Joel's Comments

Who are the other 6 companies that do not wish to be publically named?

Your clients can reduce their demand charge by managing their 15-minute rolling demand. The simplest method is to monitor and turn off loads manually or automatically when they reach your pre-selected demand. If your clients do not or can not turn off loads, they can generate power on-site to offset their demand. Several hospitals in California generate electricity using natural gas combustion engine/generators and co-generate heat with the engine cooling system for the hospital's hot water needs. Natural gas co-generators operate cleaner and cheaper and are more efficient than most utility generators.

In 1984, Greg Johanson and I established the Guinness World Record Category for a solely solar-powered vehicle. See http://www.solarsolar.com/suncar.html
For a real challenge, disconnect your solar vehicle batteries and see how fast you can go.
Joel Davidson

There is a history of Los Angeles Mayors making unfulfilled solar promises. In 1981, Mayor Tom Bradley' Energy/LA Action Plan recommended "The DWP should pay the highest justifiable cost for surplus power generated by its customers who invest in solar electric systems." In 1997, LADWP made a written commitment to the US Department of Energy "to install 100,000 rooftop photovoltaic systems in the Los Angeles area by the year 2010." As soon as Mayor Riordan's LADWP general manager and solar advocate, David Freeman, resigned, LADWP's entrenched bureaucracy put an end to the solar roofs program. The reason Los Angeles solar lags behind cities like San Francisco and Sacramento is because most LADWP employees are opposed to non-union contractors installing privately owned, distributed generation.

It's great to see young people taking up the solar vehicle challenge. 26 years ago, Greg Johanson and I established the Guinness World Record for solar only vehicles. See http://www.solarsolar.com/suncar.html We built our vehicle for less than $15,000 and encouraged people to beat our solar only record. No one would race us, not even the solar airplane. So in 1986 we sold the vehicle's solar array which is still being used to power a home. Today, solar vehicle racing has become a rich man's sport. I challenge race organizers to set a vehicle price limit and each year reduce how much can be spent to encourage brains over bucks.

Paul, Thank you for bringing attention to Los Angeles' solar shortcomings. L.A. politicians and LADWP have been promising to go solar for many years. The 1980 Los Angeles Solar Energy Book highlighted the rebirth of solar energy in Los Angeles, but nothing was done. The 1981 Energy/LA Action Plan recommended LADWP pay the highest justifiable cost for surplus power generated by its customers who invest in solar electric systems. 30 years later, the City is still not following its own recommendation. In 1997, LADWP made a written commitment to the U.S. Department of Energy to install 100,000 rooftop photovoltaic systems by the year 2010. In 1998, I trained LADWP technicians on their first PV installations - six small 2kW SMUD PV Pioneer type systems. By 2001, only 40 PV systems were installed in L.A. by LADWP and private contractors. The following year, LADWP offered a manufacturing credit for PV modules made in the City and then promptly suspended the credit after 2 companies opened solar factories. That same year in April, LADWP workers turned off and locked out all privately owned PV systems during IBEW contract negotiations. In August, the locks came off after the contract was signed. Since 2002, solar in L.A. has been held hostage by LADWP management, IBEW workers, the City Council, and the Mayor as they fight for control of LADWP and the $200 million in excess revenue that LADWP collects annually and pays into the City's general fund. LADWP's profit makes this largest municipal utility in the United States one of the most politically powerful utilities. Granted, LADWP provides reliable, low-cost electricity to millions of people, but 44% comes from coal power plants located out of state. The solution? Follow San Francisco's lead and make it easy for homeowners and businesses to go solar.

It's about time utilities start to embrace solar. If they had started in the 1980s when the PV industry first offered utility scale systems, they could have prevented loss of grid monopoly and loss of revenue. Fifty years ago in 1960, Theodore Levitt wrote about short-sighted utilities in his classic Harvard Business Review essay, "Marketing Myopia" http://www.numotion.nl/download.asp?file=marketingmyopia.pdf "Who says that the utilities have no competition? They may be natural monopolies now, but tomorrow they may be natural deaths. To avoid this prospect, they too will have to develop fuel cells, solar energy and other power sources. To survive, they themselves will have to plot the obsolescence of what now produces their livelihood."

Thanks for bringing up the subject of workers' behavior. A more direct question is should solar business people use solar and practice wise energy use? Would you buy a Prius from someone who does not drive a Prius? Would you buy a solar power system from someone who does not use solar? Would you buy PV from a company that does not pay its employees enough to afford a PV system? Imagine if everyone in the industry bought PV for their own house. Imagine if people in the industry made their homes and workplaces more energy efficient. Imagine practicing what we preach.

Is this list the result of a new survey or just the author's opinion? Are there more recent surveys since Farhar's http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy00osti/28872.pdf

My experience with Xantrex and Satcon inverters has been the opposite. In general, grid-tie inverters have a better power factor than some utility companies. Older circuits on Los Angeles Department of Water & Power's (LADWP) have particularly poor power factors. It would be good to hear from other integrators who have CTs on both their PV systems' outputs and the grid.

It is time for utilities to change. In 1960, Theodore Levitt wrote in the Harvard Business Review, "Who says that the utilities have no competition? They may be natural monopolies now, but tomorrow they may be natural deaths. To avoid this prospect, they too will have to develop fuel cells, solar energy, and other power sources. To survive, they themselves will have to plot the obsolescence of what now produces their livelihood." See Marketing Myopia at http://www.casadogalo.com/marketingmyopia.pdf

The CSI is under-performing and Program Administrators have already commented that program performance is affected by the recent economic turmoil. The CSI has to change if it is to achieve 3,000 MW by 2017. The model for change is simply increase the subsidy. From March 1998 to 2001, PV installations grew slowly. After May 2001, the CPUC increased the 10 kW net-metering limit to 1,000 kW and the $3.00/W incentive to $4.50/W. PV boomed in California and inspired other states to start similar solar programs.

The concept of weaning PV off incentives with a declining incentive is a bad idea that has not been used to wean polluting and non-renewable energy sources off subsidies. I propose transferring subsidies from the polluting technologies that no longer deserve them to PV incentive programs.

A little more history: In 1991, the CPUC said Californians were paying much more for electricity than other Americans and mandated deregulation. In 1994, investor-owned utilities opposed deregulation until their 1996 proposed restructuring plan was adopted. Their plan included a one-quarter cent per kilowatt-hour ($0.0025/kWh) public benefit charge. A small amount of that was allocated for the PV rebate. Restructuring failed miserably, but the PV program was a popular success that evolved into the CSI. Unfortunately, investor-owned utilities (PG&E and SCE) manage the CSI program the same way they manage their companies. Do you see a pattern?

In 1960, Theodore Levitt wrote about short-sighted utilities in his classic Harvard Business Review essay, "Marketing Myopia." See http://www.numotion.nl/download.asp?file=marketingmyopia.pdf
"Who says that the utilities have no competition? They may be natural monopolies now, but tomorrow they may be natural deaths. To avoid this prospect, they too will have to develop fuel cells, solar energy and other power sources. To survive, they themselves will have to plot the obsolescence of what now produces their livelihood."

The China "job shop" imports over 75% of PV raw materials imported and exports 98% of PV finished goods. Job shops only function when their customers prosper. Perhaps it is time the Chinese government to focus on its domestic market. The problem is the average Chinese citizen cannot afford PV. The solution is - what?

Peter,
Thank you for your reports and insights. You probably mentioned the effect that politics has on the marketplace. If not, the Los Angeles Times printed an interesting chart showing the the Dow and the economy under past presidents. See http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-110608-fi-obamanomics-g,0,7858839.graphic

Peter,
You seem to understand the PV industry better than most stock market consultants. When it comes to PV industry financial matters, who do you think are not "silly people in the media"?