Photo Credit: Rolf Disch
article tools
Increase Text Size Increase Text Size Decreate Text Size Decrease Text Size
Share Email This Story Share Share This Story Reader comments Reader Comments (34) View image gallery Image Gallery (1) Add to favorites Add to Bookmarks Printer friendly version Printer Friendly Version
Article Tool Sponsor:

Advertise with us

More Jobs
0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
March 19, 2009

The Rooftop Revolution

A little-known policy is turning sleepy central Florida into a green energy hub. Could it do the same for America at large?
by Mariah Blake, Washington Monthly
Washington, DC, United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com]

This winter, as Congress was scrambling to pass the stimulus package, the bottom fell out of the renewable energy sector -- the very industry that lawmakers have held out as our best hope of salvaging the economy. Trade groups like the American Wind Energy Association, which as recently as December was forecasting "another record-shattering year of growth," began predicting that new installations would plunge by 30 to 50 percent. Solar panel manufacturers that had been blazing a trail of growth announced a wave of layoffs. Some have since cut their workforces in half, as stock prices tumble and plans for new green energy projects stall.

While rate hikes are seldom popular, the community has rallied behind this policy, because unlike big power plant construction-the costs of which are also passed on to the public-everyone has the opportunity to profit, either by investing themselves or by tapping into the groundswell of economic activity the incentive creates.

But there is one place where capital is still flowing: Gainesville, Florida. Even as solar panels are stacking up in warehouses around the country, this city of 120,000 is gearing up for a solar power boom, fueled by homegrown businesses and scrappy investors who have descended on the community and are hiring local contractors to install photovoltaic panels on rooftops around town.

One of those investors is Tim Morgan, a tall fiftysomething man with slicked-back hair and ostrich-skin boots who owns a chain of electrical contracting companies. His industry has been hit hard by the downturn, but he has a plan to salvage his business, which he explained over a drink at the Ballyhoo Grill, a gritty Gainesville bar with rusty license plates nailed to the wall and Jimmy Buffett blaring on the jukebox.

Morgan intends to rent roof space from eighty Gainesville businesses and install twenty-five-kilowatt solar generating systems on each of them, for a total of two megawatts-a project that would nearly double Florida's solar-generating capacity. He estimates the venture will cost between $16 million and $20 million and bring in $1.4 million a year. Already, he has lined up financing, found local contractors to do the installation, and staked claims to the rooftops of at least fifty businesses. "And we're just one tiny player," he told me. "Look around. You can see how fast this thing is going to move."

Indeed, around Gainesville similar projects abound. Paradigm Properties, a residential real estate company, plans to install photovoltaic arrays on fifty local apartment buildings and its downtown headquarters. Achira Wood, a custom carpentry outlet, is plastering the roof of its workshop-roughly 50,000 square feet of galvanized steel-with solar panels. Interstate Mini Storage is doing the same with its sprawling flat-roofed compound.

Tom Lane, who owns ECS Solar Energy Systems, a local solar contractor, told me he's planning to expand his staff from eleven to at least fifty. "The activity we've seen is just explosive," he said. "I've been in the business thirty years and I've never seen anything like it."

Why is the renewable energy market in Gainesville booming while it's collapsing elsewhere in the country? The answer boils down to policy. In early February, the city became the first in the nation to adopt a "feed-in tariff"-a clunky and un-descriptive name for a bold incentive to foster renewable energy. Under this system, the local power company is required to buy renewable energy from independent producers, no matter how small, at rates slightly higher than the average cost of production.

This means anyone with a cluster of solar cells on their roof can sell the power they produce at a profit. The costs of the program are passed on to ratepayers, who see a small rise in their electric bills (in Gainesville the annual increase is capped at 1 percent). While rate hikes are seldom popular, the community has rallied behind this policy, because unlike big power plant construction-the costs of which are also passed on to the public-everyone has the opportunity to profit, either by investing themselves or by tapping into the groundswell of economic activity the incentive creates.

Though Gainesville is the first to take the leap, other U.S. cities are also moving toward adoptingfeed-in tariffs. Hawaii plans to enact one this summer, and at least ten other states are considering following suit. Among them is hard-hit Michigan, where Governor Jennifer Granholm has promised that the policy will help salvage the state's economy and create thousands of jobs by allowing "every homeowner, every business" to become "a renewable energy entrepreneur." There is also a bill for a federal feed-in tariff before Congress.

To understand why feed-in tariffs are potentially revolutionary, you first have to understand how they differ from the system we've been using to drive investment in renewable energy so far. For the last fifteen years, the United States has relied on a patchwork of state subsidies and federal tax breaks-mostly production tax credits for wind power, which let investors take write-offs for the energy produced.

When Wall Street was riding high on mortgage-backed securities, this made green energy an appealing option for big banks, which funneled billions of dollars into sprawling wind farms as a way of lowering their taxes. But when the market collapsed and corporate profits dried up, so did the incentive to invest. Since last year, the number of tax equity investors — mainly big investment banks — sinking money into wind farms has dwindled from as many as eighteen to four, and the remaining players have scaled back.

This tax-based system has other drawbacks as well. Because Congress has to renew the tax credits-and has often failed to do so-renewable energy is a risky market. Frenzied bursts of investment are followed by near-total collapse, a pattern that has hampered the growth of our domestic green manufacturing sector. Also, tax incentives (and the quota systems in place in about half of U.S. states) end up favoring large-scale projects, mostly monster wind farms concentrated in remote places like the Texas panhandle.

This has been lucrative for the companies, like GE and Siemens, that build them, but of limited economic benefit to local communities. What's more, a lot of energy is wasted transporting power from the sparsely populated areas where it's produced to the cities and coasts-assuming it can be transported at all. Transmission lines are in such short supply that turbines (and occasionally entire wind farms) sometimes have to be shut down because of bottlenecks in the grid.

Feed-in tariffs promise to solve many of these problems by encouraging small, local production, driven not by Wall Street banks but by ordinary entrepreneurs-a system that boosts efficiency and fortifies local economies.

This article is an excerpt of a larger piece available now at the Washington Monthly and was reprinted with permission. To read the remainder of the piece, which goes into great depths on the history of feed-in tariffs as well as the economic benefits that they provide, click here.

Mariah Blake is an editor of the Washington Monthly. This story is part of a "Big Ideas" series published in partnership with the New America Foundation.

Image Gallery (1)
 
Reader Comments (34)
 
No image available
March 19, 2009
I hate to be cynical but....

the Wall Street bankers and their agents in government are driving the solar and other renewable energy companies into bankruptcy

so...

that they can buy all the companies up for a song with the bailout money....

I'm afraid that's where we are heading.

The Obama government has done little to support renewable energy companies by propping up demand at this time by directing stimulus money to them.

The relatively small portion of the stimulus for renewable energy was largely in the form of tax credits, ie for those who have capital to invest (the Wall St bankers with their bailout money).

The Fed and the banks are keeping interest rates punishingly high for companies, so forcing many into default caught between low demand, low revenue and high outlay.

When they default, the banks will be cleaning up all the jewels of America's renewable energy industry for a pittance.

What can be done?

In my view, Obama and Bush seem to be the two sides of the same banker's coin, and its time to vote for Ron Paul and the independents or start a second American revolution to make sure there is government for the people by the people again and not government for the banks by the banks.
Comment 1 of 34
No image available
March 19, 2009
Finally, a program in Florida! The solar notice is now "on" in the Southeastern US. Where solar power produces the best renewable eenrgy resource, next to biomass.
Contact us if you require a PPA in the Southeast!
www.sunovaenergy.com
jbroughton@sunovaenergy.com
Comment 2 of 34
No image available
March 19, 2009
Yep, them banker (leaders) will propose carbon taxes that the coal industry can sidestep. We will be paying more (hence the coming carbon tax on gasoline to pay to the bank with interest that printed the money that went to the other banks). I knew that "they" would play us and global warming! (Not to say it ain't true)

On an earlier thread, someone tirelessly wrote the administration about their views on feed ins, and the (late) reply was something like "we may or may not look in to it". Therefore, I now (reluctantly) know that Obama is a curse to America because he just gives money to the banks that basically control us (with insurance laws, etc). BLACK HOLES. How do we "declare null and void" these onerous debts? I don't know, but do know how to create more jobs! Obama knows this but seems like he won't deliver.

My solution, enact fits (feed in tariffs) all across the land, promote constitutional awareness, heavy duty powerlines are needed, as are many large utility scale solar thermal plants. These would create more jobs. Therefore, I really don't care if a quarter of the deserts gets "the mirrors", (it's called desert cooling). The rooftop PV industry and independents must also get proper Feed ins! (because if a whopping 20% of electricity was to be provided by rooftop, the tariffs would have regressed down to only just a little above "normal" rates, thus eliminating the tired old argument of "unfairness"). Anyone (aware) who is not supporting proper fits are being fooled by the bankers and their crony's. If that happens, we will one day wake up to an energy (and economically ) depleted country with no rights, in a super heated world! Go Gainesville and GO Germany!
Comment 3 of 34
No image available
March 20, 2009
Yep, it's now crystal clear that for all his rhetoric about green energy, Obama is going to do zero for the green energy industry or the people and everything for the established players. When America needed a John F Kennedy, they got a Frank Sinatra.
Comment 4 of 34
No image available
March 20, 2009
I agree with the above posts. This dude from Chicago is all hat and no cattle. OBAMA = One Bad Ass Mistake America!!!!
Comment 5 of 34
No image available
March 20, 2009
Please, folks, let's keep this site informative and constructive. Those who wish to vent their political frustrations have plenty of other outlets.
Comment 6 of 34
March 20, 2009
Mariah, thank you for the insightful article. I think it's just a matter of time before we have national feed-in tarifs that will bring about widespread adoption of solar. It's a little early in the Obama administration to write him off or condemn his commitment to clean energy. The Obama administration worked closely with wind companies to craft clean energy-friendly legislation and it will time for things to kick into gear. Part of what we need in this county is a national communications campaign to teach people about solar and what it means for their pocketbook. Wouldn't it make sense in a financial crisis to demonstrate the economic benefits of solar? After all, the sun has never announced a rate hike.
Comment 7 of 34
No image available
what the hell are you lot talking about. Obaba -Shbama. The subject is renewable energy. And not a word about Gordon Brown!!!
Comment 8 of 34
No image available
March 20, 2009
"In Disagreement", I suspect that a bunch of right-wing trolls have arrived, drilled with talking points intended to disrupt. Notice how none of the trollies is actually addressing anything in the article? That's because they're not interested in discussion, just trolling.

There's a difference between people like them and honest conservatives here, like the wind-power advocate Jim Berry. He actually addresses the content of the solar-energy articles he criticizes, and he uses real numbers.

Now, for the grownups among us: This program will do two (2) interesting things: 1) It will break down the resistance of homeowners' associations to solar-power installations on roofs, and 2) it will be a boon to suburban and other single-family or small-complex apartment/condo dwellers. Why? Because those places have more rooftop space per resident than do high-rises. They also have garages with their own roofs, making it easier to power the electric cars that are coming down the pike.
Comment 9 of 34
No image available
March 20, 2009
That guy from Chicago is a baaad man... if we had a progressive governor that supported 12 cylinder, hydrogen-powered Hummers, we'd have a feed-in tariff system here in California and show Florida who has the more politically correct sunshine, yessiree.
Comment 10 of 34
No image available
March 20, 2009
Solar collectors are becoming more economical, but the industry needs to have a market that grows 20% per year to be able to finance additional research and development.

There are two homes in my neighborhood that have installed solar collectors using both roof systems (45° South slope) and pedestal carrier.

I don't think that they are economical here in the midwest, but would do better in the Southwest.
Comment 11 of 34
No image available
YESSSS!!!

Feed in Tariffs are EXACTLY what this country needs. As Mariah points out, they are the cheapest, fastest and cleanest way to ramp up renewables in EVERY state! She doesn't mention it, but it should matter to all of us, that aside from creating MORE jobs than Industrial Solar and Wind, and improving instead of destroying property values, and compensating INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES who do the right thing and creating economic stimulus (instead of Big Energy taking all the money), point of use policies also SAVE OUR WILDERNESS from total destruction. MILLIONS more acres of our fragile, precious open spaces will be dynamited, bulldozed, trenched, paved, drilled, bored, poisoned and dehydrated if "green" energy is placed in the hands of giant, rapacious corporations who have, for 100 years, exploited and ruined our public lands for private profits. And when you consider that these industrial-scale projects will also STEEPLY INCREASE GHGS (see SF6 and construction emissions, destroyed CO2 sinks and gas burning), they are a TOTAL LOSE for ratepayers, taxpayers and the planet.

It's high time we stop the scary corporatocracy, and finally democratize power production. Right wingers should be peeing their pants in excitement over FITs - they do everywhere else in the world. They are the ONLY thing approximating energy independence other than pure off-grid systems. Sorry, replacing our dependence on Chevron with dependence on Pickens is a non-starter. WE need to participate and GET PAID, and thank god Gainesville has broken the pathetic US barrier to democratic, clean, affordable power production.

As Mariah mentions, FITs also make clean power MUCH more affordable for non-generating ratepayers as no new massive, SF6 spewing powerlines (at $15 million/mile) are needed, no remote, wasteful, expensive and privately owned power plants are built on OUR dime, and nobody is forced from their home against their will. they are a bi-partisan slam dunk!
Comment 12 of 34
No image available
March 20, 2009
Look deeper into the global warming issue and you will all see that the most up to date science is reputing the argument the carbon tax policy backers have been using, these incidious individulas are interested in power not saving the planet. If enacted this will be the largest back door tax imposed upon the world community in history. Please update you scientific information weekly and please do not choose a side and stick with it stubbornly if you find the facts have been successfully proven obsolete. As for the roof top revolution I love it, I'm sure the local power authorities don't. And I sincerly hope the solar industry have a powerful lobby because the large energy corporation certainly do. And as we all know buying influence means a lot in Washinton.
Comment 13 of 34
No image available
March 20, 2009
I like the idea of feed-in tariffs. Germany has created enormous growth because of it. I would like to see it hear in Canada. I would like to add that the tariff should not be linked to one clean technology that is the tariff rate should be the same if you produce it from wind, solar, hydro, or geothermal or any mix.
Let's let the average individual get into renewable energy production. Create your own windmill and make power - your own micro hydro whatever. Allow people to innovate and create!

Let's not make it only big business allowed!
Comment 14 of 34
No image available
March 20, 2009
Properly defined and regionally differentiated feed in tariff rates will ignite an economic stimulus almost over night. It happened in Germany in 2004, Spain in 2007/8 (until they got afraid of themselves and capped it) and it will have the same positive and quick effect to the US economy. Long term, look forward to millions of solid jobs, billions in tax revenue and a path to energy independence. What's not to like about it?

If you take a serious look at the numbers involved, you will see that the total investment necessary over the next 20 years would be in the range of $40 to $80 Billions (what is a billion these days?). This number is a very rough approximation based on my assertion that Germany will pay about $20 Billion over 20 years and is a third the size of an economy with much less photonic energy hitting its surface.
That number does not take into consideration the above mentioned tax revenue from sales tax, income tax & corporate tax. Nor does it even begin to factor in the savings in military expenses (and lives), currently put out to secure oil supply. Shall we even discuss the cost of global warming?

Here is what I ask you to do: Write to your congress man and ask him to implement a nation wide Feed in Tariff. Ask him to study the German model or refer to such a study done recently by SEPA and the World Future Council:

http://www.solarelectricpower.org/docs/Germany%20summary%20report.pdf
Comment 15 of 34
No image available
March 20, 2009
Who is supplying the solar cells and panels? Are they manufactured in the U.S. or imported?
Comment 16 of 34
No image available
March 20, 2009
Our government should VERY much follow Germany's lead in RE. That is why Germany is kicking everyone's butt across the board. In Germany as with many other countries they still can see between right/wrong and/or real world/big money fantasy world, I feel the people of our country have been pounded by bias and mentally in depth advertising/marketing schemes over so many years that no one really knows who or what to believe anymore. One day Obama is changing everything, the next he's destroying the stock market. To me it's ALOT more than just a discussion about feed-in tariffs or our (one day) version of the Germany Renewable Energy Act. The true question being how, not just how but seriously how do we keep big money from pulling their usual tactics? (e.g.Who killed the electric car?) Big oil money thats who killed GM's electric car. It takes alot of money to win legislation in your favor and imagine that big money has exactly that. And we already know how that turns out all the time. You wait till the big money/Gov. buys exactly what/who they want and then you will fall in line after the big money has their portion and collect the scraps thats left for "We the People". Unfortunately we the people settle for what is given to us and somewhere along the line quit standing up for what is rightfully ours. Like the right to be prosperous, free, and healthy!! Prosperous, yeah right. Hurry and go be prosperous in Ohio and run into nothing but dead ends and an empty gas tank. Free, yeah right. Hell, I just heard yesterday that New Jersey won't even be able to make the decision if they want a bikini wax or not. Healthy, yeah right. They are literally letting people die because they don't have insurance. Whole lot more at play here than just feed in tariffs folks. The system itself is a complete failure on just about anything that counts. Aside from what counts what do you have left,? Exactly what we have now. Sorry I couldn't be more peachy about things. Lol!
Comment 17 of 34
No image available
March 20, 2009
As a solar and wind company, I tend to disagree with the author that there is a glut of solar panels. My company and everyone I talk with is having trouble getting panels quickly enough. The credit crunch is having a big impact, but the incentives offered by the states, in conjunction with the Fed, are keeping things moving in parts of the country.

The banks are part of the problem, but greed was the cause, and aversion to conflict (by politicians who knew things were awry) permitted it to continue. The bad guys have already collected their money. I think the real problem is our stupid stock market --- why a tiny blip in one company takes a whole sector down, and why we let emotion drive the prices and thus the behavior of these important corporations' top management. Their horizon is three months max. And what brilliant board of directors / management team pays bonuses for a division that loses millions or billions of dollars (think AIG and others). Futures speculation caused the $4.00 / gallon gasoline prices, yielding the oil companies big fat profits on top of their tax breaks!
Comment 18 of 34
No image available
March 21, 2009
Sometimes I wonder if complicity was a factor at the SEC and other governmental agencies concerning the international banking conglomerates, as we speak our national currency is being devalued to the point of failure, possibly by design. What incentive do they have you say? Oneworldcurrency and maximum control of power. One more question, who owns the federal reserve BANK?
Comment 19 of 34
No image available
March 22, 2009
Your all missing the obvious here. You can just turn the energies all off and leave them off.
Whats a matter? Are you sk sk sk skeered?

Pity about Earth.
Comment 20 of 34
No image available
March 22, 2009
Sure raises some rancor when people start to argue over subsidies. Forget the subsidies, that's what got us into this mess in the first place. If the business model won't support itself without subsidies then it is flawed. Even the Banks don't have enough money to support a flawed business for long.

Couldn't agree more with the 'point of use,' generation concept. Totally distributed, no big mega-volt power lines needed. That in itself is the reason why the business model is so powerful and can compete head to head with the heavily subsidized part of the market. California's million roof tops program is working, if you need a successful model as an example.

Why wouldn't you want a house, or commercial property, that generates its own electricity? That's an edge if I ever saw one.
Comment 21 of 34
No image available
March 23, 2009
There is not doubt that a localized energy generation platform is preferred. But being so called "off the nipple from local electric municipalities" is not an attractive scenario for many politicians and energy generation corporations who have over the years bought much influence in the aforementioned local government entities. Same scenario exists with battery technology advancements, electric vehicles are very unattractive to some corporations and governmental strategists.
Comment 22 of 34
No image available
March 23, 2009
Mr. Morgan, I have 19 roofs to rent in CT. I will rent them all!!!

www.bgeils.acnrep.com
www.investingwiththestars.net
Comment 23 of 34
No image available
March 23, 2009
florida is pushing it's on statewide program,very much like gainesville,the florida alliance for renewable energy (FARE) the name has been changed to renewable energy dividends (REDs) florida could be the first state to have a program if we have enough support. that would be good news for my co. and other startups,new jobs,.........
Comment 24 of 34
No image available
March 24, 2009
Ok, will all do what we can as individual businessmen and women to change the market, I know you all don't want to discuss politics and corruption it is a very disturbing and stressful subject, I will refrain from political comments in the future because I know many if not all on this thread do not want to adress. The only power you and I have to affect policy is our power to buy, our power to vote, and our power to boycott. I do have a technical question how do the solar panel hold up against inclement weather (hail).
Comment 25 of 34
No image available
March 24, 2009
So far the PV ROI is way too low for all but the rich & patriotic and they have been targeted by the "Administration". They will soon be known as the "middle-class unpatriotic".
Comment 26 of 34
No image available
March 25, 2009
I sense an absence of urgency in regards to energy policy and the implementation of large scale wind turbine projects, nuclear power plants, concentrated solar farms and mass explotation of the recent discovery of massive natural gas depostits in the Montana/Wyoming regions along with the Ohio valley and North east sector of the country. I would go into debt for most of those investments but what I am hearing is a policy of tax the rich feed the poor and carbon tax all who use enrgy (coal fired) that means all of us will spend much more for electricity rich or poor . I am seriously thinking about spending what money I have on my own wind turbine 8 - $15,000 costs if feasable. I would go into hawk for that and it looks like the only way to go at this point, solar panels as of yet are only14% efficient so the type of panel that heats my hot water would be installed in my house until solar panel investments become more efficient for individuals electricity use..
Comment 27 of 34
No image available
March 25, 2009
Finally someone in our country is getting it. Feed in tariffs is what is driving solar mainstream in Europe even in what we till recently treated as third world countries.
Another great factor to facilitating acceptance of solar will be the continuous falling prices dollar per watt.
http://SolarByTheWatt.com
http://SolarMaxDirect.com
Comment 28 of 34
No image available
March 25, 2009
Very true Kubrat. We should be learning from space station tecnology how to improve $/w performance in PV panels.

Now if the goverment would offer long term guarantees in feed-in tariffs and free up free up loans for installations we will have arrived.
Comment 29 of 34
No image available
March 25, 2009
The FIT rewards people for buying non cost effective equipment.
It's supposed to drive up demand to help manufacturers.

Why hand out money for free to every Tom, Dick, and Harry?

Target the real movers in price.

The manufacturers.

1. Use the same money to provide low interest loan guarantees for scale-up.
2. Put strings on the money requiring the manufacturer to lower prices or raise efficiency while holding the costs as a condition for lending.
3. Spur innovation through research and development grants to corporations and individuals.
4. Raise the bar. Place minumum performance standards on new products. Raise the standards every year.

There is only one route to long term success for solar. It has to be the lowest cost means of collecting energy.

As the lowest cost means, utilities will prefer it. People will buy it for their homes and businesses.

Low cost, need, and availability drive demand.

Ask Wal-Mart.
Comment 30 of 34
No image available
March 26, 2009
This is very informative and you sound like you should be making decisions in the energy department at the federal level not sometimes bias individuals coersed by lobbyists and other internal government and big business entities. My question is if the individual units that can power our homes come down in price and up in efficiency to the point were the units are not cost prohibitive to install upon retrofit and new home building and provide the full current draw reqiurments of common house hold appliances (A/C, refrig, etc.) is this an incentive or a threat to local power companies and their business interests. What I'm asking is how can we strike a compromise to provide a win win scenario for all to prosper?
Comment 31 of 34
No image available
March 26, 2009
Well said John (#31) at the moment PV only makes good sense ($) if you have an orbiting space lab, live 20 miles from a utility pole or need lights/computer power during a power outage.

Anyone smart enough to have earned (not inherited) enough money to install a full blown PV system within sight of a power pole would know it's not a good investment.
Comment 32 of 34
No image available
March 29, 2009
Very easy to use calculation tables to figure out economic efficiency (annual return on investment) based on cost to build dollar per watt, insolation, and electricity tariff dollar per kilowatt hour - kWh

http://solarbythewatt.com/2009/03/30/economics-of-solar-power/#tables

Annual Return on Investment in a solar photovoltaic system (solar power station, residential solar installation, etc.) based in insolation, investment cost dollar per watt, price of electricity dollar per kilowatt hour kWh.
Comment 33 of 34
No image available
July 26, 2009
I know this is quite late, but I apologize for knocking Obama. I was venting. However, investing 2 billion in battery tech is small compared to the 10 or so billion for overall weatherization! This, I would agree is definitely backwards...

(But many times more hopeful than the previous administration). Is it possible that what was done (printing trillions dollars) was needed as opposed to societal shutdown? Inflation will result and so will cheap, mass produced solar energy of all forms. Perhaps this was the only way to engage effective climate change action on an U.S. and international level!
Comment 34 of 34
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
Featured Total Access Partners
Click company logos to learn more
Solar Living Institute Solar Technologies SunWize Technologies KACO new energy, Inc. Siterra Corporation Solarfun
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo