Editor’s Note: The is a guest contribution by Danny Kennedy, President of Sungevity. This is part of a series from the CEO’s of major solar companies. You can follow the complete series here.

Sometimes it is hard to contemplate what a good news story our industry – solar sales and installation – and the broader clean energy economy really represents. I was reminded on Monday at the graduation ceremony for the Oakland Green Collar Jobs Corps.

• » See also: Canvassers for solar energy and energy efficiency
• » Get Ecopreneurist by RSS or sign up by email.

In short, forty diverse, young and not-so-young people graduated from a tough, practical 30 week training course to be job-ready for work in the solar, weatherization and green construction sectors. 8 of them were not able to attend their own graduation, which had the Mayor and the great and good of the East Bay present because they already had jobs!

That is a big deal given that at this time something like 25 – 40% of union electricians in the area are going without work. It speaks to the excellence of their training, their own caliber, and the fact that green collar jobs are hot jobs even in a recession. And cities like Oakland are leading the way out of it with programs like this, which, at a very human level mean a lot to the people involved. They are also important for the whole economy.

Yesterday, I heard someone from the government-backed California Clean Energy Fund say that a clean energy company employs 4 – 5 people more than a non-green company, for every unit of production. And of those jobs created in solar, most are in the community – not short-term construction gigs or heartless factory jobs - but service positions selling systems, installing them on roofs, or maintaining them in other ways.

Obama, the Arnold Schwarzenegger, and everyone on down has been talking about green-collar jobs and workforce development, which is great. There’s a lot more they can do to support the kinds of job creation that are possible with the clean energy economy but I won’t try to tell you just what they should be doing in DC and Sacramento right now with various bills being debated.

But I do want to point out that at the end of the day, people are the limiting factor on the success of the solar industry. It is not just about the hardware. It’s about employees that sell, install and service the solar systems that will make our business’ succeed and grow and spread the sunshine of solar electricity. We have to train more of them for all the functions required to get this great technology onto the rooftops of middle America.

I look forward to the time when there are too many Green Collar Jobs cohorts coming out of various programs nationwide to go to them all. That’s when we’ll know we’re winning! Shine on!

Photo Courtesy greenforall.org via Flickr under Creative Commons License.

Editor’s Note: The is a guest contribution by Ian Rogoff, Chairman of the Nevada Institute for Renewable Energy Commercialization, and Chairman and CEO of The Helio Group (parent company to HelioPower). This is the sixth post in a series from the CEO’s of major solar companies. You can follow the complete series here.

There is a long overdue debate underway in industry and political circles regarding the merits of federal funding for renewable energy (RE) commercialization.

Distinct from RE projects and RE deployments, commercialization involves identifying specific technologies and entrepreneurs based on their perceived commercial potential and financing the respective project teams along a vector towards commercial success.

The types of commercialization activities typically funded include scaling benchtop prototypes to meet market requirements, characterizing technologies to understand performance and limits, testing boundary conditions, designing for manufacturability, testing for real world conditions, scaling refinery processes, among others.

• » See also: Property tax solar energy financing coming to San Diego
• » Get Ecopreneurist by RSS or sign up by email.

Commercialization is quite distinct from basic research, and expressly does not seek to fund pure science or unproven claims. Typically, commercialization funding stops at a point where the private sector steps in and either assumes the next funding milestone or market acceptance/rejection obviates the need for additional financing entirely.

Two types of barriers exist today in the commercialization of renewable energy technology: the “valley of death” and the “mountain of death.”

Renewable Energy’s Valley of Death

Basic RE research is being conducted at numerous institutions around the world and much of this technology remains trapped in labs for want of commercialization know-how and funding. Basic and applied research is likewise being conducted in commercial enterprises, but much of that research is often constrained through short-term return on investment requirements.

In addition, renewable energy technology often fails to garner the resources and funding needed in order to reach commercial viability as a result of existing regulatory and fiscal regimens that bias markets towards incumbent technologies. Absent investment and institutional know-how, the commercialization of renewable energy will continue to be hampered in its application and hindered in its ability to cross the so-called “valley of death.”

Renewable Energy’s Mountain of Death

What makes renewable energy different from many other technology-based industries, however, is not just the valley of death which is common to many technology-based industries, but more the “mountain of death,” or specifically the amount of capital and time required to take promising but nascent energy technologies to widespread deployment. The energy industry tends to be an asset-based industry, and those assets are usually expensive. Early stage private capital tends to shun capital intensive businesses, and unlike information technology, for example, the energy industry does not generally provide some highly desirable “must-have” new capability, but simply supplants an existing commodity, be it the flow of electrons, or a transportation fluid, or whatever.

Unfortunately, even in good economic conditions, there is limited funding available for pilot and demonstration phases for scaling renewable energy technology. Add to this the lack of resources required to create and implement commercialization roadmaps and it becomes clear why half-hearted attempts at developing this industry have stalled.

Given the uncertainty, costs and times frames involved in overcoming the mountain of death, there needs to be a very strong enabler in order to stimulate renewable energy commercialization on a large scale. Absent regulation, market signals (like pricing carbon), or specific incentives, there are simply no compelling economic reasons in the short term for the incumbent industry leaders to switch from existing feedstocks to renewable sources. As mentioned above, in other technology-based industries, early-stage capital funds innovative disrupters, but there is simply not enough equity financing available to stimulate the early stage energy companies in such a capital intensive industry, and start-ups simply do not have the balance sheet strength typically required for project finance and other sources of financing.

The renewable energy industry is different from other technology-based industries. Granted, it is slowed by the valley of death, but widespread deployment is truly hampered by the mountain. If we are committed to the potential of renewable energy as a solution to many of our climate, economic and national security concerns, we need to recognize the need for strong federal and state support for commercializing renewable energy technologies or we run the risk of looking back on this period and wondering why (to paraphrase Rahm Emanuel) we wasted a crisis.

Image Credit: clownfish via Flickr under Creative Commons License

Editor’s Note: The is a guest contribution by Edward Fenster, CEO and co-founder of SunRun. This is the fifth post in a series from the CEO’s of major solar companies. You can follow the complete series here.

As solar power and other renewable energy sources grow, so does awareness and debate about the role of renewable energy certificates (RECs). As the CEO of SunRun, which is the nation’s largest provider of solar electricity to homeowners and a recipient of RECs, I strongly support the value that RECs bring to our industry.

RECs are issued by the government to any company that generates renewable electricity, at the rate of one REC per every megawatt-hour (mWh) of electricity produced. Rather than punish companies that produce brown electricity, RECs reward companies that produce green electricity.

• » See also: Map of municipal financing programs for solar power and energy efficiency
• » Get CleanTechnica by RSS or sign up by email.

RECs have real monetary value in regional markets. As the renewable energy sector grows, it’s likely that we’ll see markets for RECs nationwide in the near future, along with an increased focus on how RECs work, and whether they are a good incentive for the renewable energy industry.

There are two markets for RECs: compliance, which serves to help utilities meet renewable portfolio standard (RPS) minimums, and voluntary, where individuals and companies can purchase RECs as a substitute to purchasing renewable electricity directly. In most compliance markets, the value of a REC is determined by the “alternative compliance payment,” or tax, that a utility would need to pay the government if it could not purchase enough RECs to meet its mandated green energy goals.

The voluntary market is an easy and efficient way for companies and individuals to contribute to the building of renewable energy. In particular, companies have seized on the opportunity to advertise a strong commitment to the environment by purchasing RECs. But these companies often make no changes to their energy consumption. The claims by these companies are only true if the RECs they have purchased lead to future development of green energy and reduction of pollution. However, RECs by design reward projects that have already been built and are producing electricity. Is this a fatal flaw in the design of the REC system? Not so fast.

RECs reward companies that deliver clean electricity successfully to market at competitive prices. Companies include the future value of the RECs when they do the financial analysis to decide whether to pursue developing a renewable energy project. Without RECs, many of the existing projects would not have been built. Additionally, many solar companies use RECs to lower the price of solar power to become competitive with grid pricing. Since the key to mass market adoption of solar is grid parity, this has the impact of increasing demand for and supply of additional solar power. Lastly, as more renewable energy is created, the market value of RECs will decline. Over time, only the most efficient projects (or those requiring the smallest subsidies) will be built. This will in turn free up taxpayer dollars to fund more clean energy.

That’s not to say the current system for awarding RECs is perfect, and there is vigorous debate about what shape the REC markets should ultimately take. Some argue that each green technology should have its own REC market. Others argue that extra credits should be awarded for distributed generation projects, because they reduce the need for grid repairs and result in less energy being “lost” in transmission. Others still believe that extra credits should be awarded for projects that operate during peak hours because the power they replace is typically dirtier than off-peak power generation. Some have shown frustration at the slow pace of the debate, but it’s a topic that’s worthwhile for everyone who supports renewable energy to investigate.

Learn more about SunRun’s Solar Financing.

Image Credit: david.nikonvscanon via Flickr under Creative Commons license.

Editor’s Note: The is a guest contribution by Danny Kennedy, President of Sungevity. This is the fourth post in a series from the CEO’s of major solar companies. You can follow the complete series here.

Like a tide turning, there’s a big shift happening in the solar market that many people aren’t really seeing because they’re bobbing about on an ocean of opportunity. The implications are huge in terms of who will get capital and attention in the industry, and the trend should lift all boats and take this solution to climate change further than before.

Read more of this story »

Editor’s Note: The is a guest contribution by Angiolo Laviziano, President and CEO of REC Solar Inc. This is the third post in a series from the CEO’s of major solar companies. The first post was by the SolarCity CEO, Lyndon Rive, and the second was by groSolar CEO Jeff Wolfe. You can follow the complete series here.

Two phrases that are often repeated in the solar industry are “Grid Parity” and “Cost Roadmap”. Grid parity is generally considered to be a key goal of the solar industry. Grid parity will be achieved in the U.S. when customers are motivated to buy solar because the investment has a sufficient return WITHOUT any subsidies from the federal or state government.  At present, most people consider PV to be a financially acceptable investment only if federal, state and rebate incentives are applied.

Currently, the rebates and tax credits offered by the government improve the financial return of a solar project together with other factors, such as the solar electric system cost (lower is better for the return), sun exposure on site (higher is better) and the cost of electricity that the solar system is substituting (higher is better).

The cost of electricity is of particular importance: solar substitutes for electricity demand on the customer’s side of the meter, where it competes with the retail price of electricity. This is in contrast to wind power, which is generated on the utility side of the meter, and therefore competes with the much lower wholesale rate of electricity.

• » Consumer solar power aggregation project launched in San Diego
• » Get CleanTechnica by RSS or sign up by email.

Read more of this story »

Editor’s Note: Jeff Wolfe is the co-founder and CEO of groSolar. This is the second post in a series from the CEO’s of major solar companies. The first post was by the CEO of SolarCity, Lyndon Rive. You can follow the complete series here.

groSolar operates in the downstream solar market. We are affected by all the US and global macro economic trends. I describe the current economic conditions as a Vortex. Heavy winds of the economy swirling downward, a huge updraft caused by declining raw material and finished goods prices, and sweeping cross-currents of over-supply and the failure of major banks to provide normal business services.

But within this maelstrom is a gentle wind of opportunity. Finding this breeze, like finding a thermal in a hang glider, can not only fuel a great ride, but can bring your company to new heights. This is more easily said than done!

• » Consumer solar aggregation project launched in San Diego
• » Get CleanTechnica by RSS or sign up by email.

Read more of this story »

Editor’s Note: Lyndon Rive is the co-founder and CEO of SolarCity, a national leader in solar power. This is the first in a series of posts from the CEOs of major solar companies.

Is it May already? Maybe it’s just me, but the media didn’t seem to make as big a deal over Earth Day as it has the last few years. I noticed that Vanity Fair didn’t do a “green issue” this year, and according to John McCaslin on Town Hall, Outside, Discover, Mother Jones, Newsweek and Time cut back on their Earth Day green issues too.

Treehugger reported that Vanity Fair is going to spread its environmental articles throughout the year, and this section of the magazine’s Web site seems to support that. But McCaslin calls it “green fatigue.” I think they’re both right.

• » Consumer solar aggregation project launched in San Diego
• » Get EcoPreneurist by RSS or sign up by email.

Read more of this story »