehicle Program: Still Stuck in Neutral?
• BMW is Seeking Electronauts for 2012 Active E Test Fleet
• Standardizing Solar Quotes

Want to devise an incentive to get a new industry really humming? Try creating a $100 million dollar fund to finance its projects. That’s what PG&E Corporation (NYSE:PCG) and solar financing specialist SunRun Inc. have decided to do.

Working through its non-utility subsidiary, Pacific Energy Capital II, LLC, PG&E announced a $100 million tax equity agreement that will offer financing for more than 3,500 solar roof installations planned by SunRun nationally. The fund represents the largest residential solar financing established to date in the US.

SunRun has more than 4,000 customers in five states including Arizona, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. Working through power purchase agreements (PPAs) and solar leases, the company has been able to offer home solar power without high upfront costs. Financing arrangements can enable homeowners to pay no money upfront to get solar panels installed, followed by a low, monthly payment. SunRun provides complete solar maintenance, monitoring, repairs, insurance and money-back performance guarantee for all its customers.

SunRun partners with 15 solar integrators nationally that employ more than 2,500 workers. The company says it is growing 500 percent year-over-year. Says company CEO Edward Fenster: “We are very excited to partner with PG&E Corporation on this agreement, which will make solar affordable to more homeowners across the nation.”

photo: SolarDave

Related posts:

• The credit crunch crumbles for rising solar star!
• Pre-installed Solar Panels Boost Solar Power Adoption
• San Jose: The Fastest-Growing California Solar City in 2012
• Nat Kreamer
• AT&T Bulks Up on Solar Power, Activates First California Site

Power purchase agreements and solar leases can eliminate up-front costs and are ideal for commercial use.

When considering solar energy for your business, what you really want is the power, so why shell out for the system? That’s the basic scheme of financial agreements known as power purchase agreements and solar leases that cover up-front equipment and installation costs while the customer pays only a monthly amount.

Does this sound too good to be true? Well, it isn’t, but the process can be rather complicated and contracts become very complex, according to Matt Lugar, vice president of sales at Stellar Energy in Rohnert Park, Calif. Lugar outlined the primary types of financial structures available for solar and the impacts of the 2008-09 financial crisis on the marketplace during a workshop held at the California Center for Sustainable Energy in San Diego, Calif.

Three Choices for Financing

Basically, there are three choices for commercial solar financing: capital purchase, power purchase agreement (PPA) or leasing. A capital purchase, using your own cash or a loan, means you own, operate and maintain the solar power system and look to recoup costs from savings on utility costs over several years.

PPAs and leases, while similar in that both involve a third party who pays for and owns the system, differ in how the system host pays for the electricity generated. With a PPA, you purchase the kilowatt hours you use monthly at a pre-set rate that incrementally increases over the term of the agreement. With a lease, you pay a fixed monthly fee, not tied to actual use, sort of like a car lease with unlimited mileage, and you are responsible for system performance, operations and maintenance.

“PPAs and leases make operational power costs predictable,” Lugar said. “The advantage to investors is that they have the long-term security of a system that will produce revenue from electricity generated for more than 20 years, while the customer gets affordable electricity, typically below the retail electricity rate, for the life of the contract.”

Developing PPA Marketplace

Although PPAs have been in use to finance large commercial power projects since the 1950s, only after 2000 were financial packages offered for smaller renewable energy systems as U.S. banks and venture capitalists became increasingly attracted to the money-making potential. They could see a strong solar market developing as California and other states initiated incentive programs and as consumers gained interest in going solar as rising fossil fuel prices boosted utility bills. PPAs quickly became the standard for commercial and industrial solar project financing.

By 2007, competition among solar PPA financers was fierce, but many projects could not be fulfilled as there was both a shortage of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels worldwide and a lack of know-how among start-up PPA providers. A year later, as PV production was increasing to meet demand, the global financial crisis sent solar project investments into a tailspin, bringing many proposed projects to a halt and creating a tightening of financial markets.

“While the global financial crisis turned off the flow of investment capital for a year or so, today the financial marketplace is softening and opening again for financing of commercial solar PV systems,” Lugar said.

The Downsides

Among the barriers to PPAs and leases is that they are relatively complex, incorporating legal obligations, procedures and technical requirements that are well beyond the ability of the average building owner or facility manager to understand, requiring a consulting engineer and legal counsel. An alternative is hiring a solar integrator, a company that can handle financing details and system installation from design to commissioning. PPAs and leases also mean host customers usually give up tax deductions, cash incentives, utility rebates and, if available, renewable energy credits that typically go to the system owners.

PPAs and leases have their pluses and minuses, but when money is not available for a capital investment in solar power, they can turn visions of cleaner power into reality.

Related posts:

• Support Solar Energy, And Boost Your Company’s Awareness — Learn How
• Getting Dirty with Solar Installations – Solarthon | 2010
• IKEA to Install Solar Panels on Another 10 Branches in the U.S.
• New Orleans Tells Resident Not to Install Solar Panels
• Nissan Spends $3.5 Billion On Solar EV Chargers In Tennessee

Ormat Technologies, Inc. announced this week that it has signed a 20-year power purchase agreement (PPA) with NV Energy, Inc. for the purchase 30 megawatts (MW) from the McGinness Hills Geothermal project, which is currently under construction.

The PPA is subject to various approvals including the approval of the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada and is projected to come on line in 2012.

When completed, the McGinness Hills project will increase the total output supplied from Ormat to NV Energy, Inc. to approximately 135 MWs, helping NV Energy to meet its renewable energy requirement. Nevada’s renewable portfolio standard legislation requires 15 percent of all electricity generated in the state to be derived from new renewable energy sources by the end of 2012.

Dita Bronicki, CEO of Ormat said, “We have enjoyed a long and successful relationship with NV Energy and are grateful for its support of geothermal power. This PPA is further evidence that geothermal can supply a significant amount of power and is a preferable choice given its cost effectiveness, reliability and baseload nature.”

Ormat plans to apply for federal stimulus funds to help pay for the project, including investment tax credits or performance tax credits, and an Energy Department loan guarantee to back debt financing.

The McGinness Hills project will consist of Ormat binary energy converters that re-inject the geothermal fluid produced.

Ormat Technologies is the Reno, Nevada-based subsidiary of Israel-based Ormat Industries.

Article appearing courtesy of Cleantech Investing in Israel

[photo credit: Ormat]

Related posts:

• Ormat to build 330 MW geothermal plant in Indonesia
• Ormat Teams With Sunday Energy on $195M Joint Venture for 36 MW of Solar
• World Bank Gives Kenya $110 Million for Power Projects
• Middle East Turning To Alternative Energy
• Low-Cost Solar in Nevada

Project finance within renewables – solar in particular – has made great progress over the past few years with the introduction of the solar PPA, and with financiers developing longer term operating data from which to base their financial models. Educated guesses are more educated and less of a guess, and big money has entered the space as the financial model has become more credible.

Enter the 2008 financial crisis. Surely, the world’s worst financial crisis (and tightest credit market) since the Great Depression will impact renewable energy project development, which is an inherently capital-intensive industry. The question is, who will it affect, and how badly? I think it’s too early to know for sure, but without a doubt, investors will likely demand higher returns for both debt and tax equity (a special form of equity designed to maximize use of tax credits) due to a general scarcity of capital. However, I don’t think funding will dry up, as solar projects boast a very different risk-return profile than do other investments given that government subsidies constitute a large slice of the project’s value and project cash flows aren’t particularly risky.

Assuming the power price (thus project cash flows) remain the same, an increase in debt or tax equity yield requirements would put a squeeze on those upstream, namely the panel manufacturers and/or those developing projects. Who is the likely winner in that battle? Ultimately the law of supply and demand will dictate who has the upper hand in negotiations, but if solar panels are entering a period of overcapacity, which is likely the case given industry forecasts showing a 60-70% increase in manufacturing capacity in 2009 without a requisite increase in demand, then project developers/financiers are likely to drive a hard bargain on panels, putting pressure on panel prices. Will this be sustainable? Probably. Panel manufacturers currently enjoy healthy margins (First Solar’s gross margin in 2007 was 49.9%), and commodity prices are on the decline. Thus manufacturers have some room to cut prices.

If overcapacity turns out not to be the case (an unlikely scenario – especially given the current financial crisis), panel pricing may not decline as much and the squeeze would then be on project developers. However, demand for panels from developers is likely to be far more elastic than panel supply – if the price of panels were too high, developers would simply mothball projects until a better financing or panel pricing environment came along. Panel manufacturers have less flexibility given their physical infrastructure requirements and fixed costs. So panel manufacturers would still be forced to either decrease supply (which, due to their fixed costs, would hurt margins) or decrease prices.

Like the broader economy, solar project finance and development will feel the impact of the credit crisis. Some projects won’t be built – perhaps those with unproven technologies, or perhaps those with the most marginal returns. But I think panel manufacturers have some breathing room, and project developers have flexibility. The silver lining for the sector is that as part of the federal bailout package passed in recent weeks, the ITC – a 30% federal subsidy – was extended to 2016. In the United States, this means an end to federal policy uncertainty – the biggest bugaboo the industry faced in 2008. Moreover, declines in panel prices will help make solar competitive with other forms of renewable energy, and when fossil fuel prices resume their inevitable upward march, solar will be much closer to that fabled thing called grid parity.

Mark Higgins is a Deal Associate for MMA Renewable Ventures – a San Francisco and Baltimore based private equity firm that invests in renewable energy power projects.

Related posts:

• MMA Ready for More Funds!
• Where were the big STEG Players in San Diego?
• Who will be poised to benefit from the bailout and cheaper panels?
• The credit crunch crumbles for rising solar star!
• French Loan to Finance South African Eskom Wind Project