Solar Energy Technologies Program

DOE Request for 

Information (RFI)

DE-FOA-0000153 PV 

Manufacturing Initiative

February 2010

Summary Report

Prepared by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), a national laboratory 

of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; 

NREL is operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.
DOE Request for Information (RFI)

DE-FOA-0000153

PV Manufacturing Initiative

Summary Report

DATE: February 2010

FROM: DOE Solar Energy Technologies Program

TO: Public Release and Distribution

DOE/GO-102010-2983
DE-FOA-0000153 PV Manufacturing Initiative, RFI

Summary Report

1 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION TITLE PAGE

I. Summary 2 

II. RFI Response Themes 2 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1 PV Manufacturing Initiative RFI 5

Attachment 2 Responding Organizations and Contact Information 11
DE-FOA-0000153 PV Manufacturing Initiative, RFI

Summary Report

2 

I. Summary 

Last year, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Solar Energy Technologies Program began 

exploring concepts for a “PV Manufacturing Initiative” to facilitate the development of a strong 

photovoltaic (PV) manufacturing industry in the United States. As an integral part this effort, 

and to inform the creation of a new funding opportunity in this area, DOE sought feedback from 

the PV industry.

This document summarizes the results of the PV Manufacturing Request for Information (RFI), 

DE-FOA-0000153. (See Attachment 1.) The RFI was posted on http://www.grants.gov on 4 

September 2009 and the NREL Web site on 9 September 2009. Respondents were asked to 

submit RFI inputs to PVManufInit@go.doe.gov by 30 September 2009. A total of 58 responses 

were received. The 58 responses consisted of 30 Industry, 11 University, 11 Consortia, 2 

National Lab, and 5 noncompliant inputs.1

 The responding organizations and their contact 

information are provided in Attachment 2. 

This document summarizes the inputs as a set of common themes from the responses. The 

specific answers, recommendations, and suggested approaches from each respondent were 

also captured and individually summarized, but are not included in this document because they 

are identified with specific respondents.

II. RFI Response Themes:

Based on a review of the submitted responses there were several themes and observations that 

ran throughout. They are summarized as follows:

1) The existence of local markets is very important to the development of U.S.-based PV 

manufacturing. Preparing the domestic manufacturing base for increased productivity 

via the PV Manufacturing Initiative may have little impact without increased demand for 

PV systems in the United States. Several respondents recommended stimulating 

market demand through feed-in-tariffs, investment tax credits, and various taxes that 

inflate the relative cost of traditional energy sources as a complementary approach to 

the PV Manufacturing Initiative. 

2) The respondents were broadly supportive of the establishment of this program as a way 

to increase U.S.-based PV manufacturing.

3) In general, industry responses advocated Industry-led consortia, universities advocated 

University-led consortia, and equipment manufacturers were proponents of

Manufacturing Development Facilities (MDFs). Similarly, thin-film manufacturers 

recommended a focus on thin-film technologies because they have the highest future 

potential and the United States has a lead in thin-films, whereas silicon manufacturers 

preferred a focus on their technologies due to the dominant position of crystalline silicon 

(c-Si) in the industry.

4) Several respondents requested a clearer statement of the goals and objectives of the 

initiative, especially for the Industry-led consortia. Such a statement might include a 

description of the technologies, barriers, and/or stages of commercialization the initiative 

is intended to address.

5) There was approximately equal support for Industry-led consortia and MDFs as good

models, with a few responses advocating a combined or hybrid industry consortia / MDF 

 

1 Non-compliant responses did not address the questions posed in the RFI, nor any of the concepts or 

merits of the PV Manufacturing Initiative more generally. They typically contained only background or 

promotional information on the responding company.
DE-FOA-0000153 PV Manufacturing Initiative, RFI

Summary Report

3 

model, stating that manufacturing process and equipment development was integral to 

success for both models.

6) Some industry respondents expressed concern that University-led consortia might not 

be responsive to industry and manufacturers’ needs, or timely in their response. Several 

respondents referred to the disparity between the goals and time constraints of 

universities and of industry, and to the need to proactively address the issue. The 

proposed approaches were for Industry-led consortia to include universities, or if 

University-led consortia are chosen, to require strong industry advisers, participation, 

and oversight.

7) The role of universities in producing a well-trained, domestic PV workforce was 

emphasized.

8) Different PV technologies, and technologies at different stages of development, may be 

best suited to different consortia models.

9) In general, intellectual property (IP) issues were perceived as the most difficult barrier to 

overcome. Industry / for-profit entities were perceived as being at a disadvantage in this 

respect due to self-interest overwhelming the process. Universities and MDFs were 

thought to be less competitive entities for IP rights and better positioned to address the 

IP issue. Suggested methods to approach the IP issue included funding only precompetitive research or focusing on module issues common throughout the industry.

10) The approach to IP within a consortium or facility should be clearly resolved and 

documented in the proposal, at the outset. Alternate approaches should be allowed, 

such as a “pool and draft” model, terms that allow for exclusivity under certain 

conditions, etc.

11) Handling of IP ownership among different companies may be simpler when they hold 

non-overlapping positions in the value chain.

12) Sharing of IP may lead to a watering down of results, in that companies with the most 

innovative approaches may not participate. The result would be projects funded for the 

least interesting technologies.

13) Small companies, in particular, are reliant upon retaining the rights to their IP and may 

be reluctant to join Industry-led consortia requiring IP sharing. Collaborations with 

universities may be more appealing to start-up companies. 

14) In any model, member access to industrial scale equipment and expertise is vital, with 

pilot lines being important to proving commercial and manufacturing viability. Metrology, 

testing, and benchmarking capabilities were also noted as important. Funds may need 

to be allocated for investment in capital equipment.

15) Some respondents suggested that any RFP should include guidelines on how to specify 

project goals, milestones, and management methods within the consortium or facility. 

These management specifications might include the role of the consortium leader, 

timelines for pilot-scale and/or volume manufacturing of new technologies, and 

technology transfer plans for university participants.

16) Multiple respondents indicated that PV standards development may occur naturally 

within the consortium framework, without suggesting that such development be a 

requirement for a successful consortium. There was a favorable stance on the 

importance of standards development at this point in the industry’s maturity, though 

opinion was not uniform.
DE-FOA-0000153 PV Manufacturing Initiative, RFI

Summary Report

4 

17) Overall the respondents favored fewer awards with higher funding so the awardees can 

reach critical mass for impacting the industry, though some advocated a balance 

between larger and smaller awards. Additionally, the point was made several times that 

PV manufacturing is capital intensive and so the proposed funding may not be adequate. 

The funding falloff over three years for MDFs may be too fast considering the time and 

capital expenditures required to become self-sustaining.

18) Respondents mostly favored having no restriction on the number of consortium 

participants, preferring to let the needs and goals of the proposed consortium dictate 

appropriate size.

19) Two respondents indicated the Technology Pathway Partnership (TPP) program was an 

example of a successful Industry-led consortia program. SEMATECH was also 

suggested as an Industry-led consortium model. A few mentioned the NREL Thin-Film 

Partnership program as a model of success. Several specific centers for collaboration, 

IP sharing, and tech transfer between universities and companies were also named as 

successful models.

20) Several respondents recommended the PV industry supply chain to be modeled like that 

of the semiconductor industry.

21) Universities tended to report that a 20% cost share was prohibitive and/or difficult to 

meet. Some stated that in-kind contributions of equipment or equipment time from 

industry partners needed to count toward the cost-share. Additionally, a few 

respondents suggested that the 50% cost-share percentage should be lower for small 

companies.
DE-FOA-0000153 PV Manufacturing Initiative, RFI

Summary Report

5 

Attachment 1. PV Manufacturing Initiative RFI

DOE Request for Information (RFI)

DE-FOA-0000153

PV Manufacturing Initiative

Program Manager/Area

JoAnn Milliken, Acting Program Manager, Solar Energy Technologies Program, Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

 

The mission of the Department of Energy's (DOE) Solar Energy Technologies Program 

(SETP) is to accelerate the wide-spread adoption of solar electric technologies across 

the United States through a program of applied research and development, 

demonstration, and market transformation activities. This mission aims to diversify the 

Nation’s electricity supply options, increase national security, and improve the 

environment. The SETP mission is consistent with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and 

DOE’s Strategic Plan.

Background and Rationale

During the past decade, worldwide demand for and production of photovoltaic (PV) 

energy systems has been growing at a compound annual growth rate of more than 30%. 

This growth has taken place in response to government support programs in Germany, 

Spain, and other countries outside the United States. Demand for PV products has the 

potential to also grow in the United States due to new and emerging Federal and State 

support programs and favorable solar conditions, as well as declining system costs. The 

United States, however, is not currently a major manufacturer of PV products, and 

therefore, not well-positioned to take advantage of this opportunity’s potential to create a 

strong domestic industry.

The “PV Manufacturing Initiative” is intended to coordinate stakeholders and technology 

development efforts across the solar community to facilitate the development of a strong 

PV manufacturing industry in the United States. The primary goals of this initiative 

include supporting the creation of a robust United States-based PV manufacturing 

technology including infrastructure and supply chain base, developing a highly trained 

workforce with the critical skills required to meet the needs of a rapidly growing industry, 

and speeding the implementation of new cutting edge technologies.

Three separate models are currently under consideration: (1) university-led consortia 

guided by industry that would conduct industry-relevant manufacturing research projects; 

(2) collaborative industry-led consortia that will develop and implement manufacturing 

research projects with shared intellectual property (IP); and (3) manufacturing 

development efforts, possibly implemented through common facilities, for equipment and 

process development with individual companies maintaining exclusive ownership of IP. 
DE-FOA-0000153 PV Manufacturing Initiative, RFI

Summary Report

6 

This funding opportunity announcement (FOA) will enable DOE to launch a major PV 

Manufacturing Initiative that will accelerate development and provide a strong base for a 

domestic United States PV industry. DOE anticipates that up to $30M will be available 

to fund the PV Manufacturing Initiative in the first year. Of that, DOE anticipates that 

approximately $5M will be devoted to a single or multiple awards for University-Led 

Consortia. The remaining $25M may be used to fund single or multiple awards for 

Collaborative Industry-led Consortia and/or Manufacturing Development Facilities. 

Proposed Strategy

All proposals to implement Initiative models will be evaluated according to a competitive 

award process. In all cases, successful proposals will be expected to maximize the 

number of alternative funding sources, provide geographic diversity, incorporate a broad 

base of the PV industry, and have a detailed plan for the management of intellectual 

property, consortium membership (if a consortia is proposed), and other governance 

issues. All PV technologies (i.e., wafer, thin film, and concentrator) and combinations of 

technologies may be considered. The industry-led models (the collaborative industry 

consortia and manufacturing development facilities) are intended to allow the integration 

of universities and workforce development; likewise, the university led model should 

have strong ties to industry. All model approaches are also intended to allow for the 

technical participation of national laboratories, as defined in Section 2 of the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005. Regarding financial participation, each model encourages inclusion 

of state economic development or other funding organizations. 

Entities who apply for multiple awards should be able to demonstrate that they can 

complete all the work proposed.

Below are characteristics of the three models being considered to implement the goals 

of the Initiative.

University-Led Consortia

DOE would maintain a constant level of funding over the first 5 years for each UniversityLed Consortium, with the option to extend for 5 years either through an extension of the 

existing award, or as a subsequent competitive opportunity. Additional sources of 

funding would be expected by industry participants and universities. The consortia 

would select projects proposed by the universities in consultation with industry.

: 

The specific problems to be addressed will be identified through rigorous planning and 

implementation of industry-relevant collaborative research plans. Based on the 

development opportunities identified, the consortia will fund development projects with 

the expectation of delivering new offerings to market within 2-5 years. Participation in 

standards or roadmap planning activities could be considered part of the scope of these 

consortia.

Successful consortia will provide interested graduate-level and post-doctoral students 

with opportunities for direct experience in research and development (R&D) projects and 

hands-on training in industrially viable manufacturing processes. The consortia would 

also address how its relationship with the PV industry is expected to produce graduates 

from the university that have a thorough understanding of PVs from materials to 

systems, excellent proficiency in device, module and system aspects of PVs, and the 

technical communication skills that are highly valued by the industry. 
DE-FOA-0000153 PV Manufacturing Initiative, RFI

Summary Report

7 

DOE support for each Collaborative Industry-Led Consortium would fund initial projects 

in combination with other funding sources, with the DOE share of support gradually 

decreasing over 5 years and industry and other parties assuming a greater share over 

that time span. Additionally, it is expected that all industry participants could equitably 

share in the intellectual property developed through each consortium. 

Collaborative Industry-Led Consortia

The specific problems to be addressed will be identified through rigorous planning and 

implementation of industry relevant collaborative research plans. Based on the 

development opportunities identified, the consortia will fund development projects with 

the expectation of delivering new offerings to market within 2-5 years. Because of the 

anticipated membership of diverse companies across the PV industry, it may be 

desirable for these consortia to serve as a major resource and leading contributor to 

industry-wide standards and roadmap development. 

DOE funding for Manufacturing Development Facilities would provide initial awards to 

set up the facilities, with additional funding for these facilities also expected to come 

through the organizing entity, user fees, equipment providers, and other participants. 

DOE funding would be gradually reduced over 1-3 years with other participants 

assuming a greater share. Manufacturing Development Facility awards could be 

executed with an organization with ties to the PV industry, industry-led consortium, or as 

a separate entity. Either new or retooled manufacturing development facilities could be 

established. These facilities will assist potentially a wide-range of PV companies in 

making the transition to commercial production. In contrast to the Collaborative IndustryLed Consortia, intellectual property developed through these facilities will be owned by 

user companies. 

Manufacturing Development Facilities:

Manufacturing Development Facilities could be implemented with some or all of the 

following characteristics: provide tools with common uses to innovate around and test 

processing parameters; facilitate matchmaking between process innovators and the 

development facilities of equipment manufacturers; enable users to access process 

development and characterization capabilities to aid benchmarking and troubleshooting 

manufacturing processes; and give users access to technical expertise and 

manufacturing equipment to speed development to full commercial manufacturing 

capability. 

Participation in standards or roadmap planning activities could be considered part of the 

scope of work for the Manufacturing Development Facility awardees.
DE-FOA-0000153 PV Manufacturing Initiative, RFI

Summary Report

8 

Award and Financial Information

Total Estimated Cost of the Project: $125,000,000 - $200,000,000 (DOE and Cost 

share) depending on mix of models selected.

Total DOE Funding Anticipated: $100,000,000

Initial Funding: $30,000,000

Anticipated level of required cost share: 

University Led Collaborative Consortia, 20%

Collaborative Industry Led Consortia, 50%

Manufacturing Development Facilities, 50%

Fiscal Year of Initial Funding: FY10

Estimated Project Period of Awards: 

University-Led Consortia, 5 years

Collaborative Industry-Led Consortia, 5 years

Manufacturing Development Facilities, 1-3 years

Qualifications or Restricted Eligibility:

The University-Led consortia is restricted to domestic universities. Industry participants 

for the Collaborative Industry-Led Consortia must have United States-based PV 

research facilities and demonstrated intent for United States manufacturing within 3 

years. All other participants must be United States-based organizations.

DOE Laboratory Involvement:

National laboratories may not apply as prime applicants but may apply as team 

members.
DE-FOA-0000153 PV Manufacturing Initiative, RFI

Summary Report

9 

Respondents are asked to specifically comment on the questions below. Respondents are also 

encouraged to comment on the general concept, potential benefits or obstacles, the overall 

merits of this idea, alternatives, and the relative priority of this activity. DOE will evaluate 

responses to this RFI to determine the best approach to move forward. 

Request for Information Guidelines

Questions

1) Concept: 

• Please comment on the three models comprising the PV Manufacturing Initiative. How 

well is the problem framed, and are the models identified correct possible solutions? Will 

the models identified accomplish the goals of the Initiative? Are there other, more 

expedient approaches to achieving the goals? Should the models be modified? Do any of 

the models have higher priority? Are there other models that have been left out that should 

also be considered? 

• What PV technologies would most likely succeed using these or other models? 

• What are the most likely organizational barriers that may arise (e.g. IP sharing issues), 

and are there solutions DOE should consider?

2) Benefits: 

• What do you see as the greatest contributions the PV Manufacturing Initiative can make to 

establish a strong manufacturing base and supply chain for the United States PV industry?

3) Eligibility

• Do you agree with the eligibility for the leads and participants for the University-Led 

Consortia? What about the Collaborative Industry-Led Consortia? And the Manufacturing 

Development Facilities?

• Should “for profit” consortia be considered or only non-profit entities? 

• Should there be a minimum number of partners required by DOE for award or could a 

consortium be contained within one institution with far-reaching activity? 

4) Funding:

• Would it be better to fund more awards at lower levels or fewer awards at higher levels?

• Does the level of funding seem appropriate given the amount and type of work 

anticipated?

• Does the level of cost share seem appropriate?

DOE will not pay for information provided under this Request for Information (RFI), and 

there is no guarantee that a project will be supported as a result of this RFI. This RFI is 

not accepting applications for financial assistance or financial incentives. 

A response to this RFI will not be viewed as a binding commitment to develop or pursue the 

project or ideas discussed. DOE may also decide at a later date to issue Funding Opportunity 

Announcements (FOAs), based on consideration of the input received from this RFI or to not 

issue this opportunity at all. 
DE-FOA-0000153 PV Manufacturing Initiative, RFI

Summary Report

10 

Respondents are requested to provide the following information at the start of their 

response to this RFI: 

• Company/institutional name, 

• Company/institutional contact,

• Type of Business or Institution

• Address, phone number, and e-mail address

• Brief description of the operations and mission of business or institution (several 

sentences will suffice)

All responses to this RFI must be delivered electronically in Microsoft Word (.doc) format as 

an attachment to an email sent to the following email address: PVManufInit@go.doe.gov. 

Emails should have the subject line “PV Manufacturing Initiative Response”.

Any questions about the content of this RFI must be sent to the following email address: 

PVManufInit@go.doe.gov. Emails should have the subject line “Question”.

Responses to this RFI must be submitted by 11:59 PM Eastern Time on September 30, 

2009.

Responses should be limited to 5 pages. However, more than one response is allowed per 

respondent. Please identify your answers by responding to a specific question if 

possible. We welcome other comments as well. Identifying the comment with the item to 

which it refers will facilitate aggregating all the responses. Any information obtained as a result 

of this RFI is intended to be used by the Government on a non-attribution basis for program 

planning and procurement strategy development. Information or data that is restricted in any 

way or limited for use by the Government is not solicited and will not be considered. Please do 

not respond with any information you deem proprietary or confidential. Responses to 

this RFI are not confidential and may be published publically on a non-attribution basis.

DOE has no obligation to respond to those who submit comments, and/or give any feedback on 

any decision made based on the comments received, as there is potential for a future Funding 

Opportunity relative to this subject.

DOE thanks you for your assistance and comments in helping accomplish its mission.
DE-FOA-0000153 PV Manufacturing Initiative, RFI

Summary Report

11 

Attachment 2. Responding Organizations and Contact Information
DE-FOA-0000153 PV Manufacturing Initiative, RFI

Summary Report

12 
DE-FOA-0000153 PV Manufacturing Initiative, RFI

Summary Report

13 
DOE/GO-102010-2983 • February 2010

Printed with a renewable-source ink on paper containing at least 

50% wastepaper, including 10% post-consumer waste.

EERE Information Center

1-877-EERE-INF (1-877-337-3463)

www.eere.energy.gov/informationcenter

SOLAR ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM
DE-FOA-0000153 PV Manufacturing Initiative, RFI

Summary Report

14