United States International Trade Commission

Investigation No. 332-534

USITC Publication 4421

August 2013

Renewable Energy 

and Related 

Services: Recent 

Developments
Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

U.S. International Trade Commission

Robert B. Koopman

Director, Office of Operations

Karen Laney

Director, Office of Industries

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Irving A. Williamson, Chairman 

Daniel R. Pearson 

Shara L. Aranoff 

Dean A. Pinkert 

David S. Johanson 

Meredith M. Broadbent
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

USITC Publication 4421 August 2013

Renewable Energy and Related Services: 

Recent Developments

Investigation No. 332-534
This report was prepared principally by

Project Leader 

Lisa Ferens Alejandro 

lisa.alejandro@usitc.gov

Deputy Project Leader 

Samantha Pham 

samantha.pham@usitc.gov

Office of Industries

Laura Bloodgood, Andrew David, Erick Oh, Samira Salem, 

Alan Treat, and Isaac Wohl 

Office of Economics

Aimee Larsen and Alan Fox 

Content Reviewers

Aimee Larsen and Brian Allen 

Administrative Support

Phyllis Boone, Trina Chambers, and Cindy Payne 

Office of Analysis and Research Services 

Peg Hausman and Jeremy Wise 

Help Desk and Customer Service Division 

Under the direction of

Robert Carr, Chief, Natural Resources and Energy Division 
i 

Abstract 

Renewable Energy and Related Services: Recent Developments offers estimates of the 

U.S. and global markets for trade and investment in services essential to energy 

production in the solar, wind, small hydropower, and geothermal sectors, as well as 

discusses trade barriers affecting these services. The services span a range of industries, 

including consulting, engineering, construction, and equipment maintenance and repair. 

Global demand for such services has grown rapidly in the past five years as more and 

more countries strive to meet rising energy needs, reduce carbon output, and strengthen 

energy security by developing renewable energy. Global capacity in the field more than 

doubled to 653 gigawatts between 2007 and 2012, while global investment stood at a 

record $244 billion in 2012, up 71 percent during the period. Europe, the United States, 

and Asia, particularly China, are consistently among the largest markets for renewable 

energy services.

Trade in renewable energy services occurs chiefly through foreign direct investment, in 

which a firm sets up a commercial presence abroad. Although the United States is a 

leading supplier and consumer of renewable energy services, evidence suggests it is 

likely a net importer, given the large presence of foreign affiliates providing these 

services in the U.S. market. Nonetheless, U.S. providers export substantial amounts of 

renewable energy services, primarily to Canada, while Mexico, other Latin American 

countries, and other large emerging markets present opportunities for U.S. service 

providers. 

Local-content requirements are the most significant trade barrier in this field. Although 

largely applied to renewable energy equipment, these requirements often act as de facto 

barriers to services exports because many renewable energy equipment manufacturers 

also provide services in support of their products. Restrictions on investment and on 

temporarily moving employees into foreign markets also hinder exports of renewable 

energy services. Some regional and bilateral trade negotiations are now working to 

liberalize the market by loosening these requirements. 

 

iii 

CONTENTS 

Page

Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... i

Acronyms .................................................................................................................................... ix

Glossary ....................................................................................................................................... xi

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... xiii

Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 1-1

 Purpose and background ............................................................................................................ 1-1

 Scope .......................................................................................................................................... 1-2

    Classification of renewable energy services ......................................................................... 1-2

 Approach and data sources .................................................................................................... 1-3

 Organization .............................................................................................................................. 1-5

Chapter 2 Overview of the Markets for Renewable Energy 

 and Renewable Energy Services .................................................................... 2-1

 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 2-1

 Overview of global and U.S. renewable energy markets ........................................................... 2-2

 Global market ........................................................................................................................ 2-2

 U.S. market ............................................................................................................................ 2-6

 Factors affecting supply and demand for renewable energy ...................................................... 2-8

 Policies supporting renewable energy ................................................................................... 2-8

 Other factors affecting demand and supply for renewable energy ........................................ 2-11

 Overview of renewable energy services .................................................................................... 2-12

 Factors affecting demand and supply for renewable energy ................................................. 2-13

 Estimates of the size of the global and U.S. market for renewable energy services .................. 2-15

 Size of the global market ....................................................................................................... 2-15

 Size of the U.S. market.......................................................................................................... 2-16

 Global and U.S. investment in renewable energy services ........................................................ 2-17

 Global investment ................................................................................................................. 2-17

 U.S. investment ..................................................................................................................... 2-19

 Global and U.S. trade in renewable energy services ................................................................. 2-19

 Barriers to trade and investment in renewable energy services ................................................. 2-21

 Horizontal measures affecting trade and investment in renewable energy services ............. 2-21

 Specific measures affecting trade and investment in renewable energy services ................. 2-22

 Efforts to liberalize trade and investment in renewable energy services ................................... 2-23

 Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 2-26

Chapter 3 Solar PV Industry .................................................................................... 3-1

 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3-1

 Overview of PV services segments ........................................................................................... 3-1

 Residential and nonresidential services ................................................................................. 3-2

 Utility-scale services ............................................................................................................. 3-3
iv 

CONTENTS—Continued

Page

Chapter 3 Solar PV Industry—Continued

 U.S. market for PV services ....................................................................................................... 3-5

 Market size ............................................................................................................................ 3-5

 Factors affecting U.S. supply and demand for PV services .................................................. 3-9

 U.S. industry trends ............................................................................................................... 3-11

 Global market for PV services ................................................................................................... 3-17

 Market size ............................................................................................................................ 3-17

 Factors affecting global supply and demand for PV services ............................................... 3-19

 Global industry trends ........................................................................................................... 3-19

 Trade and investment ................................................................................................................. 3-21

 Imports and exports ............................................................................................................... 3-21

 Investment ............................................................................................................................. 3-23

 Trade barriers ........................................................................................................................ 3-24

 Country and regional profiles .................................................................................................... 3-26

 Canada ................................................................................................................................... 3-26

 China ..................................................................................................................................... 3-28

 Germany ................................................................................................................................ 3-28

 Japan ...................................................................................................................................... 3-29

 Latin America ........................................................................................................................ 3-30

 Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 3-32

Chapter 4 Wind Energy Services .......................................................................... 4-1

 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4-1

 Overview of wind energy services segments ............................................................................. 4-1

 Project development, construction, and installation services ................................................ 4-4

 O&M services ....................................................................................................................... 4-7

 U.S. market for wind energy services ........................................................................................ 4-7

 Market size ............................................................................................................................ 4-7

 Factors affecting U.S. supply and demand for wind energy services ................................... 4-10

 U.S. industry trends ............................................................................................................... 4-12

 Global market for wind energy services .................................................................................... 4-15

 Market size ............................................................................................................................ 4-15

 Factors affecting global supply and demand for wind energy services ................................. 4-18

 Global industry trends ........................................................................................................... 4-19

 Trade and investment ................................................................................................................. 4-22

 Imports and exports ............................................................................................................... 4-23

 Investment ............................................................................................................................. 4-24

 Trade barriers ........................................................................................................................ 4-25

 Country profiles ......................................................................................................................... 4-26

 Brazil ..................................................................................................................................... 4-26

 Canada ................................................................................................................................... 4-28

 China ..................................................................................................................................... 4-29

 Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 4-31

Chapter 5 Hydropower and Geothermal Services .................................. 5-1

 Hydropower energy ................................................................................................................... 5-1

 Overview of hydropower-related services ................................................................................. 5-2
v 

CONTENTS—Continued

Page

Chapter 5 Hydropower and Geothermal Services—Continued

 U.S. market for hydropower-related services ............................................................................ 5-4

 Market size ............................................................................................................................ 5-5

 Factors affecting supply and demand for hydropower services ............................................ 5-7

 U.S. industry trends ............................................................................................................... 5-9

 Global market for hydropower-related services ........................................................................ 5-9

 Market size ............................................................................................................................ 5-9

 Factors affecting global supply and demand for hydropower services ................................. 5-16

 Global industry trends ........................................................................................................... 5-16

 Trade and investment ................................................................................................................. 5-17

 Imports and exports ............................................................................................................... 5-17

 Investment ............................................................................................................................. 5-18

 Trade barriers ........................................................................................................................ 5-19

 Regional profiles ........................................................................................................................ 5-21

 Latin America ........................................................................................................................ 5-21

 Asia ....................................................................................................................................... 5-22

 Africa ..................................................................................................................................... 5-23

 European Union .................................................................................................................... 5-23

 Geothermal energy ..................................................................................................................... 5-25

 Overview of geothermal energy services .............................................................................. 5-25

 U.S. market for geothermal energy services .............................................................................. 5-26

 Market size ............................................................................................................................ 5-26

 Factors affecting U.S. supply and demand for geothermal power and related services ........ 5-27

 U.S. industry trends ............................................................................................................... 5-28

 Global market for geothermal energy services .......................................................................... 5-30

 Market size ............................................................................................................................ 5-30

 Factors affecting global supply and demand for geothermal services .................................. 5-31

 Global industry trends ........................................................................................................... 5-32

 Trade and investment ................................................................................................................. 5-33

 Imports and exports ............................................................................................................... 5-33

 Investment ............................................................................................................................. 5-34

 Trade barriers ........................................................................................................................ 5-34

 Regional profiles ........................................................................................................................ 5-35

 Southeast Asia (Indonesia and the Philippines) .................................................................... 5-35

 East Africa ............................................................................................................................. 5-36

 Latin America ........................................................................................................................ 5-36

 Japan ...................................................................................................................................... 5-36

 Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 5-38

Chapter 6 Market Effects of Clean Energy Incentive 

 Programs ........................................................................................................................... 6-1

 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 6-1

 The need for incentives .............................................................................................................. 6-2

 Feed-in tariffs ............................................................................................................................. 6-5

 Renewable portfolio standards (RPSs) ...................................................................................... 6-6
vi 

CONTENTS—Continued

Page

Chapter 6 Market Effects of Clean Energy Incentive 

 Programs—Continued

 Tax incentives and public financing .......................................................................................... 6-9

 Incentives and return on equity .................................................................................................. 6-11

 Incentives and installed wind capacity ......................................................................................6-13

 Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 6-15

Appendices

A. Request letter ................................................................................................................................ A-1

B. Federal Register notice ................................................................................................................. B-1

C. Positions of interested parties ....................................................................................................... C-1

Boxes 

2.1. Renewable energy is derived from a variety of sources ........................................................... 2-3

3.1. Photovoltaic (PV) market segments ......................................................................................... 3-2

3.2. Financing and ownership models for residential and commercial solar .................................. 3-3

4.1. Financing a wind farm ............................................................................................................. 4-6

5.1. Changes to the FERC licensing process ...................................................................................5-8

5.2. Renewable energy from marine and hydrokinetic power ........................................................ 5-10

5.3. Recent developments in large hydropower .............................................................................. 5-13

6.1. Feed-in-tariffs in Spain ............................................................................................................ 6-17

Figures 

ES.1. Global renewable energy capacity by source, 2007–12 ........................................................... xiv

ES.2. U.S. renewable energy capacity by source, 2007–12 ............................................................... xv

ES.3. Global renewable energy investment by sector, 2007–12 ........................................................ xix

ES.4. Global renewable energy investment by country and region, 2007–12 ................................... xx

2.1. Global energy consumption by source, 2011 ........................................................................... 2-4

2.2. Global renewable energy capacity by source, 2007–12 ........................................................... 2-4

2.3. U.S. energy consumption by source, 2012 ............................................................................... 2-6

2.4. U.S. renewable energy capacity by source, 2007–12 ............................................................... 2-7

2.5. U.S. annual installations of renewable capacity, 2007–12 ....................................................... 2-8

2.6. Renewable energy projects encompass a broad range of goods and services .......................... 2-13

2.7. Global renewable energy investment by sector, 2007–12 ........................................................ 2-18

2.8. Global renewable energy investment by country and region, 2007–12 ................................... 2-19

3.1. Annual U.S. PV installations, 2007–12 (left), and installations by state in 2012 (right) ......... 3-5

3.2. U.S. PV market value increased by more than 200 percent from 2009 to 2012 ...................... 3-6

3.3. Services accounted for more than 30 percent of the PV installation market across all 

 segments in 2011 ................................................................................................................. 3-7

3.4. Third-party ownership of residential PV systems in California has rapidly increased, while 

 nonresidential ownership was flat during 2010–12 ............................................................. 3-8

3.5. The price of PV installations has declined more than 40 percent since 2002 .......................... 3-9

3.6. Approximate U.S. market share of residential installers, 2012 ................................................ 3-12

3.7. Approximate U.S. market shares of nonresidential installers, 2012 ........................................ 3-13
vii 

CONTENTS—Continued

Page

Figures—Continued

3.8. Residential third-party ownership industry was fairly concentrated in California (left) in 

 the first quarter of 2012 and in Maryland in full year 2012 (right) ..................................... 3-14

3.9. Approximate U.S. market shares of PV utility project developers, 2012 ................................ 3-16

3.10. Annual global PV installations rapidly increased during 2007–11 .......................................... 3-18

3.11. Installations in profiled markets, 2007–12 ............................................................................... 3-27

4.1. Wind energy project development phases ................................................................................ 4-2

4.2. U.S. annual and cumulative wind power capacity (utility-scale wind), 2007 through 2012 .... 4-8

4.3. U.S. wind energy services market: Estimated value of wind energy services ......................... 4-9

4.4. Global annual and cumulative installed wind energy capacity, 2003 through 2012 ................ 4-16

4.5. The distribution of cumulative wind energy capacity changed from 2007 to 2012 ................. 4-16

5.1. U.S. hydropower revenue has declined since 2003 .................................................................. 5-6

5.2. Hydropower accounted for the majority of renewable energy capacity globally in 2012 ....... 5-12

5.3. Small hydropower generation capacity has steadily increased from 2007–12 ......................... 5-14

5.4. The U.S. was the global leader in geothermal electricity generating capacity in 2011 ............ 5-30

6.1. The expiration of Production Tax Credits in 1999, 2001, and 2003 impacted wind power 

 growth in the United States ................................................................................................... 6-4

6.2. The average 2002–12 difference between ‘other electricity’ return-on-equity and total 

 country return-on-equity was not significantly different for countries that had feed-in- 

 tariffs during the period ......................................................................................................... 6-12

Tables 

1.1. Checklist of energy-related services included in the U.S. GATS offer, 2003 .......................... 1-3

1.2. General obligations of the GATS .............................................................................................1-4

2.1. Countries with the largest installed renewable power generating capacity, by sector, 2012 ... 2-5

2.2. Selected U.S. fiscal incentives to promote renewable energy deployment .............................. 2-10

2.3. Selected bilateral efforts to reduce barriers to trade and investment in environmental 

 goods and services ............................................................................................................... 2-25

3.1. Services related to development of solar energy ...................................................................... 3-4

3.2. U.S., European, and Chinese firms were the leading global EPC firms in 2012 ..................... 3-20

4.1. Services related to provision of wind energy ........................................................................... 4-3

4.2. U.S. wind energy services: Top five project developers by capacity installed in 2012 .......... 4-13

4.3. Top 10 EPC contractors in the U.S. wind power market, 2011 ............................................... 4-14

4.4. Top five wind energy development and installation services markets, 2011 ........................... 4-17

4.5. Top 10 global wind energy project developers, based on projects commissioned in 2012 ..... 4-21

4.6. Top five international wind contractors, based on export revenue from wind construction, 

 2011 ..................................................................................................................................... 4-21

5.1. Services related to the development of hydropower projects ................................................... 5-3

5.2. Post-development services related to operations and maintenance (O&M) for hydropower 

 projects ................................................................................................................................ 5-4

5.3. Estimated U.S. market for hydropower-related services based on existing large and small 

 hydropower projects, 2010 .................................................................................................. 5-6

5.4. Leading U.S. hydropower design firms and contractors, 2012 ................................................ 5-10
viii 

CONTENTS—Continued

Page

Tables—Continued

5.5. Top 10 global hydropower producers in 2010 ......................................................................... 5-11

5.6. Largest small hydropower producers, by country and generation capacity, projects 

 commissioned through February 2013 ................................................................................ 5-14

5.7. Estimated market for hydropower-related services based on existing large and small 

 hydropower projects, by region and selected country, 2010 ............................................... 5-15

5.8. Top international contractors and design firms for hydropower plants ................................... 5-18

5.9. Selected small hydropower projects with financing contributed by global development 

 banks ................................................................................................................................... 5-20

5.10. Support policies for small hydropower in the EU, 2011 .......................................................... 5-24

5.11. Services related to development of geothermal energy ............................................................ 5-26

5.12. Estimated U.S. market for geothermal-related services based on existing capacity, 2010 ...... 5-27

5.13. Top geothermal power companies in the United States by installed and operating 

 capacity ............................................................................................................................... 5-29

5.14. Geothermal energy capacity under development, by company ............................................... 5-29

5.15. Estimated market for geothermal energy-related services based on existing 

 projects, by region and selected country, 2010 ................................................................... 5-32

5.16. Companies owning geothermal energy capacity over 300 MW in 2010 ................................. 5-33

6.1. Mandatory renewable portfolio standards by U.S. state .......................................................... 6-8

6.2. Summary statistics ................................................................................................................... 6-13

6.3. Regression results ..................................................................................................................... 6-14

   
ix 

ACROYNMS 

AC alternating current 

APEC Asian Pacific Economic Forum 

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5) 

a-Si amorphous silicon 

BNDES Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social 

BOS balance of systems 

BSW-Solar German Solar Industry Association 

BTU British thermal unit 

CdTe cadmium telluride 

CIGS Copper indium gallium (di)selenide 

CSP concentrated solar power 

CPC Central Production Classification 

CPV concentrating photovoltaics 

CSI California Solar Initiative 

CREIA Chinese Renewable Energy Industries Association 

c-Si crystalline silicon 

DSIRE Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency 

DC direct current 

EGSA Environmental Goods and Services Agreement 

EIA Energy Information Administration 

ENR Engineering News-Record 

EPC engineering, procurement, and construction 

EPIA European Photovoltaic Industry Association 

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute 

EU European Union 

FHFA Federal Housing Finance Agency 

FIT feed-in tariff 

GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 

GATS General Agreement on Trade in Services 

GE General Electric 

ICT information and communications technology 

IEA International Energy Agency 

IOU investor-owned utility 

IPPs independent power producers 

IRS Internal Revenue Service 

ISP independent service provider 

ITC investment tax credit 

JPEA Japan Photovoltaic Energy Association 

KEMCO Korea Energy Management Corporation 

LBNL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

METI Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (Japan) 

NREL National Renewable Energy Lab 

OEM original equipment manufacturer 

O&M operations and maintenance 

PACE Property-Assessed Clean Energy 

PPA power purchase agreement 

PTC production tax credit 
x 

ACROYNMS—Continued

PV photovoltaic 

PVPS Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme 

RESOP Renewable Energy Standard Offer Program 

ROE return on equity 

RPS renewable portfolio standards 

SOE state-owned enterprise 

TRIMS Agreement Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures 

WTO World Trade Organization 

   
xi 

GLOSSARY

Balance of system (BOS): Refers to all components of a renewable energy power station other than the 

electricity-generating apparatus, such as a wind turbine or solar panel. These can include supporting 

infrastructure, including land, as well as wiring, switches, support racks, inverters, and batteries. 

Biofuels: Liquid or gaseous fuel for transport produced from biomass.

Biomass energy: Energy derived from any plant-derived organic matter available on a renewable basis, 

including dedicated energy crops and trees, agricultural food and feed crops, agricultural crop wastes and 

residues, wood wastes and residues, acquatic plants, animal wastes, municipal wastes, and other waste 

materials. 

BTU: British thermal unit, a common measure of energy consumption that refers to the quantity of heat 

required to raise the temperature of one pound of liquid water by one degree Fahrenheit at the temperature 

at which water has its greatest density (approximately 39 degrees Fahrenheit).

Crystalline silicon (c-Si) module: This module uses c-Si as the photosensitive material. They were the 

first modules commercialized and account for most global production. 

Feed-in tariffs: Government incentives that offer a set price for renewable energy to investors. 

Independent power producer (IPP): An IPP is an entity that primarily produces electricity for sale on the 

wholesale market. It is not a utility, does not own electricity transmission, and does not have a designated 

service area. 

Investor-owned utility (IOU): An IOU is a for-profit utility. 

Net metering: Allows owners of distributed energy systems (e.g., residential and commercial PV and 

wind systems) to receive credit for excess electricity that is fed into the grid. These credits can be used to 

offset utility charges for grid power used at other times. In some cases, system owners may receive a 

payment at the end of the year for any unused credits. 

Power purchase agreement (PPA): A long-term agreement to purchase electricity. In the wholesale 

market, this is generally between a utility and an independent power producer. There are also PPAs 

between renewable energy firms and on-site users. 

PV cells: A cell converts sunlight into electricity and is the basic element of a module. 

PV module: A module (also commonly referred to as a panel) is made up of interconnected cells 

encapsulated between a backing material and a clear plastic or glass front. 

Publicly owned utility: A nonprofit, state, or local government utility. 

Retail power market: The market for the sale of electricity to consumers. 

Thin-film module: This module uses a thin layer of a raw material (most commonly a-Si, CdTe, or CIGS) 

as the photosensitive material and is a newer (2nd generation) PV technology.

Turnkey project: A turnkey project is one in which one party, usually a developer, manages all stages 

from design through construction and commissioning and then sells the project to the owner/operator. 
xii 

GLOSSARY—Continued

Total energy consumption: For the purposes of this report, refers to the consumption of primary energy 

sources (e.g., fossil fuels like crude petroleum or natural gas) before they are transformed into other forms 

of energy (i.e., electricity).

Watt: A unit of electrical power equaling the amount of power produced from the expense of one joule of 

energy in one second. Wattage is expressed as follows: 

 1,000 watts (W) = 1 kilowatt (kW) 

 1,000 kilowatts (kW) = 1 megawatt (MW) 

 1,000 megawatts (MW) = 1 gigawatt (GW) 

 1,000 gigawatts (GW) = 1 terawatt (TW) 

Watt-hour: A measure of electricity consumption. One watt-hour (Wh) is equal to the steady expense of 

one watt of power over one hour. Electricity consumption is expressed as follows: 

 1,000 watts-hours (Wh) = 1 kilowatt-hour (kWh) 

 1,000 kilowatts-hours (kWh) = 1 megawatt-hour (MWh) 

 1,000 megawatts-hours (MWh) = 1 gigawatt-hour (GWh) 

 1,000 gigawatts-hours (GWh) = 1 terawatt-hour (TWh)

Wholesale power market: The market for the sale of electricity from electricity generators to 

utilities/entities that resell the electricity on the retail market. 
xiii 

Executive Summary 

Overview 

Global investment in renewable energy has grown sharply in the past five years as 

countries strive to meet growing energy demands, reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and 

strengthen energy security. Given that a broad group of services are indispensable to the 

development and functioning of renewable energy projects, the rapid expansion in 

renewable energy investment and installed capacity worldwide implies a similarly vibrant 

global market for renewable energy services. 

In a letter dated July 30, 2012, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) requested that the 

Commission provide a report on renewable energy and related services that among other 

things defines types of renewable energy and related services, identifies leading 

suppliers, and generally describes the relationship of renewable energy services to the 

development of renewable energy projects worldwide. As requested, this report estimates 

the size of the U.S. and global markets, discusses trends, and identifies barriers to U.S. 

trade and investment in renewable energy services. The USTR also asked that the report 

focus on services incidental to the development, generation, and distribution of renewable 

energy, with particular emphasis on wind energy (onshore and offshore) and solar energy, 

and other technologies that the Commission’s research shows to be of significance. The 

USTR defined such services to include scientific and technical consulting, services 

incidental to energy distribution, professional services, construction and engineering 

services, management consulting and related services, and maintenance and repair of 

equipment, among others. 

This report arrives at several major conclusions. First, the U.S. and global markets for 

renewable energy services are growing rapidly, particularly for solar and wind energy. 

The United States, the European Union (EU), Canada, and China are the leading markets 

for wind and solar energy services, but many emerging markets in Asia and Latin 

America are also seeing growth in spending on installations and services. Services related 

to other renewable energy sources (mainly small hydropower and geothermal) are also on 

the rise, though to a lesser degree and in more widely distributed areas. 

Second, though data on trade in renewable energy services are not available, it is likely 

that large U.S. and EU services firms lead in global exports of renewable energy services. 

Similarly, it is likely that the United States and the EU account for much of the global 

importation of such services, though to a lesser degree, as many countries in the early 

stages of developing renewable energy markets lack domestic providers and must import 

the services. 

Third, while there are few barriers that specifically target trade in renewable energy 

services, broad barriers to investment and to the movement of natural people appear to 

affect firms’ ability to operate in certain markets. Local-content requirements in some 

markets may discourage services imports as well. While most such rules are intended to 

foster domestic industry and discourage imports of energy equipment, they may have the 

secondary effect of limiting services imports, as manufacturers frequently provide such 
xiv 

services such as engineering, design, installation, and operations and maintenance along 

with the sale of their goods. 

 

Key Findings and Observations 

Renewable energy is growing rapidly, particularly wind and solar. 

Global renewable energy capacity is growing quickly; it is estimated to have more than 

doubled to 653 gigawatts (GW) between 2007 and 2012 (figure ES.1).1

 Solar energy was 

the fastest-growing renewable energy, fueled by growth in solar installations in Europe 

(primarily in Germany, Italy, and Spain), China, and the United States. These five 

countries collectively accounted for nearly two-thirds (421 GW) of total global renewable 

energy capacity in 2012. 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Capacity (GW)

Geothermal

Biomass & waste

Small hydropower

Solar

Wind

FIGURE ES.1 Global renewable energy capacity by source, 2007–12

Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance database.

Notes: Small hydropower refers to hydropower sources with generating capacities equal to or less than 50 MW. While 

included in the overall global renewable energy capacity figures, the total capacity data for marine energy installations are

too small relative to the other technologies represented here to appear in the figure.

Total U.S. renewable energy capacity nearly doubled during 2007–12 to 110 GW 

(figure ES.2). Further, over the same period annual installations of renewable energy 

capacity more than tripled, rising to 17 GW in 2012. These installations accounted for the 

largest source of capacity growth among all energy sources. Wind energy accounted for 

over half of U.S. renewable energy capacity in 2012, up from about 30 percent in 2007. 

In fact, new U.S. wind energy capacity topped 13 GW in 2012, or almost 80 percent of 

total new renewable energy installations that year. 

 1

 Excludes hydropower sources with generating capacities greater than 50 megawatts (MW). For more 

information on definitional issues related to renewable hydropower, see chapter 5 of this report. 
xv 

The United States and the European Union are likely the largest suppliers and 

consumers of renewable energy services. 

The United States and the European Union collectively account for roughly 60 percent of 

both global capacity and investment in renewable energy, and the two economies are 

likely the largest suppliers and consumers of renewable energy services as well. 

Countries that have demonstrated an interest in increasing their use of renewable energy 

resources yet lack the domestic capacity to design, implement and maintain renewable 

energy projects, present an opportunity for U.S. exporters of renewable energy services. 

Even in countries that have the domestic expertise to provide renewable energy services, 

project developers may choose to import services from an international supplier based on 

cost, quality, or other needs. In this case, U.S. exporters of renewable energy services 

may also find opportunities in more mature markets. 

Market Size for Renewable Energy Services 

The United States is consistently among the largest markets for renewable energy 

services. 

Comprehensive published data on the value of the global and U.S. markets for renewable 

energy services are unavailable. For this study, the U.S. International Trade Commission 

(the Commission or USITC) estimated market size on a sector-by-sector basis by 

obtaining industry estimates of the share each service contributes to total project cost and 

then multiplying them by installed capacity for a given market. The findings indicate that 

Europe, the United States, and Asia, particularly China, are consistently among the 

largest markets for renewable energy services.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Capacity (GW)

Geothermal

Solar

Biomass & waste

Small hydropower

Wind

FIGURE ES.2 U.S. renewable energy capacity by source, 2007–12

Source: Bloomerg New Energy Finance database.

Note: Small hydropower refers to hydropower sources with generating capacities equal to or less than 50 MW.
xvi 

Solar Photovoltaic Energy Services 

The global market for solar photovoltaic (PV) services has grown rapidly in response to 

the explosive rise in solar PV installations worldwide; installed capacity grew more than 

10-fold from 2007 to 2012. The value of global solar PV services associated with 

installations was estimated to be $34 billion in 2011, or 36 percent of the broader market 

for solar PV installations (including equipment and services). The largest markets for 

solar PV services in 2011 were Italy ($9.8 billion), Germany ($5.1 billion), the United 

States ($3.1 billion), and Japan ($3.0 billion). 

The major global services industries associated with solar energy—large-scale project 

development; engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC); and operations and 

maintenance (O&M)—are highly fragmented, but tend to be dominated by multinational 

firms based in the three largest markets, Europe, China, and the United States. The 

residential and commercial PV services markets tend to be dominated by domestic firms 

and are most vibrant in the United States, the European Union, and Japan. 

. 

Wind Energy Services 

The global market for wind energy services has grown in concert with the sharp increase 

in globally installed wind energy capacity, which more than quintupled from 2007 to 

2012. In 2011, the value of services associated with wind installations was estimated at 

nearly $23 billion, or roughly 32 percent of the broader global market for wind power 

installations (including equipment and services). The largest markets in 2011 for wind 

services were China ($9.0–$11.8 billion), the United States ($5.5–$7.1 billion), Germany, 

($2.3–$3.5 billion), and Canada ($1.2 billion). 

The value of global O&M services to the wind energy sector also continues to rise 

steadily. The global market for wind O&M services was estimated at $6.2–$7.2 billion in 

2011, with Europe accounting for about half of that market. Germany, Spain, and the 

United Kingdom collectively accounted for 85 percent of wind O&M services in Europe, 

reflecting their large installed base. Original equipment manufacturers that produce wind 

turbines are thought to account for the vast majority of O&M services provided globally, 

with smaller roles played by independent service providers and wind farm operators. 

Hydropower Energy Services 

The global market for services associated with all hydropower installations in 2010 was 

estimated at $72 billion. The global market for services related to small-capacity 

hydropower—less than 50 megawatts (MW)—is substantially smaller, and is estimated to 

account for less than 5 percent ($2.3 billion) of the broader market for hydropower 

installations of all sizes. The largest markets for services related to small hydropower 

projects were China, Brazil, Japan, and India. The value of services related to a particular 

small hydro power project varies significantly based on the characteristics of the site, and 

on whether the project represents new development or the addition of new capacity to an 

existing dam. 
xvii 

Geothermal Energy Services 

U.S. and global growth in geothermal energy services has been slow in recent years, but 

is expected to accelerate in the near term as countries add to installed capacity or develop 

new geothermal resources. The value of the global geothermal EPC services market was 

estimated at $315 million in 2010, and the O&M services market was estimated at 

$2.5 billion. In the United States, the value of the geothermal EPC services market in 

2010 was estimated at $34 million, while the O&M services market was estimated at 

$594 million. Indonesia, the Philippines, Kenya, Rwanda, and Ethiopia all represent 

significant potential markets for new geothermal capacity, and thus for geothermal 

services. 

Factors Affecting Supply and Demand 

Government incentives have played a key role in the global development of 

renewable energy. 

Renewable energy has historically cost more to generate than energy from conventional 

sources like fossil fuels (e.g., coal, petroleum, and natural gas). As a result, renewable 

energy has largely been uncompetitive with the alternatives absent policy mechanisms 

that lower its generating costs and encourage (or require) its use. These policy 

mechanisms include fiscal incentives, such as tax credits to offset the cost of generating 

renewable energy, and regulatory policies that mandate the use of renewable energy and 

set its price. Often, a combination of these mechanisms are used to develop renewable 

energy resources and technologies and ensure their deployment. Over 125 countries have 

explicit policy targets in place to promote renewable energy. 

 

Econometric analysis indicates that feed-in tariffs have a direct, positive impact on 

installed capacity. 

The Commission examined the relationship between feed-in tariffs2

 and installed wind 

capacity in 54 countries during 2006–10, and found that having a feed-in tariff policy 

correlated with an additional 1,856 MW of installed wind capacity. 

Growth in renewable energy installations and advances in technology boost demand 

for renewable energy services. 

Demand for renewable energy underpins overall demand for renewable energy services. 

Specific factors affecting services demand include the growth in installations of 

renewable technologies, the size and age of existing renewable capacity, and 

improvements or advances in renewable technologies. 

Falling equipment prices have driven up the demand for services as new capacity is 

developed. 

Increased competition among renewable technology manufacturers, greater economies of 

scale in manufacturing, and advances in technology and manufacturing processes have 

 2

 Feed-in tariffs are government incentives that offer a set price for renewable energy to investors 

(which may include producers of all sizes). 
xviii 

driven down the prices paid by project developers for many renewable technologies, such 

as wind turbines and solar panels. Lower prices for these technologies, in turn, have led 

to growth in project development and renewable energy installations, and thus in 

renewable energy services. 

Trade and Investment 

Trade 

Trade in renewable energy services typically occurs when a services firm establishes a 

commercial presence abroad, as well as when a firm temporarily moves an individual or 

individuals to provide services in a client’s territory. While data on U.S. and global trade 

in renewable energy services are unavailable, certain broad trends can be discerned. 

U.S. firms dominate the United States’ domestic PV services market, but they are 

also actively exporting. 

In the United States, domestic firms dominate the installation of PV systems at all levels. 

In 2012, U.S.-based companies performed almost all U.S. installations of residential 

systems, nearly 90 percent of U.S. nonresidential installations, and more than half of U.S. 

installations for utility-scale projects. Nevertheless, foreign participation is rising as the 

scale of installation increases. 

Existing U.S. project developers are increasingly exporting project development services. 

Some are expanding in Canada, while many that are already active abroad are looking to 

expand beyond their traditional foreign markets. Some U.S. project developers also 

provide EPC services in foreign markets for other project developers, as well as O&M 

services after project completion. Nonetheless, U.S. firms’ foreign activities cover only a 

small share of the global market; for example, their share of the project development 

market outside of the United States was likely about 5 percent in 2012. 

The United States is a net importer of wind energy services, though U.S. exports 

likely grew during the 2007–12 period. 

The United States is a net importer of wind energy services, as many of the largest wind 

services firms operating in the country are subsidiaries of foreign multinationals. 

Approximately one-third of newly installed U.S. wind capacity was developed by U.S. 

affiliates of foreign parents in 2012. 

U.S. wind energy service firms have a limited global presence, and as a result, U.S. 

exports likely account for a small share of global exports of wind services. Canada is 

reportedly the largest export market for U.S. wind services, with Mexico and other 

countries in Latin America becoming increasingly attractive markets for U.S. firms. 
xix 

Data on imports and exports of wind energy technologies indicate that European 

firms dominate the wind equipment sector, and likely the service sector as well, in 

most major markets. 

The largest global exporters of wind energy equipment are also likely to be the largest 

suppliers of wind energy services; indeed, service provision is often written into contracts 

for equipment sales. Germany, Denmark, and Spain collectively accounted for over 

75 percent of equipment exports in 2012 (the United States accounted for 6 percent), and 

the three countries’ wind services providers are active in many markets around the world. 

An exception is China, whose market is dominated by Chinese equipment and service 

providers. 

The largest global importers of renewable energy technologies are also likely to be the 

largest consumers of renewable energy services. For instance, the United States is the 

largest importer of wind-powered generating sets, reflecting the growth in U.S. installed 

wind capacity and implying corresponding growth in wind services supplied by domestic 

and foreign firms alike. 

Investment 

Global investment in renewable energy projects rose by 71 percent from 2007 to 

2012, with Europe, China, and the United States attracting the majority of funds. 

Data on global and U.S. investment specific to renewable energy services are 

unavailable. However, global investment in renewable energy overall stood at a record 

$244 billion in 2012, up 71 percent compared with 2007, although down 12 percent from 

2011 levels (figures ES.3 and ES.4). These figures broadly reflect investment associated 

with the development of renewable energy projects and the installation of renewable 

energy generating capacity. Because renewable energy services are needed to develop 

these projects, investment in renewable energy overall serves as a useful proxy for trends 

and investment in renewable energy services. 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Billion $

Geothermal

Small hydro

Biofuels

Biomass

Wind

Solar

Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance database.

Note: While included in the overall global renewable energy investment figures, the total investment data for marine energy 

installations are too small relative to the other technologies represented here to appear in the figure. 

FIGURE ES.3 Global renewable energy investment by sector, 2007–12
xx 

Barriers to Trade 

U.S. firms cite local-content requirements as the most significant trade barrier in 

the provision of renewable energy services. 

The local-content requirements found in many markets typically mandate that a certain 

share of renewable energy equipment and/or services be locally sourced, often driving up 

prices and making it cost-prohibitive for foreign providers to enter the market. Even a 

local-content requirement that applies only to equipment may act as a de facto barrier to 

services provision, as many wind and solar energy equipment manufacturers provide 

services in tandem with the sale of their goods. 

Restrictions on investment and on the movement of service providers also hinder 

exports of renewable energy services, though the problem is being addressed as part 

of some regional and bilateral trade negotiations. 

Barriers to trade in services, including horizontal (non-sector-specific) restrictions on a 

firm’s ability to set up a commercial presence in a foreign country or temporarily move 

service providers there, continue to hamper efforts by providers of renewable energy 

services to penetrate foreign markets. Whereas recent multilateral efforts to address trade 

barriers in services overall have gained some traction, multilateral efforts to specifically 

address barriers to trade in renewable energy services have largely stalled. By contrast, 

regional and bilateral efforts to specifically address barriers affecting renewable energy 

services have met with more success, and include commitments to address trade in 

environmental goods and services within the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation 

(APEC) forum and the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement. 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Billion $

Middle East & Africa

Americas (excl. U.S. & Brazil)

Brazil

India

Asia (excl. China & India)

United States

China

Europe

Source: REN-21, Renewables 2013, 2013, 62-63.

FIGURE ES.4 Global renewable energy investment by country and region, 2007–12
1-1 

CHAPTER 1 

Introduction 

Purpose and Background 

Global investment in renewable energy has grown rapidly in the past five years as 

countries strive to meet growing energy demands, reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and 

strengthen energy security. As a result, not only has demand for renewable energy 

equipment and related materials risen, so too has demand for the services required to 

develop, construct, and operate renewable energy facilities. These services, which span a 

range of industries including consulting, engineering, construction, and maintenance and 

repair of equipment, are broadly referred to in this report as “renewable energy services.” 

At present, there is very little literature on renewable energy services, and data on market 

size or trade activity are equally limited. However, services are becoming increasingly 

important in the renewable energy value chain as equipment manufacturers look to 

expand their offerings beyond goods 1

 and as independent service providers look to 

expand beyond their home markets. 

 

The United States and Europe are home to many of the world’s largest renewable energy 

service providers, since that is where much of the growth in renewable energy has been 

concentrated in recent years. However, economic conditions and other factors have 

slowed growth in these two markets, while renewable energy investments in Asia, Latin 

America, and the Middle East are rising. As a result, U.S. and European firms are seeking 

to increase their presence in those markets, with mixed results. While the road to 

establishing business relationships and accessing the market is fairly straightforward in 

some economies, trade and investment barriers inhibit full participation in others. 

On July 30, 2012, the U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission or USITC), 

received a request from the United States Trade Representative (USTR) asking that the 

Commission conduct an investigation and provide a report that examines renewable 

energy services.2

 In the request letter, the USTR noted that the Commission had provided 

a report on trade in this sector to the USTR in 2005 and asked that the Commission 

prepare a new report that would address recent developments in the renewable energy 

services sector. 

As requested by USTR, this report defines the types of renewable energy and related 

services, lists leading suppliers, and generally describes the relationship of renewable 

energy services to the development of renewable energy projects worldwide. Further, the 

report estimates the size of the U.S. and global markets for certain renewable energy 

services, identifies key export and import markets for such services, and examines factors 

affecting supply and demand. The report focuses on U.S. and global renewable energy 

 1

 As wind turbine and solar photovoltaic (PV) panel prices have fallen, manufacturers have elevated the 

importance of services in their business lines, since services may be more lucrative and, in the case of 

operations and maintenance, provide long-term revenue streams. 2

 The USTR made this request under section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930. In its request letter, the 

USTR also asked that the Commission conduct an investigation on environmental services. That report, 

Environmental and Related Services, USITC Publication 4389, was delivered to the USTR on March 29, 

2013. 
1-2 

services trade during 2007–11, highlighting recent trends in investment in renewable 

energy projects and firms, identifying barriers to U.S. trade and investment in renewable 

energy services, and examining recent efforts to liberalize trade in leading markets for 

such services. Finally, the Commission uses econometric analysis to examine the role of 

clean energy incentive programs in encouraging investment in and creating markets for 

wind energy goods and services. 

Scope 

This report focuses on services that are essential to the development, generation, and 

distribution of renewable energy. These services include scientific and technical 

consulting, professional services, construction and engineering services, management 

consulting and related services, maintenance and repair of equipment, and other services 

required throughout the life cycle of a renewable energy project. As requested, the 

principal focus of this report is on wind and solar energy services. However, the USTR 

also directed the Commission to include discussions of other renewable technologies that 

the Commission’s research showed to be significant. Based on a number of factors, 

including growth potential, this report therefore includes discussions of services related to 

small hydroelectric and geothermal energy.3

 

Services, including renewable energy services, are traded through two principal channels. 

The first channel, cross-border trade, entails sending people, information, or money 

across national borders. 4 The second channel, affiliate transactions, entails selling 

services through affiliated firms set up or acquired by multinational companies in foreign 

markets. Such affiliates are funded through foreign direct investment. The Commission 

estimates that the majority of renewable energy services are traded through affiliate 

transactions.5

Classification of Renewable Energy Services 

Most countries that have signed the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) use 

the Services Sectoral Classification List (W/120) drawn up by the World Trade 

Organization (WTO) to organize and define the scope of specific commitments they have 

made in their national schedules. However, energy services, including renewable energy 

services, do not appear separately on this list. As a way to apply the GATS agreement to 

energy services, as well as other services not separately listed on the W/120, WTO 

members have devised a “checklist” approach to making GATS commitments. Under this 

approach, members create a list of services identified in the W/120 that they consider 

relevant to the sector in question and that they agree to represent the scope of that sector 

for scheduling purposes.6

 In its 2003 GATS offer, the United States proposed such a 

checklist as a way for GATS members to make commitments in energy services. The 

services on this checklist are listed in table 1.1. Commitments on energy services apply to 

 3

 Coverage of services related to biomass energy and biofuels are not included in this report. 4

 This channel uses three of the four modes of supply defined in the General Agreement on Trade in 

Services (GATS): cross-border supply (mode 1), consumption abroad (mode 2), and movement of natural 

persons (mode 4). 5

 This channel uses the remaining GATS mode of supply—commercial presence (mode 3). 6

 The checklist approach makes it easier to schedule commitments without requiring significant 

changes to the W/120, helps WTO members develop a common agreement about the full range of applicable 

services, and offers a mechanism for assessing the value of countries’ market access and national treatment 

offers. 
1-3 

TABLE 1.1 Checklist of energy-related services included in the U.S. GATS offer, 2003 

Central product classification code Description 

5115, 883 Services incidental to mining 

8675 Certain related scientific and technical consulting services 

887 Services incidental to energy distribution 

861, 862, 863, 8672, 8673, 

9312, 93191, 932 

Certain professional services, including engineering and integrated 

engineering services 

6111, 6113, 6121, 621, 622, 

631, 632 

Distribution services, including commission agents, wholesale trade, and retail 

trade services that apply to fuels, related products, and brokerage of electricity 

633, 8861-8866 Maintenance and repair of equipment, except transport-related equipment 

865 Management consulting and related services 

511-518 Construction and related engineering services 

7131 Pipeline transportation of fuels 

7422 Storage and warehouse services, particularly bulk storage services of liquids 

and gases 

8676 Technical testing and analysis services 

Source: WTO, “Council for Trade in Services—Special Session—Communication from the United States—Initial 

Offer,” TN/S/O/USA, September 4, 2003. 

renewable energy services, as long as they are not specifically exempted from a country’s 

commitments.7

Aside from specific market access and national treatment commitments, there are several 

general obligations that apply to virtually all service sectors. These obligations can help 

promote trade in services, even when the services are not listed in a country’s schedule of 

specific commitments (table 1.2). Among the GATS framework principles that apply to 

nearly all services sectors are most-favored-nation treatment, contained in Article II, and 

transparency, contained in Article III. In addition, where commitments have been 

scheduled, the framework contains disciplines on domestic regulation in Article VI and 

limits on the actions of monopolies and exclusive suppliers in Article VIII.8

Approach and Data Sources 

The focus of this report is on identifying and analyzing trends in renewable energy 

services markets. Data on specific renewable energy services are not generally available. 

The Commission therefore developed estimates of market size for these services by 

obtaining industry estimates of the share of a project cost that each service constitutes and 

then applying the estimates to installed capacity for a given market. Furthermore, the 

Commission undertook econometric analysis to examine the relationship between feed-in 

tariffs (a type of incentive supporting renewable energy) and installed wind energy 

capacity to determine whether one has a direct bearing on the other. 

 

 7

 Details about countries’ specific commitments on energy services included in the checklist appear in 

appendix C of USITC Publication 3805, Renewable Energy Services: An Examination of U.S. and Foreign 

Markets (2005), available at http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub3805.pdf. 8

 WTO, General Agreement on Trade in Services. 
1-4 

TABLE 1.2 General obligations of the GATS 

Obligation Description 

Nondiscrimination Article II provides for most-favored-nation treatment (MFN). Under MFN, WTO 

members commit that they will treat services and service suppliers of other 

WTO member countries no less favorably than they treat like services and 

service suppliers of any other country in the world. Members must adhere to 

MFN principles except in those areas in which they have listed exemptions. 

Transparency GATS transparency obligations are listed in Article III, which requires members 

to: 

• promptly publish relevant measures that will be applied generally; 

• notify the WTO of significant changes in laws, regulations, or 

administrative guidelines with significant bearing on services trade; 

• set up enquiry points that other WTO members can use to submit 

relevant questions; and 

• respond promptly to requests for information from other WTO 

members. 

Domestic regulationa GATS domestic regulation obligations, as contained in Article VI, require WTO 

members to: 

• avoid using regulatory powers so as to create barriers to trade in 

services; 

• ensure that measures that will be applied generally are administered 

in a reasonable, objective, and impartial way; and 

• ensure that licensing and qualification requirements or technical 

standards for sectors in which members have made specific 

commitments on market access or national treatment, (1) are based 

on objective and transparent criteria, (2) are not more burdensome 

than necessary, and (3) in the case of licensing procedures, are not in 

themselves a restriction on the supply of the service. 

Monopolies and exclusive suppliersa Article VIII of the GATS states that WTO members should ensure that if a 

monopoly supplier competes in supplying a service outside the scope of its 

monopoly rights, it does not abuse its monopoly position in a way that limits 

market access or national treatment. 

Source: World Trade Organization, General Agreement on Trade in Services. 

 aNote: Articles VI and VIII apply only to industries for which countries have made specific commitments. 

In collecting information for this report, the Commission conducted primary research and 

consulted a wide range of secondary sources to collect both qualitative and quantitative 

information. Analysts conducted in-person and telephone interviews with representatives 

of renewable energy service providers, domestic and foreign governments, industry and 

trade associations, educational institutions, nongovernmental groups, and international 

organizations. Commission staff undertook fieldwork in several U.S. cities, as well as in 

Brazil, Chile, China, France, Germany, Japan, Indonesia, and Spain. Interviews were 

conducted with large multinational firms as well as small and medium-sized enterprises. 

Secondary information sources included industry journals and websites, U.S. and foreign 

government publications, and publications by international organizations such as the 

World Bank, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 

and the WTO. 

Data on renewable energy capacity and generation were incorporated from a number of 

sources, including Bloomberg New Energy Finance, the International Energy Agency 

(IEA), the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), and the Energy 

Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy. Since data on trade 

in renewable energy services are not generally collected by governments or available 

from industry, the discussion of such trade is largely anecdotal, giving estimates of trade 

activity where possible. 
1-5 

Organization 

This chapter presents the background and scope of the report. Chapter 2 provides an 

overview of the global market for renewable energy services and examines the factors 

affecting supply and demand for such services. Chapters 3 through 5 present more 

detailed information and analysis of the markets for solar, wind, and small hydropower 

and geothermal energy services, respectively. These chapters generally begin with an 

overview of the relevant services and provide information on the U.S. and global markets 

for such services, trade and investment, barriers to trade, and profiles of individual 

country or regional markets. Chapter 6 identifies and describes policy tools implemented 

by nations to cultivate renewable energy markets, coupled with econometric analysis 

intended to assess the relationship between such policies and markets. Appendix A 

includes the original and amended request letters from USTR. Appendix B contains the 

Commission’s Federal Register notices for this investigation. Appendix C summarizes 

the information and views contained in written submissions filed with the Commission by 

interested parties. 

 

2-1 

CHAPTER 2 

Overview of the Markets for Renewable 

Energy and Renewable Energy Services 

Introduction 

This chapter provides a broad overview of the markets for renewable energy and 

renewable energy services. It gives information on and describes the size and growth of 

renewable energy markets, as well as investment in renewable energy worldwide. It also 

describes trends in policies supporting the development of renewable energy and in 

factors affecting the supply of and demand for renewable energy and renewable energy 

services. Very few data are available on either global or U.S. trade in renewable energy 

services, so it is difficult to ascertain how large this trade is or its growth rate. However, 

given that renewable energy services are indispensable to developing and maintaining 

renewable energy projects, the rapid growth in renewable energy investment and installed 

capacity worldwide implies a similarly vibrant global market for renewable energy 

services. 

Government policies have played a key role in the development of renewable energy in 

many economies, including the European Union (EU) and the United States, where both 

manufacturers and service providers for these technologies are well established. The EU 

and United States collectively account for roughly 60 percent of global capacity and 

investment in renewable energy.1

 As a result, the two economies are likely the largest 

suppliers and consumers of renewable energy services. Countries that have experienced 

recent growth in installed renewable energy capacity, yet lack the domestic capacity to 

design and implement renewable energy projects, present an opportunity for U.S. 

exporters of renewable energy services. Even in countries that have the domestic capacity 

and expertise to provide renewable energy services, project developers may choose to 

import services from an international supplier based on cost, quality, or other needs. In 

this case, opportunities for U.S. exporters of renewable energy services may also exist in 

more mature markets. 

At the same time, forced localization measures, such as local-content requirements, can 

act as a barrier to trade in both technologies and services related to renewable energy. 

Relevant barriers to trade in services include restrictions on commercial presence and on 

the temporary movement of service providers; both hamper efforts by providers of 

renewable energy services to penetrate foreign markets. While recent multilateral efforts 

to address trade in services more broadly have gained some traction, similar efforts to 

specifically address barriers to trade in renewable energy services have largely stalled. By 

contrast, regional and bilateral efforts to reduce barriers to trade in renewable energy 

services have met with more success. These include commitments to address trade in 

environmental goods and services within the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) 

forum and the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). 

 1

 BNEF database (accessed March 11, 2013). 
2-2 

Overview of Global and U.S. Renewable Energy Markets 

Global Market 

Renewable energy sources, including traditional biomass, geothermal energy, 

hydropower, and solar and wind power (box 2.1),2

 accounted for 19 percent of global 

energy consumption in 2011. 3

 Traditional biomass, such as wood used for heating, 

accounted for a little over half of energy consumption from renewable sources in 2011, or 

9.3 percent of global energy consumption (figure 2.1).4

 Excluding traditional biomass, 

which is outside the scope of this report, renewable energy sources accounted for about 

9.7 percent of global energy consumption in 2011, a slight uptick compared with 

previous years.5

 Hydropower is the largest single source of renewable energy other than 

biomass, accounting for 3.7 percent of global energy consumption. All other renewable 

energy sources, including wind, solar, and geothermal sources, together accounted for 

about 6 percent of global energy consumption. 

Renewable energy sources can substitute for fossil fuels for electricity generation, heating 

and cooling, and transportation (e.g., biofuels for gasoline).6

 Electricity is the fastestgrowing segment of the global energy market, and renewables are the fastest-growing 

source of electricity, although from a relatively small base.7

 In 2011, global renewable 

energy-generating capacity exceeded 1,360 gigawatts (GW), or more than 25 percent of 

total global electricity-generating capacity (5,360 GW in 2011). 8

 Hydropower is the 

largest source of electricity generation from renewable energy sources, accounting for 

about 15 percent of global electricity production.9

 In comparison, fossil fuels account for 

about two-thirds of global electricity generation, while nuclear fuels account for about 

8 percent. 

Global renewable energy capacity is growing quickly: it is estimated to have more than 

doubled to 653 GW between 2007 and 2012 (figure 2.2).10 Solar energy was the fastestgrowing renewable energy, fueled by growth in solar installations in Europe (primarily in 

Germany, Italy, and Spain), China, and the United States, as noted in chapter 3. These 

five countries collectively accounted for nearly two-thirds (421 GW) of total global 

renewable energy capacity in 2012.11 Wind-generated power capacity surpassed smallcapacity hydropower in 2010 to become the second-largest renewable energy source 

globally. The top countries with renewable power-generating capacity by sector are 

shown in table 2.1. Renewable energy capacity has grown substantially in other markets 

in recent years—although, again, capacity there has grown from a smaller base. Eastern 

 2

 EIA, “What Is Renewable Energy?” (accessed January 30, 2013). 

3

 REN-21, Renewables 2013, 2013, 21. 4

 Ibid. 

5

 EIA, International Energy Outlook 2011 (interactive table viewer, accessed March 25, 2013); 

REN-21, Renewables 2012, 2012, 21. 6

 REN-21, Renewables 2012, 2012, 21. 7

 EIA, International Energy Outlook 2011, 2011, 1, 4. 8

 REN-21, Renewables 2012, 2012, 13. 9

 REN-21, Renewables 2012, 2012, 23. Includes hydropower sources with capacities of 50 megawatts 

(MW) or more. 10 Global renewable energy capacity as reported by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) excludes 

hydropower sources with generating capacities of more than 50 MW. For more information on definitional 

issues related to renewable hydropower, see chapter 5 of this report. 11 BNEF database (accessed March 11, 2013). 
2-3 

BOX 2.1 Renewable energy is derived from a variety of sources 

Renewable energy is derived from a variety of sources, and is used to produce electricity, heat, and fuels. Renewable 

energy principally includes bioenergy, geothermal energy, hydropower, ocean energy, solar energy, and wind 

energy.a

 

Bioenergy is renewable energy derived from biological sources (i.e., biomass) to be used for heat, electricity, or 

transport fuel.b

 Traditional biomass includes primarily wood used for heating. Heat produced from the combustion of 

other forms of biomass in a boiler can be used to generate electricity through a steam turbine. Through various 

processes, biomass can also be transformed into biogases that are used to produce electricity as well. Electricity 

produced from bioenergy accounted for about 1.2 percent of global electricity production in 2009. Biofuels (e.g., 

ethanol) derived from biomass feedstocks like sugarcane, corn, or wheat accounted for about 2 percent of all 

transport fuels in 2009. 

Geothermal energy is derived from heat from the earth either to be used directly as heat or to generate electricity. 

Geothermal sources include hot water or steam reservoirs deep in the earth, which are accessed by drilling; 

geothermal reservoirs; and shallower ground closer to the earth’s surface.c

 In 2009, the United States accounted for 

almost 30 percent of global geothermal power capacity, and for about 15 percent of global electricity generated from 

geothermal sources. Iceland, El Salvador, Kenya, the Philippines, and Costa Rica supply a significant share of their 

total electricity demand from geothermal sources. 

Hydropower is derived from the energy of flowing water. Turbines placed along flowing rivers or at dams convert the 

water’s kinetic energy (energy based on motion) to mechanical, then electrical, energy. Hydropower accounted for 

about 16 percent of global electricity production in 2009. The largest global producers of hydropower include China, 

Brazil, Canada, the United States, and Russia. 

Ocean energy is derived primarily from the potential and kinetic energy of tides, currents, and waves. Tidal and wave 

power have been in development since the 1970s, although technologies to harness ocean energy are still not widely 

deployed. In 2011, the 254 megawatt (MW) Silhwa Lake tidal power plant in the Republic of Korea (Korea) overtook 

the Rance tidal plant in France to become the world’s largest tidal power station. Together, these two tidal power 

plants account for nearly all global tidal energy capacity (527 MW).d

Solar energy is derived from sunlight that is converted into heat and electricity. Solar photovoltaic (PV) systems 

convert solar energy into electricity. Concentrating solar power (CSP) plants use mirrors or lenses to concentrate 

sunlight and create temperatures to drive turbines or engines to produce electricity. Solar heating technologies collect 

solar energy to produce heat.e

Wind energy is derived from the energy of air flow. Wind turbines convert the wind’s kinetic energy passing through 

a rotating turbine’s blades into electricity. Offshore wind turbines are located in coastal regions, where wind resources 

are often better than those onshore. Offshore projects face more challenges than their onshore counterparts, mainly 

due to infrastructure challenges, weather, distance from users, and water depth, among others. 

_____________ 

a This section is based mainly on IEA, Renewable Energy: Markets and Prospects by Technology, 2011, various 

pages. b

 USDA, ERS website, http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/bioenergy.aspx (accessed January 30, 

2013). c

 NREL, “Geothermal Energy Basics,” http://www.nrel.gov/learning/re_geothermal.html (accessed January 30, 

2013). d

 REN-21, Renewables 2012, 2012, 46. e

 SEIA, “Solar Heating & Cooling” (accessed January 30, 2013). 
2-4 

Fossil fuels 78.2%

Nuclear 2.8%

Biofuels 0.8%

Renew able electricity 

generationa

1.1% Hydropow er

3.7%

Renew able heatingb

4.1%

Biomass

9.3%

Renew able energy 

19.0%

Sources: REN-21, Renewables 2013, 2013, 21; EIA.

a

Includes biomass, geothermal, solar, and wind resources. 

b

Includes biomass, geothermal, and solar resources.

FIGURE 2.1 Global energy consumption by source, 2011

Total = 531 quadrillion BTUs

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Capacity (GW)

Geothermal

Biomass & waste

Small hydropower

Solar

Wind

FIGURE 2.2 Global renewable energy capacity by source, 2007–12

Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance database.

Notes: Small hydropower refers to hydropower sources with generating capacities equal to or less than 

50 MW. While included in the overall global renewable energy capacity figures, the total capacity data for marine 

energy installations are too small relative to the other technologies represented here to appear in the figure. 
2-5 

TABLE 2.1 Countries with the largest installed renewable power generating capacity, by sector, 2012 

Renewable energy sector Country Installed capacity (MW) Share of total (%) 

Winda China 63,474 26.8 

United States 46,459 19.6 

Germany 28,608 12.1 

Spain 21,779 9.2 

India 15,732 6.6 

 Subtotal 176,052 74.2 

 All other 61,176 25.8 

World total 237,228 100.0 

Small hydropowera China 62,123 35.0 

United States 25,291 14.3 

Japan 13,234 7.5 

Switzerland 3,700 2.1 

India 3,400 1.9 

 Subtotal 107,748 60.7 

 All other 69,966 39.3 

World total 177,414 100.0 

Solar photovoltaic (PV) Germany 31,369 31.0 

Italy 16,283 16.1 

United States 7,527 7.4 

Japan 7,002 6.9 

Spain 4,464 4.4 

 Subtotal 66,645 65.9 

 All other 34,556 34.1 

World total 101,201 100.0 

Biomass and wastea United States 12,994 20.9 

Brazil 8,770 14.1 

Germany 5,380 8.7 

China 4,887 7.9 

Japan 3,362 5.4 

 Subtotal 35,393 57.0 

 All other 26,674 43.0 

World total 62,067 100.0 

Geothermal United States 3,113 27.3 

Philippines 1,880 16.5 

Indonesia 1,354 11.9 

Mexico 1,008 8.8 

Italy 882 7.7 

 Subtotal 8,237 72.1 

 All other 3,187 27.9 

World total 11,424 100.0 

Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance database (accessed February 11, 2013). 

 a

2012 data are unavailable. Figures are from 2011. 

Note: Excludes renewable power generating capacity from concentrated solar power (CSP) technologies, which use 

sunlight to heat a fluid to generate electricity in large power plants. In 2011, the latest year for which data are available, 

global CSP capacity amounted to 1.6 GW. Spain accounted for 60 percent (953 GW) of CSP capacity, while the 

United States accounted for 34 percent (542 GW) that year. 
2-6 

Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, and North Africa are among the fastest-growing 

markets for renewable energy, driven in large part by growth in solar and wind-energy 

installations. 

U.S. Market 

Fossil fuels have historically supplied the majority of the energy consumed in the United 

States. In 2012, U.S. consumption of renewable energy totaled 9 quadrillion British 

thermal units (BTUs),12 or about 9 percent of total U.S. energy consumption (figure 2.3), 

up from 6.5 percent in 2007.13 In comparison, petroleum, natural gas, and coal still 

collectively accounted for over four-fifths of U.S. energy consumption in 2012. In recent 

years, consumption of renewable energy, particularly from wind, solar, and geothermal 

sources, has grown rapidly, although from a small base. By contrast, domestic 

consumption of petroleum and coal has somewhat declined in recent years.14 

Petroleum 36.5%

Natural gas 27.3%

Coal 18.4%

Nuclear 8.5%

Solar 0.2%

Geothermal 0.2%

Wind 1.4%

Hydropow er 2.8%

Biomass 4.6%

Renew able energy

9.3%

FIGURE 2.3 U.S. energy consumption by source, 2012

Total = 95.1 quadrillion BTUs

Source: EIA, Monthly Energy Review, March 2013, table 1.3.

 12 A BTU is a common measure of energy consumption that refers to the quantity of heat required to 

raise the temperature of one pound of liquid water by one degree Fahrenheit at the temperature at which 

water has its greatest density (approximately 39 degrees Fahrenheit). 13 EIA, “What Is Renewable Energy?” (accessed January 30, 2013); EIA, Monthly Energy Review, 

March 2013, table 1.3. Total energy consumption refers to the consumption of primary energy sources (e.g., 

fossil fuels like crude petroleum or natural gas) before they are transformed into other forms of energy (i.e., 

electricity). 14 Increased vehicle fuel economy standards coupled with the recent U.S. recession have helped to 

lower demand for transportation fuels like gasoline. Stricter environmental regulations for coal and record 

low prices for natural gas have helped to cut coal consumption, particularly in coal-fired power plants that 

can use natural gas as a substitute fuel. EIA, Monthly Energy Review, March 2013, table 1.3; Bloomberg, 

Sustainable Energy in America 2013, 2013, 7. 
2-7 

In the United States, over half of renewable energy is used to produce electricity.15

Between 2007 and 2012, the share of net electricity generation from renewable energy 

sources grew from 8.5 percent to almost 13 percent, driven primarily by growth in wind 

energy. However, almost two-thirds of net electricity generation from renewable sources 

was supplied by hydropower in 2012.16 In contrast, fossil fuels, including coal, petroleum, 

and natural gas, accounted for 68 percent of U.S. net electricity generation in 2012, down 

from 72 percent in 2007.17 

U.S. renewable energy capacity (other than large hydropower) is growing, and between 

2007 and 2012, nearly doubled to 110 GW (figure 2.4). Indeed, annual installations of 

renewable energy capacity more than tripled to 17 GW during the same period 

(figure 2.5), accounting for the largest source of capacity growth among energy sources.18

Wind energy accounted for over half of renewable energy capacity in 2012, up from 

about 30 percent in 2007. In fact, new wind energy capacity topped 13 GW in 2012, or 

almost 80 percent of total new installations that year, driven in part by the looming 

expiration of the wind production tax credit, which is described in chapters 4 and 6. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Capacity (GW)

Geothermal

Solar

Biomass & waste

Small hydropower

Wind

FIGURE 2.4 U.S. renewable energy capacity by source, 2007–12

Source: Bloomerg New Energy Finance database.

Note: Small hydropower refers to hydropower sources with generating capacities equal to or less than 

50 MW.

 15 Biomass, including wood and waste, is used to produce heat and steam in industrial applications and 

for residential heating. Biofuels, another form of biomass, are used as transportation fuels. EIA, “What is 

Renewable Energy?” (accessed January 30, 2013). 16 EIA, Energy Perspectives 2011, September 2012, table 32. EIA, Monthly Energy Review, March 

2013, table 7.2a. Includes hydropower sources with capacities of 50 MW or more. 17 Ibid. 

18 Bloomberg, Sustainable Energy in America 2012, 2013, 9. 
2-8 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Capacity (GW)

Geothermal

Biomass & waste

Solar

Wind

FIGURE 2.5 U.S. annual installations of renewable capacity, 2007–12

Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance database.

Factors Affecting Supply and Demand for Renewable 

Energy 

Policies Supporting Renewable Energy 

Government policy has played a key role in the global development of renewable energy. 

Growing concerns about energy security and the potential negative environmental and 

economic effects of increased greenhouse gas emissions (and, more broadly, climate 

change) have spurred efforts in many countries to promote and harness renewable energy 

sources.19 Indeed, over 125 countries have explicit policy targets in place to promote 

renewable energy in one form or another, including targets to increase renewable energy 

as a share of energy supply and to increase installed capacity of specific technologies, 

among others.20 

Renewable energy has historically cost more to generate than energy from conventional 

sources like fossil fuels (e.g., coal, petroleum, and natural gas). As a result, renewable 

energy has largely been uncompetitive with cheaper alternatives absent policy 

mechanisms that lower its generating costs and encourage (or mandate) its use. These 

mechanisms include fiscal incentives, such as tax credits to offset the cost of generating 

renewable energy, and regulatory policies that mandate the use of renewable energy and 

set its price. Often, governments implement a combination of these policies and measures 

to fuel the development and deployment of renewable energy resources and technologies. 

 19 EIA, International Energy Outlook 2011, September 2011, 4. 20 REN-21, Renewables 2013, 2013, 69. For more information on the market effects of clean energy 

incentive programs, see chapter 6 of this report. 
2-9 

Fiscal Incentives 

Fiscal incentives are designed to lower the cost of generating renewable energy to make it 

more competitive with fossil fuels. The number of countries offering fiscal incentives to 

encourage the development of renewable energy has grown in recent years. Over 100 

countries offer some form of fiscal incentive, including grants and rebates, production or 

investment tax credits, and energy-production payments.21

In the United States, a wide array of fiscal incentives are available to lower the cost of 

renewable energy project development, including various tax credits, cash grants in lieu 

of credit, and loan guarantees (table 2.2). Tax credits are the most common form of fiscal 

incentive. At the federal level, renewable energy production tax credits (PTCs) encourage 

renewable energy production by providing a tax credit of up to 2.3¢ per kilowatt-hour 

(kWh) of energy produced from qualifying renewable sources. Similarly, business energy 

investment tax credits (ITCs) encourage investment in renewable energy projects by 

reducing tax liabilities by up to 30 percent of the cost of qualified renewable technologies, 

including biomass, geothermal, solar, and wind, among others.22 Both types of tax credits 

have been modified and extended at various times (most recently in 2012), which has 

affected both the timing and scope of the development of renewable energy projects, 

particularly for wind projects.23

In 2008, the financial crisis tightened credit markets and significantly reduced financing 

options for renewable energy project developers. In response to the crisis, the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, or the Stimulus Bill)24 created several 

temporary mechanisms to address the shortfall in financing and to stimulate investment in 

renewable energy production and manufacturing of renewable technologies. Chief among 

these were a program offering cash grants in lieu of ITCs for qualified renewable energy 

technologies, loan guarantees for renewable energy projects, and a manufacturing tax 

credit to encourage investment in facilities manufacturing clean energy products (see 

table 2.2). 

Regulatory Policies 

Regulatory policies are a principal driver behind the creation of renewable energy 

markets worldwide. Two of the most widespread regulatory policies are renewable 

portfolio standards (RPSs, also known as renewable energy standards) and feed-in tariffs 

(FITs). RPSs primarily affect demand for renewable energy by mandating its use, while 

FITs primarily affect the supply of renewable energy by paying a renewable energy 

generator a known rate of return. Similar to fiscal incentives, the number of countries 

implementing RPSs and FITs has grown in recent years to encourage the development of 

renewable energy markets. 

An RPS (also known as a renewable energy standard) is a regulatory mandate that 

requires entities that supply electricity, such as utility companies, to generate or buy a 

portion of their retail electricity sales from renewable sources such as wind, solar, and 

 21 REN-21, Renewables 2013, 2013, 80–82. 22 SEIA, “Solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC),” n.d. (accessed February 5, 2013); North Carolina Solar 

Center, DSIRE database, “Business Energy Investment Tax Credit (ITC),” January 3, 2013. 23 For more information on the wind sector, see chapter 4 of this report. 24 Public Law 111-5. 
2-10 

TABLE 2.2 Selected U.S. fiscal incentives to promote renewable energy deployment

Type of incentive Description Renewable sector Expiration date 

Production tax 

credit (PTC) 

10-year, production-based 

credit equal to 2.3¢/kWh 

Biomass (closed-loop),

geothermal, solar, wind 

Project must be under 

construction by end of 

2013. 

10-year, production-based 

credit equal to 1.1¢/kWh 

Biomass (open-loop), 

hydropower, marine, landfill 

gas, trash combustion 

Project must be under 

construction by end of 

2013. 

Investment tax 

credit (ITC) 

Credit equal to 30 percent of 

eligible capital expenditures 

Fuel cells, solar, small-capacity 

wind (projects of 100kw or less) 

Project must be 

commissioned by end of 

2016 for 30 percent ITC 

(10 percent ITC after 2016, 

without expiration). 

Biomass, geothermal 

hydropower, marine/tidal, wind 

End of 2013. 

Credit equal to 10 percent of 

eligible capital expenditures 

Geothermal No expiration. 

Combined heat and power 

(CHP) systems 

End of 2016. 

Cash grant 

program (Treasury 

1603 program) 

Cash grant equal to up to 30 

percent of eligible capital 

expenditures in lieu of the ITC 

Same as those that qualify for 

the ITC 

Project must be under 

construction by end of 

2011 and completed by 

end of 2016. 

Loan guarantee 

program 

(DOE 1705 loan 

program) 

Authorized $16 billion in loan 

guarantees, mostly for wind and 

solar generation projects 

Biomass, geothermal, solar, 

wind 

Must have begun 

construction on project 

before September 30, 

2011. 

Manufacturing tax 

credit (MTC)a Allocated $2.3 billion in investment tax credits up to 30 

percent of investment in 

manufacturing facilities of clean 

energy products 

Batteries, biomass, fuel cells, 

solar, wind 

Project must have been 

commissioned before 

February 17, 2013. 

Source: Bloomberg, Sustainable Energy in America 2013, 2013, 21–23; DOE, Loan Programs Office, 

https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_id=45 (accessed February 5, 2013); North Carolina Solar Center, DSIRE database, 

“Federal Incentives/Policies for Renewables and Efficiency,” January 3, 2013; IRS, “Fact Sheet: $2.3 Billion in New 

Clean Energy Manufacturing Tax Credits,” January 8, 2010; IRS, “Advanced Energy Credit for Manufacturers (IRC 

48C),” n.d. (accessed February 5, 2013); EIA, “Biomass for Electricity Generation,” n.d. (accessed February 6, 2013). 

Note: “Closed-loop” refers to biomass materials that are grown exclusively to produce energy. “Open-loop” refers to 

biomass materials considered either as waste or a byproduct that is used to produce energy. 

 aQualified Advanced Energy Project Credit, enacted by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

(February 17, 2009), as section 48C of the Internal Revenue Code (IRS). 

biomass.25 Because it effectively creates demand for renewable energy by mandating its 

use, an RPS can also be seen as promoting increased energy production from renewable 

sources.26 Twenty-two countries and 54 jurisdictions at the state, provincial, or regional 

 25 An electricity generator may have the option of purchasing a tradable renewable energy certificate 

(REC) or credit in order to comply with an RPS. An REC or similar credit represents a claim to have 

purchased electricity generated from an eligible renewable source. NREL, “Renewable Portfolio Standards” 

(accessed February 1, 2013); North Carolina Solar Center, DSIRE database, “Glossary” (accessed February 5, 

2013). 26 NREL, “Renewable Portfolio Standards” (accessed February 1, 2013). 
2-11 

level maintain RPSs.27 In the United States, RPSs are set and administered at the state 

level—29 states and the District of Columbia have RPS policies in place.28

A feed-in tariff (FIT) offers a guarantee of payments to renewable energy developers for 

the electricity they produce.29 Payments are based on a certain price per kilowatt-hour 

(kWh) at which electricity is purchased, typically as part of a long-term agreement set 

over a period of 15–20 years.30 Because FITs generally guarantee payments at a known 

rate of return, they promote the supply of renewable energy. Seventy-one countries and 

28 jurisdictions at the state or provincial level have implemented FITs.31 In the United 

States, FITs are set and administered at the state level—five states have FITs in place 

(California, Hawaii, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont).32

Changes to these policy mechanisms can affect the growth in the supply of renewable 

energy. For instance, in 2012, Spain suspended its FITs for new renewable energy 

installations in response to the country’s economic crisis.33 As a result, the growth in 

installations in Spain is expected to decline rapidly, thereby limiting the growth in the 

supply of renewable energy.34

Other Factors Affecting Demand and Supply for Renewable Energy 

As noted previously, demand for renewable energy is almost entirely policy driven 

because renewable energy has largely not been cost-competitive with fossil fuelgenerated electricity.35 As a result, other factors affecting the development of renewable 

energy are principally supply driven, and include declining costs of renewable energy 

technologies, natural resource endowment, adequate electrical grid connections, and 

relative prices of alternative fuels. 

 

Declining costs for renewable energy technologies can affect the supply for renewable 

energy. Advances in technology, greater economies of scale, and increased competition 

have contributed to declining prices for renewable technologies paid by project 

developers, leading to an increase in the supply of renewable energy projects. In response 

to declining costs, several countries have modified their renewable energy policies to 

decrease the level of support, primarily through reductions in FITs.36

 27 REN-21, Renewables 2013, 2013, 72. 28 REN-21, Renewables 2012, 2012, 67, 119; North Carolina Solar Center, DSIRE database (accessed 

February 5, 2013). The following 29 states have RPS policies mandating the use of renewable energy: 

Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New 

Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, and 

Wisconsin. The following 8 states have voluntary goals to increase the use of renewable energy: Indiana, 

North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. 29 NREL, “Feed-In Tariffs” (accessed February 2, 2013). 

30 Payments can vary, and are affected by technology type and cost, resource availability, and 

installation size. IEA, Deploying Renewables, 2011, 79; NREL, “Feed-In Tariffs” (accessed February 2, 

2013); REN-21, Renewables 2012, 2012, 74. 31 REN-21, Renewables 2013, 2013, 72. 32 REN-21, Renewables 2012, 2012, 66, 118. 33 Clover, “Spain Suspends Feed-in-Tariffs, Receives EU Criticism,” February 3, 2012. 34 For more information on FITs, see chapter 6 of this report. 

35 An exception is large hydropower, which has historically been price-competitive with fossil fuels to 

generate electricity. However, in many instances, the development of large hydropower projects raises 

environmental and social concerns. For more information on recent developments in large hydropower, see 

chapter 5 of this report. 36 REN-21, Renewables 2012, 2012, 65–67.
2-12 

Natural resource endowments can also affect the supply of renewable energy. Viable 

natural resources are needed to generate electricity, such as adequate and consistent wind 

resources or sunlight. In addition, adequate electricity grid connection is needed to 

connect renewable energy generating sources to consumption centers. For instance, 

inadequate grid connection can hamper efforts to develop solar and wind energy projects 

in many regions throughout the world, including in the United States, as described in 

chapters 3 and 4. Another factor affecting the supply of renewable energy is the relative 

prices of alternative fuels, such as petroleum or natural gas. For instance, the recent boom 

in U.S. natural gas production has resulted in record low prices for natural gas, making 

electricity generated from renewable sources less competitive absent policy supports. 

Overview of Renewable Energy Services 

Renewable energy services broadly comprise a range of services associated with the 

generation, transmission, distribution, and sale of electricity and/or heat produced from 

renewable energy sources.37 These also include services related to the planning, design, 

construction, and operation and maintenance of renewable energy installations, among 

others.38 Figure 2.6 provides examples of different types of renewable energy services 

associated with renewable energy production. Although some of these services may 

overlap, services that are typically offered in the early stages of project development 

include planning, design, and engineering services (so-called “front-end” services). 

Project management and financial services are typically offered during the entire 

development of the project. Operations and maintenance (O&M) services—so-called 

“back-end” services—are important once the project is up and running. 

Firms may offer one or more of these services. For instance, some firms may provide 

consulting services that focus on the planning stages of a renewable energy project, 

including geological analysis, site and resource evaluation, and environmental permitting. 

Other firms may provide a broader array of service offerings, such as project 

management services (including design services) and engineering, procurement, and 

construction (EPC) services. O&M services may be offered by original equipment 

manufacturers (OEMs) that produce the technologies that generate renewable energy, 

such as wind turbines or solar modules; may be done in-house; or may be carried out by 

unaffiliated independent service providers (ISPs). 

Consumers of renewable energy services are principally the developers and operators of 

larger-scale renewable energy projects, such as wind or solar farms that generate 

electricity for sale to public or private electric utilities. Other consumers of renewable 

energy services may include private landowners who install smaller-scale renewable 

energy systems (e.g., rooftop solar installations) and industrial consumers of electricity, 

or other entities or individuals not connected to an electricity grid.39

 

 37 USITC, Renewable Energy Services, 2005, 1-2. 38 Ibid. 

39 Steenblick and Geloso Grosso, “Trade in Services Related to Climate Change,” 2011, 10. 
2-13 

Factors Affecting Demand and Supply for Renewable Energy 

Services 

Demand 

Demand for renewable energy underpins overall demand for renewable energy services. 

As noted previously, government policies that lower generating costs (through fiscal 

incentives like tax credits), mandate its use (through RPSs), and set its prices (through 

FITs) are principal drivers of the demand for and supply of renewable energy. Specific 

factors affecting the demand for renewable energy services, in turn, include the growth in 

installations of renewable technologies, the size and age of existing renewable capacity, 

and improvements or advances in renewable technologies. 

Growth in new installations of renewable technologies is a primary driver of demand for 

front-end renewable energy services. These include balance of systems (BOS) services,40

such as design and engineering, construction, and installation, and preconstruction 

services, such as environmental consultation and permitting services. Capacity growth, in 

turn, is affected by many different factors, as outlined in the previous section. 

In addition, increased competition among renewable technology manufacturers, greater 

economies of scale in manufacturing, and advances in technology and manufacturing 

 40 BOS refers to all components of a renewable energy power station other than the electricitygenerating apparatus, such as a wind turbine or solar panel. These can include supporting infrastructure, 

including land, as well as wiring, switches, support racks, inverters, and batteries. 

Planning services

- Geological analysis

- Feasibility studies

- Resource and site 

evaluation

- Environmental consultation

- Permitting

Design and engineering services

- Design of production 

facilities

- Foundation and subsystem 

design

Project management services

- Project development

- Supply chain management

- Procurement services

Construction services

- Civil construction (site and 

roads)

- Installation services

- Subsystem construction

Operation and maintenance (O&M) 

services

- Monitoring and 

management (onsite or 

remotely)

- Equipment maintenance 

(e.g., gear box or blade 

repair) 

Financial services

- Project finance

- Facilitating transactions of 

renewable energy credits 

(RECs)

Transmission and gridinterconnection services

Training services

- Training of personnel

Renewable energy equipment 

manufacturers (OEMs)

- Geothermal steam turbines

- Solar photovoltaic (PV) 

modules

- Wind turbines, blades, and 

towers

Sources: Adapted from Steenblik and Geloso Grosso, “Trade in Services Related to Climate Change,” 2011, 7–11; 

USITC, Renewable Energy Services, 2005, 3-7; Quanta Power Generation company website 

http://www.quantarenewable.com/ (accessed February 19, 2013); Mastec company website,

http://www.mastec.com/en/about/ (accessed February 19, 2013); Monkelbaan, “Sustainable Energy Services in a 

SETA,” 2013.

FIGURE 2.6 Renewable energy projects encompass a broad range of goods and services

Renewable energy generation

- Biomass

- Geothermal

- Hydro

- Solar

- Wind
2-14 

have driven down the prices paid by project developers for many renewable technologies, 

such as wind turbines and solar panels.41 Lower prices for these technologies, in turn, 

have led to growth in project development services and renewable energy installations. 

The growth and age of the installed capacity of renewable technologies are primary 

drivers of demand for back-end renewable energy services, particularly operation and 

maintenance (O&M) services. For instance, wind turbines are typically covered under a 

warranty provided by the turbine’s manufacturer, during which time maintenance and 

repair services are included under the terms of the contract. As warranty periods expire 

and turbines age, demand for out-of-warranty O&M services typically increases. Indeed, 

O&M can account for up to 35 percent of the annual cost of power generation at the end 

of a wind turbine’s life, reflecting greater maintenance and upkeep, compared with 

10 percent for a new turbine.42

Improvements or advances in renewable technologies may weaken demand for certain 

O&M services. For instance, wind turbines incorporating newer direct-drive turbine 

technologies do not require gearboxes to generate electricity, and therefore eliminate the 

need for gearbox maintenance, a type of O&M service.43 In addition, because direct-drive 

technologies use fewer parts, there are relatively lower maintenance requirements 

overall.44 In another example, wind-farm operators that monitor wind farm conditions 

remotely can improve the ordering of spare parts, work scheduling, and planning 

activities, thereby reducing the frequency and improving the efficiency of onsite 

maintenance.45 Finally, technologies that measure and control the tension in the bolted 

joints of turbines can prevent joint failures that arise from insufficient bolt tension in 

turbine installations, and can reduce associated maintenance costs by up to 50 percent.46

Despite these trends, the substantial increase in global installed wind capacity continues 

to drive growth in the O&M market. 

Supply 

Factors affecting the supply of renewable energy services include the availability and 

technical expertise of skilled workers, access to infrastructure, geography, and weather 

conditions. For instance, the rapid growth in renewable energy installations, particularly 

in wind energy, has reportedly outpaced the supply of skilled workers who perform 

certain renewable energy services, such as EPC or O&M services. 47 In addition, qualified 

technicians are needed to service various technologies, including hydraulics, mechanics, 

and information technology, often in challenging environments. The lack of qualified 

technicians to undertake O&M services in wind parks has been cited as one of the biggest 

challenges facing wind energy service providers globally. 48 O&M service providers, 

including OEMs, ISPs, and wind-farm operators, reportedly intend to triple their 

 41 McBee, “Solar Panel Installation in the U.S.,” 2012, 9; REN-21, Renewables 2012, 2012, 59. 42 Deloitte, “European Wind Services Study,” 2012, 4; Broad, “Post-Warranty Wind O&M Costs 

Proven to Increase by 25%,” January 18, 2013. 43 A gearbox increases the rotational speed of a shaft that connects the wind turbine’s rotor and blades 

to a generator. A low-speed shaft feeds into the gearbox, and a high-speed shaft feeds from the gearbox into 

the generator. Gearboxes are a main cause of breakdowns and require regular repairs. Bartholl and Oleownik, 

“Wind Services: New Growth Opportunities,” 2012, 8; David, “Wind Turbines,” 2009, 2. 44 Bartholl and Oleownik, “Wind Services: New Growth Opportunities,” 2012, 8. 45 Deloitte, “European Wind Services Study,” 2012, 12. 

46 Ibid. 

47 A dearth of qualified crane technicians in Brazil reportedly hinders the ability of project developers 

to erect wind towers. Industry representative, interview with USITC staff, São Paulo, Brazil, May 8, 2013. 48 Deloitte, “European Wind Services Study,” 2012, 16. 
2-15 

workforce in the coming years in response to continued growth in wind installations, 

underscoring the need for skilled labor.49

Geography, access to infrastructure, and weather conditions can affect the supply of 

O&M services. In the case of offshore wind turbines, the availability of marine vessels 

and port services affects the ability of service providers to travel to offshore locations to 

provide O&M services. 50 Long distances to remote locations, particularly offshore, as 

well as harsh weather conditions, can also limit firms’ ability to provide such services by 

impeding physical access to such locations. 

Estimates of the Size of the Global and U.S. Market for 

Renewable Energy Services 

Size of the Global Market 

Comprehensive published data on the value of the global market for all renewable energy 

services in all renewable energy sectors are unavailable.51 However, given that renewable 

energy services are indispensable to the development and maintenance of renewable 

energy projects, the rapid growth in renewable energy investment and installed capacity 

worldwide indicates a similarly vibrant global market for renewable energy services. 

Solar PV 

The global market for solar PV services has grown rapidly in response to growth in solar 

PV installations worldwide. The value of global solar PV services associated with 

installations was estimated to be $34 billion in 2011, or 37 percent of the broader market 

for solar PV installations (including equipment and services), as described in chapter 3. 

The largest markets for solar PV services in 2011 were Italy ($9.8 billion), Germany 

($5.1 billion), the United States ($3.1 billion), and Japan ($3.0 billion).52 According to 

one published source, the global market for solar PV O&M services is expected to grow 

annually by 43 percent to reach $18.4 billion by 2017.53 Europe is expected to be the 

largest market for solar PV O&M services, due to continued growth in solar PV 

installations in the coming years.54

Wind 

The global market for wind services has grown as global wind installations have 

increased. In 2011, the value of services associated with wind installations was estimated 

at nearly $23 billion, or roughly 32 percent of the broader global market for wind power 

installations (including equipment and services), as noted in chapter 4. The largest 

 49 Ibid. 

50 Deloitte, “European Wind Services Study,” 2012, 16; Bartholl and Oleownik, “Wind Services: New 

Growth Opportunities,” 2012, 12. 51 Estimates of the size of the global and U.S. market for renewable energy services presented in this 

section were developed by the Commission by obtaining industry estimates of the share of a project cost that 

each service constitutes and then applying the estimates to installed capacity for a given market. 52 For more information on the global market for solar PV services, see chapter 3 of this report. 53 Lucintel, “Growth Opportunities in Solar Photovoltaic,” 2012. 54 For more information on the global market for renewable energy services in the solar sector, see 

chapter 3 of this report. 
2-16 

markets for wind services are China ($9.0–$11.8 billion), the United States ($5.5–

$7.1 billion), Germany ($2.3–$3.5 billion), and Canada ($1.2 billion).55

Similarly, the value of global O&M services also continues to rise steadily, as the volume 

of global wind-energy capacity more than doubled between 2007 and 2012. Although 

estimates vary, the global market for wind O&M services was estimated at $6.2–

$7.2 billion in 2011, with Europe estimated to account for about half of that market.56

OEMs that produce wind turbines are thought to provide almost two-thirds of wind O&M 

services in the European market. Other O&M service suppliers include ISPs and windfarm operators.57

Hydropower and Geothermal 

The global market for services associated with all hydropower installations was estimated 

at nearly $72 billion, as outlined in chapter 5.58 The global market for services associated 

with installations of small-capacity hydropower (i.e., less than or equal to 50 MW) is 

substantially smaller, and is estimated to account for less than 5 percent ($2.3 billion) of 

the broader market for hydropower installations of all sizes. Finally, the global market for 

geothermal services was estimated at $2.8 billion in 2010, with O&M services accounting 

for the bulk of those services ($2.5 billion), as noted in chapter 5. 

Size of the U.S. Market 

Similar to the global market, comprehensive published data on the total value of the U.S. 

market for services in all renewable energy sectors are unavailable. However, the United 

States is consistently among the largest markets for renewable energy services. 

Solar PV 

The U.S. market for solar PV services grew rapidly between 2007 and 2012, driven by 

declining prices in solar PV installations and by state and federal government policies. 

The value of services associated with solar PV installations is estimated to be $3.1 billion 

in 2011, or 37 percent of the broader U.S. market for solar PV installations (including 

equipment and services), as described in chapter 3. By comparison, the U.S. market for 

solar PV O&M services was likely around $100 million in 2011. Although the value of 

O&M services was comparatively small—solar PV panels require considerably less 

maintenance than wind turbines—the growing installed solar PV base offers increasing 

opportunities for O&M service providers. 

Wind 

Similarly, the U.S. market for wind-energy services grew rapidly between 2007 and 2012, 

as wind-energy capacity increased by nearly 30 percent annually. The value of services 

associated with wind installations is estimated at $7.4 billion in 2012, or 32 percent of the 

 55 For more information on the global market for wind-energy services, see chapter 4 of this report. 56 Deloitte, “European Wind Services Study,” 2012, 4; USITC estimates. Deloitte estimated the size of 

the global market at €4.6 billion, which was converted to U.S. dollars by multiplying by an average exchange 

rate of 1.35. For more information on the global market for renewable energy services in the wind sector, see 

chapter 4 of this report. 57 Deloitte, “European Wind Services Study,” 2012, 5. 58 For more information on the global market for hydropower and geothermal services, see chapter 5 of 

this report. 
2-17 

broader U.S. market for wind power installations (including equipment and services).59

The U.S. market for O&M services in the wind-energy sector was substantially smaller; it 

was estimated to be $1.7 billion in 2012, up from $467 million in 2007. 

Hydropower and Geothermal 

The U.S. market for hydropower and geothermal-energy services is considerably smaller 

than that for wind and solar services. 60 The value of services associated with the 

construction and installation of all hydropower projects (i.e., including those with 

capacities greater than 50 MW) in the United States was estimated at $322 million in 

2010, although the value of O&M services is likely to be considerably larger. The value 

of services associated with the construction and installation of geothermal services was 

estimated at $34 million in 2010, while O&M services to support existing installed 

capacity were likely around $590 million. 

Global and U.S. Investment in Renewable Energy Services 

Global Investment 

Data on global and U.S. investment specific to renewable energy services are unavailable. 

However, global investment in renewable energy in general stood at a record $244 billion 

in 2012, up 71 percent compared with 2007, although down 12 percent compared with 

2011 levels (figure 2.7). These figures broadly reflect investment associated with the 

development of renewable energy projects and installation of renewable energy 

generating capacity. Because renewable energy services are needed to develop these 

projects, investment in renewable energy more broadly serves as a useful proxy for trends 

and investment in renewable energy services.61

The solar sector accounted for the majority of global investment in renewable energy in 

2012 ($143 billion, or 58 percent), having eclipsed wind power in 2010 to take the top 

spot. Global investment in solar power grew the fastest among all renewable energy 

sectors, having nearly quadrupled between 2007 and 2012 (although having declined in 

2012 by 9 percent compared with 2011). Factors contributing to the growth in solar 

investment include falling prices for solar PV modules; robust demand for rooftop solar 

PV installations in Europe, particularly in Germany and Italy; growth in small-scale solar 

PV installations in other countries, including China and the United Kingdom; and the 

financing of large-scale solar thermal electricity generation projects in Spain and the 

United States.62 

 59 For more information on the U.S. market for wind services, see chapter 4 of this report. 60 For more information on the U.S. market for hydropower and geothermal services, see chapter 5 of 

this report. 61 Refers to new investment in renewable energy in the following asset classes: asset finance (new 

development and installation of renewable energy generating projects); small distributed capacity 

(residential-scale projects of less than 1 MW); funds raised by firms both privately (i.e., as private equity or 

venture capital) or through capital markets; reinvested equity; and corporate and government research and 

development. Asset finance accounts for the majority of new investment in renewable energy (60 percent of 

the total in 2012), followed by small distributed capacity (32 percent). BNEF, Market Sizing, November 2012. 62 FS and UNEP, Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2012, 2012, 12. 
2-18 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Billion $

Geothermal

Small hydro

Biofuels

Biomass

Wind

Solar

Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance database.

Note: While included in the overall global renewable energy investmentfigures, the total investmentdata for 

marine energy installations are too small relative to the other technologies represented here to appear in the figure. 

FIGURE 2.7 Global renewable energy investment by sector, 2007–12

Despite increasing by almost two-thirds between 2007 and 2011, global investment in 

wind power tapered off and declined to $78 billion in 2012, 13 percent lower than in 

2011. Factors contributing to the recent decline include overcapacity in global turbine 

manufacturing, resulting in lower turbine prices and reduced output; uncertainty in 

Europe over policy measures to support renewable energy; and slower growth in wind 

installations in China due, in part, to inadequate grid connections.63 

Global investment in renewable energy grew in most regions of the world between 2007 

and 2012 (figure 2.8), due in large part to government policies supporting renewable 

energy as outlined in the previous section.64 Although Europe is the largest regional 

market for renewable energy investment ($79.9 billion in 2012), China surpassed the 

United States in 2009 to become the largest single-country market for such investment 

($66.6 billion in China compared to $36 billion in the United States in 2012). Indeed, 

China’s investment in renewable energy more than quadrupled between 2007 and 2012, 

and grew by 22 percent between 2011 and 2012, reflecting continued growth in installed 

capacity to generate renewable energy. Despite a lack of adequate grid connections, 

China added nearly 20 GW of wind-energy capacity in 2011, up from 17 GW in 2010. 

Moreover, 2.2 GW of solar PV capacity was commissioned in 2011, and solar thermal 

electricity generation continues to grow as well.65 Although not as large, investment in 

renewable energy in India increased by almost two-thirds between 2010 and 2011, due in 

part to a national program to develop 20 GW of solar power capacity by 2022.66

 63 Ibid., 12, 23, 26, 33–34. 

64 Investment data cited by the REN-21 is from FS and UNEP and the BNEF database. The BNEF 

database is frequently updated and revised with new investment data, and as a result, more recent investment 

data collected by Commission staff in figure 2.7 may differ slightly from those shown in figure 2.8. In 

addition, Commission staff is unable to collect data on new investment for the same regions as those reported 

by REN-21 and FS and UNEP due to subscription limitations on BNEF’s database. 65 FS and UNEP, Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2012, 2012, 12, 26, 23. 66 Ibid., 24. 
2-19 

U.S. Investment 

Although the United States lagged behind China, U.S. domestic investment in renewable 

energy grew by almost 60 percent between 2007 and 2011 to $54.8 billion; investment, 

however, fell by almost 35 percent between 2011 and 2012 to $36 billion. The growth in 

U.S. investment in 2011 alone was driven, in part, by the looming expiration of federal 

renewable energy incentive programs. For instance, the federal loan guarantee program, 

which covered $16.1 billion in project debt, expired in September 2011. Renewable 

energy developers sought to finance projects in time to take advantage of these programs 

before their expiration in 2011.67 Uncertainty surrounding the future of the incentive 

programs dampened renewable energy investment in 2012. 

Global and U.S. Trade in Renewable Energy Services 

Renewable energy services are typically supplied by establishing a commercial presence 

and by temporarily moving service providers into a client’s territory. In addition, 

improvements in information and communications technologies (ICTs) have made the 

provision of some renewable energy services, such as remote monitoring, possible 

through cross-border supply.68 Other examples in which ICTs have boosted the crossborder supply of renewable energy services include the transmission of architectural and 

engineering specifications, design plans, environmental assessments, and computer 

modeling simulations.69

 67 Ibid., 13. 

68 See also Monkelbaan, “Sustainable Energy Services in a SETA,” 2013, 29. 69 Kim, “Facilitating Trade in Services,” 2011, 19. 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Billion $

Middle East & Africa

Americas (excl. U.S. & Brazil)

Brazil

India

Asia (excl. China & India)

United States

China

Europe

Source: REN-21, Renewables 2013, 2013, 62-63.

FIGURE 2.8 Global renewable energy investment by country and region, 2007–12
2-20 

To some degree, the supply of certain renewable energy services broadly mirrors the 

movement of certain renewable energy technologies, as the services and technologies 

often complement each other.70 Often, manufacturers that produce and export renewable 

energy technologies, such as wind turbines, also provide associated services in the market 

to which the product was exported. Some manufacturers of wind turbines may provide 

both front-end and back-end services, including financing of turbine sales; project 

development and installation services; and training, monitoring, and repair services. For 

instance, in 2013 Vestas, a U.S. producer of wind turbines, received an order to produce 

and export over 150 wind turbines for the 299 MW Blackspring Ridge Wind Project in 

Alberta, Canada. The firm will also provide maintenance services on the turbines as part 

of a 20-year service and maintenance agreement included in the order.71

Other manufacturers of renewable energy technologies may provide design, construction, 

and installation services as part of their overall product offering.72 One source surveyed 

the top firms that design and build wind and solar energy projects. According to this 

source, global exports of design and construction services in the wind sector totaled 

$829 million in 2012, while global exports of design and construction services in the 

solar sector totaled $1.2 billion.73

Although data on global exports of different renewable energy technologies are largely 

unavailable due to issues with the way exports are classified, 74 exports of certain 

renewable energy equipment like wind-powered generating sets have grown in recent 

years.75 These exports are likely representative of broader trade trends, reflecting the 

potential growth in trade in wind energy services. Between 2007 and 2012, global exports 

of wind-powered generating sets increased by 72 percent to $6.8 billion.76 Germany, 

Denmark, and Spain collectively accounted for over 75 percent of these exports in 2012 

(the United States accounted for 6 percent). The largest global exporters of renewable 

energy technologies are also likely to be the largest suppliers of renewable energy 

services. Indeed, Germany, Denmark, and Spain have well-developed and sophisticated 

providers of wind energy services, as noted in chapter 4. Likewise, the largest global 

importers of renewable energy technologies are also likely to be the largest consumers of 

renewable energy services. For instance, the United States is the largest importer of windpowered generating sets, reflecting the growth in U.S. installed wind capacity and wind 

services supplied by domestic and foreign firms alike. 

Trade in renewable energy services also depends on the extent to which countries where 

renewable energy projects are located have firms with the capacity to provide all the 

necessary goods and services.77 A number of countries, particularly developing countries, 

 70 Monkelbaan, “Sustainable Energy Services in a SETA,” 2013, 12. Services affiliated with renewable 

energy technologies that are produced in one country and exported to another do not necessarily imply that 

those services are exported from that country to another. 71 Pankratz, “Vestas’ Colorado Factories to Build Components,” April 9, 2013. Vestas is a wholly 

owned U.S. subsidiary of Denmark-based Vestas Wind Systems. Services supplied by its U.S. subsidiary to 

the project located in Alberta, Canada, are considered a services export from Denmark to Canada. 72 Monkelbaan, “Sustainable Energy Services in a SETA,” 2013, 22. 73 Tulacz, The Global Sourcebook, 2012, 18. 74 Most renewable energy technologies are classified in basket categories that contain other products 

within the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (HS) at the 6-digit level. 75 GTIS, Global Trade Atlas database for HS 8502.31 (accessed April 16, 2013). Wind-powered 

generating sets include the wind turbine, nacelle (which houses the components of the wind turbine, such as 

the controller, gearbox, and generator), and when imported with the nacelle, other components such as blades. 76 GTIS, Global Trade Atlas database for HS 8502.31 (accessed April 16, 2013). Includes intra-EU 

trade. 77 Steenblick and Geloso Grosso, “Trade in Services Related to Climate Change,” 2011, 37; 

Monkelbaan, “Sustainable Energy Services in a SETA,” 2013, 12. 
2-21 

reportedly lack the manufacturing base to produce renewable energy technologies and 

have little to no domestic capacity to design renewable energy projects, including wind, 

solar, or geothermal energy projects. 78 As a result, both the renewable energy 

technologies and many of the renewable energy services must be imported.79

Countries that have experienced growth in installed capacity of renewable energy, yet 

lack the domestic capacity to design renewable energy projects, present an opportunity 

for U.S. exporters of renewable energy services. For instance, some firms offering project 

development services in the solar PV sector are targeting emerging solar PV markets like 

Chile and South Africa, as noted in chapter 3. Even in developed countries that have the 

domestic capacity and expertise to provide renewable energy services, project developers 

may choose to import services from an international supplier based on cost, quality, or 

other considerations.80 In this case, opportunities for U.S. exporters of renewable energy 

services exist in mature markets as well. 

Barriers to Trade and Investment in Renewable Energy 

Services 

As noted in chapter 1, renewable energy services comprise a broad range of services that 

largely fall within the following three Central Product Classification (CPC) groups: 

services incidental to energy distribution; other professional, technical, and business 

services; and construction services. Measures that act as barriers to trade and investment 

in renewable energy services tend to be horizontal in nature; that is, they affect a broad 

range of services, such as laws that pertain to a country’s general investment regime, or 

to its immigration policy. 

Horizontal Measures Affecting Trade and Investment in Renewable 

Energy Services 

As noted above, renewable energy services are typically supplied by setting up a 

commercial presence and by temporarily moving service providers into a client’s territory. 

Barriers that limit either activity are thus the most likely to impede firms’ ability to 

supply renewable energy services in foreign markets. 

Certain barriers to renewable energy services can be identified by World Trade 

Organization (WTO) members’ schedules of country-specific General Agreement on 

Trade in Services (GATS) commitments that are classified within the CPC groups noted 

above.81 Among the countries that trade these services the most,82 investment restrictions 

are the most common barriers to the establishment of a commercial presence for 

 78 Steenblick and Geloso Grosso, “Trade in Services Related to Climate Change,” 2011, 4. 79 Ibid., 4. 

80 Ibid., 37. 

81 For a list of selected country-specific schedules of commitments on professional, technical, and 

business services and on construction services, see USITC, Renewable Energy Services, 2005. 82 Major importers of architectural, engineering, and other technical services (a subset of other 

professional, technical, and business services) are the EU, India, Canada, Brazil, and Russia. Major importers 

of construction services are the EU, Japan, Russia, Kazakhstan, and China. Kim, “Facilitating Trade in 

Services,” 2011, 15, 24. 
2-22 

renewable energy service providers in foreign markets. These include restrictions on legal 

form, foreign equity limits, and economic needs tests. 83 

Measures that hinder the temporary movement of foreign workers can act as a barrier to 

trade in renewable energy services. Common restrictions include limits on entry and 

duration of stay, quotas, and labor market tests. Other impediments include qualification 

and licensing restrictions, including nationality or residency requirements.84 Burdensome 

requirements for visa applications, work permits, and residence permits can hinder a 

company’s ability to rapidly deploy technically skilled workers needed to perform 

maintenance or repair services on renewable energy equipment in foreign countries. For 

instance, visa restrictions in Brazil reportedly limit the ability to bring in skilled wind 

technicians from the United States in the absence of a reciprocal visa agreement between 

the two countries.85 According to General Electric (GE), a manufacturer of renewable 

energy technologies and a service provider, it may not be feasible to hire fully trained, 

domestic workers that are needed in each country in which GE operates, underscoring the 

need to allow the movement of persons to perform services in a timely manner.86

Specific Measures Affecting Trade and Investment in Renewable 

Energy Services 

Forced localization measures, such as local-content requirements, can act as a barrier to 

trade in both technologies and services for renewable energy. 87 For example, localcontent requirements may require renewable energy projects like wind or solar farms to 

include a minimum share of goods or services of domestic origin to qualify for an FIT. 

Some of these requirements have been challenged at the WTO as being inconsistent with 

WTO obligations, as described in chapters 3 and 4. Local-content requirements are most 

often directed at renewable technologies, as a part of efforts to spur domestic 

manufacturing and job creation, rather than specifically targeting services.88 However, 

many project developers that provide renewable energy technologies also supply 

renewable energy services. Project developers that do not produce goods locally in 

markets that require local content can therefore be shut out from providing services in 

those markets as well. 

Local-content requirements can limit market access for service providers in other ways. 

For instance, they may require workers to be nationals of a particular country, require 

specific procedures to take place within a country, or require firms to have local partners 

or majority local ownership. 89 Other impediments may include cumbersome project 

approval processes, country-specific standards, or certifications that do not recognize 

foreign providers of renewable energy services.90

 83 Kim, “Facilitating Trade in Services,” 2011, 33; Steenblick and Geloso Grosso, “Trade in Services 

Related to Climate Change,” 2011, 38. 84 Kim, “Facilitating Trade in Services,” 2011, 33–34; Steenblick and Geloso Grosso, “Trade in 

Services Related to Climate Change,” 2011, 38. 85 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, São Paolo, Brazil, May 8, 2013. 86 Fessenden, written testimony before the U.S. House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade, 

September 20, 2012, 4. 87 Localization barriers to trade can broadly be defined as measures designed to protect, favor, or 

stimulate domestic industries, services providers, and/or intellectual property (IP) at the expense of goods, 

services, or IP from other countries. Marantis, Statement to the Senate Committee on Finance, March 19, 

2013, 4. 88 Peszko and Ketterer, “Local Content Requirements for Renewable Energy,” November 23, 2012. 89 Fessenden, written testimony before the U.S. House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade, 

September 20, 2012, 4–5. 90 Ibid., 4–5. 
2-23 

Efforts to Liberalize Trade and Investment in Renewable 

Energy Services 

Many countries have lowered barriers to trade and investment in environmental goods 

and services (including renewable energy services) to encourage the use and deployment 

of environmental technologies in response to environmental and energy concerns and 

with the goal of mitigating climate change. Multilateral efforts in recent years to 

specifically address barriers to trade in renewable energy goods and services have yet to 

produce binding commitments in this area. However, multilateral efforts to address trade 

in services more broadly have gained some traction. At the same time, regional and 

bilateral efforts to address trade and investment in renewable energy services—and 

environmental goods and services more broadly—have advanced at a faster pace. 

No agreements specific to renewable energy services have been reached in recent years. 

In 2009, the United States proposed establishing an Environmental Goods and Services 

Agreement (EGSA), a plurilateral initiative within the WTO but outside of the Doha 

round, to reduce barriers to trade in certain “climate-friendly” technologies.91 However, 

the EGSA never materialized, largely due to definitional concerns among several WTO 

member countries, as well as differing views on product coverage. Member countries 

continue to discuss classification issues related to renewable energy services.92 In June 

2013, the United States announced its intention to re-launch negotiations to establish a 

plurilateral initiative to reduce barriers to trade in environmental goods, including clean 

energy technologies such as solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal power.93

There has been recent progress in other multilateral efforts to address liberalization of 

trade in services more broadly. For instance, the United States and 20 of its trading 

partners plan to address barriers to services trade by initiating negotiations on a new trade 

agreement on services (the so-called Trade in Services Agreement) in 2013. In addition, 

in June 2013 the United States announced its intention to work in the Trade in Services 

Agreement negotiations towards lowering barriers to trade in environmental services, 

including renewable energy services.94

Regional and bilateral efforts to liberalize trade in renewable energy goods and services 

are also underway. For instance, in 2012 members of the Asia-Pacific Economic 

Cooperation (APEC), of which the United States is a member, agreed to reduce applied 

tariff rates to 5 percent or less by the end of 2015 on 53 separate environmental goods, 

including wind turbines and blades, generator sets, and solar panels. 95 In 2013, the 

United States stated its intention to continue to work with other APEC members to 

further facilitate trade in environmental goods and services, including renewable energy 

services. 96 Some WTO members are said to view the APEC agreement on trade in 

environmental goods and services as a platform to revive efforts at the WTO to address 

barriers to trade in environmental goods and services.97 However, other WTO members, 

 91 Inside U.S. Trade, “USTR Explores Smaller Environmental Goods Tariff,” November 27, 2009; 

USITC, Certain Environmental Goods, 75 Fed. Reg. 28652 (May 21, 2010). 92 WTO, “Energy Services: Overview of Classification Issues,” March 5, 2012. 93 Executive Office of the President, “The President’s Climate Action Plan,” June 2013, 19. 94 Ibid., 19–20. 

95 APEC, “Annex C—APEC List of Environmental Goods,” September 8–9, 2012. 96 Marantis, Statement to the Senate Committee on Finance, March 19, 2013, 4. 97 Inside U.S. Trade, “Danish Minister Says Time Is Ripe,” May 3, 2012. 
2-24 

including Argentina, Bolivia, India, and Venezuela, reportedly are reluctant to endorse 

such an approach.98

The United States and 10 other Asia-Pacific countries are also currently negotiating a 

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, and efforts to develop text on trade-related 

environmental issues have included discussions on reducing barriers to trade in 

environmental goods and services.99 Other bilateral efforts to reduce barriers to trade and 

investment in environmental goods and services have broadly centered on cooperative 

efforts to address threats to the environment, encourage the deployment of environmental 

technologies to mitigate climate change, and promote environmental services (see 

table 2.3). 

 

 98 Ibid. 

99 USTR, “Outlines of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreements,” November 12, 2011. 
2-25 

TABLE 2.3 Selected bilateral efforts to reduce barriers to trade and investment in environmental goods and services

Agreement Description 

U.S.-Bahrain FTA Parties state their intention of “[p]romoting the growth of the environmental 

technology business sector.”a 

U.S.-CAFTA FTA “The Parties recognize that strengthening their cooperative relationship on 

environmental matters can enhance environmental protection in their territories and 

may encourage increased trade and investment in environmental goods and 

services” (Article 17.9). 

U.S.-Colombia FTA “The parties are committed to expanding their cooperative relationship on 

environmental matters, recognizing it will help them achieve their shared 

environmental goals and objectives, including the development and improvement 

of environmental protection, practices, and technologies” (Article 18.10). 

U.S.-Jordan FTA Parties state their interest in pursuing “[s]ponsorship of trade missions to 

encourage the use of environmental technologies.”b 

U.S.-Korea FTA “The Parties are committed to expanding their cooperative relationship in bilateral, 

regional, and multilateral forums on environmental matters, recognizing that such 

cooperation will help them achieve their shared goals and objectives, including the 

development and improvement of environmental protection, practices, and 

technologies” (Article 20.8). 

U.S.-Morocco FTA “The Parties recognize that strengthening their cooperative relationship on 

environmental matters can encourage increased bilateral trade and investment in 

environmental goods and services” (Article 17.3). 

U.S.-Oman FTA Parties state their intention of “[s]trengthening capacity to establish a Cleaner 

Production Center and promoting the growth of the environmental business 

technology sector”.c 

U.S.-Panama TPA “Parties recognize that strengthening their cooperative relationship on 

environmental matters can enhance environmental protection in their territories and 

may encourage increased trade and investment in environmental goods and 

services” (Article 17.10). 

U.S.-Peru TPA “Parties are committed to expanding their cooperative relationship on 

environmental matters, recognizing it will help them achieve their shared 

environmental goals and objectives, including the development and improvement 

of environmental protection, practices, and technologies” (Article 18.10). 

EU-Chile FTA “The EC and Chile will undertake to consolidate economic relations in key sectors 

such as hydroelectricity, oil and gas, renewable energy, energy-saving technology, 

and rural electrification” (Article 22). 

EU-Colombia/Peru FTA Parties state their intention to consider actions to mitigate climate change by 

“[f]acilitating the removal of trade and investment barriers to access to, innovation, 

development, and deployment of goods, services and technologies that can 

contribute to mitigation or adaptation, taking into account the circumstances of 

developing countries” (Article 275). 

EU-Korea FTA “The Parties shall strive to facilitate and promote trade and foreign direct 

investment in environmental goods and services, including environmental 

technologies, sustainable energy, energy efficient products and services and ecolabelled goods, including through addressing related nontariff barriers” (Article 

13.6). 

India-Japan Agreement “Each Party shall endeavor to [...] encourage trade and dissemination of 

environmental goods and services” (Article 8). 

Japan-Switzerland Agreement Parties state their intention to “[e]ncourage trade and dissemination of 

environmental products and environmental-related services in order to facilitate 

access to technologies and products that support the environmental protection and 

development goals, such as [...] sustainable promotion of renewable energy and 

climate-change related goals (Article 9). 

Sources: WTO, “Energy Services,” 2010, 21; Monkelbaan, “Sustainable Energy Services in a SETA,” 2013, 46; USTR website, 

http://www.ustr.gov (accessed March 22, 2013). 

a

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Environmental Cooperation between the Government of the United States and the 

Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain. b

U.S.-Jordan Joint Statement on Environmental Technical Cooperation. 

c

MOU on Environmental Cooperation between the Government of the United States and the Government of the Sultanate of 

Oman.

 
2-26 

Bibliography 

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). “Annex C—APEC List of Environmental Goods.” Leaders’ 

Declaration, September 8–9, 2012. http://www.apec.org/Meeting-Papers/LeadersDeclarations/2012/2012_aelm/2012_aelm_annexC.aspx (accessed February 7, 2013). 

Bartholl, Carsten, and Sven Oleownik. “Wind Services: New Growth Opportunities.” Presentation given 

at Cleantech Forum Europe, Munich, Germany, April 18, 2012. 

Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) database (subscription only, accessed various dates). 

———. Market Sizing, November 2012. 

Brightsource Energy. “Ivanpah and the DOE Loan Guarantee Program.” Press release, June 5, 2012. 

http://www.brightsourceenergy.com/ivanpah-and-the-doe-loan-guarantee-program (accessed 

February 4, 2013). 

Broad, Will. “Post-Warranty Wind O&M Costs Proven to Increase by 25%.” Wind Energy Update, 

January 18, 2013. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/partner/firstconferences/news/article/2013/01/post-warranty-wind-o-m-costs-proven-to-increase-by25?cmpid=WNL-Wednesday-January23-2013. 

Clover, Ian. “Spain Suspends Feed-In-Tariffs, Receives EU Criticism.” InfraEurope, February 3, 2012. 

http://www.infraeurope.com/news/spain-suspends-feed-tariffs-receives-eu-criticism/4963. 

North Carolina Solar Center. Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (DSIRE). 

http://www.dsireusa.org/ (accessed February 5, 2013). 

Deloitte. “European Wind Services Study,” August 2012. 

Executive Office of the President. “The President’s Climate Action Plan,” June 2013. 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf. 

Fessenden, Karl. Written testimony before the U.S. House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade, 

September 20, 2012. 

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Lake_Testimony_unwatermarked_for_clerks_9.2

1.2012_TR.pdf. 

First Solar. “First Solar Sells 550-Megawatt Desert Sunlight Solar Farm, among World’s Largest.” Press 

release, September 30, 2011. http://investor.firstsolar.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=610018. 

Frankfurt School of Finance and Management (FS) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 

Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2012. Frankfurt, Germany: FS, 2012. 

Herndon, Andrew. “NRG Gets U.S. Guarantee for $2.6 Billion Rooftop Solar Plan.” Bloomberg, June 22, 

2011. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2011-06-22/u-s-offers-guarantee-for-2-6-billionnrg-rooftop-solar-program.html (accessed February 4, 2013). 

Inside U.S. Trade. “Danish Minister Says Time Is Ripe to Pursue Green Goods, Services Deal,” May 3, 

2012. 
2-27 

———. “India, Argentina Cool to Using APEC Green Goods Deal for WTO Work,” November 15, 2012. 

Kim, Joy Aeree. “Facilitating Trade in Services Complementary to Climate-friendly Technologies.” 

International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) Issue Paper No. 16. 

Geneva: ICTSD, 2011. 

Marantis, Demetrios. Office of the United States Trade Representative. Statement to the United States 

Senate Committee on Finance. The President’s 2013 Trade Policy Agenda, hearing, March 19, 

2013. 

McBee, David. Solar Panel Installation in the U.S. IBISWorld Industry Report OD4494, October 2012. 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). “Services Trade Restrictiveness 

Index (STRI): Construction, Architecture and Engineering Services.” TAD/TC/WP(2012)13. 

Working Party of the Trade Committee, Paris June 6–7, 2012. 

Pancratz, Howard. “Vestas’ Colorado Factories to Build Components for Canadian Project.” Denver Post, 

April 9, 2013. 

Peszko, Grzegorz, and Janina Ketterer. “Local Content Requirements for Renewable Energy: An 

Unnecessary Evil.” European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) Blog,

November 23, 2013. http://www.ebrdblog.com/wordpress/2012/11/local-content-requirementsfor-renewable-energy-an-unnecessary-evil/. 

Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century (REN-21). Renewables 2012: Global Status 

Report. Paris: REN-21 Secretariat, 2012. 

———. Renewables 2013: Global Status Report. Paris: REN-21 Secretariat, 2013. 

Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). “Solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC),” n.d. 

http://www.seia.org/policy/finance-tax/solar-investment-tax-credit. 

Steenblik, Ronald, and Massimo Geloso Grosso. “Trade in Services Related to Climate Change: An 

Exploratory Analysis.” OECD Trade and Environment Working Papers 2011/03. OECD: Paris, 

2011. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/trade/trade-in-services-related-to-climatechange_5kgc5wtd9rzw-en. 

Tulacz, Gary J. The Global Sourcebook. Engineering News-Record (ENR), December 10, 2012. 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Energy Information Administration (EIA). “What Is Renewable 

Energy?” May 25, 2012. 

http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=renewable_home#tab1. 

———.International Energy Outlook 2011. Washington, DC: EIA, September 2011. 

———. “Biomass for Electricity Generation,” n.d. http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/biomass/

(accessed February 6, 2013). 

———. International Energy Statistics Database (accessed February 8, 2013). 

———. “Our Projects.” https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_id=45 (accessed February 5, 2013). 
2-28 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). “Renewable 

Portfolio Standards,” updated November 7, 2012. 

http://www.nrel.gov/tech_deployment/state_local_activities/basics_portfolio_standards.html. 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Loans Programs Office. “Deployment: How the Government Delivers 

Clean Energy and U.S. Jobs Today,” August 2011. 

———. “Feed-In Tariffs,” updated November 7, 2012. 

http://www.nrel.gov/tech_deployment/state_local_activities/basics_tariffs.html. 

U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Renewable Energy Services: An Examination of U.S. and 

Foreign Markets. Publication No. 3805. Washington, DC: USITC, October 2005. 

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Energy Services.” Background Note by the Secretariat. S/C/W/311, 

January 12, 2010. 

———. “Energy Services: Overview of Classification Issues.” Informal Note by the Secretariat. 

JOB/SERV/94, March 5, 2012. 
3-1 

CHAPTER 3 

Solar PV Industry 

Introduction 

U.S. and global solar photovoltaic (PV) installations rapidly increased during 2007–12, 

resulting in a significant rise in demand for associated PV services.1

 In 2011, the value of 

the U.S. services market associated with new PV installations totaled approximately 

$3.1 billion, and the value of the global market was about $34 billion. The United States 

has several thousand firms currently providing PV services, ranging from small firms 

installing a few residential PV systems per year to large construction firms and project 

developers. The majority of the firms currently providing services in the U.S. market are 

U.S.-based companies, and imports accounted for less than one-third of combined 

installation and project development services in 2012. U.S. firms are also actively 

exporting services globally, with the level of exports expected to rise as firms increase 

their presence in foreign markets, the U.S. industry matures, and markets such as Canada, 

Latin America, and South Africa expand. However, U.S. exports through the end of 2012 

accounted for only a small share of the global market. 

Overview of PV Services Segments 

PV is currently the most widely deployed solar technology, both in the United States and 

globally. PV systems convert sunlight directly into electricity for on-site use or for 

distribution through the electric grid. The main components of PV systems are modules 

(also commonly referred to as panels), which are composed of cells that use crystalline 

silicon (c-Si) or another photosensitive material, such as cadmium telluride (CdTe), to 

convert sunlight into electricity.2

 PV modules can be either ground-mounted or rooftopmounted and are connected to an inverter, which converts the direct current (DC) 

generated by the system to alternating current (AC).3

 Most PV systems are connected to 

the grid and are installed in one of three market segments—residential, nonresidential, 

and utility (box 3.1). 

 1

 This chapter covers PV technologies, which convert sunlight directly to electricity and account for the 

largest share of the market among solar technologies. Concentrated solar power (CSP) technologies, which 

use sunlight to heat a fluid to generate electricity in large power plants, and other solar technologies, such as 

solar water heating, will not be covered. 2

 Crystalline silicon (c-Si) modules account for the majority of the global market and have been in 

production for the longest period of time. Thin-film technologies use a thin layer of a photosensitive material 

such as cadmium telluride (CdTe), amorphous silicon (a-Si), and copper indium gallium (di)selenide (CIGS). 

One of the largest U.S. services firms, First Solar, produces and installs CdTe modules exclusively. 3

 All references to system sizes in this chapter, whether in watts (W), kilowatts (kW), megawatts (MW), 

or gigawatts (GW), are in direct current (DC) unless specifically noted as an alternating current (AC) system. 

Equipment other than the PV modules—specifically, inverters and other equipment such as the racking and 

wiring—is referred to as the balance of system (BOS). 
3-2 

BOX 3.1 Photovoltaic (PV) market segments 

Grid-connected market: The grid-connected PV market is segmented into the residential market, nonresidential 

market, and the utility market: 

 Residential: Residential systems are installed at homes and are usually connected to the grid, with 

homeowners using grid energy when solar electricity generation is not sufficient to meet demand and often 

feeding energy back into the grid when the system generates excess electricity. Where “net metering” is 

available, the power generated by homeowners and fed back into the grid can be used to offset utility 

charges for grid power used at other times. In the United States, the average size of a 2011 residential 

installation was 5.7 kilowatts (kW). 

 Nonresidential: These are systems installed at commercial, industrial, government, and similar buildings and 

sites. They are larger than residential installations and, like residential installations, often use net metering. 

In the United States, the average size of a 2011 nonresidential installation was about 116 kW. 

 Utility: In utility systems, electricity is generated either (1) by independent power producers (IPPs) and sold 

on the wholesale electricity market, or (2) by utilities. This electricity is then sold to households, commercial, 

and industrial users. Installations greater than 1 MW accounted for 92 percent of annual utility installations in 

2011. 

Off-grid market: In addition to the grid-connected market, there is a small off-grid market that includes a variety of 

uses such as homes not connected to the grid, industrial applications (e.g., lights and signs along highways), 

consumer goods, and military applications. There is also a small off-grid market, but that is not covered in this study, 

since it accounts for only a small share of PV installations. 

Source: Installation size from Sherwood, U.S. Solar Market Trends 2011, August 2012, 6–7; Sherwood, U.S. Solar 

Market Trends 2010, June 2011, 7. For an overview of the electric industry, see the EIA website, “Electric Industry 

Overview 2007,” http://eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/prim2/toc2.html (last accessed July 12, 2013). 

Residential and Nonresidential Services 

In the residential and much of the nonresidential market,4 customers generally contract 

with installers or third-party owners—firms that lease systems to customers or sell 

customers the power generated by a system (box 3.2)—to install a system on-site.5

 These 

firms manage the provision of each major service associated with the installation, 

including (1) site assessment and design; (2) permitting, net metering agreements, and 

rebate applications; (3) financing (for some systems), including leases and power 

purchase agreements (PPAs) 6

 from third-party owners; 7 (4) installation, involving the 

physical mounting of the system on the roof or ground, attaching the inverters and wiring, 

and connecting the system to the grid; and (5) operations and maintenance (O&M). Firms 

 4

 For the purposes of this chapter, residential and nonresidential firms will be characterized as installers, 

while utility firms will be characterized as project developers and engineering, procurement, and construction 

(EPC) firms. In actuality, there is not a clear dividing line between industry sectors, and the installation of 

some large nonresidential projects will look more like the utility project development process than the 

residential installation process. 5

 Firms generate their sales leads through marketing, customer referrals, and other sales channels, such 

as stores and roofing contractors. Marketing and other services not tied to specific installations, such as the 

distribution of modules, inverters, and other equipment, are not discussed in this chapter. Real Goods Solar, 

“Form 10-K,” March 15, 2012, 8; Sunvalley Solar, “Form 10-K,” April 16, 2012, 8; SolarCity, “Form S-1,” 

October 5, 2012, 27, 35, 96, 98, 103–104. 6

 A PPA is a long-term agreement to purchase electricity. In the wholesale market, this is generally 

between a utility and an independent power producer (IPP). There are also PPAs between PV firms and 

on-site users such as homeowners and businesses. 7

 Some forms of financing, such as loans, may be handled by the customer rather than the installer or 

third-party owner. 
3-3 

BOX 3.2 Financing and ownership models for residential and commercial solar 

Residential and commercial customers generally have several options when installing a PV system onsite, including 

(1) buying the system, (2) leasing the system, and (3) signing a power purchase agreement (PPA). The firms that 

offer leases and PPAs are generally referred to as third-party owners or third-party financiers. 

Leasing: In this model, a company installs a PV system at a residential or commercial site and leases the system to 

the customer, who uses the electricity generated by the system. 

PPA: In a PPA model, a company installs the PV system at a residential or commercial site and owns, operates, and 

maintains the system. The residential or commercial customer agrees to purchase the electricity generated by the 

system from the company over a long-term time frame. 

For customers that want to buy their own PV systems, some communities offer property-assessed clean energy 

(PACE) programs. In these programs, a local government raises money by issuing a bond, or through other means. 

Property owners install a PV system using this money, paying it back over time through an additional amount on their 

property tax or utility bill. Customers may also use more traditional financing methods, such as bank loans, to pay for 

their systems. 

Sources: SolarCity, “Form S-1,” October 5, 2012, 47, 99; North Carolina Solar Center, DSIRE website, 

http://www.dsireusa.org/solar/solarpolicyguide/?id=26 (accessed March 4, 2013); SEIA website, 

http://www.seia.org/policy/finance-tax/third-party-financing (accessed March 4, 2013). 

may provide all of the services associated with the installation directly, or they may 

contract out certain services to other firms that specialize in one or more of these 

services. Only a few third-party owners are also installers, and even those that do install 

may only do so in certain market segments; most third-party owners subcontract with 

installers to build the system. 

The residential and nonresidential markets include a broad range of installation sizes, 

from a few kilowatts (kW) to a megawatt (MW) or more. The extent and complexity of 

services provided, therefore, varies by installation size and individual site factors. For 

example, for a residential installation, site assessment may involve visiting the house or 

viewing it online, determining the system size by entering data into an online solar 

calculator, and designing a system to fit on the roof. For large nonresidential installations, 

on the other hand, higher-level engineering services may be required to design an 

optimized system. Similarly, a residential rooftop installation typically involves a small 

crew that installs the system in one or two days, and an electrician to connect the system 

to the grid and possibly supervise the installation. A large nonresidential installation may 

involve grading the site, fencing it, and installing a large number of pylons in the ground, 

as well as installing centralized inverters and a transformer, all of which may involve 

much more equipment and possibly a wide range of subcontractors. O&M services also 

vary considerably by project type. For a residential installation, services typically include 

monitoring the system and responding to component failures, whereas nonresidential 

O&M services may include more preventative maintenance. 

Utility-scale Services 

The development, construction, and operation of a utility project involves a number of 

steps. These may vary depending on factors such as whether the project is groundmounted or roof-mounted, or whether it is on private land or public land (the latter choice 

may extend the project development process). However, three main services involved are 

project development; engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC); and O&M. 
3-4 

These services will be the focus of the discussion on the utility segment in this chapter. 

The following is a broad overview of these services: 

 Project development: Project development includes a range of tasks, such as the 

initial site assessment, acquiring rights to the land, negotiating PPAs and 

interconnection agreements, permitting the project, conducting environmental 

impact assessments, securing financing for the project, conducting outreach to 

the local community, and managing the project and EPC contractor. 

 EPC: The EPC services associated with utility projects include tasks such as 

fencing, grading, installing the pylons, mounting and connecting the modules, 

installing and connecting the wiring to the inverter, building the substation, and 

installing the transformer. 

 O&M: In the utility PV sector, O&M involves monitoring the system, on-site 

and/or remotely. All O&M firms perform corrective/reactive maintenance (e.g., 

responding to equipment problems), and some firms perform preventative 

maintenance (e.g., cleaning, physical inspections, inverter maintenance) or 

condition-based maintenance (which bases maintenance priorities/tasks on the 

data generated through system monitoring).8

PV services and the associated Consumer Products Classification (CPC) codes are 

indicated in table 3.1. 

TABLE 3.1 Services related to development of solar energy

CPC code Description 

PV Services 

Residential/nonresidential Utility 

8675 Certain related scientific and 

technical consulting services 

Site assessment Project development-related 

services (e.g., site 

assessment, environmental 

impact assessment) 

861, 862, 863, 

8672, 8673, 9312, 

93191, 932 

Certain professional services, 

including engineering and 

integrated engineering services 

System design System design 

633, 8861–8868 Maintenance and repair of 

equipment, except transportrelated equipment 

O&M (monitoring and 

corrective maintenance) 

O&M (monitoring, corrective 

maintenance; possibly 

preventive or condition-based 

maintenance) 

865 Management consulting and 

related services 

Permitting, net metering 

agreement, etc. 

Project development-related 

services (e.g., project 

management, PPA 

negotiations, interconnection 

agreements, permitting) 

511-518 Construction and related 

engineering services 

Installation of PV system 

(physically mounting the 

system, attaching the 

inverters and wiring, and 

connecting to the grid) 

Engineering and construction 

(e.g., grading, fencing, 

installing pylons and 

modules, making electrical 

connections, substation 

construction) 

Source: Compiled by USITC. 

 8

 EPRI, “Addressing Solar Photovoltaic,” July 30, 2010. 
3-5 

160 298 435

848

1,887

3,313

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Annual installations (MW)

Residential Nonresidential Utility

California 

31.2%

Arizona 21.4%

New Jersey 

12.5%

Nevada 6.0%

North Carolina 

4.0%

Massachusetts 

3.9%

Hawaii 3.3%

Maryland 2.2%

Texas 1.9%

New York 

1.8% Other 11.7%

Total = 3,313 MW

FIGURE 3.1 Annual U.S. PV installations, 2007–12 (left), and installations by state in 2012 (right)

Source: GTM Research and SEIA, U.S. Solar Market Insight Report: 2012 Year-in-Review, 2013, 5–6. 

Note: GTM does not include concentrating photovoltaic (CPV) systems in their PV installation data, though this 

segment only accounted for about 1 percent of installations in 2012.

U.S. Market for PV Services 

Market Size 

Demand for installation-related services, as measured by annual U.S. PV installations,9

increased from 160 MW in 2007 to 3,313 MW in 2012 (figure 3.1). All sectors of the 

market grew substantially during this period, but most of the increase was driven by the 

nonresidential and utility sectors. In 2012, the market was concentrated in a few states, 

with California, Arizona, and New Jersey accounting for a combined 65 percent of 

annual installations.10 

The value of the U.S. market is also growing rapidly, with the value of installed systems 

(including both goods and services, but excluding O&M) increasing from $3.6 billion in 

2009 to $11.5 billion in 2012 (figure 3.2).11 The increase in the value of the market has 

not been as rapid as the increase in MW installed due to declining system prices within 

each market segment and a change in the mix of installations; utility installations, which 

have a lower price per watt, now account for a large share of the market.12 

 9

 “Installations” are PV modules that are installed in a given year, measured in watts. They are also 

correlated with demand for services, as every module installed requires related installation services and, once 

installed, O&M services. 10 GTM does not include concentrating photovoltaic (CPV) systems in its PV installation data; this 

segment accounted for only about 1 percent of installations in 2012. GTM Research and SEIA, U.S. Solar 

Market Insight Report: 2012 Year-in-Review, 2013, 5–6. 11 GTM Research and SEIA, U.S. Solar Market Insight Report: 2011 Year-in-Review, 2012, 3; GTM 

Research and SEIA, U.S. Solar Market Insight Report: 2010 Year-in-Review, 2011, 2; GTM Research and 

SEIA, U.S. Solar Market Insight Report: 2012 Year-in-Review, 2013, 2. 12 U.S. utility installations increased from 6 percent of the market in 2007 to 54 percent in 2012. GTM 

Research and SEIA, U.S. Solar Market Insight Report: 2011 Year-in-Review, 2012, 9, 11; GTM Research and 

SEIA, U.S. Solar Market Insight Report: 2010 Year-in-Review, 2011, 6, 10; Barbose, Darghouth, and Wiser, 

Tracking the Sun V, November 2012, 12. 
3-6 

In 2011, services accounted for an estimated $3.1 billion (37 percent) of the $8.4 billion 

goods and services market (excluding O&M) for new installations. 13 The value of 

installations in each of the market segments are discussed below: 

 Residential market: Services accounted for about $0.9 billion of the 

$1.9 billion residential goods and services market in 2011 (figure 3.3).14 

 Nonresidential: Services accounted for an estimated $1.5 billion of the 

$4.0 billion nonresidential market.15 

 13 Data to calculate the value of the U.S. PV solar services market in 2012 are not available. 14 Services market values are based on installations completed in that year and may differ from 

company revenues, since firms may recognize these revenues based on the percent of an installation that is 

completed. This estimate is based on the assumption that services contributed 47 percent of the value of this 

market, as reported by Ardani. There are varying estimates of the share of the market represented by services. 

Using the lowest estimate of this share would put the value of the services market at $0.5 billion; using the 

highest estimate would put it at about $1.1 billion in 2011. The Ardani estimate was used over data from the 

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and Photon magazine because 

the latter may incorporate some installer markups on equipment costs, and therefore may overstate the share 

of the value of installations accounted for by equipment. The Ardani estimate was chosen over data from 

Woodlawn Associates because half of the data in the Woodlawn estimate is from 2012, when module prices 

were lower, thus likely reflecting a lower share for equipment costs than was the case in much of 2011. 

Finally, NYSERDA data only separate out modules and inverters, so the remaining cost may contain some 

balance of system components. Woodlawn Associates, “Solar Installation Effectiveness,” September 10, 

2012, 8; NYSERDA PowerClerk database (accessed February 1, 2013); GTM Research and SEIA, U.S. Solar 

Market Insight Report: 2011 Year-in-Review, 2012, 9–11; Ardani, “Benchmarking Soft Costs,” May 17, 2012, 

7; Bosworth and Hirsch, “One Size Fits All,” April 2011, 74–77. 15 The value of the nonresidential market, like that of the residential market, was estimated by using a 

share of installed system costs accounted for by services. However, estimates for nonresidential systems were 

complicated by the widely varying system size and prices associated with those systems. In order to calculate 

a market share, systems were first stratified according to size and then an estimated value in each market 

segment was calculated using data from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL). A share of these 

values was then calculated using estimated shares accounted for by system sizes in each range based on 

values from Ardani and Photon (excluding an estimated equipment markup). While the Ardani data were 

from 2010, these were the best data available to include as an input in this calculation. GTM Research and 

SEIA, U.S. Solar Market Insight Report: 2011 Year-in-Review, 2012, 9–11; Bosworth and Hirsch, “One Size 

Fits All,” April 2011, 74–77; Ardani, “Soft Costs in the U.S. Solar Markets,” November 8, 2012, 11; Barbose, 

Darghouth, and Wiser, Tracking the Sun V, November 2012, data file. 

3.6 5

8.4

11.5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2009 2010 2011 2012

Market value (billion $)

FIGURE 3.2 U.S. PV market value increased by more than 200 percent from 2009 to 2012

Sources: GTM Research and SEIA, U.S. Solar Market Insight Report: 2011 Year-in-Review, 2012, 3; GTM 

Research and SEIA, U.S. Solar Market Insight Report: 2010 Year-in-Review, 2011, 2; GTM Research and 

SEIA, U.S. Solar Market Insight Report: 2012 Year-in-Review, 2013, 2. 

Notes: Market value based on MW installed. GTM does not include concentrating photovoltaic (CPV) systems, 

in their PV installation data, though this segment accounts for a small share of the market. 
3-7 

 Utility: Services accounted for an estimated $0.8 billion of the $2.5 billion 

utility market in 2011.16 

In addition to the services associated with new installations, there is a market for ongoing 

O&M for all installed systems. The value of the O&M market in the United States, for all 

market segments combined, was likely around $0.1 billion in 2011.17 While this is small 

compared to the value of services associated with new installations, the growing size of 

 16 The value of the services share of the utility market was estimated by calculating the goods and 

services value of installations using an average cost per MW and subtracting the estimated value of 

equipment associated with these installations. The value of the modules associated with these installations 

was calculated using Energy Information Administration (EIA) shipment and price data for the utility sector 

of the market, and the inverter and balance of system equipment costs were calculated using an average cost 

per watt. GTM Research and SEIA, U.S. Solar Market Insight Report: 2011 Year-in-Review, 2012, 9–11; 

EIA, Solar Photovoltaic, September 2012, 7, 16; GTM Research, “PV BOS Cost Analysis,” July 25, 2011. 17 O&M costs are difficult to estimate due to a lack of available data, variability in O&M costs and 

pricing depending on the company and system characteristics, changing costs as the system ages, and 

differences as to whether customers perform O&M in-house or contract it out. In addition, any estimate of the 

market value is more theoretical than actual, given that a large number of problems at a single project could 

significantly change the value of the market in a given year. This estimate is based on a compilation of the 

estimated O&M costs in each market segment for cumulative installed capacity at the end of 2011. Since 

some of these systems were installed during 2011 and not operational for the full year, the O&M value could 

be lower. For residential systems, O&M costs were estimated at 2.5 cents per installed watt based on NREL 

data reported by Cameron and Goodrich (though this excludes inverter repair, which could increase costs). In 

the residential market, there may essentially be no O&M costs for many years, as installed systems generally 

do not require O&M unless there is a problem. Some companies do sell additional O&M contracts, but the 

focus of this estimate is on actual expenditures and not the contracted value. For the nonresidential segment 

of the market, O&M costs were estimated at 2.1 cents per installed watt, based on a small sample of 

nonresidential systems for which O&M contracts were available. The prices used here for distributed 

installations are within the range of 0.6 to 2.7 cents per watt reported by the Electric Power Research Institute 

(EPRI). In the utility sector, EPRI reports O&M costs from 4.7 to 6 cents per watt per year, depending on the 

type of system. Actual project O&M costs were identified up to almost 11 cents per installed watt, though 

some newly installed systems were also significantly lower than the range estimated by EPRI. This paper 

uses 5 cents per installed watt. Real Goods Solar, “Form 10-K,” March 15, 2012, 16; SolarCity, “Form S-1,” 

October 5, 2012, 105; EPRI, “Addressing Solar Photovoltaic,” July 2012, 8; Cameron and Goodrich, “The 

Levelized Cost of Energy,” n.d. (accessed March 5, 2013), 2; industry representative, interview by USITC 

staff, January 14, 2013; individual project level cost data. 

0.9

1.5

0.8

1.0

2.6

1.8

0

1

2

3

Residential Nonresidential Utility

Market value (billion $)

Services Goods

FIGURE 3.3 Services accounted for more than 30 percent of the PV installation market across all 

segments in 2011

Sources: See text and footnotes 14–16.

Notes: See text and footnotes 14–16.
3-8 

the installed PV base offers an increasing opportunity for O&M service providers.18

Furthermore, there is anecdotal information about quality problems with some module 

brands, which may result in increasing demand for services to repair these systems.19

The amount of financing flowing to distributed installations is also on the rise. In the 

residential sector, third-party ownership of PV systems has quickly increased and now 

accounts for more than half of residential installations in some states.20 In California, for 

example, third-party ownership increased from less than 10 percent of installations under 

the California Solar Initiative (CSI) in 2008 to almost 70 percent in 2012 (figure 3.4).21 

Greentech Media estimated that the third-party financing market was valued at 

$1.3 billion in 2012.22 

In the nonresidential sector, available data indicate that third party-ownership is not 

growing as quickly as a share of the market. In California, the share of newly installed 

third-party-owned systems fell from 2008 to 2010 and has subsequently remained 

relatively flat. However, the actual capacity installed in 2012 that was owned by third 

parties increased by 66 percent during 2008–12 due to the rapid growth in the size of the 

market. In addition, because of the larger size of the nonresidential market, the volume of 

 18 NPD Solarbuzz, “PV Installed Base,” September 11, 2012. 19 Woody, “Solar Industry Anxious over Defective Panels,” May 28, 2013. 20 Greentech Media, “US Residential Solar Financing,” February 11, 2013; Kann, “The U.S. PV 

Market,” October 18, 2011. 21 This chapter will include national data on residential and nonresidential installations where possible. 

In some cases comprehensive national data were not available, so individual state datasets were used. In 

particular, the CSI dataset is used extensively, since California has large residential and nonresidential 

markets; moreover, this dataset covers most of the period of this report and includes a significant amount of 

data about each installation. CSI working dataset, January 2, 2013 (accessed January 9, 2013). 22 Greentech Media projects that this market will grow to $5.7 billion in 2016. The value of this market 

is not additive to the value of other service sector markets above. Greentech Media, “US Residential Solar 

Financing,” February 11, 2013. 

Residential

Nonresidential

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Share of newly installed capacity 

owned by third-parties

FIGURE 3.4 Third-party ownership of residential PV systems in California has rapidly increased, 

while nonresidential ownership was flat during 2010–12

Source: CSI working data set, January 2, 2013 (accessed January 9, 2013).
3-9 

third-party-owned residential systems installed in 2012 (in MW) exceeded that of 

nonresidential systems by only 13 percent.23 The role of financing in the residential and 

nonresidential sectors is likely even higher than these data indicate, as they do not 

account for more traditional forms of financing, such as loans. 

Factors Affecting U.S. Supply and Demand for PV Services 

The key drivers of the U.S. PV market vary by segment, but are generally the declining 

price of PV installations and state and federal government policies. The market drivers 

are discussed in more detail below: 

 Declining cost: The median price of distributed PV installations in the United 

States declined by more than 40 percent during 2002–11 (figure 3.5).24 

 Renewable portfolio standards (RPSs): RPSs have been one of the main 

drivers of PV installations. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia 

have RPSs, which require a certain percentage of electricity to come from 

renewable sources by a particular date, while eight states have renewable 

portfolio goals. Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have specific 

 23 CSI working dataset, January 2, 2013 (accessed January 9, 2013). 24 Distributed installations are residential and nonresidential installations, as opposed to utility 

installations. Industry representatives, interviews by USITC staff, October 22, 2012, October 23, 2012, and 

February 1, 2013; Kann, “The U.S. PV Market,” October 18, 2011; Trabish, “Emerging Solar Strategies,” 

November 23, 2012; SolarCity, “Form S-1,” October 5, 2012, 95; Barbose, Darghouth, and Wiser, Tracking 

the Sun V, November 2012, data file. 

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Price/watt (2011 $)

≤ 10 kW 10-100 kW > 100 kW

FIGURE 3.5 The price of PV installations has declined more than 40 percent since 2002

Source: Barbose, Darghouth, and Wiser, Tracking the Sun V, November 2012, data file.
3-10 

requirements that a share of this electricity come from solar and/or other 

distributed energy sources.25

 Other state policies: States have implemented a number of laws, including 

rebates and tax incentives, that have helped spur PV installations. 26 For 

example, the CSI provides rebates for customers of investor-owned utilities 

in California, and Hawaii offers a 35 percent tax credit (with a maximum of 

$5,000 for each 5 kW installed).27 Net metering rules also play a role in 

enabling the growth of distributed generation.28 

 Federal government policies: Another driver of PV market growth has been 

federal government policies. One of the primary federal government 

incentives for PV is the investment tax credit (ITC), which is a tax credit 

equivalent to 30 percent of the cost of a solar installation. For projects 

completed or under construction during 2009–11, developers could also opt 

to receive a payment equal to the amount of the ITC rather than taking the 

credit. 29 Many solar projects are also eligible for five-year accelerated 

depreciation and first-year bonus depreciation.30

 Other: A number of other factors are also contributing to the PV market 

growth. The increasing range of financing options may increase the 

deployment of PV by removing the barrier of high up-front costs, making 

financing easier to access and enabling some customers to use tax credits 

more easily.31 Environmental concerns can help to motivate the installation 

of PV systems, though they are generally less important than cost.32 Other 

factors include relatively short construction times, the ability to locate solar 

 25 Distributed energy sources are typically systems installed close to energy demand, such as those 

installed at homes and businesses; as noted earlier, they generally include residential and nonresidential PV 

systems. North Carolina Solar Center, DSIRE, “Renewable Portfolio Standard Policies,” February 2013; 

North Carolina Solar Center, DSIRE, “Renewable Portfolio Standard Policies with Solar/Distributed 

Generation Provisions,” February 2013; Real Goods Solar, “Form 10-K,” March 15, 2012, 5–6; Sherwood, 

“Market Prospects for Solar in North America,” October 18, 2011; Kann, “The U.S. PV Market,” October 18, 

2011; Gibson, “Electric Utilities and Solar: Threat or Opportunity?” April 26, 2011; SolarCity, “Form S-1,” 

October 5, 2012, 12; First Solar, “Form 10-K,” February 27, 2013, 9. 26 Sherwood, “Market Prospects for Solar in North America,” October 18, 2011; Sherwood, “Big Time 

for Solar,” July/August 2013, 40-41; SolarCity, “Form S-1,” October 5, 2012, 14, 108. 27 Go Solar California website, http://www.gosolarcalifornia.ca.gov/about/csi.php (accessed March 4, 

2013); Yonan, “State Unveils New Rules,” November 9, 2012. 28 SolarCity, “Form S-1,” October 5, 2012, 13–14; First Solar, “Form 10-K,” February 27, 2013, 9. 29 If a system (1) was placed in service during 2009–11, or (2) the developer started construction during 

2009–11, submitted the application by October 1, 2012, and will complete the system before 2017, the 

developer could elect to receive a payment equal to the amount of the tax credit, rather than taking the ITC. 

This payment was commonly known as the ITC grant or grant in lieu of the ITC. Sherwood, “Utility-Scale 

Installations Lead Growth,” July/August 2011, 31; industry representative, interview by USITC staff, 

October 23, 2012; Sherwood, “Market Prospects for Solar in North America,” October 18, 2011; Sherwood, 

“Big Time for Solar,” July/August 2012, 40–41; SEIA website, http://www.seia.org/policy/finance-tax/solarinvestment-tax-credit (accessed March 4, 2013); U.S. Treasury, “Payments for Specified Energy Property,” 

April 2011; SolarCity, “Form S-1,” October 5, 2012, 14; First Solar, “Form 10-K,” February 27, 2013, 9. 30 SolarCity, “Form S-1,” October 5, 2012, 95, 108; Ardani and Margolis, 2010 Solar Technologies 

Market Report, November 2011, 83–84; REC website, http://www.recsolar.com/bonus-depreciation

(accessed March 5, 2013); IRS, How to Depreciate Property, February 15, 2013. 31 Industry representatives, interviews by USITC staff, October 22, 2012, October 23, 2012, 

December 19, 2012, and February 6, 2013; Bosworth, “Split Ends,” April 2012, 57. 32 SEPA, Photovoltaic Incentive Programs Survey, November 2009, 9; Wesoff, “What Really 

Motivates Consumers to Install Residential Solar?” March 23, 2011; Itron and Kema, CPUC California Solar 

Initiative, June 2010, 11-3, 11-8, 11-21 to 11-22; Shelton Group survey cited in Crume, Crume, and Koshmrl, 

“Selling Solar,” April 2011, 32. 
3-11 

projects close to demand, the desire to minimize risks related to fossil fuel 

price fluctuations, excellent solar irradiation in many areas, and utilities’ 

increasing experience and familiarity with solar and renewable energy 

technologies.33 

U.S. Industry Trends 

Residential and Non-residential Services 

The U.S. residential PV installer industry is highly fragmented and competitive.34 More 

than 2,000 solar installers are active, with the top five firms combined accounting for less 

than one-third of the national market.35 Many of the residential installers active in the 

United States are U.S.-based small and medium-sized enterprises, though there are also 

residential solar installation businesses belonging to larger firms, such as roofing 

company Petersen-Dean and Mainstream Energy’s REC Solar.36 Most firms installed less 

than 100 kW in the residential sector in 2012. Only about 37 firms installed 2 MW or 

more, but these firms accounted for more than half of all residential installations (by 

watts) in 2012.37 Some residential installers are active in the U.S. nonresidential market 

segment, though many focus only on the residential sector. 38 Overall, the leading 

residential installers in the United States in 2012 appear to be U.S.-based companies 

SolarCity (14 percent of installations), Verengo Solar (5 percent), Trinity Solar 

(3 percent), RevoluSun (3 percent), REC Solar (2 percent), and Sungevity (2 percent) 

(figure 3.6).39 

The nonresidential solar installer industry is also fragmented, with more than 1,000 

nonresidential installers active in 2012. This is fewer than in the residential sector, but the 

top five combined accounted for less than 25 percent of installations (by watt).40 Within 

the nonresidential installer industry there are also many small and medium-sized 

 33 Sills and Martin, “U.S. Utilities,” November 30, 2010; Hering, “A New Day,” 16, 18; Hamm, “Why 

Are Utilities?” September 2, 2008; EER, “New Study,” December 3, 2009; Murphy, “Private Sector Taking 

Up,” April 26, 2011; EER, “US Utility Solar PV Markets,” November 2009; PV News, “Strategies for the 

U.S. Utility-Scale PV Market,” October 2009, 1; Sherwood, U.S. Solar Market Trends 2010, June 2011, 7; 

industry representative, interview by USITC staff, February 6, 2013. 34 Real Goods Solar, “Form 10-K,” March 15, 2012, 16; Bosworth, “Split Ends,” April 2012, 55. 35 Installers, as discussed here, are the firms that are responsible for the PV system installation, though 

they may subcontract some parts of the installation to other firms such as electrical contractors. They may sell 

the systems themselves or be contracted by other system sellers—such as third-party owners—to install the 

system. The discussion of residential installers in this study focuses on national trends, but there may be 

substantial regional differences. Market shares discussed in this section are based on publicly available data 

compiled by USITC from various sources, including state/utility datasets from Arizona, California, 

Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, and New Jersey; data from the Energy Information Administration 

(EIA), the Open PV Project, SEIA, and Bloomberg New Energy Finance database; and media articles, 

company websites, news releases, and other sources. USITC collected data on 2.7 GW of PV installations in 

the residential, nonresidential, and utility market segments combined, representing about 82 percent of all 

installations in 2012, including 83 percent of residential installations, 71 percent of nonresidential 

installations, and 88 percent of utility installations. These data, therefore, likely provide a fairly representative 

snapshot of the solar industry, though percentages may vary slightly if an installer has a large market share in 

a state for which only limited data are available. Data on the EPC contractor and O&M provider are not 

available for all utility projects. Company market shares exclude self-installed systems. Subsequently this 

data will be referenced as “data compiled by USITC.” 36 Real Goods Solar, “Form 10-K,” March 15, 2012, 16; data compiled by USITC. 37 Data compiled by USITC. 

38 Ibid. 

39 Ibid. 

40 Based on data compiled by USITC. 
3-12 

 

businesses, but the leading firm appears to be SunPower, a subsidiary of France-based 

Total that is also a large module manufacturer and service provider. CSI data indicate that 

for installations under that program, the number of nonresidential solar installers 

substantially increased during 2008–12, and the market share of the top 5 installers 

decreased slightly. 41 In 2012, SunPower had approximately 9 percent of the 

nonresidential market, followed by U.S.-based companies SolarCity (6 percent), 

SunEdison (3 percent), Borrego Solar Systems (2 percent), and Chevron Energy 

Solutions (2 percent) (figure 3.7).42

A number of residential and/or nonresidential installers are seeking to expand to new 

states or increase their competitiveness in existing states by opening new offices, 

acquiring other installers, undertaking mergers, and franchising.43 SunEdison, a leading 

utility project developer, is entering the residential market in several states, signaling 

even more intense competition for installers. 44 The advantages that some large 

installation companies may have, such as the ability to provide financing and leverage 

lower equipment prices, along with their acquisitions of local firms, has led some 

industry representatives to predict significant consolidation among residential and 

 41 CSI working dataset, January 2, 2013 (accessed January 9, 2013). 42 Based on data compiled by USITC. 

43 Information on firms’ approaches to expanding their presence in markets is based on industry 

representative, interview by USITC staff, October 23, 2012; Real Goods Solar, “Form 10-K,” March 15, 

2012, 3, 25–26; Shimogawa, “Haleakala, Solar Wave Set to Merge,” February 3, 2012; Maui News, “Hawaii 

Solar Companies,” February 4, 2012; Matz, “Going National,” April 2011, 42–43; Cocke, “RevoluSun Plans 

Mainland Expansion,” February 11, 2011; B-GC, “Interview with Jared Haines,” October 12, 2009; 

Sunvalley Solar, “Form 10-K,” April 16, 2012, 13; Lighthouse Solar website, 

http://www.lighthousesolarfranchising.com/franchise-information/ (accessed January 23, 2012); SolarCity, 

“Form S-1,” October 5, 2012; Real Goods Solar website, http://realgoodssolar.com/solar-near-you/ (accessed 

January 23, 2013); Lighthouse Solar, “The Lighthouse Solar Franchising Company,” February 17, 2010. 44 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, February 6, 2013; Trabish, “Emerging 

Solar Strategies,” November 23, 2012. 

SolarCity, 14%

Verengo Solar, 5%

Trinity Solar, 3%

RevoluSun, 3%

REC Solar, 2%

Sungevity, 2%

Other, 72%

FIGURE 3.6 Approximate U.S. market shares of residential installers, 2012 

Source: Data compiled by USITC.

Based on data for 405 MW of projects
3-13 

nonresidential installers.45 However, to this point there has not been a broad consolidation 

in the industry. In Massachusetts, for example, the number of residential installers 

approximately doubled from 2010 to 2012.46 In California, the number of residential 

installers peaked in 2010, but the number of nonresidential installers continues to 

increase, and the number of residential installers remains well above the 2008 level.47 

A number of factors may account for the lack of significant consolidation to this point, 

including continued expansion of the PV market, the ability of solar installers to access 

financing from third parties and/or their continuing ability to compete for customers that 

prefer to own systems, and the ability of residential installers to adapt by, for example, 

contracting with larger firms. 48 Further, barriers to entry are low, 49 and the most 

prominent theme that emerges from a review of installers active in California is not 

consolidation but turnover, with a significant number of firms entering and exiting the 

industry each year.50 

Third-party ownership in the residential sector is fairly concentrated among a few firms, 

but competition in this sector is increasing as more firms enter to offer their own 

 45 Industry representatives, interviews by USITC staff, October 23, 2012 and December 12, 2012; 

Krulewitz, “Who Reigns Supreme,” February 2012, 11; Shimogawa, “Haleakala, Solar Wave Set to Merge,” 

February 3, 2012; Matz, “Going National,” April 2011, 43–44; Hardcastle, “Power Player,” August 31, 2012; 

Sunvalley Solar, “Form 10-K,” April 16, 2012, 8. 46 Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, RPS Solar 

Carve-Out data (accessed January 16, 2013). 47 In this paragraph, the analysis of California data only includes installers with more than one 

installation during 2008–12. CSI working dataset, January 2, 2013 (accessed January 9, 2013). 48 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, January 14, 2013; Matz, “Going 

National,” April 2011, 44. 49 Real Goods Solar, “Form 10-K,” March 15, 2012, 16. 50 CSI working dataset, January 2, 2013 (accessed January 9, 2013). 

SunPower, 9%

SolarCity, 6%

SunEdison, 3%

Borrego Solar 

Systems, 2%

Chevron Energy 

Solutions, 2%

G & S Investors, 2%

Vanguard Energy 

Partners, 2%

Other, 73%

FIGURE 3.7 Approximate U.S. market shares of nonresidential installers, 2012 

Source: Data compiled by USITC.

Based on data for 737 MW of projects
3-14 

financing options.51 In the first quarter of 2012, for example, six firms accounted for at 

least 90 percent of third-party-owned residential systems installed in California 

(figure 3.8).52 Similarly, in Maryland four companies accounted for all third-party-owned 

residential systems in 2012.53 According to Greentech Media, the firms that have raised 

the most money nationally to finance residential third-party-owned systems include 

SolarCity, SunRun, SunPower, Clean Power Finance, and Sungevity.54 

 

 

Utility-scale Services 

The utility PV project development industry is composed of (1) firms whose primary 

business is project development (e.g., Strata Solar);55 (2) firms that are engaged in both 

producing equipment (e.g., modules) and developing projects (e.g., First Solar, 

SunPower, and SunEdison);56 (3) unregulated entities related to major utility companies 

 51 This discussion will focus on the residential sector, for which data for multiple states are available. 

Wesoff, “Borrego Joins,” July 31, 2012; Greentech Media, “US Residential Solar Financing,” February 11, 

2013; industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, February 25, 2013; Bosworth, “Split 

Ends,” April 2012, 57–58; Ross, “Expanding Residential Solar Markets,” October 20, 2011. 52 Wesoff, “Borrego Joins,” July 31, 2012. 

53 Maryland Residential Clean Energy Grant Program, Historic Award Data Report Excel worksheet 

(accessed January 17, 2013). 54 Greentech Media, “US Residential Solar Financing,” February 11, 2013. 55 These firms may also develop projects for other energy sectors and/or install residential and 

commercial PV systems. 56 Both crystalline silicon and thin-film manufacturers have vertically integrated into project 

development, primarily by acquiring project development companies. Through these acquisitions, solar 

manufacturers gained access to preexisting project pipelines and sought to improve their access to large-scale 

projects over the long term. In addition, entry into project development gave manufacturers a more reliable 

market in the event of a downturn in demand and let them minimize costs and optimize systems using the 

company’s modules. As discussed in this paragraph, their perception of the relationship between project 

development and production has changed over time. Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC 

staff, December 11, 2009; industry representatives, interviews by USITC staff, October 15, 2009, and May 30, 

2013; First Solar, “Form 10-K,” February 28, 2011, 1–2; Mehta and Krulewitz, “The Direction of the 

Vertically Integrated,” March 2011, 10–11; Lacey, “SunPower to Acquire PowerLight,” November 15, 2006. 

SunRun, 37%

SolarCity, 20%

SunPower, 10%

Clean Power Finance, 10%

Sungevity, 8%

American Solar Direct, 5%

Not available, 10%

SolarCity 

Sungevity 56%

23%

Astrum 

Solar 17%

SunRun 

4%

Total = 2.9MW

Sources: Wesoff, "Borrego Joins," July 31, 2012; Maryland Residential Clean Energy Grant Program, Historic Award Data Report 

Excel worksheet (accessed January 17, 2013). 

Note: Total for California was not published by Greentech Media.

FIGURE 3.8 Residential third-party ownership industry was fairly concentrated in California (left) in the first quarter of 

2012 and in Maryland in full year 2012 (right)
3-15 

(e.g., Sempra); 57 (4) other independent power producers (IPPs) 58 (e.g., Cogentrix, 

Constellation Energy, and NRG Energy); (5) utilities (e.g., Portland General Electric); 

and (6) other firms (e.g., a subsidiary of Alexander and Baldwin, a Hawaii real estate 

company).59 The largest share of the market, through 2011, was accounted for by firms 

that also produce PV equipment, including SunEdison,60 SunPower, and First Solar.61 For 

these companies, low prices for equipment and related inputs have led to a significant 

change in how they view project development. While many of them expanded into 

project development, at least in part, to provide a path to the market for their equipment, 

they increasingly view project development as an area of profit; in one case, a firm now 

views the equipment side of its business as supporting project development.62

Utility project development is more highly concentrated among a smaller number of 

firms than is the case for residential or nonresidential installations, with the top 5 utility 

project developers accounting for 59 percent of U.S. projects completed in 2012 

(figure 3.9). The top two project developers in 2012 were likely U.S.-based firms First 

Solar and Sempra, followed by three firms based outside of the United States—SunPower 

(France), EDF (France), and GCL Solar Energy (China), and then U.S-based 

SunEdison.63 However, project development data can be highly influenced by the timing 

of project completion, so firms’ positions in annual rankings can fluctuate significantly. 

In 2007–11, the leading large project developers, in descending order, were likely 

SunEdison, SunPower, First Solar, and Sempra, which accounted for a combined 

28 percent of large projects completed.64 More than 60 firms completed U.S. solar PV 

utility projects in 2012, but this only captures a portion of the industry, as there are other 

firms actively developing projects in the United States.65 

The utility PV market has only recently emerged as a large market segment, and as firms 

have entered this market segment, they have employed a number of different approaches. 

The services provided may vary by company or even by project. Project developers may 

perform EPC services on projects they develop themselves, but also on projects 

developed by other firms. The developers offering in-house EPC services tend to be PVspecific companies (whether manufacturers/developers or solely developers), while IPPs 

and unregulated entities related to utilities rarely provide EPC. Most of the project 

developers that do provide EPC services subcontract some or all of the actual

 57 Firms that have operations that are regulated as utilities often also have businesses that develop 

projects and/or act as independent power producers and are not regulated as utilities. 58 An IPP is an entity that primarily produces electricity for sale on the wholesale market. It is not a 

utility, does not own electricity transmission, and does not have a designated service area. EIA, “Electric 

Industry Overview 2007” (accessed July 1, 2013). 59 Based on a review of firms completing projects in 2012. 

60 SunEdison is included in this calculation for the entire time period, though it was not acquired by 

equipment manufacturer MEMC until 2009. MEMC, “MEMC Completes Acquisition of SunEdison,” 

November 23, 2009. 61 Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) data were used for the calculations of installations from 

2007 to 2011. This database does not separate information on large installations by sector, so these data may 

also include some large commercial projects. Data for 2012 were compiled by USITC and only include utility 

projects. BNEF database, http://www.bnef.com (accessed January 22, 2013); data compiled by USITC. 62 First Solar, “Form 10-K,” February 29, 2012, 3, 124; First Solar, “Form 10-Q,” November 2, 2012, 

42–43; MEMC, “Form 10-K,” February 29, 2012. 63 Based on data compiled by USITC staff. 

64 Market share of these firms includes those where more than one developer was listed. BNEF 

database (accessed January 22, 2013). 65 Data compiled by USITC; BNEF database, http://www.bnef.com (accessed January 22, 2013). 
3-16 

construction. Large contractors usually do not develop projects, with some providing all 

three EPC services, others only construction services. Some firms handle all of the 

construction in-house, but many subcontract some of the construction.66 

First Solar was the leading EPC provider for projects completed in 2012, with other 

leaders including Bechtel, Hanwha Q-Cells, juwi, Quanta Services, Strata Solar, 

SunPower, Swinerton, and Zachary Holdings.67 In the utility sector, there is significant 

competition for small construction projects, but much less for large projects.68 Price is an 

important competitive factor, but firms selecting a contractor also consider experience, 

innovation, timeliness, and ability to add value to the project.69 

O&M services are often provided by the project developer, EPC contractor, or IPP. The 

leading providers of such services for projects completed in 2012 included Con Edison, 

EDF, First Solar, Hanwha Q-Cells, juwi, NRG, Strata Solar, SunEdison, SunPower, and 

Swinerton.70 However, there are also independent providers of these services. True South 

 66 Industry representatives, interviews by USITC staff, October 23, 2012, February 1, 2013, 

February 25, 2013, and February 26, 2013; data compiled by USITC; First Solar, “Form 10-K,” February 27, 

2013, 3. 67 Data compiled by USITC. 

68 Industry representatives, interviews by USITC staff, October 23, 2012, and February 1, 2013. 69 Mortenson, “Solar Energy Industry,” January 2012, 8; industry representatives, interviews by USITC 

staff, February 1, 2013, and February 26, 2013; Climate Change Business Journal, “Bechtel Applies,” Fall 

2012, 1–2. 70 Based on data compiled by USITC. 

First Solar 22%

Sempra 12%

SunPower 

Corporation 10%

GCL Solar Energy EDF 9%

6%

SunEdison 5%

Other 36%

FIGURE 3.9 Approximate U.S. market shares of PV utility project developers, 2012 

Source: Data compiled by USITC.

Note: U.S.-based firms (First Solar, Sempra, and SunEdison) are in blue, and firms based outside of the 

United States (SunPower, and EDF, GCL Solar Energy) are in orange.

Based on data for 1.6 GW of projects
3-17 

Renewables, for example, reports that it provides O&M for more than 200 MW worth of 

installed power, including utility PV projects and distributed facilities.71

Services Employment 

U.S. employment in the solar industry—including concentrated solar power and solar 

heating and cooling—totaled about 119,016 in 2012, according to The Solar Foundation, 

up from 105,145 in 2011. Of this total, installation had the largest share 

(57,177 employees, 48 percent), followed by manufacturing (29,742 employees, 

25 percent), sales and distribution (16,005 employees, 13 percent), project development 

(7,988 employees, 7 percent), and other positions (8,105 employees, 7 percent). 

Employment in installation, sales and distribution, and other positions all increased from 

2011 to 2012, including an increase of more than 10,000 in installation.72 

Global Market for PV Services 

Market Size 

Global PV installations rapidly increased during 2007–12, rising from 2.5 GW to about 

29.1 GW (figure 3.10). While Europe continues to account for the majority of demand, 

most of the demand growth since 2010 has been driven by markets outside of Europe, 

particularly the United States and the Asia-Pacific. The largest markets in 2012 were 

Germany (7.6 GW, 26 percent of installations), China (3.5 GW, 12 percent), Italy 

(3.4 GW, 12 percent), and the United States (3.3 GW, 11 percent).73

The global PV market (i.e., the value of new installations), including goods and services, 

was an estimated $92 billion in 2011, with the services share accounting for 

approximately $34 billion. Italy was the largest services market ($9.8 billion in terms of 

services associated with new installations, 29 percent of the total services market),74

followed by Germany ($5.1 billion, 15 percent), the United States ($3.1 billion,

 71 It is not clear whether all of these distributed facilities are PV. True South Renewables website, 

http://truesouthrenewables.com/press/?p=46 (accessed March 6, 2013). 72 Other services include “research and development, finance and accounting, legal work, or other 

ancillary services that support the solar industry.” Project development was added as a category in 2012, so it 

is not possible to determine the exact employment increase during 2011–12. The Solar Foundation, National 

Solar Jobs Census 2012, November 2012, 17, 39, 42. 73 Estimates of the size of the global PV market in 2012 range from 29 GW to 32 GW. The data 

included here are based primarily on data from European Photovoltaic Industry Association (EPIA). For 

2007–11, data for Europe are estimated PV installations. For 2012, data are grid-connected capacity. In 

addition, for 2012 USITC updated data for several non-European countries, including Australia, China, Japan, 

and the United States. EPIA, Global Outlook for Photovoltaics until 2016, May 2012, 19, 66–67; EPIA, 

Global Market Outlook for Photovoltaics 2013–2017, 2013, 16, 18, 31; GTM Research and SEIA, U.S. Solar 

Market Insight Report: 2012 Year-in-Review, 2013, 5; JPEA, Statistics on Shipments, February 26, 2013, 5; 

Government of Japan, METI, “Announcement Regarding the Present Status,” March 13, 2012; IHS, 

“Photovoltaic Industry to Enjoy,” January 25, 2013; NPD Solarbuzz, “Solar Photovoltaic Demand,” 

February 21, 2013; Energy Foundation and CREIA, China Solar, April 2013, 5–6; Watt and Passey, “PV in 

Australia 2012,” May 2013, viii. 74 The different ranking between Germany and Italy in 2012 installations and the 2011 services market 

reflects a significant decline in Italian installations in 2012 and lower installed costs in Germany in 2011.
3-18 

9 percent), and Japan ($3.0 billion, 9 percent). 75 The services market has increased 

substantially over time. Clean Edge estimated the value of the entire market, including 

 75 These values are based on estimates by USITC using publicly available data, but the actual market 

value could be higher or lower. The calculation of the market value by USITC is based on the value of the 

U.S. services market discussed above, and a separate calculation of the value of the rest of the global goods 

and services market and the share of the market accounted for by services. This involved calculating the value 

of installed systems in each market, based on multiplying the price per watt in each market by the number of 

MW installed. Data on the price per watt of systems installed in each country generally came from IEA’s 

Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme and BNEF database. The countries for which specific price per watt 

data were available (including the United States) accounted for about 91 percent of 2011 installations. For 

those countries for which system prices were not available, the average for all other countries was used. For 

each market, the price per watt for modules, inverters, and balance of system components was multiplied by 

the MW installed to derive an equipment cost. Where available, costs specific to the individual market were 

used. Where those were not available, global average prices were used. This was then subtracted from the 

total value of the installations to derive the share of the market accounted for by services. 

The total value of new installations of $91.9 billion is within the range of estimates published by 

consulting firms such as Clean Edge, which estimated global PV revenues in 2011 at $91.6 billion, and 

Solarbuzz, which estimated global revenues at $93 billion. Pernick, Wilder, and Winnie, Clean Energy 

Trends 2012, March 2012, 4; Solarbuzz, “World Photovoltaic Market Grew,” March 19, 2012. 

2.5

6.3

7.5

21.7

24.7

29.1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Installations (GW)

Other

India

Australia

Japan

China

Canada

United States

Europe

FIGURE 3.10 Annual global PV installations rapidly increased during 2007–12

Sources: EPIA, Global Outlook for Photovoltaics until 2016, May 2012, 19, 66–67; EPIA, Global Market Outlook 

for Photovoltaics 2013–2017, 2013, 16, 18, 31; GTM Research and SEIA, U.S. Solar Market Insight Report: 2012 

Year-in-Review, 2013, 5; JPEA, Statistics on Shipments, February 26, 2013, 5; METI, “Announcement Regarding 

the Present Status,” March 13, 2012; Watt and Passey, "PV in Australia 2012," May 2013, viii; Energy Foundation 

and CREIA, China Solar, April 2013, 5–6.

Notes: Estimates of the size of the global PV market in 2012 range from 29 GW to 32 GW. The data included 

here are based primarily on data from EPIA. For 2007–11, data for Europe are estimated PV installations. For 

2012, data are grid-connected capacity. In addition, for 2012 USITC staff updated data for several non-European 

countries, including Australia, China, Japan, and the United States.
3-19 

goods and services, at $20.3 billion in 2007, implying a services market of less than 

$10 billion based on the value of the module and inverter markets at that time.76

Factors Affecting Global Supply and Demand for PV Services 

The primary factors affecting global demand for renewable energy services are price and 

government policies. 

 Price: The price of PV installations is declining, thereby increasing the cost 

competitiveness of PV systems in both developed and developing countries. 

Prices in Germany, for example, declined 66 percent from the second quarter of 

2006 to the fourth quarter of 2012.77 

 Market growth policies: Government policies aimed at directly reducing the 

price of PV electricity, or mandating its use or purchase, have had a significant 

impact on the global PV market. Feed-in tariffs (FITs), which guarantee the 

purchase of renewable energy at a set price for a period of time, are widely used 

in Europe and, more recently, in countries such as China and Japan. Many 

countries now require that a certain percentage of electricity generation come 

from renewables, and some countries have tender processes to procure solar or 

other forms of renewable energy. However, sudden shifts in FIT levels, often in 

response to a surge in installations, have also led to significant contractions in 

demand in key markets.78 

 Market-enabling policies: The implementation of policies that make PV 

installations practical, such as net metering, also drive market growth. Fourteen 

countries have national net metering policies, while other countries have such 

policies at the subnational level.79 

 Other: Market drivers also include factors such as rising electricity demand, 

particularly in developing countries.80 

Global Industry Trends 

The global large-scale 81 project development, EPC, and O&M industries are highly 

fragmented and tend to be dominated by firms from the three largest markets, Europe, 

China, and the United States: 

 76 Pernick, Wilder, and Winnie, Clean Energy Trends 2012, March 2012, 3–4; Mints, “U.S. 

Supply/Demand,” December 12, 2012, 16; SMA website, http://www.sma.de/en/investor-relations.html

(accessed February–June 2013). 77 BSW-Solar, “Statistic Data,” February 2013; industry representatives, interviews by USITC staff, 

Santiago, Chile, May 13, 2013 and May 15, 2013. 78 REN21, Renewables 2012, 2012, 66, 70–72; First Solar, “Form 10-K,” February 27, 2013, 8–10; 

industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Tokyo, May 10, 2013; MEMC, “Form 10-K,” March 1, 

2013, 14; SunPower, “Form 10-K,” February 25, 2013, 14. 79 See box 3.1 for a discussion of net metering. REN21, Renewables 2012, 2012, 66, 70–72; First Solar, 

“Form 10-K,” February 27, 2013, 9; MEMC, “Form 10-K,” March 1, 2013, 14; SunPower, “Form 10-K,” 

February 25, 2013, 14. 80 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Santiago, Chile, May 13, 2013. 81 Data sources for the leading firms do not separate large nonresidential projects from utility projects; 

therefore, this section groups these sectors together as large projects. 
3-20 

 Project development: Among project developers, the top 10 firms combined 

accounted for less than one-third of the market during 2012. U.S. firms had a 

relatively strong presence near the top of the rankings, with First Solar 

ranked first, SunEdison third, and Sempra sixth. France-based EDF was the 

second-largest developer globally, with China-based Talesun Solar and 

China Solar ranked fourth and fifth.82 

 EPC: The leading global EPC firms (for projects over 10 kW) in 2012 were 

U.S.-based First Solar and SunEdison, with steady foreign project activity 

and expanding U.S. domestic activity propelling them to the top spots 

(table 3.2). Chinese and European firms are also strongly positioned in the 

top 15, with Chinese firms accounting for 6 of the top 15 EPC firms and 

European firms for 5 of the top 15. However, the market share of the leading 

global EPC firms is relatively small, including only 2 percent for leading 

firm First Solar and a combined 24 percent for the top 30 firms.83

TABLE 3.2 U.S., European, and Chinese firms were the leading global EPC firms in 2012 

Company Headquarters 2012 Rank 2011 Rank

First Solar United States 1 3

SunEdison United States 2 4

BELECTRIC Germany 3 1

China Power Investment Corp. China 4 2

juwi Germany 5 6

Enerparc Germany 6 15

EDF Energies Nouvelles France 7 13

TBEA SunOasis China 8 7

GD Solar China 9 10

Jiangsu Zhenfa New Energy China 10 11

Larsen & Toubro India 11 >15

SunPower Francea 12 5

China Guangdong Nuclear Development China 13 9

Swinerton, Inc. United States 14 >15

Shanghai Solar Energy Co., Ltd. China 15 >15

Source: IMS Research, “First Solar Ranked,” March 27, 2013. 

Notes: The ranking is based on MW of projects completed. First Solar installed more than 500 MW and SunEdison 

390 MW, according to IMS Research. 

 aSunPower is based in the United States, but a majority of its shares were acquired by France-based Total in 

2011 and 2012. 

 O&M: Available data indicate that there are many firms providing O&M 

services, including many of the EPC firms and project development firms 

discussed above.84 It is probable that among the leading providers are firms 

like Germany-based BELECTRIC and juwi, and U.S.-based First Solar and 

SunEdison.85

 82 BNEF database (accessed July 17, 2013); data compiled by USITC. 83 IMS Research, “First Solar Ranked,” March 27, 2013. 

84 BNEF database (accessed February 28, 2012); data compiled by USITC. 85 Data compiled by USITC. 
3-21 

Trade and Investment 

Imports and Exports 

In the United States, residential systems tend to be installed primarily by domestic firms, 

so U.S. imports of residential installation services are relatively limited. 86 Firms 

performing U.S. residential installations, including most firms that installed at least 

2 MW in 2012, are generally based in the United States. 87 The majority of U.S. 

nonresidential systems were also installed by U.S.-based companies, but there is 

substantial participation in this sector by foreign firms, and imports accounted for more 

than 10 percent of nonresidential installations in 2012. The leading nonresidential 

installer in the United States is SunPower, a subsidiary of France-based Total. A number 

of other foreign firms installed nonresidential systems in the United States in 2012, 

including Germany-based Conergy and Gehrlicher, and Portugal-based Martifer.88 

Third-party ownership of U.S. residential projects was primarily by domestic firms.89 In 

California, in the first quarter of 2012, for example, the only known imports were the 

10 percent of the market accounted for by SunPower. 90 In Maryland, all third-party 

financing was provided by U.S.-based firms. 91 SunPower is likely one of the top 

providers of residential third-party financing nationally, and there are other non-U.S.-

based firms in this sector, but there are no data indicating that any non-U.S. firm other 

than SunPower accounts for a significant share of the market.92 In the nonresidential 

sector, comprehensive data on third-party financing are not available, though there are at 

least some imports from SunPower and other firms.93 

 

Utility-scale projects in the United States have the most foreign participation among the 

three sectors, but the majority of services in this sector are also provided by U.S. firms. 

U.S. firms developed more than 65 percent of the PV projects completed in 2012, and 

were the EPC supplier/contractor for almost 80 percent of the projects completed—with 

EPC responsibilities for another 9 percent split between a foreign and domestic firm. 

U.S.-based firms were also contracted to provide O&M services for more than 60 percent 

of the projects completed. Another 13 percent of O&M services were split between a 

foreign and a domestic firm, but were expected to be solely provided by the U.S. firm by 

the third year of plant operation.94 

 86 Official data on PV services trade are not available; therefore, this section will use installation data to 

measure U.S. services trade. 87 Based on data compiled by USITC. 

88 SunPower is publicly traded on NASDAQ and is based in the United States, but since France-based 

Total acquired 66 percent of its shares in 2011 and 2012, it is considered a non-U.S. firm for the purposes of 

this report, and the services that it provided in the United States are classified as imports. Data compiled by 

USITC; SunPower Corp., “Form 10-K,” February 25, 2013, 4. 89 This is based on the company that provided the financing. It does not look at the companies investing 

in the funding sources for these companies. 90 Wesoff, “Borrego Joins,” July 31, 2012. 

91 Maryland Residential Clean Energy Grant Program, Historic Award Data Report Excel worksheet 

(accessed January 17, 2013); industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, February 25, 2013. 92 Greentech Media, “US Residential Solar Financing,” February 11, 2013; industry representative, 

interview by USITC staff, February 25, 2012; Conergy website, 

http://www.conergy.us/Portaldata/1/Resources/usa/pdfdownloads/Solar_Energy_Commercial_Project_Services_Brochure.pdf (accessed March 8, 2013). 93 CSI working dataset, January 2, 2013 (accessed January 9, 2013); data compiled by USITC. 94 Based on data compiled by USITC. 
3-22 

In the residential and small nonresidential market segments, U.S. firms are starting to 

expand into markets outside the United States, though the value of exports is likely 

relatively small. Sungevity, for example, has expanded into Australia and the 

Netherlands. 95 SolarCity also has long-term plans to expand internationally, and has 

established a presence in Ontario, Canada.96 However, since data on services exports are 

not available, it is difficult to compare trends over time. 

Existing U.S. project developers are increasingly exporting project development services, 

with some expanding in Canada and many firms looking to expand beyond the foreign 

markets in which they have traditionally been active. 97 U.S. firms are increasingly 

interested in providing project development services in emerging PV markets like Chile 

and South Africa, and have large project pipelines in some of these countries.98 For 

example, of SunEdison’s 827 MW backlog of projects (projects with a signed offtake 

agreement such as a PPA, as of February 2013), 18 percent (150 MW) were in Canada 

and 16 percent (132 MW) were in emerging markets.99 First Solar has shifted its longterm strategy to focus on markets in “the Americas, Asia, the Middle East, and Africa” 

where it expects electricity demand to increase and PV to be price competitive.100 Other 

firms target one specific market, such as Penn Energy Renewables, which concentrates 

on the Ontario market.101 Some U.S. project developers also provide EPC services in 

foreign markets for other project developers, as well as O&M services after project 

completion. While the increase in exports by existing U.S. firms is significant, and many 

of these firms do have growing foreign project development activity, their foreign 

installations remain only a small share of the global market.102 

U.S. firms that provide only EPC and/or construction services103 primarily export to 

Canada. For example, White Construction completed two 24 MW projects in Canada, 

and is the EPC contractor for two 10 MW projects currently under construction. 104

Similarly, Swinerton was contracted to provide EPC services for 30 MW of the 

Waubaushene project in Canada, and Signal Energy worked on a 30 MW project in 

Ontario.105 Some firms are looking to further expand their operations in Canada, while 

others are looking at emerging markets like the Middle East.106 When combined with 

exports of EPC services by the project developers discussed above, U.S. EPC exports are 

significant. However, the presence of U.S. firms in the global market should be kept in 

 95 Kennedy, “The Changing Marketplace ,” September 13, 2012. 96 SolarCity, “Form S-1,” October 5, 2012, 31. 

97 For the purposes of determining exports, project development data will also include large 

nonresidential projects, since data sources do not necessarily separate out these projects. 98 MEMC, “Fourth Quarter 2012,” 11–12; MEMC, “SunEdison and CAP,” January 31, 2013; MEMC, 

“SunEdison Closes,” November 28, 2012; First Solar, “First Solar Acquires,” January 9, 2013; First Solar, 

“Form 10-K,” February 27, 2013, 3; industry representatives, interviews by USITC staff, Santiago, Chile, 

May 13, 2013, and May 15, 2013. 99 MEMC, “Fourth Quarter 2012,” February 13, 2013, 12.

100 First Solar, “Form 10-K,” February 27, 2013, 3. 101 Penn Energy Renewables website, http://www.pennenergyrenewables.com/ (accessed May 31, 

2013).102 This is based on projects tracked by BNEF. It is not known whether there were other projects 

completed that are not included in their database. BNEF database (accessed March 6, 2012). 103 This paragraph focuses on these firms and does not include project developers that also provide EPC 

services. 104 White Construction website, http://whiteconstruction.com (accessed March 6, 2013). 105 Signal Energy website, http://www.signalenergy.com/experience/projects (accessed March 7, 2013); 

Swinerton website, http://www.swinerton.com/web/do/content?oid=renewable-energy (accessed May 29, 

2013). 106 Industry representatives, interviews by USITC staff, February 1, 2013, and February 26, 2013.
3-23 

context—U.S. firms accounted for only 3 of the top 15 global EPC firms in 2012, as 

indicated in table 3.2 above.107

U.S.-based global firms like CH2M Hill and Black & Veatch also provide a variety of 

services worldwide in support of the project development process. For example, for an 

80 MW project in Canada, Black & Veatch provided “design and engineering review, 

estimation of solar production, support for contract negotiation, construction monitoring 

and assistance with commissioning and performance testing.”108 For a 55 MW project in 

Thailand, Black &Veatch performed the “overall design and constructability review, 

operational analysis and detailed design review,” as well as provided “information about 

procurement, construction, construction management, and consulting and planning.”109

Similarly, CH2M Hill provides a range of services, including “site evaluation, permitting, 

design, engineering, procurement, construction, startup, and commissioning services” and 

has provided project management in markets such as India.110 More narrowly focused 

firms are also exporting globally. For example, 3TIER, which offers detailed solar 

forecasting and analysis, provides services in a number of foreign markets.111 True South 

Renewables, which has an office in Ontario, Canada, provides final testing and inspection 

before commissioning of new plants, including for a recently completed 10 MW project 

in Ontario, and offers O&M at existing plants.112

Investment 

There has been substantial foreign investment in the U.S. PV services industry. The 

largest transaction was France-based Total’s 2011–12 $1.5 billion acquisition of 

66 percent of the shares of U.S. manufacturer and service provider SunPower.113 Several 

foreign equipment providers have acquired U.S. project developers, reflecting the trend 

toward vertical integration into the downstream market noted earlier. The largest, in 

terms of value, was Japan-based Sharp’s $305 million acquisition of U.S. project 

developer Recurrent Energy in 2010. 114 Similarly, China-based LDK Solar acquired 

70 percent of Solar Power, Inc., in 2011 for $33 million, and OCI Co., based in the 

Republic of Korea (Korea), acquired CornerStone Power Development.115 

U.S. firms have acquired other U.S. domestic service providers, but have generally not 

used acquisitions to enter foreign markets. Among the few foreign acquisitions was First 

Solar’s purchase of Chilean project developer Solar Chile in early 2013, and residential 

services firm Sungevity’s investment in a Dutch firm in 2011.116 SunEdison purchased 

 107 IMS Research, “BELECTRIC Tops,” May 10, 2012. 108 Stephens, “Solar Plant’s Production Costs Are Now Competitive,” 2011. 109 Black & Veatch website, http://bv.com/home/projects/project?pid=2e9de66c-5fb6-4381-8b1c40be48748355 (accessed March 6, 2013). 110 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, March 4, 2013; CH2M Hill website, 

http://www.ch2m.com/corporate/markets/energy/solar.asp (accessed March 6, 2013). 111 3TIER website, http://www.3tier.com/en/about/ (accessed March 6, 2013); industry representative, 

interview by USITC staff, March 4, 2013. 112 True South Renewables website, 

http://www.truesouthrenewables.com/3rd_party_commissioning.html (accessed March 6, 2013); True South 

Renewables, “True South Renewables to Commission,” December 13, 2011. 113 Stuart, “SunPower Completes,” February 1, 2012; Herndon, Martin, and Goossens, “Total to Buy,” 

April 29, 2011. 114 Recurrent Energy, “Sharp Corporation,” September 21, 2010. 115 Herndon, “OCI of Korea,” January 18, 2011; LDK Solar, “LDK Solar Agrees to Acquire,” 

January 6, 2011. 116 First Solar, “First Solar Acquires,” January 9, 2013; Woody, “California’s Sungevity,” 

November 17, 2011. 
3-24 

German firm Business Institute Solar Strategy GmbH in 2009, which was developing 38 

MW of PV projects at the time of the acquisition.117

Trade Barriers 

PV firms indicated that local-content requirements, which mandate the local sourcing of 

goods and/or services, are the most significant trade barrier in the industry. Local-content 

requirements exist or have been used in markets such as South Africa and Ontario, 

Canada.118 India implemented local-content requirements for projects constructed using 

c-Si products as part of its national solar program, the Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar 

Mission (JNNSM), though these rules do not necessarily apply to projects constructed 

under state solar programs. Batch 1 of the first phase of the JNNSM required locally 

sourced modules, while batch 2 required both c-Si cells and modules to be sourced 

locally.119 Other countries, such as France, Greece, Italy, and Turkey, provide incentives 

for using local or regional content rather than mandating the use of local content.120 For 

example, Turkey’s FIT121 is up to 50 percent higher for systems using local content.122 In 

Brazil, local content is not mandated for PV projects, but firms that want to access lower 

financing rates from Brazil’s national development bank, Banco Nacional de 

Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social (BNDES), have to meet the bank’s local-content 

requirements.123 

Local-content requirements for PV projects have been or are the subject of World Trade 

Organization (WTO) dispute settlement cases. In May 2013, the WTO Dispute 

Settlement Body adopted a WTO Appellate Body report and panel report (as modified by 

the Appellate Body) finding that the Canadian measures were inconsistent with the 

Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs Agreement) and the General 

Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994.124 Subsequently, Ontario’s Minister of 

Energy directed the Ontario Power Authority not to procure any additional large projects. 

The Minister indicated that the government intends to replace the FIT program for large 

projects with a competitive procurement process, and that the Ministry intends to pursue 

 117 Berrill, “SunEdison Bumps up European Expansion,” January 22, 2009. 118 Ahearne, “South African PV,” June 1, 2012; Ontario Power Authority, “Feed-in Tariff Contract 

(FIT Contract),” December 14, 2012, exhibit C, 7–8; Ontario Power Authority, “Feed-in Tariff Program: FIT 

Rules,” December 14, 2012, 30; industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, May 30, 2013. 119 USTR, 2013 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2013, 187; industry 

representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, March 4, 2013; NRDC and CEEW, Laying the 

Foundation, April 2012, 20. 120 Greece’s law specified that the local-content requirement would apply after the issuance of a 

ministerial decision with additional details on implementation. It is not clear if such a declaration has been 

issued. Eleuteri, “The Wait Is Over,” June 2011, 69; USTR, 2013 National Trade Estimate Report on 

Foreign Trade Barriers, March 2013, 153; RES Legal website, updated March 4, 2013, http://www.reslegal.eu/search-by-country/turkey/single/s/res-e/t/promotion/aid/feed-in-tariff-7/lastp/207/ (accessed June 28, 

2013); Government of France, Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy, “Mesures 

d’urgence pour la relance de la filière” [Emergency measures for relaunching], January 7, 2013; Mourgelas 

and Associates, “Mourgelas Greek Law Update,” April 2012, 3; Watson, Farley, and Williams, “Greece: 

Energy Briefing,” September 2012, 10–11. 121 A feed-in tariff (FIT) guarantees the purchase of renewable energy at a set price for a period of time. 122 RES Legal website, updated March 4, 2013, http://www.res-legal.eu/search-bycountry/turkey/single/s/res-e/t/promotion/aid/feed-in-tariff-7/lastp/207/. 123 Nielsen, “Local Content Rule,” August 9, 2012 124 The complaint in this matter was filed by Japan in September 2010. WTO website, Dispute DS412: 

Canada—Certain Measures Affecting the Renewable Energy Generation Sector, 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds412_e.htm (accessed July 2, 2013). 
3-25 

legislation to bring the FIT program into compliance with the WTO ruling.125 The United 

States filed a request for dispute settlement consultations with India on February 6, 

2013.126 In regard to European Union (EU) member states, China filed a request for 

dispute settlement consultations with the EU, as well as EU member states Greece and 

Italy, on November 5, 2012.127 

Some local-content incentives/requirements apply to goods, while others apply to both 

goods and services. In Ontario, Canada, for example, the rules specify that for projects 

over 10 kW in size, 60 percent of the content must be sourced from within Ontario. In 

calculating this percentage, both goods and services are taken into account: Ontario 

identifies the qualifying percentage for each major piece of equipment and for the major 

services associated with solar installation. Services associated with crystalline silicon (cSi) projects account for only 22 percent of the project value and those associated with 

thin-film projects for 28 percent of the value, so local sourcing of equipment is necessary 

to meet the 60 percent local-content requirement.128 

Since several of the major U.S. utility project developers are also equipment providers, 

the requirement to source equipment locally may affect their ability to also provide 

services in the market. First Solar, for example, only develops projects with its own 

equipment and does not have a manufacturing plant in Ontario. As a result, the company 

indicates that its systems do not meet local-content requirements, and since First Solar 

provides services only in association with its own equipment, it is also excluded from 

providing services in Ontario. 129 SunEdison contracted with Flextronics to assemble 

modules locally in order to meet Ontario’s local-content requirements, but the ease with 

which companies can adapt to these requirements by establishing local production or 

sourcing local products varies by firm and technology type.130 

Standards and certification issues can also serve as a barrier to PV module trade, and 

therefore to U.S. exports of services. One example, according to the Office of the U.S. 

Trade Representative (USTR) and industry representatives, is Korea’s certification 

requirement for PV modules.131 Korea’s PV standards cover all types of PV modules and, 

therefore, all types of modules can be sold in the Korean market. However, in order to 

qualify to be used in government programs, modules must be certified by the Korea 

Energy Management Corporation (KEMCO), and certification standards only exist for cSi modules and amorphous silicon (a-Si) thin-film modules. Korea recently conducted an 

environmental assessment of copper indium gallium (di)selenide (CIGS) and cadmium 

telluride (CdTe) thin-film modules, and did not find significant concerns with CIGS 

 125 There are separate FIT programs for large and small projects. Ontario Ministry of Energy, FIT 

Program Directive, June 12, 2013, 3 126 WTO website, Dispute DS456: India—Certain Measures Relating to Solar Cells and Solar Modules, 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds456_e.htm (accessed July 2, 2013). 127 WTO website, Dispute DS452: European Union and certain Member States—Certain Measures 

Affecting the Renewable Energy Generation Sector, 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds452_e.htm (accessed July 2, 2013). 128 Ontario Power Authority, “Feed-in Tariff Contract (FIT Contract),” Version 2.1, December 14, 2012, 

exhibit C, 7–8; Ontario Power Authority, “Feed-in Tariff Program: FIT Rules,” Version 2.1, December 14, 

2012, 30. 129 First Solar, “Form 10-K,” February 29, 2012, 6, 9. 130 MEMC, “MEMC and its SunEdison Subsidiary,” July 18, 2011; MEMC, “SunEdison First to 

Announce,” April 15, 2011. 131 The information in this paragraph is based on USTR, 2013 Report on Technical Barriers to Trade, 

April 2013, 46–47; industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, May 30, 2013; WTO, 

Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade, “Minutes of the Meeting Held on March 24–25, 2011,” May 26, 

2011, 48–49; WTO, Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade, “Minutes of the Meeting Held on June 13–15, 

2012,” September 18, 2012, 26–27. 
3-26 

modules. As a result, Korea is considering developing a standard for CIGS modules, 

though a Korean government representative indicated in 2012 that this would likely take 

two years. However, the Korean assessment found environmental concerns with the 

cadmium used in CdTe modules and is not planning to develop a standard for CdTe—

though industry representatives and the U.S. Trade Representative’s 2013 Report on 

Technical Barriers to Trade state that there were methodological issues with the Korean 

environmental assessment. Certification rules in Korea thus effectively prevent U.S. 

firms that make CdTe from selling equipment, and therefore services, in much of the 

Korean market.132 Until certification standards are developed, the same is true of firms 

that make CIGS modules. 

The lack of harmonization of PV standards globally can also negatively affect trade in PV 

modules, with testing and certification requirements for entering new markets resulting in 

significant costs for manufacturers.133 In addition, while in some countries certification 

by international testing bodies may be allowed, testing by organizations within the 

country may aid product acceptance in the local market.134

Country and Regional Profiles 

This section profiles the largest market in 2012 (Germany), the largest non-European 

markets excluding the United States (China and Japan), and the emerging Canadian and 

Latin American markets (figure 3.11). These markets exhibit a variety of different 

characteristics, as will be discussed below. For example, Germany is a large, established 

market where demand has been flat the last few years, and there is extensive services 

competition in the domestic market. Latin American markets are small, but have 

significant growth potential and provide substantial export opportunities for U.S. firms. 

Government policies contribute to demand growth in many of the markets, but in parts of 

Latin America PV is becoming price competitive even in the absence of policy support. 

Canada 

Canada has a growing PV market, with annual installations increasing from 5 MW in 

2007 to 268 MW in 2012. Utility installations accounted for 62 percent of newly installed 

capacity in 2011. Canadian system installation businesses generated $656 million in 

domestic revenue in 2011, and employment in the Canadian PV services sector 

(including distribution, installation, utilities, and government, other than research and 

development) was 2,210 employees. Demand in Ontario, the province that accounts for 

the majority of Canadian installations, is primarily driven by policies within the 

province. 135 In 2006, Ontario started the Renewable Energy Standard Offer Program 

 132 USTR, 2013 Report on Technical Barriers to Trade, April 2013, 46–47; industry representative, 

telephone interview by USITC staff, May 30, 2013; WTO, Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade, 

“Minutes of the Meeting Held on March 24–25, 2011,” May 26, 2011, 48–49; WTO, Committee on 

Technical Barriers to Trade, “Minutes of the Meeting Held on June 13–15, 2012,” September 18, 2012, 26–

27. 133 NREL, “Technical Study,” July 2012; Matz, “Ten Things Consumers,” February 2012, 70–71; 

Steenblik, Matsuoka, and Hight, “Facilitating Trade,” 2009, 21–22. 134 Steenblik, Matsuoka, and Hight, “Facilitating Trade,” 2009, 21–22; industry representative, 

interview by USITC staff, Tokyo, May 14, 2013. 135 Poissant et al., “National Survey Report of PV Power Applications in Canada 2011,” June 2012, 7–8, 

15–16; IEA PVPS, PVPS Report: A Snapshot of Global PV 1992–2012, 2013, 11. 
3-27 

(RESOP),which set a price for solar energy in the province and led to a number of utilityscale solar projects.136 In 2009, Ontario replaced this program with the FIT Program 137

for projects over 10 kW, and the microFIT Program for projects 10 kW or less.138

U.S. firms are providing development, EPC, and O&M services in Canada, though the 

local content requirements discussed earlier are a barrier to entry for some of the firms 

that also produce equipment. U.S. project developers such as First Solar, Penn Energy 

Renewables, and SunEdison—some of which also provide EPA and O&M—are active in 

developing projects in Canada, though First Solar has not been awarded any contracts 

under the current Ontario FIT program.139 Similarly, firms that do not engage in project 

development but provide construction and/or EPC services—such as Signal Energy, 

Swinerton, and White Construction—are active in the Canadian market, as noted earlier. 

 136 Ayoub, Martel, and Dignard-Bailey, “National Survey Report of PV Power Applications,” 

May 2008, 7. 137 First Solar, “Form 10-K,” February 27, 2013, 8. 138 Poissant et al., “National Survey Report of PV Power Applications in Canada 2011,” June 2012, 8. 139 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, May 30, 2013. 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Canada China Germany Japan Latin America

Installations (GW)

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

FIGURE 3.11 Installations in profiled markets, 2007–12

Sources: Poissant et al., “National Survey Report of PV Power Applications in Canada 2011,”June 2012, 8; 

EPIA, Global Outlook for Photovoltaics until 2016, May 2012, 66–67; EPIA, Global Market Outlook for 

Photovoltaics 2013–2017, 2013, 18, 31; BSW-Solar, “Statistic Data,” February 2013, 1; JPEA, Statistics on 

Shipments, February 26, 2013, 5; METI, “Announcement Regarding the Present Status,” March 13, 2012; 

Energy Foundation and CREIA, China Solar, April 2013, 5–6. 

Note: Data for Latin America prior to 2011 were not published by EPIA.
3-28 

China 

China’s market is growing rapidly, increasing from 20 MW in 2007 to at least 3.5 GW in 

2012, with one of the main drivers the implementation of a FIT in 2011.140 The value of 

the services market (excluding O&M) totaled around $1.6–$2.5 billion in 2012.141 The 

value of the services market is relatively small compared to other large markets, due to 

the low installation costs in China. 

Project development and EPC services in China are primarily provided by Chinese firms, 

with many project developers providing in-house EPC in order to ensure quality. Chinese 

module suppliers are also increasingly providing EPC services in China.142 There is, 

however, some participation in the Chinese market by foreign firms. German firm Wirsol 

Solar, for example, announced plans to develop PV projects in China with Suntech.143

France-based SunPower formed a joint venture to manufacture and install its systems in 

China.144 U.S.-based First Solar is awaiting approval to build a 30 MW project in China 

and has a memorandum of understanding to develop a 300 to 500 MW second phase of 

the project. 145 U.S.-based Solaria, which is also an equipment producer, provides 

construction services for projects in China.146

Germany 

Germany is the leader in global cumulative installed PV capacity, accounting for 

35 percent of cumulative global installations through the end of 2011. 147 Annual 

installations increased from 1.3 GW in 2007 to 7.4 GW in 2010, but have been relatively 

flat since 2010 (figure 3.11). In 2011, installations totaled 7.5 GW and in 2012, 

installations totaled 7.6 GW.148 The value of the German PV services market totaled an 

estimated $5 billion in 2011.149 The main drivers of German demand are a FIT and the 

declining price of PV installations, which has continued to make system installation 

profitable and propel market growth despite cuts to FIT rates.150

Germany has a large services industry, with three of the top six global EPC services firms 

in 2012 based in Germany (BELECTRIC, juwi, and Enerparc).151 It is likely that these 

three firms are also among the leading global O&M service providers, with more than 

 140 Solarbuzz, “China’s Feed-in Tariff,” October 10, 2011; Energy Foundation and CREIA, China Solar, 

April 2013, 5–6; EPIA, Global Outlook for Photovoltaics until 2016, May 2012, 67. 141 USITC calculation based on data from Energy Foundation and CREIA, China Solar, April 2013, 5–

6, 66–68, and BNEF database (accessed May 28, 2013). 142 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Beijing, May 17, 2013; Bloomberg New Energy 

Finance database (accessed May 28, 2013); Solar Industry, “Jinko Solar Planning 200 MW PV Project,” 

December 20, 2012. 143 Ali-Oettinger, “China: Wirsol to Develop Projects with Suntech,” March 29, 2012. 144 SunPower Corp., “SunPower Signs,” December 3, 2012. 145 Wesoff, “First Solar’s Q1,” May 6, 2013. 146 Alexopoulou, “Solaria Corporation to Construct,” May 13, 2013. 147 EPIA, Global Outlook for Photovoltaics until 2016, May 2012, 68–69. 148 EPIA, Global Outlook for Photovoltaics until 2016, May 2012, 66–67; BSW-Solar, “Statistic Data,” 

February 2013, 1. 149 Based on calculation by USITC. See the earlier discussion of the global services market value for 

the methodology. 150 Wissing, “National Survey Report of PV Power Applications in Germany,” July 2012, 7–8; JӓgerWaldau, PV Status Report 2012, 2012, 19–20; Podewils, “The Air is Getting Thinner,” November 2012, 54–

57. 151 IMS Research, “First Solar Ranked,” March 27, 2013. 
3-29 

2 GW currently under management.152 German PV installers also are the leading service 

providers in their home market. In 2010, the top 10 system integrators in Germany were 

all German-based firms.153 German PV installers deliver some of the lowest installed 

costs in the world in their home market.154 The industry, however, may face a period of 

consolidation if projections of German market contraction are accurate.155 Of those top 10 

system integrators in Germany in 2010, three have filed for bankruptcy protection, 

though two of these filings were also related to the equipment side of their businesses.156

As a result of the market conditions in Germany, U.S. project developers and EPC firms 

are focusing on opportunities outside Germany, despite the significant size of the German 

market. 

Japan 

Japan was the first country to widely deploy PV systems, and was the world’s fifthlargest market in 2012. The current incentive program for PV, a FIT that was 

implemented in July 2012, is contributing to further market growth. Japanese PV 

installations increased from 210 MW in calendar year 2007 to 1,559 MW in the first 11 

months of the fiscal year ending March 2013. The Japanese market is dominated by 

residential installations, which accounted for 73 percent of installations during the first 11 

months of the fiscal year. There have been many announcements of large projects in the 

utility sector, but it is unclear if this sector will be as big as expected and if demand in 

this sector will be sustainable, given Japan’s land constraints. 157

Japan’s PV services market was valued at $3.0 billion in 2011. Japanese equipment 

makers are strongly positioned in the residential installation market, and there are home 

builders who install a large number of systems on new homes. 158 While domestic 

manufacturers also provide residential installation services, foreign module suppliers that 

enter the Japanese residential market typically do so through a local partner, usually 

either a distributor or installer.159 The nonresidential sector includes participation by some 

of the same firms as the residential sector, though in this sector firms may contract out 

the EPC services rather than provide them in-house.160

Project development for the utility market in Japan is highly competitive and is currently 

dominated by domestic firms, which include subsidiaries of major utilities, PV 

manufacturers, and trading companies.161 Foreign firms such as Germany-based juwi and 

 152 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Hamburg, Germany, May 15, 2013; data 

compiled by USITC. 153 IMS Research data cited in GP Joule, “One Stop Solar Solutions,” n.d., 4 (accessed July 9, 2013). 154 IEA, PVPS, Trends in Photovoltaic Applications, 2012, 29. 155 Solar Industry, “Forecast: Many German PV Installers,” February 27, 2013. 156 Q-Cells was subsequently acquired by Korean firm Hanwha. Radowitz, “Gehrlicher Confirms 

Insolvency Move,” July 9, 2013; Radowitz, “Conergy to File for Insolvency,” July 5, 2013; Stromsta, 

“Hanwha SolarOne Says Q-Cells,” November 25, 2012. 157 Industry representatives, interviews by USITC staff, Tokyo, May 10, 2013, May 13, 2013, and 

May 14, 2013; EPIA, Global Outlook for Photovoltaics until 2016, May 2012, 67; Government of Japan, 

METI, “Announcement Regarding the Present Status,” May 17, 2013; Bloomberg New Energy Finance 

database (accessed June 2, 2013). 158 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Tokyo, May 10, 2013; industry representative, 

telephone interview by USITC staff, May 28, 2013; Nakayama and Sato, “Sekisui Expects,” July 10, 2009. 159 See, for example, Canadian Solar, “Canadian Solar Announces,” January 14, 2010; SunPower Corp., 

“SunPower Corporation and Toshiba Extend,” December 4, 2012. 160 Industry representatives, interviews by USITC staff, Tokyo, May 10, 2013, May 13, 2013, and 

May 14, 2013; industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, May 28, 2013. 161 Ibid. 
3-30 

BELECTRIC, Spain-based Gestamp, and U.S.-based SunEdison are active in the market, 

typically entering through a joint venture or a partnership with a local firm, in part 

because local firms have a better understanding of Japanese practices, laws, and 

language. 162 Japan has a large domestic EPC industry, so these services are mostly 

provided by local companies.163 A range of firm types currently provide O&M or are 

entering the market to provide these services, such as equipment providers and joint 

ventures between foreign project developers and Japanese firms.164

Latin America 

Latin American markets are small at present, but substantial growth is taking place across 

many countries in the region, driven by factors such as declining PV equipment prices, 

rising electricity demand, the increasing cost competiveness of PV-generated electricity, 

excellent solar resources in many locations, and government policies. 165 While 

cumulative installed capacity was only about 91 MW at the end of 2012, the European 

Photovoltaic Industry Association (EPIA) forecasts substantial growth in the region.166

Despite this potential growth, barriers to further PV deployment in the region—such as 

difficulties financing projects, a lack of sufficient policy support in some countries, and 

insufficient grid infrastructure—remain.167 

The earliest entrants to project development in Latin America were mostly non-U.S. 

firms, though only a small number of projects were installed through the end of 2012.168

However, U.S. project developers are increasing their presence in Latin America, and 

have initially been most active in Chile, where rising demand, excellent solar resources 

(especially in the Atacama Desert in northern Chile), and the cost competitiveness of PVgenerated electricity make solar energy attractive. Among the U.S. firms active in 

developing projects in this market are AES, First Solar, and SunEdison. Some U.S. firms 

also plan to provide EPC and O&M services.169 

U.S. project developers are also looking at other markets across the region, including 

Brazil, Central America, Mexico, and Peru.170 Peru had the most installations in Latin 

America through the first quarter of 2013, with 84 MW completed in the fourth quarter of 

2012 and the first quarter of 2013 combined, but up to this point large-scale project 

development in the Peru market has been done by Spanish firms. Mexico has a small 

distributed PV market, and a number of utility projects have been announced, but as in 

 162 Watanabe, “Toshiba, SunEdison,” April 19, 2013; Solar Frontier, “Solar Frontier and Yano Industry,” 

March 21, 2013; juwi Shizen website, http://ww.juwi-shizenenergy.com (accessed June 2, 2013); Gestamp, 

“Gestamp Solar and Kankyo-Keiei,” October 4, 2012. 163 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, May 28, 2013. 164 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, May 28, 2013; industry representatives, 

interviews by USITC staff, Tokyo, May 10, 2013, and May 14, 2013; Gestamp, “Gestamp Solar and KankyoKeiei,” October 4, 2012; juwi Shizen website, http://ww.juwi-shizenenergy.com (accessed June 10, 2013); 

Kyocera, “KYOCERA Establishes,” July 31, 2012. 165 SolarPlaza, “Mexico More Attractive,” February 18, 2013; Krulewitz, “Si Se Puede!” January 24, 

2013; Sunsong, “Latin America,” January 2, 2013; Sheppard, “Latin America,” January 21, 2013; industry 

representatives, interviews by USITC staff, Santiago, Chile, May 13, 2013, May 14, 2013, and May 15, 2013. 166 EPIA, Global Outlook for Photovoltaics until 2016, May 2012, 67. 167 SolarPlaza, “Mexico More Attractive,” February 18, 2013; Krulewitz, “Si Se Puede!,” January 24, 

2013; Sunsong, “Latin America” January 2, 2013; Sheppard, “Latin America,” January 21, 2013. 168 BNEF database (accessed May 29, 2013). 169 Industry representatives, interviews by USITC staff, Santiago, May 13, 2013, May 14, 2013, and 

May 15, 2013; First Solar, “First Solar Acquires,” January 9, 2013; MEMC, “SunEdison and CAP Sign 

Agreement,” January 31, 2013; Sciaudone, “AES Gener,” November 26, 2012. 170 Industry representatives, interviews by USITC staff, Santiago, May 13, 2013 and May 15, 2013. 
3-31 

Peru, most of the companies involved are European firms.171 Brazil recently introduced 

net metering, which may increase the size of the distributed market, though the industry 

continues to face challenges, such as high equipment prices. The Brazilian utility PV 

market has been slow to develop, reflecting factors such as difficulty competing with low 

wind and hydro prices, as well as the need to meet local-content requirements for 

BNDES financing. The market is growing, however, and prices are becoming more 

competitive. A number of large projects have been announced (with several related to 

World Cup venues), including a 1.1 MW project that will be built by U.S.-based 

developer SunEdison.172

 

 171 BNEF database (accessed June 10, 2013); Rosell, “Varying Rates,” December 2012, 29–30. 172 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Santiago, May 13, 2013; industry representatives, 

interviews by USITC staff, Brazil, May 7, 2013, May 9, 2013, and May 10, 2013; MEMC, “SunEdison and 

Petrobras,” April 18, 2013; Nielsen, “Brazil Promoting Rooftop Solar,” April 19, 2012; PROINSO, 

“PROINSO Supplies 100kW to Several Net Metering PV Projects in Brazil,” January 29, 2013. 
3-32 

Bibliography 

Ahearne, Jack. “South African PV Market in Position to Promote Local Manufacturing Growth.” 

Renewable Energy World, June 1, 2012. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/partner/firstconferences/news/article/2012/06/south-african-pv-market-in-position-to-promote-localmanufacturing-growth. 

Alexopoulou, Maria. “Solaria Corporation to Construct Large-scale PV Project in China.” PV-Tech, May 

13, 2013. http://www.pvtech.org/news/solaria_corporation_to_construct_large_scale_pv_project_in_china. 

Ali-Oettinger, Shamsiah. “China: Wirsol to Develop Projects with Suntech.” PV Magazine, March 29, 

2012. http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/china--wirsol-to-develop-projects-withsuntech_100006267/#axzz2Uc1NkMT2. 

Ardani, Kristen. “Benchmarking Soft Costs for PV Systems in the United States.” Presentation for the 

ASES World Renewable Energy Forum, May 17, 2012. 

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/54689.pdf. 

———. “Soft Costs in the U.S. Solar Markets–Survey Results.” Presentation for Vote Solar, November 8, 

2012. http://votesolar.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/NREL_SoftCost_Webinar.pdf. 

Ardani, Kristen, and Robert Margolis. 2010 Solar Technologies Market Report. U.S. Department of 

Energy, November 2011. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51847.pdf. 

Ayoub, Josef, Sylvain Martel, and Lisa Dignard-Bailey. “National Survey Report of PV Power 

Applications in Canada.” Department of Natural Resources Canada. Prepared for International 

Energy Agency Co-operative Programme on Photovoltaic Power Systems, May 2008. 

http://www.iea-pvps.org/index.php?id=93. 

B-GC. “Interview with Jared Haines, President, Mercury Solar Systems.” B-GC, October 12, 2009. 

http://www.mercurysolarsystems.com/pdf/BGreen%20Collaborative%20'JH%20Interview'%201

0-12-09.pdf. 

Barbose, Galen, Naïm Darghouth, and Ryan Wiser. Tracking the Sun V: An Historical Summary of the 

Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2011. Lawrence Berkeley 

National Lab. LBNL-5919E, November 2012. http://eetd.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/publications/lbnl5919e-report.pdf. 

———. Tracking the Sun V: An Historical Summary of the Installed Price of Photovoltaics in the United 

States from 1998 to 2011. Data file, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, LBNL-5919E, November 

2012. http://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-5919e-data.xls. 

Berrill, Paul. “SunEdison Bumps up European Expansion with German Purchase.” Recharge, January 22, 

2009. http://www.rechargenews.com/solar/article1277749.ece. 

BNEF database. http://www.bnef.com (accessed various dates). 

Bosworth, Melissa. “Split Ends.” Photon, April 2012, 54–65. 

Bosworth, Melissa, and Matthew Hirsch. “One Size Fits All.” Photon, April 2011, 66–77. 
3-33 

California Solar Initiative (CSI). CSI working data set, January 2, 2013. 

http://www.californiasolarstatistics.ca.gov/current_data_files/. 

Cameron, Christopher P., and Alan C. Goodrich. “The Levelized Cost of Energy for Distributed PV: A 

Parametric Study,” n.d. http://energy.sandia.gov/wp/wpcontent/gallery/uploads/LevelizedCostDistPV.pdf. (accessed March 5, 2013). 

Canadian Solar. “Canadian Solar Announces Joint Venture and Distribution Deal with West Holding Ltd 

of Japan.” News release, January 14, 2010. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/canadiansolar-announces-joint-venture-and-distribution-deal-with-west-holding-ltd-of-japan81475377.html. 

Climate Change Business Journal. “Bechtel Applies Integrated Skills in Power Engineering to UtilityScale Solar Market.” Fall 2012, 1–4. 

http://bechtel.com/assets/files/Bechtel_Climate_Change_Journal_Ivany_Fall2012.pdf. 

Cocke, Sophie. “RevoluSun Plans Mainland Expansion.” Pacific Business News, February 11, 2011. 

http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/print-edition/2011/02/11/revolusun-plans-mainlandexpansion.html?page=all. 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. RPS Solar 

Carve-Out Qualified Renewable Generation Units data. http://www.mass.gov/eea/energyutilities-clean-tech/renewable-energy/rps-aps/qualified-generation-units.html (accessed 

January 16, 2013). 

Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW) and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). 

Laying the Foundation for a Bright Future: Assessing Progress Under Phase 1 of India’s 

National Solar Mission. Interim report, April 2012. 

http://www.nrdc.org/international/india/files/layingthefoundation.pdf. 

Crume, Richard, Hana Crume, and Mike Koshmrl. “Selling Solar.” Solar Today, April 2011, 28–33. 

Energy Foundation and Chinese Renewable Energy Industries Association (CREIA). China Solar PV 

Policy Report: Differential Feed-in Tariffs, April 2013. 

Energy Information Administration (EIA). “Electric Industry Overview 2007.” 

http://eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/prim2/toc2.html (accessed July 1, 2013). 

———. Solar Photovoltaic Cell/Module Shipments Report 2011, September 2012. 

http://www.eia.gov/renewable/annual/solar_photo/pdf/pv_report.pdf. 

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). “Addressing Solar Photovoltaic Operations and Maintenance 

Challenges.” White Paper, July 2012. 

http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=000000000001021496. 

Eleuteri, Stefano. “The Wait Is Over.” Photon International, June 2011, 66–70. 

Emerging Energy Research (EER). “New Study Highlights Utility Role behind US Photovoltaic Market.” 

News release, December 3, 2009. http://www.emerging-energy.com/content/press-details/NewStudy-Highights-Utility-Role-Behind-US-Photovoltaic-Market/15.aspx. 

———. “US Utility Solar PV Markets and Strategies: 2009–2020.” Summary, November 2009. 

http://www.emerging-energy.com/uploadDocs/USUtilitySolarPV09ToC.pdf. 
3-34 

European Photovoltaic Industry Association (EPIA). Global Outlook for Photovoltaics until 2016, May 

2012. http://www.epia.org/news/publications/global-market-outlook-for-photovoltaics-until2016/. 

———. Global Market Outlook for Photovoltaics 2013–2017, 2013. http://www.epia.org. 

First Solar. “First Solar Acquires Chilean Project Developer Solar Chile.” News release, January 9, 2013. 

http://investor.firstsolar.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=732358. 

———. “Form 10-K.” Annual report for Securities and Exchange Commission, February 28, 2011. 

http://investor.firstsolar.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=201491&p=irol-reportsAnnual. 

———. “Form 10-K.” Annual report for Securities and Exchange Commission, February 29, 2012. 

http://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml. 

———. “Form 10-K.” Annual report for Securities and Exchange Commission, February 27, 2013. 

http://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml. 

German Solar Industry Association (BSW-Solar). “Statistic Data on the German Solar Power 

(Photovoltaic) Industry,” February 2013. 

http://www.solarwirtschaft.de/fileadmin/media/pdf/2013_2_BSWSolar_fact_sheet_solar_power.pdf. 

Gestamp. “Gestamp Solar and Kankyo-Keiei to Partner for Roof-top Solar Projects All over Japan.” 

News release, October 4, 2012. http://www.gestampsolar.com/en/media/information/gestampsolar-and-kankyo-keiei-partner-roof-top-solar-projects-all-over-japan. 

Gibson, Robert. “Electric Utilities and Solar: Threat or Opportunity?” The GW Solar Institute 3rd Annual 

Symposium, “Solar Energy: A Critical Component of Meeting the Clean Energy Challenge,” 

April 26, 2011, Washington, DC. 

Government of France. Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy. “Mesures d’urgence 

pour la relance de la filière photovoltaïque française” [Emergency measures for relaunching the 

French photovoltaic supply chain], January 7, 2013. http://www.developpementdurable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/DP_photovoltaique.pdf. 

Government of Japan. Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI). “Announcement Regarding the 

Present Status of Introduction for Facilities Generating Renewable Energy as of December 31, 

2012.” News release, March 13, 2012. http://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/2013/0313_02.html. 

Government of Ontario. Ministry of Energy. FIT Program Directive. MC-2013-1450, June 12, 2013. 

http://powerauthority.on.ca/sites/default/files/MC-2013-1450-

DirectionRenewableEnergyProgram.pdf. 

Greentech Media. “US Residential Solar Financing to Reach $5.7 Billion by 2016,” February 11, 2013. 

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/us-residential-solar-financing-to-reach-5.7-billionby-2016. 

GTM Research. “PV BOS Cost Analysis: Ground Mounted Systems,” July 25, 2011. 

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/pv-bos-cost-analysis-ground-mounted-systems. 
3-35 

GTM Research and Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). U.S. Solar Market Insight Report: 2012 

Year-in-Review, 2013. http://www.seia.org/research-resources/us-solar-market-insight-2012-yearreview. 

———. U.S. Solar Market Insight Report: 2011 Year-in-Review. Executive Summary, 2012. 

http://www.seia.org/research-resources. 

———. U.S. Solar Market Insight Report: 2010 Year-in-Review. Executive Summary, 2011. 

http://www.seia.org/research-resources. 

———. “First Solar Ranked Largest Photovoltaic EPC in 2012 as European Companies Falter.” News 

release, March 27, 2013. http://www.imsresearch.com/pressrelease/first_solar_ranked_largest_photovoltaic_epc_in_2012_as_european_companies_falter&ca

t_id=198&type=LatestResearch. 

Hamm, Julie. “Why Are Utilities Increasingly Announcing New Solar Initiatives?” Renewable Energy 

World, September 2, 2008. 

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2008/09/why-are-utilities-increasinglyannouncing-new-solar-initiatives-53426. 

Hardcastle, Jessica Lyons. “Power Player.” Silicon Valley Business Journal, August 31, 2012. 

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/print-edition/2012/08/31/power-play.html. 

Hering, Garrett. “A New Day in the New World.” Photon International, April 2010, 10–18. 

Herndon, Andrew. “OCI of Korea Purchases U.S. Solar Developer CornerStone Power.” Bloomberg, 

January 18, 2011. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-18/oci-of-korea-purchases-u-ssolar-energy-developer-cornerstone-power.html. 

Herndon, Andrew, Christopher Martin, and Ehren Goossens. “Total to Buy 60% of SunPower for $1.38 

Billion in Solar Bet.” Bloomberg, April 29, 2011. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-

28/total-to-begin-friendly-tender-for-up-to-60-of-sunpower-shares.html. 

IHS. “Photovoltaic Industry to Enjoy Robust Installation Growth in 2013, but Revenue Dip Poses 

Challenges.” News release, January 25, 2013. 

http://www.isuppli.com/Photovoltaics/News/Pages/Photovoltaic-Industry-to-Enjoy-RobustInstallation-Growth-in-2013-but-Revenue-Dip-Poses-Challenges.aspx. 

IMS Research. “BELECTRIC Tops IMS Research PV System Integrator Rankings for 2011 but Chinese 

Companies Make Biggest Gains.” News release, May 10, 2012. http://imsresearch.com/pressrelease/BELECTRIC_Tops_IMS_Research_PV_System_Integrator_Rankings_for_2011_but_Chi

nese_Companies_Make_Biggest_Gains. 

Internal Revenue Service (IRS). How to Depreciate Property. Publication 946, February 15, 2013. 

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p946.pdf. 

International Energy Agency (IEA). Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme (PVPS). Trends in 

Photovoltaic Applications: Survey Report of Selected IEA Countries between 1992 and 2012. 

Report IEA-PVPS T1-19:2010, 2010. http://www.iea-pvps.org/index.php?id=32. 

———. PVPS Report: A Snapshot of Global PV 1992–2012. Report IEA-PVPS T1-22:2013, 2013. 

http://iea-pvps.org/index.php?id=32. 
3-36 

Itron, Inc., and Kema, Inc. CPUC California Solar Initiative 2009 Impact Evaluation. Final Report. 

Submitted to Southern California Edison and California Public Utilities Commission Energy 

Division, June 2010. http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Solar/eval09.htm. 

Jӓger-Waldau, Arnulf. PV Status Report 2012: Part I. JRC Scientific and Policy Reports. EUR 25749 – 

2012, October 2012. http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/remea/pv-status-report-2012. 

JPEA. Statistics on Shipments of Solar Cells and Modules, Fiscal 2012 Third Quarter and Calendar Year

[in Japanese], February 26, 2013. http://www.jpea.gr.jp/pdf/t130226.pdf. 

Kann, Shayle. “The U.S. PV Market—Today and Tomorrow.” Presentation at Solar Power International 

2011, Dallas, TX, October 18, 2011. 

Kennedy, Danny. “The Changing Marketplace—How Mergers and Acquisitions are Shaping the 

Competitive Landscape in the Solar Industry.” Panel presentation, Solar Power International 2012, 

Orlando, FL, September 13, 2012. 

Krulewitz, Andrew. “Si Se Puede! Latin American Solar Markets Poised for Growth.” Greentech Media, 

January 24, 2013. http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Si-Se-Puede-Latin-AmericanSolar-Markets-Poised-for-Growth. 

Krulewitz, Andrew. “Who Reigns Supreme in Residential Solar?” PV News 31, no. 2 (February 2012): 1, 

11.

Kyocera. “KYOCERA Establishes New Company to Operate 70MW Solar Power Plant in Japan.” News 

release, July 31, 2012. http://global.kyocera.com/news/2012/0706_ssll.html. 

Lacey, Stephen. “SunPower to Acquire PowerLight.” Renewable Energy World, November 15, 2006. 

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2006/11/sunpower-to-acquirepowerlight-46567. 

LDK Solar. “LDK Solar Agrees to Acquire 70% of Solar Power, Inc. for $33 Million.” News release, 

January 6, 2011. http://investor.ldksolar.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=196973&p=irolnewsArticle&ID=1513453&highlight. 

Lighthouse Solar. “The Lighthouse Solar Franchising Company Is Recruiting Building Industry 

Professionals with a Fresh Approach to Franchising.” News release, February 17, 2010. 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/17/idUS190921+17-Feb-2010+BW20100217. 

Maryland Energy Administration (MEA). Residential Clean Energy Grant Program. Historic Award Data 

Report. Excel worksheet (accessed January 17, 2013). 

http://energy.maryland.gov/Residential/cleanenergygrants/index.html. 

Matz, Michael D. “Going National.” Photon, April 2011, 42–44. 

———. “Ten Things Consumers Should Know about Solar Panel Certification.” Photon, February 2012, 

70–71. 

Maui News. “Hawaii Solar Companies Join into One Entity,” February 4, 2012. 

http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/557805.html. 

Mehta, Shyam, and Andrew Krulewitz. “The Direction of the Vertically Integrated Downstream.” 

PVNews 30, no. 3 (March 2011), 1, 10–11. 
3-37 

MEMC. “Form 10-K.” Annual report for Securities and Exchange Commission, February 29, 2012. 

http://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml. 

———. “Form 10-K.” Annual report for Securities and Exchange Commission, March 1, 2013. 

http://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml. 

———. “Fourth Quarter 2012 Results Conference Call.” Presentation, February 13, 2013. 

http://phx.corporateir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTcxNDY3fENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1 

———. “MEMC Completes Acquisition of SunEdison.” News release, November 23, 2009. 

http://www.memc.com/index.php?view=investors&c=106680&p=irol-news. 

———. “MEMC and Its SunEdison Subsidiary Join Flextronics to Celebrate Creation of Approximately 

400 New Jobs Supporting Solar Module Production.” News release, July 18, 2011. 

http://news.flextronics.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=235792&p=irolnewsArticle&ID=1586191&highlight. 

———. “SunEdison and CAP Sign Agreement to Build 100MW Solar PV Plant in Chile.” News release, 

January 31, 2013. http://www.memc.com/index.php?view=investors&c=106680&p=irol-news. 

———. “SunEdison and Petrobras Sign an Agreement to Build One of the Largest Solar PV Plants in 

Brazil.” News release, April 18, 2013. http://www.sunedison.com. 

———. “SunEdison Closes R2.6 Billion (US$314 Million) in Funding for 58 MW (AC) in South Africa 

Solar Projects.” News release, November 28, 2012. 

http://www.sunedison.com/wps/portal/memc/aboutus/newsroom/pressreleases. 

———. “SunEdison First to Announce Confirmation of Ontario Solar FIT Content.” News release, 

April 15, 2011. http://www.cansia.ca/sites/default/files/sunedisondomesticcontentletter_apr15final.pdf. 

———. “Announcement Regarding the Present Status of Introduction of Facilities Generating 

Renewable Energy as of February 28, 2013.” News release, May 17, 2013. 

http://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/2013/0517_02.html. 

Mints, Paula. “US Supply/Demand and Market Growth 2012 to 2014.” Presentation at Intersolar China, 

“Global PV Markets: The Americas/Mena Region/Asia,” December 12, 2012. 

Mortenson. “Solar Energy Industry and Construction Trends,” January 2012. 

http://www.mortenson.com/Resources/Images/15287.pdf. 

Mourgelas and Associates. “Mourgelas Greek Law Update,” April 2012. 

http://www.mourgelas.gr/img/x2/collection/pdfs/Greek-lawupdate/NewsletterApril2012_1335951127.pdf. 

Murphy, Andrew. “Private Sector Taking Up the Clean Energy Challenge.” Panel discussion, GW Solar 

Institute Third Annual Symposium, “Solar Energy: A Critical Component of Meeting the Clean 

Energy Challenge,” Washington, DC, April 26, 2011. 

Nakayama, Michio, and Shigeru Sato. “Sekisui Expects Solar-Powered House Sales to Surge.” 

Bloomberg, July 10, 2009. 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=axgOwRScgUFE. 
3-38 

National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL). “Technical Study Addresses a Key Challenge to Harmonizing 

U.S. and International PV Module Standards.” NREL Highlights. NREL/FS-5200-54528, 

July 2012. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/54528.pdf. 

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). PowerClerk database. 

http://nyserda.powerclerkreports.com/Default.aspx?ReportId=1 (accessed February 1, 2013). 

Nielsen, Stephan. “Brazil Promoting Rooftop Solar Market with New Policies.” Bloomberg, April 19, 

2012. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-18/brazil-rules-let-consumers-trade-renewablepower-to-utilities.html. 

Nielsen, Stephan. “Local Content Rule Thwarts Solar Development in Brazil.” Bloomberg, August 9, 

2012. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/08/local-content-rulethwarts-solar-development-in-brazil. 

North Carolina Solar Center. Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE). 

“Renewable Portfolio Standard Policies,” February 2013. 

http://www.dsireusa.org/documents/summarymaps/RPS_map.pdf. 

———. “Renewable Portfolio Standard Policies with Solar/Distributed Generation Provisions,” 

February 2013. http://www.dsireusa.org/documents/summarymaps/Solar_DG_RPS_map.pdf. 

NPD Solarbuzz. “PV Installed Base in US Offers New Revenue Prospects for Systems Providers.” News 

release, September 11, 2012. http://www.solarbuzz.com/news/recent-findings/pv-installed-baseus-offers-new-revenue-prospects-systems-providers. 

———. “Solar Photovoltaic Demand in 2012 Falls Short of 30 GW Mark, Reports NPD Solarbuzz.” 

News release, February 21, 2013. http://www.solarbuzz.com/news/recent-findings/solarphotovoltaic-demand-2012-falls-short-30-gw-mark-reports-npd-solarbuzz. 

Ontario Power Authority. “Feed-in Tariff Contract (FIT Contract).” Version 2.1, December 14, 2012. 

http://fit.powerauthority.on.ca/sites/default/files/page/FIT_Contract_Version_2.1.pdf. 

Ontario Power Authority. “Feed-in Tariff Program: FIT Rules.” Version 2.1, December 14, 2012. 

http://fit.powerauthority.on.ca/sites/default/files/page/FIT_Rules_Version_2.1.pdf. 

Pernick, Ron, Clint Wilder, and Trevor Winnie. Clean Energy Trends 2012. Clean Edge, March 2012. 

http://www.cleanedge.com/sites/default/files/CETrends2012_Final_Web.pdf. 

Podewils, Christoph. “The Air Is Getting Thinner.” Photon International, November 2012, 54–57. 

Poissant, Yves, Joseph Ayoub, Jennifer Hiscock, and Lisa Dignard-Bailey. “National Survey Report of 

PV Power Applications in Canada 2011.” Prepared for International Energy Agency Co-operative 

Programme on Photovoltaic Power Systems, June 2012. http://www.ieapvps.org/index.php?id=146. 

PROINSO. “PROINSO Supplies 100kW to Several Net Metering PV Projects in Brazil.” News release, 

January 29, 2013. http://www.proinso.net/pub/doc/File/ingl/NPPROINSObrasil28012013.pdf. 

PV News. “Strategies for the U.S. Utility-Scale PV Market.” PV News 29, no. 8 (August 2010), 1, 12. 

Real Goods Solar. “Form 10-K.”Annual report for Securities and Exchange Commission, March 15, 2012. 

http://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml. 
3-39 

Recurrent Energy. “Sharp Corporation to Acquire Recurrent Energy for Up to $305 Million.” News 

release, September 21, 2010. http://www.recurrentenergy.com/sites/default/files/100921%20-

%20Press%20Release%20-%20Sharp%20Corp%20to%20Acquire%20Recurrent%20Energy.pdf. 

Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century (REN21). Renewables 2012: Global Status 

Report. Paris: REN-21 Secretariat, 2012. 

http://www.ren21.net/Portals/0/documents/Resources/GSR2012_low%20res_FINAL.pdf. 

Rosell, Alejandro Diego. “Varying Rates.” Photon International, December 2012, 28–31. 

Ross, JP. “Expanding Residential Solar Markets.” Presentation at Solar Power International 2011, Dallas, 

TX, October 20, 2011. 

Sciaudone, Christiana. “AES Gener Unveils Plans for Up to 220MW of Desert PV in Chile.” Recharge, 

November 26, 2012. 

Sheppard, Michael. “Latin America: The Next Locus for Photovoltaic Growth.” IHS iSuppli, January 21, 

2013. http://www.isuppli.com/photovoltaics/marketwatch/pages/latin-america-the-next-locus-forphotovoltaic-growth.aspx. 

Sherwood, Larry. “Big Time for Solar.” Solar Today 26, no. 5 (July/August 2012): 40–42. 

———. “Market Prospects for Solar in North America—New Data and Emerging Trends.” Presentation 

at Solar Power International 2011, Dallas, TX, October 18, 2011. 

———. “Utility-scale Installations Lead Growth.” Solar Today, July/August 2011, 30–32. 

———. U.S. Solar Market Trends 2011. Interstate Renewable Energy Council, August 2012. 

http://www.irecusa.org/wp-content/uploads/IRECSolarMarketTrends-2012-Web-8-28-12.pdf. 

———. U.S. Solar Market Trends 2010. Interstate Renewable Energy Council, June 2011. 

http://irecusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/IREC-Solar-Market-Trends-Reportrevised070811.pdf. 

Shimogawa, Duane. “Haleakala, Solar Wave Set to Merge.” Pacific Business News, February 3, 2012. 

http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/print-edition/2012/02/03/haleakala-solar-wave-set-tomerge.html. 

Sills, Ben, and Christopher Martin. “U.S. Utilities to Double Solar Investments Annually.” Bloomberg, 

November 30, 2010. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-30/utilities-solar-spending-todouble-each-year-in-u-s-to-2015-gtm-says.html. 

Solarbuzz. “China’s Feed-in Tariff Policy Stimulates 14 GW Photovoltaic Project Pipeline.” News release, 

October 10, 2011. 

———. “World Photovoltaic Market Grew to 27.4 Gigawatts in 2011, Up 40% Y/Y.” News release, 

March 19, 2012. http://www.solarbuzz.com/news/recent-findings/world-solar-photovoltaicmarket-grew-274-gigawatts-2011-40-yy-0. 

SolarCity. “Form S-1.” Filing for Securities and Exchange Commission, October 5, 2012. 

http://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml. 
3-40 

SolarPlaza. “Mexico More Attractive Due to Falling Prices of PV Modules,” February 18, 2013. 

http://solarplaza.com/article/mexico-more-attractive-due-to-falling-prices-of-pv. 

Solar Electric Power Association (SEPA). Photovoltaic Incentive Programs Survey: Residential 

Participant Demographics, Motivations and Experiences. SEPA Report 06-09, November 2009. 

http://www.solarelectricpower.org/media/114222/sepa%20customer%20incentive%20program%

20survey%2011.18.09.pdf. 

The Solar Foundation. National Solar Jobs Census 2012: A Review of the U.S. Solar Workforce, 

November 2012. http://thesolarfoundation.org/research/national-solar-jobs-census-2012. 

Solar Frontier. “Solar Frontier and Yano Industry Connect 3.3MW of Power to the Western Japan Grid.” 

Solar Frontier, March 21, 2013. http://www.solar-frontier.com/eng/news/2013/C017764.html. 

Solar Industry. “Forecast: Many German PV Installers to Fade from Market This Year,” February 27, 

2013. http://www.solarindustrymag.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.12190. 

———. “Jinko Solar Planning 200 MW PV Project In China.” December 20, 2012. 

http://www.solarindustrymag.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.11782. 

Steenblik, Ronald, Takenori Matsuoka, and Jim Hight. “Facilitating Trade in Selected Climate-ChangeMitigation Technologies in the Electricity Generation and Heavy-Industry Sectors.” OECD 

Global Forum on Trade, Trade and Climate Change, Paris, June 9 and 10, 2009. 

http://www.oecd.org/tad/envtrade/42886254.pdf. 

Stephens, Brandee. “Solar Plant’s Production Costs Are Now Competitive.” Solutions, no. 1, 2011. 

http://solutions.bv.com/solar-plant%E2%80%99s-production-costs-are-now-competitive/. 

Stuart, Becky. “SunPower Completes Tenesol Acquisition.” PV Magazine, February 1, 2012. 

http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/sunpower-completes-tenesolacquisition_100005651/#axzz2VoqerPGU. 

SunPower Corp. “Form 10-K.” Annual report for Securities and Exchange Commission, February 25, 

2013. http://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml. 

———. “SunPower Corporation and Toshiba Extend Long-Standing Partnership through 2018.” News 

release, December 4, 2012. http://us.sunpowercorp.com/about/newsroom/pressreleases/?relID=135997. 

———. “SunPower Signs Joint Venture Agreement in China.” News release, December 3, 2012. 

http://us.sunpowercorp.com/about/newsroom/press-releases/?relID=135949. 

Sunsong, Chris. “Latin America and Caribbean PV Demand Growing 45% Annually Out to 2017.” 

Renewable Energy World, January 2, 2013. 

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/01/latin-america-and-caribbeanpv-demand-growing-45-annually-out-to-2017. 

Sunvalley Solar. “Form 10-K.” Annual report for Securities and Exchange Commission, April 16, 2012. 

http://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml. 

Trabish, Herman K. “Emerging Solar Strategies Part 4: SunEdison and the Next Big Thing.” Greentech 

Media, November 23, 2012. http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Emerging-SolarStrategies-Part-4-SunEdison-and-The-Next-Big-Thing. 
3-41 

True South Renewables. “True South Renewables to Commission 10 MW Solar Power Project.” News 

release, December 13, 2011. http://truesouthrenewables.com/press/?p=42. 

U.S. Treasury Department. “Payments for Specified Energy Property in Lieu of Tax Credits under the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,” April 2011. 

http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/recovery/Documents/GUIDANCE.pdf. 

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). 2013 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, 

March 2013. http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2013%20NTE.pdf. 

———. 2013 Report on Technical Barriers to Trade, April 2013. 

http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2013%20TBT.pdf. 

Watanabe, Chisaki. “Toshiba, SunEdison to Build Solar-Power Stations in Japan.” Bloomberg, April 19, 

2013. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-19/toshiba-sunedison-to-build-solar-powerstations-in-japan.html. 

Watson, Farley, and Williams. “Greece: Energy Briefing,” September 2012. 

http://www.wfw.com/Publications/Publication1130/$File/WFW-GreekEnergyBriefing2012.pdf. 

Watt, Muriel, and Rob Passey. “PV in Australia 2012.” Executive Summary. Prepared for International 

Energy Agency PV Power Systems Programme, May 2013. http://iea-pvps.org/index.php?id=93. 

Wesoff, Eric. “Borrego Joins OneRoof, SolarCity and Sunrun in the Third-Party Solar Cash Boom.” 

Greentech Media, July 31, 2012. http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Borrego-JoinsOneRoof-SolarCity-and-Sunrun-in-the-Third-Party-Solar-Cash-B. 

———. “First Solar’s Q1: Steady Guidance, Profitable, Action in Chile and China.” Greentech Media, 

May 6, 2013. http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/First-Solars-Q1-Steady-GuidanceProfitable-Action-in-Latin-America-and. 

———. “What Really Motivates Consumers to Install Residential Solar?” Greentech Media, March 23, 

2011. 

Wissing, Lothar. “National Survey Report of PV Power Applications in Germany.” Prepared for 

International Energy Agency Co-operative Programme on Photovoltaic Power Systems, 

July 2012. http://www.iea-pvps.org/index.php?id=146. 

Woodlawn Associates. “Solar Installation Effectiveness.” September 10, 2012. 

http://www.woodlawnassociates.com/wp-content/uploads/WA-SIE-Extract.pdf. 

Woody, Todd. “California's Sungevity Takes Stake in Dutch Solar Startup.” Forbes, November 17, 2011. 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddwoody/2011/11/17/californias-sungevity-takes-stake-in-dutchsolar-startup/. 

———. “Solar Industry Anxious over Defective Panels.” New York Times, May 28, 2013. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/business/energy-environment/solar-powers-darkside.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. 

World Trade Organization (WTO). Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade. “Minutes of the Meeting 

Held on March 24–25, 2011.” G/TBT/M/57, May 26, 2011. 
3-42 

———. Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade. “Minutes of the Meeting Held on June 13–15, 2012.” 

G/TBT/M/57, September 18, 2012. 

Xu Honghua, Charlie Doum, Wang Sicheng, and Lv Fang. “National Survey Report of PV Power 

Applications in China 2011.” Prepared for International Energy Agency Co-operative Programme 

on Photovoltaic Power Systems, August 15, 2012. http://www.iea-pvps.org/index.php?id=146. 

Yonan, Alan Jr. “State Unveils New Rules for Solar Tax Credits.” Honolulu Star-Advertiser, November 9, 

2012. http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/178152371.html?id=178152371. 
4-1 

CHAPTER 4 

Wind Energy Services 

Introduction 

Overall, the global wind energy services market grew during 2007–12. The United States 

was second only to China in terms of newly installed wind energy capacity in 2011, 

followed by Germany, Spain, and India. However, many major markets are facing 

fluctuating demand for new wind energy installations and for wind development and 

construction services due to factors such as weak economic conditions and inconsistent 

government policies.1

 At the same time, competition has increased as demand has risen in 

the operations and maintenance (O&M) services market. Weak turbine sales have led a 

growing number of firms, particularly original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), to 

expand their provision of services, while a growing number of wind farm owners are now 

seeking services to maintain their recently installed turbines. 

The global wind services market remains fragmented, with limited cross-border trade. 

Evidence suggests that the majority of trade involves firms in one country establishing a 

commercial presence abroad. For example, while a wide variety of firms provide wind 

energy services in the U.S. market, the largest are subsidiaries or affiliates of foreign 

multinationals. Due in part to their long history in the wind energy sector, European 

multinationals have the largest presence in the global market. 

Overview of Wind Energy Services Segments 

Wind energy services are typically provided in conjunction with the development and 

operation of utility-scale wind farms.2

 The life cycle of a wind farm can be broken down 

into three distinct stages, with each stage requiring a unique combination of wind services 

(figure 4.1). Although the bulk of services (by value) are provided during the project 

development phase, O&M services are provided for the longest time, often up to 20 or 

more years. Wind energy services and their respective Consumer Products Classification 

(CPC) codes are presented in table 4.1. 

 

 1

 Wind energy services are those services involved in the development, construction, and ongoing 

operation of large, utility-scale power plants, or wind farms. Wind energy entails the capture of the wind’s 

natural kinetic energy by wind turbines, which then generate electricity. IEA, “Topic: Wind Power,” n.d. 

(accessed September 13, 2012). 2

 Wind energy services may be contracted for installation and maintenance of either small wind energy 

systems or utility-scale projects. Small wind systems account for only a small share of the wind energy 

services market and are less service intensive. Utility-scale projects can require hundreds of wind turbines 

generating hundreds of megawatts (MW) of capacity and are most often owned and operated by either a 

utility or an independent power provider (IPP), which sells the power it generates to a utility. AWEA, Wind 

Energy Siting Handbook, February 2008, 2-1. 
4-2 

• Site assessment

• Environmental and 

other studies

• Land agreements

• Permitting

• Negotiate PPA

• Secure financing

• Site preparation

• Construction of O&M 

and support structures

• Installation of ancillary 

works

• Installation & erection of 

wind turbines

• Routine periodic 

maintenance

• Unscheduled 

maintenance and 

troubleshooting

• Remote monitoring

Early project development

(1–4 years)

Installation & construction

(1–2 years)

Operations & maintenance

(up to 20+ years)

Source: Compiled by USITC.

Project developer Owner/operator

FIGURE 4.1 Wind energy project development phases 
4-3 

TABLE 4.1 Services related to provision of wind energy 

CPC Code CPC description Wind-specific services 

861 Legal services  Preparation, documentation, and drawing up of legal documents 

pertaining to issues such as land agreements, federal filing 

requirements, and other documentation as needed 

 Legal advisory services 

8673 Integrated engineering 

services 

 Fully integrated engineering services provided for turnkey wind 

projects (i.e., project development services) 

8672 Engineering services  Advisory and consultative engineering services related to site 

location and design 

 Engineering design services related to the construction of a wind 

farm, including foundation, building structures, mechanical and 

electrical installations, and all necessary civil engineering 

 Advisory and technical assistance services throughout 

construction and installation to ensure work is in conformity with 

design and regulations 

86753 Surface surveying 

services 

 Geotechnical and geophysical evaluation of potential project site 

865 Management consulting 

and related services 

 Pricing policies, organization of distribution 

 Advisory, guidance, and operational assistance services related 

to safety 

 Risk management 

 Stakeholder and community relations 

 Environmental impact assessments and other studies as 

required (such as by regional transmission authorities) 

62118 Sales on a fee or 

contract basis 

 Electricity brokerage 

511-518 Construction and 

related engineering 

services 

 Site preparation, such as excavation, clearance, and foundation 

preparation 

 Construction of O&M facilities and other buildings as needed 

 Construction or bolstering of roads and foundations 

 Installation and erection of wind turbines 

 Installation of power cables and substations; development of 

other ancillary works 

 Crane rental 

886 Repair services  Operations and maintenance services 

8676 Technical testing and 

analysis services 

 Remote monitoring services 

 Testing of machinery, including turbines and generators 

Source: Compiled by USITC. 
4-4 

Project Development, Construction, and Installation Services 

Project development refers to the comprehensive planning and engineering services 3

provided for turnkey4

 wind projects. Developers compete on price, as well as the ability 

to identify and obtain permits for a high-quality wind resource and then find an 

appropriate buyer. 5 Some wind energy developers focus specifically on early 

development, overseeing the services related to finding and evaluating a potential site, 

before selling the project to another (often larger) developer for the construction and 

installation phases.6

 Although developers may have the ability to provide all the services 

required, they often retain only supervisory responsibility for most of them, which they 

contract out to firms that specialize in one or more of these functions. Decisions on which 

services to contract out are project specific and depend on factors such as location, 

demands of the project, and the developer’s own level of expertise and willingness to 

take on risk.7

Engineering services are vital throughout the life cycle of a wind farm. In early 

development, once a potential project site has been identified, wind analysis is performed 

(a process that takes anywhere from six months to three years)8

 to calculate whether there 

is enough wind to make a potential project financially viable. 9 Surface surveying 

services—i.e., geotechnical and geophysical evaluations—assess the land to determine its 

suitability for bearing heavy turbine foundations and access roads. These services are 

provided by both turbine manufacturers/OEMs 10 and independent service providers 

(ISPs). 11 The leading resource assessment firms, though, tend to be niche specialty 

companies, often seeking competitive advantage through proprietary software that creates 

complex computer models. 12 Once a site has been selected, engineers begin project 

design, determining the optimal placement for all components, including wind turbines 

and building structures, as well as integrating the mechanical and electrical installations. 

Engineers may also provide advisory services and technical assistance throughout 

 3

 A project developer typically is responsible for identifying a potential site; performing the necessary 

resource assessments; acquiring the necessary permits; negotiating land agreements; negotiating the power 

purchase agreement; securing financing; and overseeing site preparation and the installation and erection of 

the wind turbines, as well as the necessary supporting infrastructure. 4

 A turnkey project is one in which one party (usually a developer) manages all stages from design 

through construction and commission, then sells the project to an owner/operator. Owner/operators retain 

ownership of a wind farm and are responsible for the day-to-day operation and maintenance of the facility. 5

 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Washington, DC, January 25, 2013. 6

 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Washington, DC, January 23, 2013. 7

 In some cases, the degree of service provision varies across markets, with developers offering turnkey 

projects in one market but only limited services in another. Developers may solicit bids from local and 

international firms or may have established relationships with particular providers. Either way, developers 

award these subcontracts primarily based on price, as well as a number of other factors such as technical 

quality, experience, availability, and safety. Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, 

January 18, 2013; industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, January 28, 2013; industry 

representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, January 30, 2013. 8

 During wind analysis, wind assessment specialists use data captured and transmitted from a potential 

site. Data typically begin to illustrate a trend after six months that indicates whether a project can move 

forward. Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Washington, DC, January 23, 2013. 9

 Financing will be difficult to secure for a project unless it generates enough wind to produce a 

threshold internal rate of return. Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, January 18, 2013; 

AWEA, Wind Energy Siting Handbook, February 2008, 2-3; industry representative, interview by USITC 

staff, March 12, 2013; industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Washington, DC, January 23, 2013. 10 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, January 23, 2013; industry representative, 

interview by USITC staff, October 23, 2012. 11 Specialized engineering firms, project developers, or large engineering, procurement, construction 

(EPC) firms. 12 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, October 23, 2012. 
4-5 

installation, providing due diligence for either the owner or bank.13 Advisory services like 

these are typically provided by an experienced engineering, procurement, and 

construction (EPC) firm or an independent engineering firm. Additional engineering 

services may be needed once a project has been commissioned, in order to identify 

system failures or troubleshoot other problems. 

After the resource assessment process has green-lighted a project site, management 

consulting and legal services are required for the process of siting and acquiring permits. 

Management consultants provide guidance on a number of issues, including risk 

management or community relations, as well as perform any studies that might be 

needed. For example, regional transmission organizations may mandate studies when 

developers apply for an interconnection agreement,14 and environmental impact studies 

by an independent consulting firm may also be required, especially if the proposed site is 

located on public land. 15Energy lawyers are necessary throughout the development 

process to handle the required documentation and contracts,16 help with permitting, and 

provide advisory services throughout the development process.17 Once a site has been 

chosen, legal services are particularly important to formalize land agreements.18 Although 

legal services may be provided by in-house lawyers at an OEM or engineering and 

construction firm, there are a number of independent law firms that specialize in 

renewable energy law.19

Once a power purchase agreement (PPA) has been negotiated20 and financing secured 

(box 4.1), construction firms prepare the site for assembly, before constructing and 

installing all components of the wind farm.21 Overall, construction and installation of a

 13As an owner’s engineer or independent consultant for the bank, the firm is independent of the EPC 

contractor and acts as an advocate for its client, overseeing the engineering, construction, and design process. 

Connel and Grennan, “Who Needs an Owner’s Engineer?” March 1, 2011; industry, interview by USITC 

staff, March 12, 2013. 14 An interconnection agreement allows a project to be connected to the existing electrical grid. 

Applying for the interconnection agreement is the first real benchmark in the development process, as it 

requires a down payment or earnest money. Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Washington, 

DC, January 23, 2013. 15 An environmental impact statement for public lands can add multiple years to the project timeline as 

well as additional expense. As a result, this can create a preference among developers for projects only on 

private land—in fact, one industry representative estimated that over 90 percent of U.S. wind farms are sited 

on private land, a figure the representative attributed largely to the greater ease of doing business with private 

landowners. Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Washington, DC, January 23, 2013. 16 A number of contracts must be drawn up, typically beginning with a land agreement once an 

appropriate site has been found. Other contracts include EPC and construction agreements, power service 

contracts, and ownership agreements related to turnkey projects. Industry representative, interview by USITC 

staff, January 23, 2013. 17 Stoel Rives, LLP website, http://www.stoel.com/showindustry.aspx?show=1980 (accessed March 20, 

2013); Foley & Lardner LLP website. http://www.foley.com/windenergy/ (accessed March 20, 2013); and 

Alston & Bird LLP website. http://www.alston.com/services/industries/energy/ (accessed March 20, 2013). 18 Wind farm owners and developers typically do not buy land for projects, but instead take out a 25–30 

year lease. Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, January 23, 2013. 19 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, January 23, 2013. 20 A power purchase agreement (PPA) is a long-term contract wherein the buyer agrees to purchase the 

electricity generated by the wind farm. PPA’s can range from 15 to 20 years and are critical to the financial 

success of a wind energy project because they guarantee a steady revenue stream for the project and are 

typically a condition of financing, which is necessary for the construction and installation phase. Early 

project development is highly speculative and financed by the project developer, but once a site has been 

identified and the permitting process begun, the project developer typically begins looking for a buyer or 

power purchaser. The PPA is frequently described as a significant turning point in the lifecycle of a wind 

energy project; once a PPA is secured a project’s probability of failure is significantly reduced. Industry 

representative, telephone interview with USITC staff, January 30, 2013; industry representative, interview 

with USITC staff, October 25, 2012; World Bank. “Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs),” June 18, 2008. 21 Jordan and Steger, American Wind Farms, September 2012, 8–29. 
4-6 

BOX 4.1 Financing a wind farm 

Financing is a key element in the early stages of a wind energy project, particularly in terms of the services that are 

required. Both fossil fuel- and wind-powered energy-generating projects require significant upfront investment; 

however, because operating costs for wind projects are so much lower, properly financing the construction of the 

wind project becomes relatively more important.a

 It is the project developer who secures the financing, usually in the 

form of a construction loan that converts to long-term project financing.b

There are many variations of financing structures in the wind energy sector.c Larger developers are able to issue 

bonds to finance their projects, while smaller developers may require bank funding. The ability to issue bonds gives 

large developers a competitive edge, as bonds typically require lower interest rates than bank loans do.d

 Like 

developers, some OEMs offer financing. It is not clear how OEM financing compares to other third-party funding, but 

it is likely that they are able to use financing as a competitive advantage for their turbine sales, by offering favorable 

terms to developers as an incentive to use their equipment.e

 Before the financial crisis, some OEMs offered financing 

for all wind projects. Now, most are more fiscally conservative and finance only projects that use their turbines.f

Finally, the role of export credit agencies has risen in emerging markets where financing for wind projects might not 

be readily available.g For instance, in 2011, the Export Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) provided 

financing for a wind farm in Honduras and the subsequent expansion of the project, which used Gamesa turbines 

produced in the United States.h

In addition to the financial implications, the source of funding can also drive the development process. Typically, the 

more a project relies on third-party finance, the more outside verification is needed to demonstrate the economic 

benefit of the wind farm. Banks typically want studies from third-party consulting or geotechnical firms to demonstrate 

the economic benefit of a project, rather than accepting the project developer’s assurances.i

_____________ 

a Harper, Karcher, and Bolinger, Wind Project Financing Structures, September 2007, i. b Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Washington, DC, January 23, 2013. c For example, see “Description of Seven Financing Structures,” in Harper, Karcher, and Bolinger, Wind Project 

Financing Structures, September 2007, ii. d Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Washington, DC, January 23, 2013; industry representative, 

telephone interview by USITC staff, January 25, 2013. e Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Washington, DC, January 23, 2013. f Industry representative, telephone interview with USITC staff, January 18, 2013. g O’Brian, “Wind Projects Look to Export Finance As New Markets Open,” February 27, 2013. h Ex-Im Bank, “U.S. Exports Will Expand Wind Farm in Honduras,” March 5, 2013. 

i

 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Washington, DC, January 23, 2013. 

wind farm is relatively quick, generally taking less than a year, compared to the lengthy 

process of development, which can last three to four years. 

Wind projects typically use EPC contracts, in which a single firm is responsible for 

providing the necessary design, engineering, procurement, construction, commissioning, 

and testing.22 Although EPC contractors compete primarily on price, project developers 

also weigh a number of other factors, including technical quality, previous experience, 

availability, safety, and whether the construction firm accepts the developer’s financing.23

As noted earlier, once selected, the EPC contractors―typically engineering and 

 22 DLA Piper, “EPC Contracts in the Power Sector,” 2011, 1, 4; Massy, “Banks Opting for Lazy Route 

Could Increase Risk,” October 17, 2010. 23 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, January 30, 2013. 
4-7 

construction firms or OEMs24―may then contract out most of the work while retaining 

overall responsibility, with the level of services subcontracted or provided by the 

contractor varying from project to project.25 Projects typically employ local construction 

firms for basic construction and wind experts for specialized tasks, such as electrical 

infrastructure.26

O&M Services 

Generally speaking, maintaining a wind farm includes an annual inspection of the entire 

wind system, as well as any maintenance required for planned or unplanned stoppages.27

The cost of a turbine typically includes a warranty covering some or all of the turbine 

components for an average two to five years, which may be supplemented and continued 

by a service contract from either the OEM28 or an ISP.29 Increasingly important is the 

electronic monitoring of wind turbine performance,30 which includes the use of sensors 

installed on location at the wind farm to gather data. The data are transmitted to a central 

monitoring site and analyzed by specialists to forecast when maintenance is needed based 

on usage, as well as to predict potential problems or breakages.31

U.S. Market for Wind Energy Services 

Market Size 

The U.S. wind energy market experienced rapid, albeit fluctuating, growth between 2007 

and 2012. Wind energy capacity increased at an average annual rate of nearly 30 percent 

from 2007 through 2012, with cumulative installations growing from 16,700 megawatts 

 24 The selection of the turbine manufacturer for a wind project can influence the choice of a 

construction firm, as companies must be certified (requiring education and training) in the turbine equipment 

they are installing. In fact, OEM participation in the installation process can vary from sending an individual 

representative to oversee the turbine installation to overseeing and executing the entire construction and 

installation process itself. Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Washington, DC, January 25, 

2013. 25 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, January 18, 2013; industry representative, 

interview by USITC staff, February 8, 2013; Vestas website, http://www.vestas.com/en/wind-powerplants/construction.aspx#/vestas-univers (accessed March 20, 2013). 26 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Washington, DC, January 25, 2013; industry 

representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, January 28, 2013. 27 The components and services covered by warranties vary widely depending on the needs of the 

customer and services offered by the OEM. Ireland, “Wind Service,” November 2011, 23–24; Canada Wind 

Energy Association, “The Many Steps to Planning and Building a Wind Farm,” n.d. (accessed January 16, 

2013). 28 OEMs have increased their presence in the O&M sector, attracted by larger profit margins, 

particularly as margins on equipment have fallen. OEMs have the resources, such as engineering expertise, 

modeling capabilities, and ability to foresee potential problems, to allow them to offer profitable services 

contracts; in turn, they are able to continually upgrade and improve their machines. However, they face 

competition, both from in-house O&M departments and from ISPs. Industry representative, telephone 

interview by USITC staff, December 12, 2012; industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, 

January 22, 2013. 29 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, January 22, 2013. 

30 Industry representatives, interview by USITC staff, Santiago, Chile, May 14, 2013. 31 Wind Power Monthly, “GE and Remote Turbine Monitoring,” March 10, 2010; industry 

representative, interview by USITC staff, Washington, DC, January 23, 2013. 
4-8 

(MW) to 60,007 MW (figure 4.2).32 The United States was the world’s largest wind 

energy market in 2012, in terms of annual installations, accounting for 29.3 percent of 

new global installations.33 

The financial crisis, energy prices, electricity demand, and the status of the federal 

Production Tax Credit (PTC) contributed to fluctuations in the U.S. wind services market 

during 2007–11. Before the financial crisis in 2008, energy prices were reportedly high 

enough that wind projects required few incentives to attract buyers, driving growing 

development and installation through 2009. In 2009, energy prices fell, mainly due to 

declining natural gas prices, and the U.S. economy lagged due to the recession, both of 

which disrupted development of new projects. As a result, new installations fell in 

2010.34 Since then, development and construction of new projects have rebounded; new 

U.S. wind energy installations totaled 13,124 MW in 2012―up nearly 93 percent from 

2011―as owners and developers raced to commission projects before the expected 

expiration of the PTC in 2013. Although the credit was renewed for 2013, given the 

uncertainty surrounding the decision as well as the relatively short timeframe, industry 

representatives expect that the PTC is unlikely to drive development of new projects in 

 32 Installed wind energy capacity measures utility-scale wind energy capacity, defined by AWEA as 

installations of wind turbines larger than 100 kW. USITC staff calculations based on AWEA, AWEA U.S. 

Wind Industry Annual Market Report 2011, 2012, 9. 33 GWEC website, http://www.gwec.net/publications/global-wind-report-2/global-wind-report-2012/

(accessed July 9, 2013). 34 EIA, Electric Power Annual 2011, January 20, 2013, table 2.4, “Average Retail Price of Electricity to 

Ultimate Customers”; industry representative, interview by USITC staff, January 30, 2013. 

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Megawatts

Annual capacity installations Cumulative capacity

FIGURE 4.2 U.S. annual and cumulative wind power capacity (utility-scale wind), 2007 through 2012

Source: AWEA, US Wind Industry Annual Market Report 2011, 2012, 9; AWEA website,“Industry Statistics,ˮ

n.d. (accessed March 27, 2013).
4-9 

the near term. As a result, the number of new installations is forecast to be significantly 

lower in 2013.35 

In 2012, wind energy installation services were estimated at $7.4 billion, or 32 percent of 

the broader market for wind power project installations (both goods and services).36 By 

comparison, the U.S. O&M market was relatively small, at an estimated $1.7 billion in 

2012, up from $467 million in 2007 (figure 4.3). 37 Not surprisingly, trends in the 

installation services market closely tracked trends in annual capacity additions. 

 35 One source estimates that new capacity additions could be as low as 1,000 MW in 2013. Brown, 

“U.S. Renewable Electricity,” June 20, 2012; Cusick, “With Congress at Its Back,” January 3, 2013; industry 

representative, interview by USITC staff, Washington, DC, January 28, 2013; industry representative, 

interview by USITC staff, October 23, 2012; industry representative, interview by USITC staff, January 30, 

2013. 36 Estimates are based on the breakdown of capital costs associated with the development and 

installation of a new wind farm. Capital costs include the cost of the wind turbine, distribution, balance of 

plant/erection, engineering, procurement, and construction management services, along with the owner’s 

cost. It does not include any O&M activities. USITC staff calculations using data from AWEA, AWEA U.S. 

Wind Industry Annual Market Report 2011, 2012; Wiser and Bolinger, 2011 Wind Technologies Market 

Report, August 2012, 3; and Black & Veatch, Cost and Performance Data for Power Generation 

Technologies, February 2012, 49. 37 These estimates are based on average national costs. In reality, costs can vary substantially across 

projects and regions due to a number of factors including siting, and project and turbine size. Likewise, O&M 

costs also vary significantly across projects, due in large part to the variation in service offerings and 

providers. Values presented are USITC staff calculations estimated using data from Wiser and Bolinger, 2011 

Wind Technologies Market Report, August 2012. BNEF, “Operations and Maintenance Price Index,” 

October 23, 2012; Tegen, et. al, 2010 Cost of Wind Energy Review, April 2012, 26; and Wind Power 

Monthly, “US O&M spending to reach $6 billion by 2025,” July 11, 2012. 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Billion $

Wind energy services related to development and construction O&M services

FIGURE 4.3 U.S. wind energy services market: Estimated value of wind energy services

Sources: USITC staff calculations using data from Wiser and Bolinger, 2011 Wind Technologies Market Report, 

August 2012; Black & Veatch, Cost and Performance Data for Power Generation Technologies, February 2012; 

and AWEA website, "Industry Statistics," n.d. (accessed March 27, 2013). EIA website, 

http://www.eia.gov/tools/glossary/index.cfm (accessed August 20, 2013).

Notes: Estimate of net capacity factor was not available for 2012. O&M value for that year was estimated using 

2011 net capacity factor. The capacity factor is the ratio of the electrical energy produced by a generating unit for 

the period of time considered to the electrical energy that could have been produced at continuous full power 

operation duriing the same period.
4-10 

Factors Affecting U.S. Supply and Demand for Wind Energy 

Services 

Project Development, Construction, and Installation Services 

In the United States, state-level policies and regulations, particularly renewable portfolio 

standard (RPS) programs, are primary drivers of new wind installations and hence of the 

wind development and construction market as well.38 RPS programs typically require 

electricity providers to derive an increasing share39 of energy from renewable energy 

sources, which creates a market for wind-generated energy and a demand for PPAs. 

Although RPS programs are not the sole driver of U.S. wind energy development,40 many 

project developers cite them as the primary driver of new wind project development.41

The programs also influence the geographic distribution of new installations. In 2011, 

78 percent of new wind power capacity was installed in states with RPS programs.42

Other state-specific factors that drive wind development include a favorable permitting 

environment,43 the ease or availability of grid connection, and the political environment, 

which determines the level of community or government support for wind projects.44

Federal incentives such as the PTC further enhance the demand for wind energy created 

by RPS programs.45 The PTC in particular is a significant driver of short-term demand for 

wind development and construction services. Initially established by the Energy Policy 

Act of 1992,46 as of 2013 it provides a 2.3 cent tax credit per kilowatt hour (kWh) of 

energy generated.47 By effectively reducing the price of wind-generated electricity and 

making it more competitive with conventional energy sources, the PTC encourages 

developers to initiate new projects, particularly in areas with high energy prices or strong 

wind resources.48 However, because the PTC is not permanent, there tends to be a cycle 

 38 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, October 25, 2012; industry representative, 

interview by USITC staff, October 23, 2012. 39 On average, this share is around a fifth of a provider’s energy portfolio, although there is 

considerable variation among states. For example, Florida’s RPS program requires a 7.5 percent share from 

renewable sources, while Hawaii requires 40 percent. Boyland, “Gone with the Wind,” December 2012, 30. 40 Between 2012 and 2020, existing RPS programs are projected to drive new annual installations of 

energy from all renewable sources (not just wind) by 4–5GW a year. These totals are well below the capacity 

of new wind installations in recent years, suggesting that RPS programs do not themselves drive wind 

development. Data further illustrate that in many U.S. regions, RPS levels have either been met or are close 

to being met, suggesting some degree of oversupply of renewable energy unless standards are raised from 

their current levels. Wiser and Bolinger, 2011 Wind Technologies Market Report, August 2012, 58; industry 

representative, email to USITC staff, December 12, 2012. 41 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, March 25, 2013; industry 

representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, January 25, 2013; industry representative, telephone 

interview by USITC staff, January 30, 2013; Brown, “U.S. Renewable Electricity,” June 20, 2012, 7. 42 Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency website, “Renewable Portfolio Standard 

Policies,” March 2013; Wiser and Bolinger, 2011 Wind Technologies Market Report, August 2012, 58. 43 States vary in their permitting requirements; some, such as Kansas, require only county permits, 

while others, such as Oregon and Minnesota, have state siting councils. However, industry representatives 

note that it is very rare for permitting difficulties to permanently halt a project. Industry representative, 

interview by USITC staff, March 25, 2013; Anderson, Corbin, and McMahan, “The Law of Wind,” n.d. 

(accessed March 28, 2013). 44 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, March 25, 2013. 45 Brown, “U.S. Renewable Electricity,” June 20, 2012, 8. 46 42 U.S.C. § 13211–13219. 

47 Wiser and Bolinger, 2011 Wind Technologies Market Report, August 2012, 57; Boyland, “Gone with 

the Wind,” December 2012, 31. 48 Industry sources note that in areas with low energy prices or marginal wind resources, the credits 

such as the PTC are not sufficient to make wind power generation competitive with traditional fossil fuels. 

Industry representative, email to USITC staff, March 8, 2013. 
4-11 

of uncertainty that creates fluctuations in the market and reportedly impedes long-term 

planning.49 Other federal level tax incentives that drove growth through 2012 include 

accelerated depreciation50 and the option for either a 30 percent investment tax credit 

(both of which were extended through 2012) or a 30 percent cash grant in lieu of the 

PTC. 51 Some industry representatives note that such incentives as nonrefundable tax 

credits are difficult for small companies and foreign investors to use if they do not have a 

U.S. tax obligation equal to or greater than the tax credit.52 

Finally, demand for project development and construction services is largely influenced 

by overall trends in the U.S. energy market. The effects of a sluggish economy, lower 

demand for electricity, and strong competition from other fuel sources, particularly 

natural gas, over the past five years have presented challenges to the U.S. wind 

industry.53 Although new installations have resumed, electricity consumption has slowed 

since the recession, reducing demand for wind energy and thus for related installation 

services.54 

O&M Services 

The weak wind turbine market has been an important factor driving the supply of O&M 

services in the U.S. market. Turbine prices have dropped significantly since 2008, as 

competition among manufacturers has intensified and turbine demand has slowed in the 

wake of the financial crisis. 55 As a result, OEMs reportedly have been particularly 

aggressive in the O&M market, increasing the length of their warranties and service 

contracts. 56 There is growing demand among owners and operators for longer-term 

contracts, which OEMs are able to provide as they have become more confident in their 

equipment, as well as their ability to anticipate potential future failures and price the costs 

 49 Periods during which the PTC lapsed resulted in lulls in new installations; conversely, years leading 

up to the scheduled expiration of the PTC, such as 2012, typically see strong growth in wind development 

and construction activities. The PTC lapsed in 2000, 2002, and 2004. Wiser and Bolinger, 2011 Wind 

Technologies Market Report, August 2012, 57; industry representative, email to USITC staff, March 3, 2013; 

industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, March 25, 2013. 50 As an incentive for investment, owners of wind energy projects are typically able to write off the 

value of their equipment on an accelerated time frame (5 years rather than 20). The Tax Relief, 

Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-312, 124 Stat. 3296) 

offered an additional incentive, allowing owners a first-year bonus depreciation of 100 percent for projects 

commissioned by the end of 2011, and 50 percent for projects commissioned during 2012. Wiser and 

Bolinger, 2011 Wind Technologies Market Report, August 2012, 57; Windustry.org, “Chapter 10: Tax 

Incentives,” n.d. (accessed January 30, 2013). 51 Both the investment tax credit and the cash grant were provisions of The American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act and were available for projects commissioned by the end of 2012. Wiser and Bolinger, 

2011 Wind Technologies Market Report, August 2012, 57. 52 Industry representative, email to USITC staff, March 8, 2013. 53 GWEC, Global Wind Statistics 2011, July 2, 2012, 65. 54 Rising consumption of electricity increases demand for energy from renewable sources, such as wind 

energy, which then drives demand for wind services to develop, provide, and maintain such resources. 

Boyland, “Gone with the Wind,” December 2012, 5; industry representative, interview by USITC staff, 

Washington, DC, January 28, 2013. 55 Wiser and Bolinger, 2011 Wind Technologies Market Report, August 2012, 33; Wind Power 

Monthly, “Balancing Act for Hard Pressed Supply Chain,” August 25, 2011. 56 In addition to the warranty, turbine sales increasingly include an additional service agreement, 

wherein the OEM typically provides scheduled maintenance for a period of 2 to 5 years, although longer 

service contracts for up to 10 years are increasingly common. Scheduled maintenance refers to routine 

procedures performed on a regular basis. By comparison, unscheduled maintenance refers to unexpected 

repairs that are typically more complex, requiring troubleshooting and diagnostic strategies to get a turbine 

back online. Wind Power Monthly, “Balancing Act for Hard Pressed Supply Chain,” August 25, 2011; 

industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, January 22, 2013. 
4-12 

accordingly. 57 Additionally, the longer duration of service contracts provided by the 

OEM is an increasingly frequent condition of financing by lenders.58 As a result, O&M 

services account for a significant share of some OEM’s overall business; for instance, 

O&M reportedly accounts for 15 to 20 percent of global business for Vestas.59 

On the demand side, the primary factor influencing the U.S. O&M market has been the 

growing focus among leading project owners and operators on maintaining existing 

assets,60 rather than developing new projects.61 Demand for O&M services is largely 

dependent on the age of equipment, and there is a growing need for services as many 

turbines come off warranty and are up for new service agreements.62 Likely due to the 

aging of wind assets, a growing trend in O&M services has been a shift away from 

corrective and scheduled maintenance toward predictive and preventive maintenance, as 

owners and operators seek to avoid costly turbine failures and minimize time offline.63 As 

a result, a growing number of O&M service providers offer remote monitoring services. 

U.S. Industry Trends 

Wind energy services are typically provided by either OEMs or ISPs. Although OEMs 

have traditionally focused on O&M services, a growing number have expanded their 

service offerings to also include full development and installation.64 These expanded 

services offer a potentially strong revenue stream to supplement equipment sales as 

OEMs face an increasingly competitive equipment market.65 ISPs, on the other hand, 

focus solely on the provision of services. They vary widely, ranging from small firms that 

specialize in a particular service, such as wind resource assessment, to large organizations 

that offer a full array of development, installation, and maintenance services. Unlike 

OEMs, ISPs also frequently own and operate wind farms, either by developing and 

constructing a project themselves or by purchasing a turnkey project from a project 

 57 Longer contracts allow the provider better knowledge of the machine and the project, so they can 

better optimize performance. Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, January 18, 2013; 

industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, January 22, 2013; Wind Power Monthly, 

“Balancing Act for Hard Pressed Supply Chain,” August 25, 2011. 58 Broehl, “Operations & Maintenance—Industry Prepares,” April 1, 2010. 59 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, December 12, 2012. 60 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Washington, DC, January 23, 2013. 61 Wiser and Bolinger, 2011 Wind Technologies Market Report, August 2012, 3; industry 

representative, interview by USITC staff, Washington, DC, January 23, 2013; industry representative, 

telephone interview by USITC staff, December 12, 2012. 62 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Washington, DC, January 23, 2013. 63 Wind Power Monthly, “Operations and Maintenance,” September 1, 2009. 64 OEMs traditionally focused on warranty and maintenance services because these add value to turbine 

sales as well as provide manufacturers with valuable knowledge from the opportunity to monitor their 

turbines in the field over time. Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, October 24, 2012; industry 

representative, interview by USITC staff, October 23, 2012; industry representative, interview by USITC 

staff, Santiago, Chile, May 12, 2013. 65 Competitiveness in the wind energy equipment market has increased due to declining turbine prices, 

overcapacity, and uncertainty regarding government incentives and other favorable policies. Wiser and 

Bolinger, 2011 Wind Technologies Market Report, August 2012, 33; Boyland, “Gone with the Wind,” 20; 

industry representative, interview by USITC staff, October 24, 2012; industry representative, telephone 

interview by USITC staff, January 22, 2013. 
4-13 

developer. As a result, particularly in the United States, many of the largest 

owner/operators provide their own O&M services.66 

Throughout the wind services industry there has been a rise in vertical integration, and a 

growing number of OEMs, project developers, and large engineering firms offer end-toend services along the projected life cycle.67 Despite this integration, most projects still 

involve multiple service providers, and even the largest project developers typically 

contract out specialized services, such as power systems engineering, to niche firms. 

Services in Project Development and in Construction and Installation 

Over the past decade, explosive growth in cumulative installed wind capacity in the 

United States drove concurrent growth in the project development market. A large 

number of firms offer project development services in the U.S. market, with the top five 

firms accounting for about 32 percent of installations in 2012 (table 4.2).68 OEMs are 

reportedly providing increased competition to the largest project developers, by funding 

smaller developers who otherwise would not be able to compete against large firms such 

as Iberdrola.69 As a result, the project development market has become successively less 

concentrated over the past five years. Whereas at the recent peak of development, in 

2009, the 10 largest developers installed over 75 percent of new capacity, in 2011, the 

10 leading developers accounted for less than 60 percent.70

 66 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, January 22, 2013. U.S. project 

developers not only design and build wind projects, but many also maintain ownership and operate these 

facilities. Industry sources estimate that 90 percent of wind farms built are owned by project developers who 

sell the energy under a PPA. Statistics suggest that in 2011, independent power producers (such as project 

developers) owned 73 percent of all new capacity additions. Industry representative, interview by USITC 

staff, March 25, 2013; Wiser and Bolinger, 2011 Wind Technologies Market Report, 2012, 29. 67 BTM Consult, World Market Update 2011, March 2012, 32. 68 The leading project developers vary from year to year depending on the projects commissioned. 

Table 4.2 presents the five largest developers from 2012. 69 Industry representative, email message to USITC staff, March 8, 2013. 70 10 largest project developers in each year based on annual installed capacity. USITC staff 

calculations using data from AWEA, AWEA U.S. Wind Industry Fourth Quarter 2011 Market Report, 

January 2012; AWEA, AWEA Year End 2009 Market Report, January 2010. 

TABLE 4.2 U.S. wind energy services: Top five project developers by capacity installed in 2012 

Company Country 

Installed in 2012 

(MW) 

Percent of 2012 installations

(%)

NextEra Energy Resources United States 1,505 11.5

Iberdrola Renewables Spain 716 5.5

EDF Renewables (formerly enXco) France 658 5.0

Caithness Energy United States 640 4.9

Duke Energy United States 620 4.7

Other 8,992 68.5

 Total 13,131 100

Source: Del Franco, “AWEA Reveals,” April 11, 2013; AWEA, AWEA U.S. Wind Industry Annual Market Report: 

Year Ending 2012, 2013, 12. 

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 
4-14 

In the United States, the bulk of the construction services required for a wind farm are 

typically provided by an EPC contractor.71 Firms such as Mortenson Construction and 

Fluor Corporation (table 4.3) have expanded their EPC portfolios to include the wind 

power industry, and these two firms are now the largest EPC contractors in the United 

States. However, the wind industry’s significant growth over the past decade has led to 

rising vertical integration, and firms in other segments of the wind industry, such as 

OEMs and specialty construction firms, are increasingly offering EPC services.72 Firms 

have likely been motivated to enter the market by the profitable opportunities—EPC 

services reportedly account for the largest share of services costs associated with 

developing and building a wind farm.73 Despite the growing number of entrants, the EPC 

market remains quite concentrated, with the top five companies accounting for over 75 

percent of the market.74 This is reportedly because larger construction firms tend to have 

an advantage in a number of important market factors such as safety records, reputation 

and experience, financial strength, and cost competitiveness. 75 Smaller developers, 

particularly those with less experience, often prefer to work with large EPC firms to help 

reduce the risk associated with a project.76 

TABLE 4.3 Top 10 EPC contractors in the U.S. wind power market, 2011 

Rank Company 

Revenue 

(millions USD)

1 Mortenson Construction 725.8

2 Fluor Corporation 330.9

3 Aristeo Construction Company 66.0

4 Michels Corporation 57.6

5 Barton Malow Company 49.8

6 EMJ Corporation 46.4

7 The Boldt Company 46.4

8 Gemma Power Systems 43.2

9 Fagen Incorporated 38.9

10 Gray Construction 36.2

Source: ENR, ENR Sourcebook, September 17, 2012, 22. 

O&M Services 

In the U.S. market, industry representatives report a wide variation in O&M strategies 

among wind farm operators. The majority of services tend to be provided in-house by 

asset owners or by OEMs, but there are O&M ISPs operating in the market as well.77 For 

example, two of the leading U.S. service providers, NextEra Energy Resources and EDF 

Renewable Services, are wind farm operators; UpWind Solutions is the leading O&M 

 71 One industry representative estimated that there are roughly 38 firms that provide construction or 

EPC services for the wind industry, of which 22 are actively competing in the U.S. market. Industry 

representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, February 8, 2013. 72 One representative noted that seven to eight years ago, there were few firms capable of providing 

comprehensive EPC services. Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, March 25, 2013. 73 One industry representative estimates that for a $100 million project, turbines and other equipment 

account for $75 million, while $23 million is EPC services and $2 million is other services. Industry 

representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, March 25, 2013. 74 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, February 8, 2012. 75 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, February 8, 2012; industry 

representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, March 25, 2013. 76 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, February 8, 2012. 77 By one estimate, asset owners and OEMs each account for roughly 40 percent of the O&M market, 

with third-party providers making up the remainder. Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, 

January 23, 2013; industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, January 22, 2013. 
4-15 

ISP in the U.S. market.78 The U.S. O&M market has seen consolidation among ISPs and 

a growing presence of OEMs since 2007. ISPs have been acquired by utilities or by other 

service firms seeking to expand their service offerings. As mentioned earlier, industry 

officials report that a growing number of OEMs are aggressively turning to the O&M 

market in an effort to boost profits.79 

Competition in the O&M market varies depending on the services provided. Scheduled 

maintenance, which accounts for the majority of services required,80 can typically be 

provided by most O&M firms, so competition is based on price. However, the highest 

priority for owners is typically unscheduled maintenance, which can take the turbine out 

of commission. In choosing an O&M provider for unscheduled maintenance, owners 

consider issues such as whether the service provider can offer remote monitoring to 

predict and prevent failures, if it has a procurement group to get spare parts, and whether 

it has personnel in the area or a hub nearby to reduce the cost of manpower.81 

In general, according to one industry representative, it is often difficult for ISPs to 

compete against OEMs in the U.S. O&M marketplace because OEMs have become 

aggressive in negotiating service contracts in conjunction with turbine sales and have 

often shut third-party providers out of the market. 82 Additionally, OEMs have the 

competitive advantage of detailed knowledge of their technology and the ability to offer 

technology upgrades throughout the life of a turbine. 83 However, one industry 

representative noted that there are many basic services that ISPs can provide. 

Additionally, most ISPs offer the advantage of being able to work on multiple turbine 

brands.84 

Global Market for Wind Energy Services 

Market Size 

Annual global installations of wind energy have grown rapidly over the past decade, 

increasing from 8.1 gigawatts (GW) in 2003 to 44.8 GW in 2012 (figure 4.4). In 2012, 

new installations reached record levels and were up 10 percent from the previous year—a 

change from the 2010–2011 period, which saw only moderate increases in demand. The 

United States was the largest market in 2012, with 13,124 MW in new installations 

(29.3 percent of all new installations), followed closely by China with 12,960 MW 

(28.9 percent), Germany with 2,415 MW (5.4 percent), India with 2,336 MW 

(5.2 percent), and the United Kingdom with 1,897 MW (4.2 percent) (figure 4.5).85 

 78 EDF Renewable Services is the O&M services branch of EDF Renewable Energy, a wind farm 

developer and owner. Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, January 23, 2013; industry 

representative, interview by USITC staff, October 23, 2012. 79 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, January 18, 2013; industry 

representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, January 22, 2013. 80 One industry representative estimated 95 percent of O&M services are for scheduled maintenance. 

Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, January 22, 2012. 81 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, January 22, 2012. 82 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, December 12, 2012. 83 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, December 12, 2012; industry representative, 

interview by USITC staff, January 22, 2012. 84 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, January 18, 2013. 85 GWEC website, http://www.gwec.net/publications/global-wind-report-2/global-wind-report-2012/

(accessed July 9, 2013). 
4-16 

The composition of the global wind energy market has changed substantially over the 

past five years, largely due to the growth in demand in China. China’s share of 

cumulative installed capacity increased from 6 percent in 2007 to 27 percent in 2012, 

while Germany’s decreased from 24 percent to 11 percent and Spain’s from 16 percent to 

8 percent. The United States’ share shifted only modestly, increasing from 18 percent

to 21 percent.86 Additionally, the market has become less concentrated over the past 

decade; in 2012, the eight leading countries accounted for more than 80 percent of the 

global market, compared to just five countries with this share of the market 10 years 

ago.87

 86 GWEC, Global Wind Statistics 2012, February 11, 2013; GWEC, Global Wind 2007 Report, 2008. 87 BTM Consult, World Market Update 2011, March 2012, 35. 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Annual installed capacity Cumulative installed capacity

FIGURE 4.4 Global annual and cumulative installed wind energy capacity, 2003 through 2012

Source: GWEC, Global Wind Statistics 2012, February 11, 2013. Gigawatts

China 

27%

US 21%

Germany 

11%

Spain 8%

India 7%

Rest of 

World 

26%

2012

Germany 

24%

US 18%

Spain 16%

India 8%

China 6%

Rest of 

World 28%

2007

Source: GWEC, Global Wind Statistics 2012, February 11, 2013 and Global Wind 2007 Report, 2008.

FIGURE 4.5 The distribution of cumulative wind energy capacity changed from 2007 to 2012

Total = 93.6 GW Total = 282.4 GW
4-17 

The global wind energy services market has grown as the value of global wind 

installations (including goods and services) rose from an estimated $30.1 billion in 2007 

to $71.5 billion in 2011.88 Wind services are estimated to have been $23 billion in 2011, 

or 32 percent of the broader market for installations. 89 China and the United States 

together accounted for over half of the global market for wind development and 

installations services in 2011 (table 4.4). 

TABLE 4.4 Top five wind energy development and installation services markets, 2011a

Country 

Annual installed capacity, 

2011 (MW) 

Estimated value of 

services market 

(billion $ ) 

Percentage of global 

services marketb

 (%)

China 17,631 9.0–11.8 39–52

United Statesc 6,810 5.5–7.1 24–31

Germany 2,086 2.3–3.5 10–15

Canada 1,267 1.2 5

Spain 1,050 0.99 4

 Total 40,629 22.7–30.5 100

Source: GWEC, Global Wind 2011 Report, 2012, 12; IEA, IEA Wind 2011 Annual Report, July 2012; IRENA, 

Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2012: An Overview, 2013, 32. 

a

Data were not available for India. 

b

Percentage is calculated based on the lower estimated value of services market ($22.7 billion). c

U.S. estimates may differ from those presented earlier due to slight variations in data sources. Estimates in the 

U.S. market section were calculated using data from AWEA and Wiser and Bolinger; however, for consistency across 

countries, estimates presented here were calculated using data from GWEC, IEA and IRENA. 

The value of global O&M services also continued to rise steadily, as the volume of the 

global installed base of wind capacity has more than doubled over the past five years 

(figure 4.4), increasing demand for these services. Estimating the size of the global O&M 

market is more challenging, due to the limited availability of data. However, in 2011 the 

global O&M market was likely worth at least $7.2 billion.90 Additionally, among the 14 

 88 2011 is the most recent year for which data are available. Pernick, Wilder, and Winnie, Clean Energy 

Trends 2012, March 2012, 3. 89 These values are estimated by USITC using publicly available data. The value of the development 

and installation services market was calculated multiple ways. First, available cost share estimates from 

Black & Veatch and IRENA were applied to Pernick, Wilder, and Winnie’s estimates of the overall wind 

energy market. Estimates were also made by calculating and summing the cost of installation for the top 10 

markets (by total installed capacity), as well as the rest of the world, then subtracting the estimated turbine 

cost. Estimated turbine cost is the sum of average wind turbine prices for each of the 10 leading markets 

multiplied by annual installations (in MW) in those markets plus the global average turbine price multiplied 

by annual installations (in MW) in the rest of the world. Global or regional averages were applied to 

countries for which annual turbine prices or installation costs were not available. The resulting estimates of 

the services markets were not exactly the same, but were comparable. USITC staff calculations using data 

from Pernick, Wilder, and Winnie, Clean Energy Trends 2012, March 2012, 4; GWEC, Global Wind 2011 

Report, 2012, 12; IEA, IEA Wind 2011 Annual Report, July 2012; IRENA, Renewable Power Generation 

Costs in 2012: An Overview, 2013, 32. 90 Data on O&M costs in 2011 were available for only 14 countries, mostly European, representing 

78 percent of the market by installed capacity. Data used for the UK are for full-service O&M contracts, and 

thus may overestimate the market. The global average (21 percent) was used for countries that did not report 

average capacity factors. Costs for the rest of the world were calculated using the global average capacity 

factor and the U.S. O&M cost ($0.01/kWh). O&M costs in the United States are reportedly among the lowest 

in the world, suggesting that the actual value of the 2011 O&M services market is higher than estimated. 

BNEF reports that prices for full-service O&M contracts are highest in Eastern Europe; they also tend to be 

higher than average in emerging markets such as Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa. IRENA, Cost Analysis of 

Wind Power, June 2012; GWEC, Global Wind 2011 Report, 2012; BNEF, “Operations and Maintenance 

Price Index,” October 23, 2012. 
4-18 

countries for which specific O&M data are available, 91 the largest estimated O&M 

markets were found in developed countries, particularly Germany ($1.8 billion), the 

United States ($1.4 billion), and Spain ($1.1 billion). Despite the rapid growth in new 

wind installations in China and the fact that it has by far the most cumulative installed 

capacity globally, China’s O&M market remains comparatively small at an estimated 

$917 million in 2011.92

Factors Affecting Global Supply and Demand for Wind Energy 

Services 

Two distinct factors are reportedly driving demand for wind energy in the global market: 

the growing need for power, and the growing desire for environmentally friendly 

alternative power sources. Particularly in regions such as Latin America, where many 

countries face rising power demand and rely on expensive fossil fuels for energy, wind is 

a very competitive source of energy.93 

In developing or emerging wind markets, such as in many countries in Latin America, 

there is typically strong demand for turnkey projects, as there is little or no domestic 

industry and markets lack the experience and skilled labor to support such projects. For 

example, in the Chilean market there is virtually no domestic industry, and the majority 

of services are provided by foreign firms.94 As markets mature and service providers and 

customers gain experience, the demand for turnkey projects usually tapers off; however, 

foreign service providers often find new opportunities. For example, in Japan, wind 

service firms (both foreign and domestic) offer wind sector management services, which 

include diagnostic tests and reinstallation of existing wind projects to improve 

efficiency.95 

Changes to government policies that support the development of renewable energy have 

had a direct effect on new installations and related demand for wind services, as 

illustrated by the recent slowdown in growth of new wind projects in many Western 

markets. For example, the size and steady growth of the European wind energy market is 

frequently attributed to long-term policies, such as feed-in tariffs (FITs)96 or the European 

 91 Data on O&M costs in 2011 are available for Austria, China, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, 

Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, and the United States. In the absence 

of a country-specific average capacity factor, the world average was used for Austria, China, the Netherlands, 

Spain, and Sweden. 92 Global average capacity factor was used to calculate the value of China’s O&M market. USITC 

calculations using data from IRENA, Cost Analysis of Wind Power, June 2012; GWEC, Global Wind 2011 

Report, 2012; and Wind Power Monthly, “Service Market Grows as Installations Fall,” July 2012. 93 Electricity generation using fossil fuels increased in many countries in Latin America during 2007–

11, including in countries like Brazil and Venezuela that traditionally relied on hydroelectric power to meet 

much of their energy demand. Further, many countries in the region use oil for electricity generation, and 

changes in oil prices, therefore, can have a significant impact on the cost of electricity generation. Industry 

representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, January 18, 2013; industry representative, interview by 

USITC staff, Beijing, May 16, 2013; industry representative, interview by USITC staff, São Paulo, Brazil, 

May 8, 2013; EIA, International Energy Statistics database (accessed August 19, 2013); Yepez-García, 

Johnson, and Andrés, Meeting the Electricity Supply/Demand, September 2010, 12. 94 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Santiago, Chile, May 14, 2013. 95 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Beijing, May 16, 2013. 96 FITs guarantee a certain rate per kilowatt-hour for wind-generated energy. In 2011, China, Germany, 

India, Spain, and the UK all had FIT programs. Ontario Power Authority, “General Information about the FIT 

and microFIT Programs” (accessed January 31, 2013); IEA, IEA Wind 2011 Annual Report, July 2012, 10; 

GWEC, India Wind Energy Outlook 2012, November 2012, 11. 
4-19 

Wind Initiative,97 which supported development of the wind industry.98 However, in the 

wake of the economic downturn and budgetary concerns of the past several years, many 

European governments have reevaluated their renewable-energy legislation. For instance, 

both Ireland and the United Kingdom (UK) are seeking to cut government expenses by 

reducing incentives; Italy has reduced subsidies and introduced an additional tax on 

renewable companies; and in 2012, Spain suspended subsidies for new renewable energy 

projects.99 It is expected that these policy changes will result in slower growth in new 

installations. 

Global Industry Trends 

As in the United States, utility companies globally are increasingly involved in project 

development and ownership, albeit on a smaller scale than industry leaders. This is 

particularly the case in China, where over half of the country’s total wind capacity was 

owned by the five largest state-owned power generation corporations in 2011.100 Utilities’ 

increased presence is driven by growing pressure and incentives to increase the share of 

renewable sources in their portfolios.101 This trend is seen in the largest markets around 

the world as utilities increasingly build, own, and operate large wind farms in China, 

Germany, Spain, the UK, and the United States.102

Overall, the global wind energy services market is fragmented along national borders. 

Typically, only the largest service providers have multinational operations.103 Although 

most OEMs sell turbines worldwide, most do not provide services in markets where they 

do not have a commercial presence. Instead, in those markets they hire local firms to 

develop and install wind farms, as well as for O&M services.104 Similarly, leading project 

developers are also multinational companies and although they typically solicit bids 

through an objective procurement process, they most frequently hire local service firms 

for new projects.105 This is largely attributed to the regulatory or standards-based nature 

of many services, such as engineering and construction occupations, which may require 

local licensing or certification. 106 The exception to this is certain technology-based 

services such as data collection and analysis or remote monitoring, which are not site 

specific and may be easily provided across borders.107 As a result, there are a number of 

multinational site assessment firms, the largest being GL Garrad Hassan (part of the 

Germany-based GL Group).108

 97 Launched in June 2010, the European Wind Initiative is a plan to support development of the wind 

power industry and the integration of growing amounts of wind electricity into the grid. One of its stated 

goals is for wind energy to supply 20 percent of EU electricity consumption by 2020. IEA, IEA Wind 2011 

Annual Report, July 2012, 96. 98 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, January 30, 2013. 

99 BTM Consult, International Wind Energy Development, March 2012, viii; Scott, “In Europe, Green 

Energy Takes a Hit from Debt Crisis,” November 13, 2012; Sills, “Spain Halts Renewable Subsidies to Curb 

$31 Billion of Debts,” January 27, 2012. 100 BTM Consult, “World Market Update 2011,” March 2012, 55. 101 Ibid. 102 Ibid., 59. 103 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, January 30, 2013. 104 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, October 23, 2012; industry representative, 

telephone interview by USITC staff, January 18, 2013. 105 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, January 30, 2013. 106 Ibid. 107 Ibid. 108 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Washington, DC, January 23, 2013. 
4-20 

Project Development, Construction, and Installation Services 

Growth in global installations of wind farms over the past decade has created profitable 

opportunities for project developers. As a result of projected slow growth in their home 

markets, many European and U.S. service firms have sought to expand their presence in 

foreign markets, with a particular focus on Asia and Latin America. 109 Developers 

typically look for opportunities in politically stable countries with a consistent regulatory 

regime, strong contract law infrastructure, and demonstrated experience with successful 

PPAs.110 Additionally, wind energy tends to be most competitive in markets, such as 

Central and South America, that are heavily reliant on fossil fuels (typically diesel), 

which tend to be imported and very expensive.111

European multinational service providers tend to be more active than U.S. firms in most 

regions of the world, possibly due to their greater experience.112 German and Spanish 

firms in particular have shifted their focus to international activities and are actively 

targeting South America.113 For example, Spain’s Iberdrola has announced that Brazil 

will be the second-largest destination of renewable energy spending through 2014, after 

the UK. 114 Turbine manufacturers have also expanded their presence into emerging 

markets,115 largely by building factories and providing services alongside equipment.116 

The largest project developers have typically been established multinational firms from 

European countries, such as Iberdrola.117 However, due to the growth of the Chinese 

market and the high level of U.S. demand in 2012, 5 of the 10 largest developers of new 

wind projects in 2012 were from China (all of which are state-owned enterprises), and 3 

were from the United States (table 4.5).118

EPC firms are less likely than project developers to be active outside their home markets. 

However, global wind EPC contractors (table 4.6) use their multinational presence to 

operate across multiple sectors including wind. Growth in global wind installations has 

facilitated the rise of EPC firms with a stronger focus on wind, such as Iberdrola 

Ingeniería y Construcción―the developer’s construction and engineering branch. 

 

 109 For example, during the first nine months of 2011, 71 percent of investment by Italian wind energy 

firms occurred outside Italy. O’Brien, “Uncertainty Drives Italian Firms Abroad,” December 23, 2011; 

Morales and Sills, “Spain Ejects Clean-Power Industry,” May 30, 2012; industry representative, interview by 

USITC staff, São Paulo, Brazil, May 8–10, 2013. 110 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, January 30, 2013. 111 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, January 18, 2013; industry 

representative, interview by USITC staff, São Paulo, Brazil, May 8, 2013. 112 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, January 28, 2013. 113 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, March 12, 2013. 114 Nielsen, “Cheapest Wind Energy Spurring Renewable Energy Deals,” January 29, 2013. 115 OEMs GE Wind, Vestas, and Siemens, among others, have manufacturing facilities in Brazil and 

India. Sen, “Wind Energy Majors Set Up Low-Cost Plants,” February 23, 2011; Cleantechinvestor.com, 

“Brazil—Wind Manufacturing Hub,” August 15, 2011. 116 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, January 25, 2013. 117 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Washington, DC, January 23, 2013. 118 Rankings compiled by USITC using project data from BNEF database. Available data cover 

84 percent of projects commissioned in 2012. These Chinese firms will be discussed further in the foreign 

market profiles section. 
4-21 

TABLE 4.5 Top 10 global wind energy project developers, based on projects commissioned in 2012 

Ranking Company 

Home 

country 

Capacity developed 

(MW)

1 China Datang Corp. China 1,526

2 NextEra Energy Resources United States 1,215

3 Guohua Energy Investment Co. China 1,142

4 China Huadian Corp. China 1,084

5 China Longyuan Power Group Corp. China 1,072

6 Gamesa Corp. Technológica SA Spain 1,066

7 Iberdrola SA Spain 1,012

8 Invenergy LLC United States 905

9 Caithness Energy LLC United States 845

10 China Huaneng Group Corp. China 823

Source: Data compiled by USITC from BNEF database (accessed April 2, 2013). 

TABLE 4.6 Top 5 international wind energy contractors, based on export revenue from wind energy construction, 

2011 

Rank Company 

Home 

country 

Wind export revenue 

(millions $)

1 Fluor Corp United States 330.9

2 Mortenson Construction United States 212.7

3 Iberdrola Ingeniería y Construcción SA Spain 132.7

4 Van Oord NV Netherlands 61.7

5 Balfour Beatty PLC UK 26.6

Source: ENR, ENR Global Sourcebook 2012, December 10, 2012. 

Note: Export revenue is defined as revenue generated from projects outside each firm’s home market. 

O&M Services 

Since 2007, the most striking trend in the global O&M market has been the rise in 

competition, which has created a buyer’s market with lower costs and longer contract 

durations.119 For example, Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) found that between 

2008 and 2012, the price of full-service O&M contracts fell 38 percent, while the length 

of the average full-service O&M contract offered by OEMs increased from 4.5 years to 

6.9 years. 120 Prices and contract length vary regionally due to factors such as the degree 

of competition within a market, labor costs, and the size of wind projects.121 In China, 

where excess production capacity has created a surplus of wind turbines and created 

intense competition among manufacturers, wind project developers frequently demand 

warranty periods of up to 10 or even 20 years.122 Higher labor costs are frequently cited 

as the driver of O&M costs in Europe, and are also likely a factor behind higher-thanaverage costs in emerging markets such as Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa.123 O&M 

costs are lowest in the U.S. market, which enjoys lower labor costs than Europe, large 

projects that allow service providers to capture economies of scale, and strong 

competition that is due in part to the prevalence of in-house maintenance by large 

owner/operators.124 However, despite falling prices, the global O&M market continues to 

grow as installed capacity rises. 

 119 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, January 28, 2013. 120 BNEF, “Operations and Maintenance Price Index,” October 23, 2012. 121 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, January 28, 2013. 122 Qi, “China’s Service Market Grows as Installations Fall,” July 1, 2012. 123 BNEF, “Operations and Maintenance Price Index,” October 23, 2012. 124 Ibid. 
4-22 

Many firms provide O&M services in the global market. Leading providers include 

OEMs such as Enercon, Siemens, and Vestas, as well as ISPs—particularly large wind 

farm operators that provide in-house maintenance, such as Iberdrola.125 O&M services 

markets vary substantially across countries. Compared to the United States, Europe tends 

to have smaller wind farms held by smaller owners typically not capable of providing 

their own O&M services. As a result, many of the European Union (EU) markets for 

O&M are dominated by OEMs and ISPs offering long-term service agreements.126 For 

example, Germany’s market is reportedly dominated by full-service contracts from 

OEMs, such as Enercon.127 However, in markets with significant ownership by large 

operators and utilities, such as Acciona Energia and EDP Renováveis (EDPR) in Spain, 

there is a larger share of in-house maintenance supported by ISPs. 128 Similarly, in 

China—where over half of wind projects are developed by state-owned power groups—

the majority of O&M services are performed in-house.129

With competition sharpening in the global O&M market, acquisitions of O&M service 

providers have increased as a growing number of firms seek to expand their service 

offerings and enter the O&M market. Similar to the trend in the United States, where 

utilities and operators have acquired wind energy service firms in order to self-perform 

maintenance, China’s large state-owned utilities (which develop more than half of 

China’s new wind projects) each have their own O&M groups.130 In addition to this 

growing interest in self-performed maintenance by owners, component providers and 

other firms in the supply chain are increasingly acquiring service firms in an effort to 

offer specialized services.131 In 2012, UK-based crane operator Ainscough entered the 

wind installation and maintenance market by acquiring Windcon, a UK-based provider of 

wind turbine erection and maintenance services.132 A U.S. bearing manufacturer, Timken 

Co., similarly sought to diversify its services and enter the repair and maintenance market 

by acquiring a U.S. turbine maintenance company, Wazee, in early 2013.133

Trade and Investment 

Data on U.S. and global trade in wind energy services are unavailable. Trade in wind 

energy services occurs predominately through commercial establishment (mode 3), with 

limited services provided cross-border (mode 1) or through movement of natural persons 

(mode 4).134 The nature of wind energy services typically requires proximity to a project 

site, making remote provision difficult, if not impossible, for most services. However, 

certain technology-enabled services, such as wind resource assessment and remote 

monitoring of operations, are not location dependent and are increasingly provided crossborder. As a result, some wind service firms seeking to expand their global presence are 

diversifying by offering these services. One example is U.S. EPC firm Black & Veatch, 

which does not provide EPC contracting outside the United States, but does offer 

resource modeling and analysis services. 135 On the other hand, many industry 

 125 Ibid. 126 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, January 22, 2013. 127 BNEF, “Operations and Maintenance Price Index,” October 23, 2012. 128 Ibid. 129 Qi, “China’s Service Market Grows as Installations Fall,” July 1, 2012. 130 Ibid. 131 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, January 22, 2013. 132 North, “Ainscough Completes Windcon Deal,” October 24, 2012. 133 Schoenberger, “Timken Buys Wazee Companies,” January 2, 2013. 134 Types of services trade are discussed in more detail in chapter 1. 135 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, March 12, 2013. 
4-23 

representatives interviewed for this study emphasized the importance of local presence, 

and service firms often establish a commercial presence even for services that could be 

provided cross-border.136 For instance, wind consultant GL Garrad Hassan, the global 

leader in wind resource assessment, has offices around the world in an effort to offer 

market-specific knowledge and support.137 

Imports and Exports 

The United States is a net importer of wind energy services, as many of the largest wind 

energy services firms in the United States are subsidiaries of foreign multinationals. GE 

is the leading supplier of turbines in the U.S. market and accounted for 38 percent of 

installations in 2012. However, only one of the other top 10 turbine suppliers in 2012 was 

a U.S.-based firm. 138 Similarly, some of the largest project developers in the United 

States are also U.S. subsidiaries of foreign parent firms (see table 4.2). In 2012, about 

one-third of newly installed wind capacity was developed by U.S. affiliates of foreign 

firms.139 Development, construction, and O&M services provided by these firms to U.S. 

customers are considered to be imports in the form of affiliate sales (services provided by 

U.S. affiliates of foreign firms). 

U.S. wind service firms, on the other hand, have a smaller global presence than some of 

the largest European multinational firms discussed above, and as a result, U.S. exports 

likely account for a smaller share of global exports of wind services than EU exports. 

Industry representatives indicate that a number of U.S. firms provide resource assessment 

services overseas. 140 For instance, AWS Truepower, which has been active in the 

Caribbean and Central America.141 The largest U.S. project developers and EPC firms 

also operate internationally, particularly in Canada. 

Canada is likely the largest export market for U.S. wind services. NextEra Energy 

Resources and Invenergy, which are U.S.-based, are both active in the Canadian market; 

U.S. EPC firm Mortenson Construction generates over 99 percent of its international 

revenue from wind operations in Canada. 142 U.S. wind services firms are reportedly 

attracted to the Canadian market due to its geographic closeness as well as the 

opportunities offered by significant planned MW capacity.143 Other attractive markets for 

U.S.-based service providers include Mexico and other countries in Latin America, 

 136 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, January 18, 2013; industry 

representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, January 30, 2013; industry representative, telephone 

interview by USITC staff, January 28, 2013; industry representative, interview by USITC staff, São Paulo, 

Brazil, May 10, 2013. 137 GL Garrad Hassan website, http://www.gl-garradhassan.com (accessed April 3, 2013). 138 The only other U.S.-based firm in the top 10 was Clipper, which accounted for 1.5 percent of 

installations. The top 5 firms, other than GE, are Siemens (Germany, 20 percent of installations), Vestas 

(Denmark, 14 percent), Gamesa (Spain, 10 percent), and REpower/Suzlon (India, 6 percent). Siemens, 

Vestas, and Gamesa all manufacture nacelles and blades in the United States; Vestas also produces towers in 

the United States. REpower is Suzlon’s German-based subsidiary. AWEA, “AWEA U.S. Wind Industry 

Annual,” May 2013, 2. For a list of nacelle and blade plants in the United States as of March 2012, see David 

and Fravel, “U.S. Wind Turbine Export Opportunities,” July 2012, 7. 139 USITC calculations using data from BNEF database (accessed April 4, 2013). 140 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Washington, DC, January 23, 2013. 141 Ibid. 142 USITC calculations using data from BNEF database (accessed April 4, 2013) and ENR Global 

Sourcebook 2012, December 10, 2012, 18, 47. Mortenson Construction website, 

http://www.mortenson.com/INdustry_RenewableEnergy.aspx (accessed April 4, 2013). 143 Wind Power Monthly, “Balancing Act for Hard Pressed Supply Chain,” August 2011; industry 

representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, February 8, 2013. 
4-24 

particularly for OEM turbine manufacturers that bundle service offerings with equipment 

sales. 

Chinese OEMs are increasing their global presence and, as a result, Chinese exports of 

wind services are growing. For instance, Xinjiang Goldwind Science & Technology 

(Goldwind) is expanding internationally; currently, it generates 10 percent of its revenues 

overseas. 144 Chinese exports of wind-powered generating sets 145 increased from 

$78 million in 2007 to $467 million in 2012, with 39 percent of 2012 exports going to the 

United States.146 In addition to established markets like the United States, Chinese OEMs 

are reportedly seeking to increase their presence in Latin America, including in 

Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, and Ecuador, as well as in Africa.147 Some Chinese 

firms reportedly have improved product offerings that, combined with low prices and the 

firms’ access to low-cost financing, make Chinese turbines competitive in some of these 

markets.148 Chinese service providers are also increasing their presence outside of their 

home market. For example, Chinese project developer HydroChina is developing wind 

power projects in counties such as Bolivia, Ethiopia, and Pakistan.149

Investment 

The United States is considered to be a desirable market for foreign investors, as 

illustrated by the strong commercial presence of foreign wind service firms. European 

firms have sought investments in the U.S. market as a way to leverage their expertise in a 

market with expanding capacity.150 European utilities in particular have invested in the 

U.S. market. For example, in 2007, Spain’s Iberdrola acquired U.S. developer CPV Wind 

Ventures, as well as U.S. utility PPM Energy as part of its acquisition of Scottish 

Power.151

Foreign investment declined as growth in the U.S. wind industry slowed in 2010 and 

2011. 152 However, it has since rebounded. One example is India-based Trishe Wind 

Energy, which acquired U.S. project developer National Wind LLC in 2012. Another is 

Australian private equity fund AMP Capital, which announced in February 2013 that it 

would invest $100 million in U.S. wind developer Capistrano Wind Partners.153

 144 Xiao, “Goldwind, Change is in the Air,” December 2012, 46. 145 Wind-powered generating sets include nacelles and any items imported with the nacelle, such as the 

blades or hub. If these components are imported or exported separately from the nacelle, they are included in 

different HS subheadings. Wind-powered generating sets are included in 8502.31 in the international 

Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (HS). 146 China accounted for 6.9 percent of global exports. Chinese export data may include some exports by 

non-Chinese firms from their plants in China. GTIS, Global Trade Atlas database (accessed July 9, 2013). 147 McGovern, “China Puts Bolivia on Wind Map,” March 11, 2013; industry representative, interview 

by USITC staff, Beijing, May 17, 2013; David and Fravel, “U.S. Wind Turbine Export Opportunities,” 

June 2012; Qi, “Sany Wins 153MW Ethiopian Contract,” May 20, 2013. 148 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Beijing, May 16 and May 17, 2013; Nielsen, 

“China Grabs Share,” November 20, 2012; Qi, “Sany Wins,” May 20, 2013. 149 Qi, “Sany Wins 153MW Ethiopian Contract,” May 20, 2013; McGovern, “China Puts Bolivia on 

Wind Map,” March 11, 2013; Qi, “Hydrochina Wins 30MW Deal in Pakistan,” June 4, 2013. 150 Weyndling, “Frustrated Spanish Wind Sector Looks Abroad,” June 28, 2011; Scott, “A Spanish 

Blowout,” October 29, 2008. 151 Anderson and Gibson, “Despite Uncertainty, Foreign Investors Eye U.S. Market,”April 2012, 28; 

Lima, “EDP Buys Horizon Wind from Goldman,” March 27, 2007; BNEF database, n.d. (accessed 

January 11, 2013). 152 Analysis by USITC using data from BNEF. 153 Quilter, “AMP Capital to Invest $100 Million,” February 12, 2013. 
4-25 

U.S. foreign direct investment in wind energy services has risen. U.S. firms are 

increasingly looking abroad to expand their presence in European and Asian markets, 

citing weakness in the U.S. market as motivation for their outward focus.154 For example, 

in 2008, wind developer AES acquired a minority stake in a Chinese wind farm; in 2010, 

it acquired UK developer Your Energy and signed a deal for a majority stake in Polish 

wind developer 3E. 

Trade Barriers 

Restrictions on or barriers to trade in goods have frequently created challenges for wind 

energy service providers in the global market. Reportedly, among the most prominent of 

these challenges are local-content requirements, which mandate that a certain percentage 

of the wind turbines or labor required for a wind project must be sourced locally.155 Since 

many OEMs are also leading service suppliers, even where the local-content 

requirements are focused specifically on equipment, these policies appear to be impeding 

trade in services.156 

A number of localities and countries have local-content requirements in place. 

Reportedly, among the most problematic for U.S. wind service providers have been those 

in Ontario, Canada. Ontario’s market provides significant export opportunities for U.S. 

service providers, but wind service firms must meet local-content requirements to qualify 

for the FIT. 157 Industry representatives indicate that while they try to meet these 

specifications, the requirements become particularly challenging and make the market 

unattractive when there are too few local suppliers to meet demand. This can result in less 

competition in the market.158 Additionally, these requirements have reportedly influenced 

decisions on commercial presence, leading companies who would otherwise establish a 

presence in the United States to establish a presence in Ontario instead in order to provide 

goods and services in both places.159 

 

In May 2013, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body adopted a WTO Appelate Body report 

and panel report (as modified by the Appelate Body) finding that the Canadian measures 

were inconsistent with the TRIMs Agreement and the GATT 1994.160 Subsequently, 

Ontario’s Minister of Energy directed the Ontario Power Authority not to procure any 

additional large projects. The Minister indicated that the government intends to replace 

the FIT program for large projects with a competitive procurement process, and that the 

Ministry intends to pursue legislation to bring the FIT program into compliance with the 

WTO ruling.161 

 154 Goosens, “AES Says U.S. Wind Market Is Weak,” November 4, 2010. 155 Industry representative, email to USITC staff, March 8, 2013. 156 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, January 25, 2013. 157 Countries with local-content requirements include Turkey, Ukraine, Croatia, and South Africa. 

EWEA, “WTO Rules Against Ontario,” December 20, 2012; Tardieu, “EWEA Trade Policy Views,” March 

29, 2012; Creed and Kordvani, “The WTO Report on Local Content Requirements,” February 13, 2013; 

industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, March 8, 2013; industry representative, 

telephone interview by USITC staff, January 18, 2013; industry representative, telephone interview by 

USITC staff, February 8, 2013. 158 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, January 30, 2013. 159 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, January 18, 2013. 160 The complaint in this matter was filed by Japan in September 2010. WTO Dispute DS 412: Canada, 

(accessed July 2, 2013). 161 There are separate FIT programs for large and small projects. Ontario Ministry of Energy, FIT 

Program Directive, June 12, 2013, 3. 
4-26 

Brazil does not mandate the use of local content to operate, but local content must be 

used in order to receive low-cost financing for projects from BNDES, the national 

development bank.162 In Brazil, one firm also noted that the lack of a reciprocal visa 

program with the United States limited the firm’s ability to bring in U.S. technical experts 

to work on Brazilian wind farms. Instead, this firm brings in technicians from the EU, 

which does have such a visa program with Brazil.163

Certain markets, such as China and Latin America, were also identified as having 

restrictions on capital repatriation, and China has a joint venture requirement for market 

entry.164 Otherwise, most industry representatives pointed to few formal trade barriers in 

wind services other than local-content requirements. Instead, many wind service firms 

face challenges related to specific economic or cultural characteristics of each market. 

For example, a number of service providers indicated that despite the potential 

opportunities, they had decided against establishing a presence in China due to perceived 

difficulties of doing business there as a foreign provider.165 Other dissuading factors 

reportedly include the high level of competition from Chinese firms, the presence of 

intellectual property issues compounded by a weak court system, and a lack of 

transparency in the grid connection process.166

Country Profiles 

This section profiles the wind energy markets in Brazil, Canada, and China. China was 

the largest market outside of the United States in 2012, with 12,960 MW in installations. 

Canada has a substantial wind energy market, with 935 MW installed in 2012, that 

provides significant export opportunities for U.S. firms. Brazil also has a rapidly growing 

wind market and was the largest market in Latin America in 2012, with annual 

installations reaching 1,077 MW in 2012.167

Brazil 

Brazil is noted for having some of the world’s best wind resources,168 and its wind 

industry has been growing rapidly over the past five years, although its total installed 

capacity remains low relative to that of other countries. Cumulative installed capacity 

jumped from 247 MW in 2007 to 2,508 MW in 2012, and Brazil was the eighth-largest 

global market by new installed capacity in 2012. 169 This rapid expansion in wind 

 162 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, São Paulo, Brazil, May 8, 2013; Nielsen, 

“BNDES Raises Local-Content Requirement,” September 13, 2012. 163 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, São Paulo, Brazil, May 8, 2013. 164 Industry representative, email to USITC staff, March 8, 2013; industry representative, telephone 

interview by USITC staff, January 25, 2013. 165 One representative estimated that only 20 percent of wind power projects are awarded to foreigners, 

stating that most often, requests for proposals (RFPs) are awarded to local firms. Industry representative, 

telephone interview by USITC staff, January 28, 2013. 166 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, January 28, 2013; industry 

representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, March 12, 2013. 167 GWEC website, http://www.gwec.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/8Top-10-New-InstalledCapacity-Jan-Dec-2012.jpg (accessed July 9, 2013). 168 Industry representatives, interviews by USITC staff, Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo, Brazil, May 7–

10, 2013. Reportedly, the northeastern portion of Brazil benefits from strong, steady winds that tend to rarely 

change direction—optimal conditions for wind turbines. 169 Brazil accounted for 2.4 percent of global new installed capacity in 2012. GWEC, Global Wind 

Statistics 2012, February 11, 2013; GWEC, Global Wind 2012 Report, April 2013. 
4-27 

development has been driven by the government’s active support for development of the 

renewable energy sector to meet Brazil’s growing demand for energy, as well as the 

competitiveness of wind relative to other energy sources in Brazil.170 

The strong growth of wind projects, particularly since 2009, has attracted a number of 

wind firms to the market. Among project developers and construction firms, European 

wind service firms have a large presence in the Brazilian market, although Brazil’s 

Renova remains the leading developer.171 Among OEMs, the market is quite competitive, 

with substantial participation by foreign manufacturers, such as GE (based in the United 

States), IMPSA (Argentina), Enercon (Germany), Gamesa (Spain), and Vestas 

(Denmark).172 In Brazil, OEMs typically do not participate in project development, but 

instead provide limited services related to logistics and the supervision of turbine erection 

or crane services, in addition to providing the majority of O&M services.173 

As the Brazilian market has grown, a number of challenges have reportedly emerged. 

One is the inadequate grid, which prevents developers from selling surplus power on the 

unregulated market, as well as delivering power as contracted in PPAs.174 As a result, in 

the future, grid connection will be the responsibility of the project developer, a change 

that will be reflected in higher PPA prices. 175 Moreover, PPAs for the regulated 

electricity market are awarded through reverse auction, a requirement that is also said to 

present a challenge for wind service firms. One industry representative indicated that not 

only is the process unfamiliar to foreign wind firms, but also it has pushed the price of 

electricity down while project costs are boosted by local-content requirements.176 As 

mentioned earlier, local-content requirements are a prerequisite for funding from the 

national development bank, BNDES, and present a particular challenge for foreign 

OEMs.177 However, these requirements also indirectly impact developers, as they can 

create bottlenecks in the supply chain. Nevertheless, due to its cost competitiveness, wind 

energy has won most of the energy auctions set aside for renewable energy.178 

 170 Through the PROINFA program, which ended in 2011, the government actively encouraged 

development of renewable energy in an effort to diversify its power sources. Currently, low water levels are 

hindering the country’s reliance on hydropower, and the high price of diesel makes thermal plants very 

expensive. In contrast, wind energy is cost competitive, due to the strong, consistent equatorial winds already 

mentioned, and projects are typically able to be constructed and commissioned with a relatively short 

turnaround time. Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, São Paulo, Brazil, May 9, 2013; industry 

representative, interview by USITC staff, São Paulo, Brazil, May 8, 2013; industry representative, interview 

by USITC staff, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, May 7, 2013. 171 Developers include subsidiaries of Iberdrola (Spain), EDP Renováveis (Portugal/Spain), and GDF 

Suez (France). Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, April 11, 2013. 172 BTM Consult, World Market Update 2012, 78. 173 Currently, OEMs provide nearly all O&M services in the Brazilian market. However, industry 

representatives believe this may change, either through the development of O&M ISPs or the development of 

in-house capabilities by wind farm owners. Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, São Paulo, 

Brazil, May 8, 2013; industry representative, interview by USITC staff, São Paulo, Brazil, May 9, 2013. 174 600 MW of wind power installed in 2012 lacked grid connections. Spatuzza, “Brazil—Lack of Grid 

Connections Keeps Wind Farms Offline,” March 1, 2013. 175 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, São Paulo, Brazil, May 8, 2013; industry 

representative, interview by USITC staff, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, May 7, 2013. 176 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, April 11, 2013. 177 Previously Brazil had a 60 percent local-content requirement. The government recently introduced 

new regulations that require that certain stages in the manufacturing process or certain components must be 

manufactured in Brazil in order to qualify for financing from the national development bank, BNDES. 

Financing from BNDES is considered essential, as it offers very low rates compared to commercial banks, 

and accounts for the majority of project finance in the market. Industry representative, interview by USITC 

staff, São Paulo, Brazil, May 8, 2013; industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Rio de Janeiro, 

Brazil, May 7, 2013. 178 Industry representatives, interviews by USITC staff, São Paulo, Brazil, May 8–10, 2013. 
4-28 

Canada 

Canada has a robust and growing wind energy industry and is reportedly the United 

States’ largest trading partner for wind energy services.179 Total installed wind capacity 

has increased steadily over the past five years, growing 27 percent annually from 2007 

through 2012. 180 Yet, the Canadian market—the ninth largest globally—remains far 

smaller than the U.S. market; Canada added 935 MW of new wind capacity in 2012 

(compared to more than 13 GW in the United States) for a total of 6,200 MW of 

cumulative installed capacity.181 Overall, however, the Canadian market exhibits more 

stable growth and fewer year-to-year fluctuations in installations than the U.S. market. 

Industry representatives attribute this to two factors. One is the existence of long-term 

policies supporting the development of wind energy—namely, the FIT program in 

Ontario and wind tenders in Quebec; the bulk of Canada’s wind projects are located in 

these two provinces. The second factor is the greater transparency in Canada’s planning 

process, which offers service providers information about future plans for wind energy.182

However, there is reportedly less competition in Canada’s wind services industry than in 

the United States, and wind energy services in Canada tend to be more expensive, as 

developers are typically able to secure lucrative price agreements under provincial FITs, 

resulting in little downward pressure on prices in the supply chain.183 Canada’s more 

conservative investment environment reportedly means that fewer service providers, 

particularly smaller firms, are operating in the market. Canadian investors reportedly seek 

mature, financeable companies and as a result it is difficult for smaller firms to secure 

financing, particularly given the small market size.184 In addition, industry representatives 

indicate that local-content requirements may have reduced the level of competition in the 

market, as noted earlier, because fewer firms have been able to meet these requirements 

and enter the market.185

Despite these issues, a number of foreign wind service firms operate in the Canadian 

market, attracted by its growth. In 2012, U.S. service firms developed nearly 20 percent 

of newly installed capacity, representing the largest share of foreign-developed projects. 

Services reportedly represent a significant opportunity for foreign firms, particularly EPC 

services. 186 Nevertheless, opportunities for project development remain somewhat 

limited, since the small market size and lengthy procurement process mean that many 

new projects already have PPAs awarded. As a result, many foreign developers are 

entering the market through acquisition.187 For instance, in 2011, China’s largest project 

 179 Statistics on trade in wind energy services are not available. Industry representative, telephone 

interview by USITC staff, February 8, 2013; Bailey, “Building Boom Draws in Global Players,” October 1, 

2012. 180 USITC calculations using data from GWEC, Global Wind Statistics 2012, February 11, 2013, and 

GWEC, Annual Market Update 2011, March 2012, 27. 181 GWEC, Global Wind Statistics 2012, February 11, 2013. The Canadian Wind Energy Association 

(CanWEA) reports 936 MW of new wind energy capacity installed in 2012, for a total of 6,500 MW. 

CanWEA, “Wind by the Numbers,” January 2013. 182 Hydro-Québec held wind tenders in 2003, 2005, and 2009, and Quebec has the second highest 

installed wind capacity among Canadian provinces. Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC 

staff, February 8, 2013; David and Fravel, “U.S. Wind Turbine Export Opportunities,” July 2012, 12; 

Canadian Wind Energy Association (CANWEA) website, http://www.canwea.ca/farms/index_e.php

(accessed August 20, 2013). 183 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, February 8, 2013. 184 Ibid. 185 Industry representative, telephone interview by USITC staff, January 30, 2013. 186 Bailey, “Building Boom Draws in Global Players,” October 1, 2012. 187 Ibid. 
4-29 

developer, China Longyuan Power Group, purchased equity shares in an Ontario wind 

farm, and in 2010, EDP Renewables North America (the regional subsidiary of Spainbased EDPR) acquired new projects in Ontario.188

China 

China’s wind energy industry has experienced tremendous growth over the past five 

years. 189 Despite having less than 6 GW of installed wind energy capacity in 2007, 

China’s installed capacity reached 75 GW by the end of 2012―overtaking both the 

United States and Germany. 190 However, the Chinese market faces a number of 

challenges.191 The rapid expansion has created problems that have begun to moderate 

growth in annual installations: China has seen 26 percent fewer installations in 2012 than 

in 2011.192 Factors in this trend reportedly include revised procedures for project approval 

by the National Energy Administration, which have delayed project commissioning; 

issues related to grid connection and curtailment of new wind projects; 193 delayed 

payments from the government; a general slowdown in China’s economic growth 

(particularly in the industrial sector); and a decline in electricity consumption per unit of 

gross domestic product (GDP).194 

China’s wind energy services market is viewed as highly competitive, with the expansion 

of the wind energy industry driven largely by new project development carried out by 

state-owned enterprises (SOEs), with limited participation by OEMs or smaller ISPs.195

Overall, SOEs undertake the bulk of investment in and construction of new farms, 

accounting for over 80 percent of installed capacity in 2012.196 These groups typically 

provide all wind energy services in-house, from the design and construction of a project 

to the design and installation of turbines to O&M services.197 

 188 Xinhua.net, “China’s Largest Wind Power Developer,” July 13, 2011; Bailey, “Building Boom 

Draws In Global Players,” October 1, 2012. 189 From 2008 through 2012, installed capacity grew at a compound annual rate of 58 percent. USITC 

calculations using data from GWEC, Global Wind 2012 Report, April 2013, 30. 190 From 2008 through 2011, installed capacity grew at a compound annual rate of 73 percent. USITC 

calculations using data from GWEC, Global Wind 2012 Report, April 2013, 30. 191 At the end of 2012, only 50 GW of wind energy capacity was connected to the grid. Johnston, 

“China Reaches 50 GW,” February 21, 2013. 192 Annual installations in 2012 totaled 12,960 MW, compared to 17,631 in 2011. USITC calculations 

using data from GWEC, Global Wind Report 2012, April 2013, 31. 193 Curtailment reportedly cost the Chinese wind energy industry $1.6 billion (10 billion yuan) in 2012, 

as wind energy expansion was reined in. This curtailment was largely due to insufficient grid infrastructure, 

but also in order to allow thermal and nuclear power to meet quotas. Qi, “China’s Wind Sector Lost 

$1.6 Billion,” January 25, 2013; Qi, “Debt Hampers Chinese Wind,” May 2013, 29. 194 Although China’s overall consumption of energy rose nearly 4 percent in 2012, it fell by 3.6 percent 

per unit of GDP. Associated Free Press, “China Energy Consumption Rises 3.9% in 2012,” February 23, 

2013; GWEC, Global Wind Report 2012, April 2013, 31; Qi, “Debt Hampers Chinese Wind,” May 2013, 29; 

ChinaDaily.com, “China’s GDP Growth Eases to 7.8%,” January 18, 2013; industry representative, interview 

by USITC staff, Beijing, May 16, 2013; industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Beijing, May 17, 

2013. 195 From 2006 through 2010, nearly 90 percent of Chinese wind power projects were invested, 

constructed and completed by state-owned enterprises. GWEC, 2012 China Wind Energy Outlook, 2012, 41; 

industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Beijing, May 16, 2013. 196 Xinhuanet.com, “SOEs dominate China’s Wind Power Projects,” April 10, 2013; Navigant 

Research, World Market Update 2012, March 2013, 28. 197 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Beijing, May 16, 2013. Turbine manufacturers 

provide maintenance services during a short warranty period (two years is standard, but Chinese OEMs tend 

to throw in additional years for free). All services connected with design and installation of turbines are 

provided by the customer. Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Beijing, May 16, 2013. 
4-30 

Few foreign firms participate in the Chinese services market, and those that do are 

limited to OEMs and some specialty ISPs. In 2011, foreign OEMs represented less than 

15 percent of the market, in contrast to earlier years, when they controlled a majority of 

the Chinese market. Reportedly, many OEMs have left the market due to overcapacity 

and, to a lesser extent, protectionist policies. 198 Industry representatives indicate that 

foreign OEMs in China do not compete directly with their Chinese counterparts; instead 

of trying to compete on low equipment prices, they instead compete on the cost of energy 

(which reflects not just the initial purchase price, but also performance and reliability). 

As a result, these firms are generally in competition with other foreign firms in China, 

rather than with Chinese firms.199 

Only a limited number of foreign ISPs (e.g., resource assessment or consulting firms) 

operate in the Chinese market, which they reportedly find difficult due to the market 

environment and the experience of their customer base. Foreign service firms are unable 

to compete directly with Chinese counterparts due to higher costs, and also reportedly 

find it difficult to differentiate their services from those that project developers can 

supply in-house.200 

 198 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Beijing, May 17, 2013; industry representative, 

interview by USITC staff, Beijing, May 16, 2013; Li et al., “China Wind Energy Outlook,” n.d., 25. 199 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Beijing, May 16, 2013. 200 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Beijing, May 17, 2013; industry representative, 

interview by USITC staff, Beijing, May 16, 2013; industry representative, telephone interview by USITC 

staff, March 12, 2013. 
4-31 

Bibliography 

American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). “AWEA U.S. Wind Industry Annual Market Report 2012.” 

May 2013. http://www.awea.org/learnabout/publications/factsheets/upload/AWEA-U-S-WindIndustry-Annual-Market-Rankings-2012.pdf. 

———. AWEA U.S. Wind Industry Annual Market Report: Year Ending 2012. Executive Summary, 2013. 

http://awea.files.cmsplus.com/images/AWEA_USWindIndustryAnnualMarketReport2012_Execu

tiveSummary%282%29.pdf. 

———. Annual Market Report, Year Ending 2007, 2008. 

———. “Industry Statistics,” n.d. (accessed March 27, 2013 ). 

http://www.awea.org/learnabout/industry_stats/index.cfm. 

———. U.S. Wind Industry Annual Market Report 2011, 2012. 

———. U.S. Wind Industry Fourth Quarter 2011 Market Report, January 2012. 

———. Wind Energy Siting Handbook, February 2008. 

———. Year End 2009 Market Report, January 2010. 

Anderson, Alan, and J. Britton Gibson. “Despite Uncertainty, Foreign Investors Eye U.S. Market.” North 

American Windpower, April 2012, 1 and 28. 

Anderson, Erin L., Greg D. Corbin, and Timothy L. McMahan. “The Law of Wind: Siting and Permitting 

Wind Projects,” n.d. (accessed March 28, 2013). 

http://www.agmrc.org/media/cms/WindSitingandPermittingProjects_42DEBA672F7A7.pdf. 

Associated Free Press. “China Energy Consumption Rises 3.9% in 2012,” February 23, 2013. 

Bailey, Diane. “Building Boom Draws in Global Players.” Wind Power Monthly, October 1, 2012. 

Black and Veatch. Cost and Performance Data for Power Generation Technologies. February 2012. 

http://bv.com/docs/reports-studies/nrel-cost-report.pdf. 

Bloomberg. “Eximbank to Lend Vietnam $1 billion for Mekong Wind Power Plant,” October 18, 2011. 

Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). “Operations and Maintenance Price Index,” October 23, 2012. 

BNEF Database. http://www.bnef.com. (accessed multiple dates). 

Boyland, Kevin. “Gone with the Wind: After Years of Rapid Growth, Revenue with Slump with Fewer 

Projects.” IBISWorld Industry Report OD4491: Wind Turbine Installation. December 2012. 

Broehl, Jesse. “Operations & Maintenance – Industry prepares for Warranty Tipping Point.” Wind Power 

Monthly, April 1, 2010. 

Brown, Phillip. “U.S. Renewable Energy: How Does the Production Tax Credit (PTC) Impact Wind 

Markets?” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress R42576, June 20, 2012. 
4-32 

BTM Consult. World Market Update 2011, March 2012. 

Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA). “The Many Steps to Planning and Building a Wind 

Farm,” n.d. (accessed January 16, 2013). http://www.canwea.ca/farms/planning_e.php. 

CanWEA. “Wind by the Numbers: Economic Benefits of Wind Energy,” January 2013. 

http://www.canwea.ca/pdf/canwea-factsheet-economic-web-final.pdf. 

ChinaDaily.com. “China’s GDP Growth Eases to 7.8% in 2012,” January 18, 2013. 

Cleantechinvestor.com. “Brazil: Wind Manufacturing Hub,” August 15, 2011. 

Connell, James and Dennis Grennan. “Who Needs an Owner’s Engineer?” Power Magazine, March 1, 

2011. www.powermag.com/business/who-needs-an-owners-engineer_3481.html. 

 

Creed, Adrian, and Dr. Amir Kordvani. “The WTO Report on Local Content Requirements for Canadian 

Renewables Programme – MENA Implications.” February 13, 2013. 

http://www.clydeco.com/insight/updates/the-wto-report-on-local-content-requirements-forcanadian-renewables-progra. 

Cusick, Daniel. “With Congress at its Back, Wind Power Industry Pushes Ahead.” Governors’ Wind 

Energy Coalition, January 3, 2013. http://www.governorswindenergycoalition.org/?p=4362. 

 

Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE). “Renewable Portfolio Standard 

Policies,” March 2013. http://www.dsireusa.org/documents/summarymaps/RPS_map.pdf

(accessed March 27, 2013). 

David, Andrew. “Growth in Wind Turbine Manufacturing and Trade.” USITC Executive Briefing on 

Trade, March 2009. 

http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/Executive_Briefings/USITC_EB_WindTurbines_David.p

df. 

David, Andrew and Dennis Fravel. “Wind Turbine Export Opportunities in Canada and Latin America.” 

USITC Working Paper, No. ID-032, July 2012. 

http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/working_papers/ID-032_final.pdf. 

Del Franco, Mark. “AWEA Reveals Numbers Behind U.S. Wind Sector's Record-Breaking Year.” North 

American Windpower, April 11, 2013. 

http://www.nawindpower.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.11362. 

DLA Piper. “EPC Contracts in the Power Sector,” 2011. 

http://www.dlapiper.com/files/Publication/18413b26-49b8-490e-acc6-

3ff54faa55d7/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/1205e08d-e585-479d-ac17-42135efaf044/epccontracts-in-the-power-sector.pdf. 

Engineering News-Record (ENR). ENR Global Sourcebook 2012, December 10, 2012. 

ENR. ENR Sourcebook, September 17, 2012. 

European Wind Energy Association (EWEA). “WTO Rules Against Ontario Local Content Requirement 

for Renewables.” Press release, December 20, 2012. http://www.ewea.org/pressreleases/detail/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=2003&cHash=257f985f5491cfeb517a4bffd048795d. 
4-33 

Export Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank). “U.S. Exports Will Expand Wind Farm in 

Honduras.” News release, March 5, 2013. 

http://www.exim.gov/newsandevents/releases/2013/Exports-Will-Expand-Wind-Farm-inHonduras.cfm. 

Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC). 2012 China Wind Energy Outlook, 2012. 

———. Annual Market Update 2011, March 2012. 

———. Global Wind 2007 Report, 2008. 

———. Global Wind 2011 Report, July 2, 2012. 

———. Global Wind Statistics 2012, February 11, 2013. 

Goosens, Ehren. “AES Says U.S. Wind Market is Weak, Focuses on Europe and Asia.” Bloomberg New 

Energy Finance, November 4, 2010. 

Global Trade Information Services, Inc. (GTIS). Global Trade Atlas database, http://www.gtis.com

(accessed July 9, 2013). 

Harper, John, Matthew Karcher, and Mark Bolinger. “Wind Project Financing Structures: A Review and 

Comparative Analysis.” Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory publication no. 

LBNL-63434, September 2007. http://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/REPORT%20lbnl%20-

%2063434.pdf. 

International Energy Agency (IEA). IEA Wind 2011 Annual Report. July 2012. 

———. “Topic: Wind Power,” n.d. (accessed September 13, 2012). 

https://www.iea.org/topics/windpower. 

International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). Cost Analysis of Wind Power, June 2012. 

———. Renewable Energy Power Generation Costs in 2012: An Overview, 2013. 

Ireland, Beck. “Wind Service.” Electrical Construction and Maintenance, November 2011. 

Johnston, Adam. “China Reaches 50 GW of Connected Grid Wind Capacity; Expected to Top 140 GW 

by 2015.” Cleantechnica.com, February 21, 2013. http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/21/chinareaches-50gw-of-connected-grid-wind-capacity-expected-to-top-140gw-2015/. 

Jordan, Phil, and Cai Steger. American Wind Farms: Breaking Down the Benefits from Planning to 

Production. National Resources Defense Council, September 2012. 

www.nrdc.org/energy/files/american-wind-farms-IP.pdf. 

Li, Junfeng, et al. China Wind Energy Outlook. n.d. http://www.gwec.net/wpcontent/uploads/2012/11/China-Outlook-2012-EN.pdf. 

Lima, Joao. “EDP Buys Horizon Wind from Goldman for $2.15 Billion.” Bloomberg, March 27, 2007. 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a0YT3J3T9imA. 
4-34 

Logistics Business Review. “LM Wind Power Service & Logistics acquires Encore Power Services,” 

January 13, 2011. http://www.logistics-business-review.com/news/lm-wind-power-servicelogistics-acquires-encore-power-services-130111. 

Massy, Janice. “Banks Opting for Lazy Route could Increase Risk.” Wind Power Monthly, October 17, 

2010. 

McGovern, Michael. “China puts Bolivia on Wind Map.” Wind Power Monthly, March 11, 2013. 

Morales, Alex and Ben Sills. “Spain Ejects Clean-Power Industry with Europe Precedent: Energy.” 

Bloomberg, May 30, 2012. 

Navigant Research. World Market Update 2012. A BTM Wind Report, March 2013. 

Nielsen, Stephan. “BNDES Raises Local-Content Requirement for Brazil Wind Turbines.” Bloomberg, 

September 13, 2012. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-13/bndes-raises-local-contentrequirement-for-brazil-wind-turbines.html. 

———. “Cheapest Wind Energy Spurring Renewables Deals: Corporate Brazil.” Bloomberg, January 29, 

2013. 

———. “China Grabs Share in Latin America Wind with Cheap Loans.” Bloomberg, November 20, 2012. 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-20/china-grabs-share-in-latin-america-wind-withcheap-loans.html. 

———. “Wind Energy Makers Thrown by Local Supply Rules in Brazil.” Bloomberg, March 18, 2013. 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-18/wind-energy-makers-thrown-by-local-supplyrules-in-brazil.html. 

North, Will. “Ainscough Completes Windcon Deal.” Cranes Today, October 24, 2012. 

North American Windpower. “China holds spot as world’s top wind energy market, on track to reach 

100 GW by next year,” February 4, 2013. 

O’Brian, Heather. “Wind Projects Look to Export Finance as New Markets Open.” Wind Power Monthly, 

February 27, 2013. 

———. “Uncertainty Drives Italian Firms Abroad.” Wind Power Monthly, December 23, 2011. 

Ontario Power Authority. “General Information about the FIT and microFIT Programs.” 

http://fit.powerauthority.on.ca/program-resources/faqs/general-information-about-fit-andmicrofit-programs (accessed January 31, 2013). 

Outland Energy Services. “Duke Energy Renewables Acquires Outland Energy Services,” November 9, 

2012. http://outlandenergy.com/duke-energy-renewables-acquires-outland-energy-services/. 

Pernick, Ron, Clint Wilder, and Trevor Winnie. 2012 Clean Energy Trends. March 2012. 

Quilter, James. “AMP Capital to Invest $100 Million in U.S. Wind.” Wind Power Monthly, February 12, 

2013. 

Qi, Wu. “China’s Service Market Grows as Installations Fall.” Windpower Monthly, July 1, 2012. 

———. “China’s Wind sector lost $1.6 Billion in 2012.” Windpower Monthly, January 25, 2013. 
4-35 

———. “Debt Hampers Chinese Wind.” Windpower Monthly, May 2013, 29. 

———. “Hydrochina Wins 30MW Deal in Pakistan.” Windpower Monthly, June 4, 2013. 

http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1184812/hydrochina-wins-30mw-deal-pakistan. 

———. “Sany Wins 153 MW Ethiopian Contract.” Windpower Monthly, May 20, 2013. 

http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1182941/sany-wins-153mw-ethiopian-contract. 

Schoenberger, Robert. “Timken Buys Wazee Companies, Expands Wind Turbine Service Business.” 

Cleveland Plain Dealer, January 2, 2013. 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2013/01/timken_buys_wazee_companies_ex.html. 

Scott, Mark. “A Spanish Blowout: The Iberian Giants of U.S. Wind Energy.” Spiegel Online 

International, October 29, 2008. http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/a-spanish-blowoutthe-iberian-giants-of-us-wind-energy-a-587218.html. 

———. “In Europe, Green Energy Takes a Hit from Debt Crisis.” New York Times, November 13, 2012. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/business/energy-environment/in-europe-green-energy-takesa-hit-from-debt-crisis.html. 

Sen, Sandip. “Wind Energy Majors Set up Low-Cost Plants in India.” Clean Biz.Asia, February 23, 2011. 

Sills, Ben. “Spain Halts Renewable Subsidies to Curb $31 Billion of Debts.” Bloomberg, January 27, 

2012. 

Spatuzza, Alexandra. “Brazil – Lack of Grid Connections Keeps Wind Farms Offline.” Wind Power 

Monthly, March 1, 2013. 

———. “Turbine Makers Focus on Local Content Rules.” Wind Power Monthly, September 26, 2012. 

Tardieu, Pierre. “EWEA Trade Policy Views.” Presented at ICSTD Conference, Bali, Indonesia, 

March 29, 2012. http://ictsd.org/downloads/2012/04/presentation-mr-tardieu.pdf. 

Tegen, S., M. Hand, B. Maples, E. Lantz, P. Schwabe, and A. Smith. 2010 Cost of Wind Energy Review. 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory Technical Report, NREL/TP-5000-52920. April 2012. 

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/52920.pdf. 

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Electric Power Annual 2011. January 2013. 

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/pdf/epa.pdf. 

———. International Energy Statistics database (accessed August 19, 2013). 

Weyndling, Richard. “Frustrated Spanish Wind Sector Looks Abroad to Stay in Business.” Wind Power 

Monthly, June 28, 2011. 

Windpower Engineering and Development. “Top Wind Power Developers (2012).” N.d. (accessed 

May 30, 2013). http://www.windpowerengineering.com/top-wind-power-developers-2012/. 

Wind Power Monthly. “Balancing Act for a Hard Pressed Supply Chain.” August 25, 2011. 

———. “Canadian Growth Brings New Interest and Challenges.” October 1, 2012. 
4-36 

———. “GE and Remote Turbine Monitoring,” March 10, 2010. 

———. “Operations and Maintenance,” September 1, 2009. 

———. “US O&M Spending to Reach $6 Billion by 2025,” July 11, 2012. 

Windustry.org. “Chapter 10: Tax Incentives.” Community Wind Toolbox, n.d. (accessed January 30, 

2013). http://www.windustry.org/community-wind/toolbox/chapter-10-tax-incentives. 

———. “Chapter 13: Power Purchase Agreement.” Community Wind Toolbox, n.d. (accessed March 24, 

2013). http://www.windustry.org/community-wind/toolbox/chapter-13-powerpurchae-agreement. 

Wiser, Ryan, and Mark Bolinger. 2011 Wind Technologies Market Report. U.S. Department of Energy, 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. August 2012. 

———. LBNL Wind Technologies Market Report Data. August 2012. 

World Bank. “Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs).” PPP in Infrastructure Resource Center (PPPIRC), 

June 18, 2008. http://go.worldbank.org/477RW9M170. 

World Trade Organization (WTO). “Dispute DS 412: Canada—Certain Measures Affecting the 

Renewable Energy Generation Sector.” 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds412_e.htm (accessed July 2, 2013). 

Xiao, Su. “Goldwind, Change is in the Air.” WWEA Quarterly. Issue 4, December 2012. 

Xinhua.net. “China’s Largest Wind Power Developer Marches into Canadian Market,” July 13, 2011. 

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-07/13/c_13983164.htm. 

———. “SOEs Dominate China’s Wind Power Projects,” April 10, 2013. 

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2013-04/10/c_132298902.htm. 

Yepez-García, Rigoberto Ariel, Todd M. Johnson, and Luis Alberto Andrés. Meeting the Electricity 

Supply/Demand Balance in Latin America & the Caribbean. The World Bank, September 2010. 

http://www.esmap.org/sites/esmap.org/files/REPORT%20LAC%20Electricity%20Challenge%20

octubre%202010%20LESMAP%20FINAL.pdf. 
5-1 

CHAPTER 5 

Hydropower and Geothermal Services 

The hydropower and geothermal electricity sectors show substantial growth potential in 

many countries. As electric power capacity in these sectors is added, opportunities for 

service providers will also increase. Service sectors that will substantially benefit include 

engineering, construction, and operations and maintenance (O&M). New projects in 

emerging economies, in particular, often provide export opportunities for U.S. service 

providers. This chapter will discuss both sectors in detail. 

Hydropower Energy 

Hydropower, a renewable resource and one of the oldest forms of electrical power 

generation, accounts for the largest share of electricity generated from renewable 

resources. Due to the environmental impact of large dams on rivers and surrounding 

regions, however, many policies that aim to provide incentives for renewable energy 

target only small-scale hydropower projects. Smaller projects are generally viewed as less 

environmentally detrimental because they are thought to present fewer environmental and 

social concerns and to need much less in the way of financing and startup costs, although 

smaller projects do not always have a smaller environmental impact.1 

This section presents information related to the entire hydropower industry and related 

services and, where available, specific information for small hydropower. Note that there 

is no globally accepted definition of “small” hydropower, and project capacities for 

hydropower may range from several watts for the smallest individual installations to tens 

of gigawatts (GW) for the largest. According to one estimate, hydropower projects rated 

at capacities lower than 10 megawatts (MW) represent about 10 percent of global 

hydropower capacity.2

 In this chapter, discussion of small hydropower refers to projects 

of 50 MW capacities or less, unless otherwise noted.3

 

 1

 Deonta Smith, “Hydroelectric Power in the U.S.,” July 2012, 7–8; industry representatives, interviews 

with USITC staff, March 4, 12, and 14, 2013. The environmental and social impacts of a single large 

hydropower project are likely to be greater than those of individual smaller projects, but the cumulative 

impacts of many smaller hydroplants may equal or even exceed those of a single large plant generating the 

same output. In other instances, the overall environmental sustainability of a project involving a few large 

plants may actually receive more scrutiny and control than a larger number of separate, smaller projects. 

Consequently, the International Energy Agency (IEA) recommends assessing particular projects on their 

overall sustainability performance, rather than their size. IEA, 2012 Hydropower Technology Roadmap,

2012, 31. In another recent study, researchers concluded that the cumulative impact of small dams on China’s 

Nu River system has caused significant environmental damage to the local ecosystem. Oregon State 

University, “Dam Construction to Reduce Greenhouse Gases Causes Ecosystem Disruption,” June 18, 2013. 2

 For example, small-scale hydro, as referenced in individual country laws, is defined as project 

generation capacity below 1.5 MW in Sweden, but below 50 MW in China. IEA, 2012 Hydropower 

Technology Roadmap, 2012, 15. 3

 This cutoff follows the definition used by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), the source of 

much of the renewable energy project data in this report. 
5-2 

Overview of Hydropower-related Services 

Services related to hydropower projects (tables 5.1 and 5.2) are supplied throughout the 

lifecycle of a project.4

 Services provided prior to project development broadly include 

resource assessment, site studies, and technical and economic feasibility studies. Services 

related to project development and construction include project design, construction, 

construction management, and quality control consulting services. For large projects that 

are expected to significantly impact the local population, social services such as public 

outreach, working with local communities and interest groups, and community relocation 

services can be significant. 5

 Once construction has been completed and a project is 

operational, it requires services related to operations and maintenance (O&M). As noted 

by one company, post-development services run the gamut “from inspection to 

commissioning, from repairs to upgrades.”6

The development cost of a particular hydropower project is generally split between civil 

engineering/construction costs, potentially including infrastructure needed to access the 

site, and the cost of electro-mechanical equipment. Equipment costs tend to be fairly 

predictable, while civil engineering costs vary significantly based on the specific site, 

design choices, and local costs for labor and materials. The costs of small hydropower 

projects tend to be higher per kilowatt-hour (kWh) on average than those for large 

hydropower projects. Plants with capacity below 1 MW tend to have significantly higher 

capital costs per kWh because civil works costs are significantly lower, so the cost of 

equipment accounts for a greater share of the overall project cost. 

Many hydropower projects refurbish an existing plant, rather than develop a new site. 

These “life extensions” may upgrade original equipment to increase the capacity at an 

existing site, or they may add electricity generation capacity to existing dams that were 

originally built for non-electricity purposes, such as flood control. Rehabilitating or 

expanding an existing plant generally has the lowest costs per kWh, because much of the 

initial civil works development has been completed.7

 The cost of adding capacity to an 

existing hydropower site is estimated to be in the range of $400–$800/kWh.8

Most original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) in the hydropower field customize 

hydroelectric turbines for each site, and they have traditionally provided O&M services 

as part of the warranty on their equipment, or under contract after the warranty expires.9

However, more companies now provide services on equipment provided by other firms, 

 4

 Although the production of electricity using hydropower is a clearly defined industry, there is no 

widely accepted list of services related to hydroelectricity generation. In an effort to provide such a list, the 

tables list the services offered by individual companies, as described in submissions to the Commission, 

company websites, and marketing brochures. 5

 According to one U.S. industry representative on China’s Three Gorges Dam project, the budget for 

such social services was larger than the construction budget. Industry representative, telephone interview 

with USITC staff, March 14, 2013. 6

 GE Energy, “GE Energy Industrial Solutions: GE Serves Hydro,” 2011, 4. 

7

 Upgrades often involve adding larger turbines to an existing site, and may or may not involve 

expanding the dam that is part of a hydropower site. Since hydropower sites may be decades old, such 

upgrades are not uncommon and are seen as an efficient way to maximize the capacity of an existing site. In 

the United States, upgrades need to be relicensed by the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC)—a process that may or may not take less time than the original licensing of an entirely new project. 

IRENA, “Renewable Energy Technologies,” June 2012, 21; industry representative, telephone interview with 

USITC staff, March 4, 2013. 8

 Industry representative, telephone interview with USITC staff, March 14, 2013. 9

 Ibid. 
5-3 

TABLE 5.1 Services related to the development of hydropower projects

CPC code CPC description Hydropower-specific services 

511 Pre-erection work at 

construction sites 

 Site access infrastructure 

 Time scheduling and construction phase planning 

513 Construction for civil 

engineering 

 Dam, reservoir, tunneling and canal construction 

 Grid connection 

865 Management 

consulting and related 

services 

 Project engineering, supervision, and quality management 

 Cost, time, and risk management 

 Community relocation and public outreach to NGOs and local 

communities 

 Financial consulting services, including electricity price forecasting, 

asset valuation, advice on green certificates (carbon credits), and 

technical and financial reviews for lenders 

8672 Engineering services, 

including advisory and 

consultative services 

(86721), engineering 

design for civil works 

(86724), and 

engineering services 

during construction 

(86727) 

• Field engineering and site supervision 

• Inspection and testing 

 Cost estimates for developers and owners, including planning, 

licensing and permitting 

 Feasibility studies, tender evaluations, and contract documents 

 Manuals and safety guidelines, technical specification documents 

 Geological investigations and mappings 

 Weir and dam type studies, powerhouse developments, siting and 

plant access analysis 

 Hydrological and hydraulic modeling services and data assessments 

covering cascade simulation, forecasting and warning systems, flood 

protection, and groundwater modeling and management 

 Earthquake assessment services for seismic design, modeling 

services, damage assessments and rehabilitation packages 

 Environmental services including monitoring, risk and impact 

assessments, resettlements, soil and groundwater investigations, 

permits, audits, and due diligence 

 Project development services, including construction drawings; 

sustainable water resource planning; dam, reservoir and water 

conveyance engineering; generation output modeling; power plant 

design and refurbishment; and transmission lines 

Specific to the United States: 

• Consulting services to assist with the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC) licensing or relicensing process 

86739 Integrated engineering 

services for other 

turnkey projects 

• Integrated processes and methods 

• Technical assistance and advice 

• Disaster recovery 

Sources: Verdant Power, written submission to the USITC, March 1, 2013; lists of services from individual company 

websites and marketing publications. Central Product Classification codes were assigned by the Commission.

Note: Not all services will be needed on every project. 

 
5-4 

TABLE 5.2 Post-development services related to operations and maintenance (O&M) for hydropower projects

CPC code CPC description Hydropower-specific services 

8676 Technical testing 

and analysis 

services 

 Testing of electrical machinery including turbines and 

generators 

886 Repair services of 

machinery and 

equipment 

O&M services 

 Visual inspection and maintenance testing 

 Generator rewinds and core restacks 

 Upgrades to existing equipment, to increase output and improve 

efficiency 

 Repairs of turbines, turbine welds, and other components 

Electromechanical and rehabilitation services 

 Turbines and pumps, generators, emergency and cooling 

systems, fire protection and HVAC, switchyards and 

substations, hydro mechanical equipment 

 Instrumentation and control as diagnostic systems 

 Water supply control regulators 

86721 Advisory and 

consultative 

engineering services 

 Dam monitoring services including geodetic surveys, dam 

safety assessments and seismic analysis 

 Turbine efficiency measuring 

86739 Integrated 

engineering services 

for other turnkey 

projects 

 Environmental monitoring 

 Contract management 

 On-site management and supervision 

Sources: Written submission to the Commission, March 1, 2013; lists of services from individual company 

websites and marketing publications. CPC codes were assigned by the Commission. 

and more customers are willing to hire independent service providers to provide O&M 

services at the lowest cost. Nonetheless, a significant share of the services provided by 

OEMs is O&M services; one hydropower equipment manufacturer estimated that 

services accounted for 6–8 percent of its total revenue.10 

For example, Germany-based Voith won contracts for two South American microhydroelectric projects in January 2013, and will supply both goods and services for the 

projects. Voith will supply and install a turbine, generator, automation systems, and all 

related electrical and mechanical parts for a small expansion of Brazil’s 372-MW Santo 

Antônio do Jari hydropower project, adding about 3.4 MW of capacity to the site’s 

overall capacity. Voith will also provide two small hydroelectric generators for a new 

45.8 MW run-of-river project in San Miguel, Colombia. Voith will be responsible for the 

erection and commissioning supervision services for both projects.11 

U.S. Market for Hydropower-related Services 

There is little direct information on the size of the hydropower services market, either in 

the United States or globally. Instead, this chapter presents estimates of the size of the 

services market as a share of hydropower generation capacity. 

 10 Industry representative, interview with USITC staff, Tokyo, March 10, 2013. 11 Voith has manufacturing operations in the United States, but it is not clear whether the goods and 

services in these deals will be supplied from Germany or elsewhere. HydroWorld.com, “Voith Signs Deals,” 

January 28, 2013; industry representative, interview with USITC staff, São Paulo, Brazil, May 9, 2013. 
5-5 

Market Size 

There are approximately 2,400 hydroelectric power plants of all sizes operating in the 

United States. Conventional (large and small) hydroelectric plants provided 74,800 MW 

of electricity, and pumped storage projects provided an additional 8,400 MW.12 Of this 

total, 50 percent of generating capacity was federally owned, 25 percent was privately 

owned, and 25 percent was non-federal publicly owned.13 Developers received licenses or 

exemptions from the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for 730 MW 

of new capacity between 2009 and 2012, suggesting the possibility of significant new 

hydropower development in the next five years.14 As of January 2013, there were 878 

existing small hydropower projects (50 MW or less) licensed by FERC, and 135 projects 

over 50 MW.15 California has the largest number of projects overall, with the greatest 

overall generation capacity, while New York has the largest number of small hydropower 

projects.16 

 

Electricity generation revenues for the U.S. hydropower industry were $6.1 billion in 

2012, with revenue posting an average annual decline of 1.7 percent between 2007 and 

2012. A major reason for the drop in revenues was the decline in the number of U.S. 

hydropower generating plants (figure 5.1). Additionally, droughts in the United States 

during 2007–09 reduced available water and thus reduced power generation in those 

years, although hydroelectricity generation rebounded in 2011.17 

Estimates of the size of the market for project development-related hydropower services 

are based on a constant share of total development costs for new hydropower projects, 

multiplied by the total of new capacity developed in the most recent data year.18 As 

shown in table 5.3, the U.S. market for hydropower-related project development costs 

 12 Pumped storage is a type of hydroelectric power generation that stores energy in the form of water in 

an upper reservoir; the water is pumped from a second reservoir at a lower elevation. During periods of high 

electricity demand, the stored water is released through turbines in the same way as a conventional hydro 

station. Excess energy refills the reservoir by pumping the water back to the upper reservoir, usually during 

nights and weekends when electricity demand is low. National Hydropower Association, “Hydro Works for 

America,” n.d. (accessed June 26, 2013). 13 These statistics reflect data as of 2011. Non-federal public owners include irrigation districts, cities, 

and water districts. The U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulates privately owned and 

non-federal publicly owned sites but does not regulate federally owned sites. FERC, “Present Development 

of Conventional Hydroelectric Projects,” June 10, 2013. 14 BNEF, Sustainable Energy in America 2013 Factbook, January 2013, 39. 15 This number does not include federally owned hydropower plants, which accounts for the difference 

from the total of 2,400 hydropower plants cited above. 16 FERC, “Present Development of Conventional Hydroelectric Projects,” June 10, 2013. 17 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, April 22, 2013. 18 To estimate the size of the market, the Commission relied on data for global hydropower capacity 

from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Information Agency (EIA), along with estimates of the 

share of development and O&M services in a hydropower project from Black & Veatch (B&V). According to 

B&V, using estimates based on an average 500 MW project located in the U.S. Midwest region, engineering, 

procurement, and construction management (EPC) costs are approximately 7 percent of total project costs, 

and owner’s costs (primarily services such as feasibility studies, environmental impact studies, resource 

assessments, and permitting and other legal costs) are approximately 23 percent of total project costs. Hence 

about 30 percent of total project costs are likely to be services. B&V notes that these estimates can vary 

within a fairly wide range of +/– 35 percent. This estimate does not include the costs of materials and labor 

for actual plant and civil works construction, which vary widely for hydropower projects based on particular 

site characteristics, but it does include construction management and project management costs. For O&M 

services, B&V estimated average costs in 2010 for a 500 MW plant in the United States to be $15/kW-yr in 

fixed costs and $6/MWh in variable costs. These estimates include fixed and variable costs for maintenance 

and repairs, and supervision costs for existing plants. Industry representative, telephone interview with 

USITC staff, March 14, 2013; EIA, “Annual Energy Review 2011,” 2012; B&V, “Cost and Performance 

Data for Power Generation Technologies,” February 2012, 35. 
5-6 

TABLE 5.3 Estimated U.S. market for hydropower-related services based on existing large and small hydropower 

projects, 2010

 Hydropower capacity (total) 

Estimated 

size of project 

development 

services 

market 

Estimated 

size of fixed 

O&M 

services 

market 

Estimated 

size of 

variable 

O&M 

services 

Country/region 2009 2010 market

2009–10 

growth

MW Million $ 

United States 78,518 78,825 307 322 1,182 2,196 

North America 164,571 165,064 493 518 2,476 4,598 

World (all hydro) 887,378 917,544 30,166 31,674 13,763 25,560 

U.S. as share of North 

 America 48% 48% 62% 62% 48% 48%

U.S. as share of world (all 

 hydro) 9% 9% 1% 1% 9% 9%

U.S. (small hydropower 

 only, rated at ≤50 MW 

 capacity) 826 826 0% 0 12 23

World (small hydropower only) 22,471 23,676 1,205 1,265 355 660

Source: BNEF; U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), “Annual Energy Review 2011,” 2012; B&V, “Cost and 

Performance Data for Power Generation Technologies,” February 2012, 35; and calculations by the Commission. 

Notes: Figures for the market for project development services include estimates of EPC and owners’ costs, and 

are based on the annual market for one year’s new construction. Owner’s costs primarily include services such as 

feasibility studies, environmental impact studies, resource assessments, and permitting and other legal costs. 

Figures for the market for fixed and variable O&M services are based on the cumulative reported capacity for each 

market. Figures for small hydropower projects are based on those in the BNEF database, which likely does not 

include all global small hydropower projects and should be seen as a base (floor) estimate. According to BNEF, 

there was no small hydropower development in the United States in 2010, so it is not possible to provide an 

estimate of the market size for new development services. Data for earlier years are not comparable. North 

America includes the United States, Canada, and Mexico. 

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

0

50

100

150

200

250

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number

Million $

Number of enterprises Revenue

FIGURE 5.1 U.S. hydropower revenue has declined since 2003

Source: Deonta Smith, “Hydroelectric Power in the U.S.,” July 2012, 33.
5-7 

was estimated to be $322 million in 2010, and the combined market for fixed and 

variable O&M services was estimated at approximately $3.4 billion.19

Factors Affecting Supply and Demand for Hydropower Services 

Hydropower services related to new project development and those related to O&M have 

different demand and supply drivers. Renewable portfolio standards (RPSs) and federal 

and state tax incentives are important drivers of demand for new renewable energy 

projects, including hydropower, and thus drive the market for hydro-related services.20

However, many of the state incentives apply only to small hydropower projects, and 

under the federal incentives, only certain categories of hydropower projects are eligible.21

For these reasons, the incentives have been more effective at promoting development of 

wind and solar power, and actually are considered to have been a factor in reducing the 

overall share of hydropower in the U.S. electricity market.22 

The primary federal government incentive is the Investment Tax Credit (ITC), which 

offers a tax credit of 30 percent of a project’s qualified investment costs. 23 Project 

developers also have the option of choosing to take the production tax credit (PTC) in 

lieu of the ITC. The PTC is based on the amount of electricity generated, and provides a 

credit of $11/MWh, as opposed to the ITC, which is based on investment costs. Twentyfour U.S. hydropower projects, all upgrades to existing facilities, qualified under the PTC 

in 2012. The federal government also permits project owners to use accelerated 

depreciation accounting to reduce their tax bills.24 Both constructing hydropower projects 

and adding new capacity to an existing project often involve relatively high capital 

expenditures, so many hydropower developers may prefer the one-time, lump-sum 

benefits of the ITC over the production-based PTC. Relying on the ITC also removes the 

risks associated with production variability once the project is operational. Such 

variability is an important concern for hydropower, as electricity production can fluctuate 

significantly with changes in water levels.25

Many states have renewable energy incentive programs in place that only allow small 

hydropower projects to qualify, although the qualifying size varies by state. For most 

states, the qualifying capacity limit is set at either 10 MW or 30 MW. In New Hampshire, 

existing hydropower projects must be rated at or below 5 MW to qualify, while in 

Minnesota and Michigan, projects rated up to 100 MW may qualify. In New Mexico, any 

hydropower project brought into service after 2007 qualifies. In Ohio, projects do not 

face capacity limits, but must meet certain environmental standards. In addition to 

traditional hydropower, most coastal states include wave and tidal power in their 

 19 Fixed costs are set for the project, and include such items as maintenance, rent, and employee 

salaries. Examples of variable costs include electricity and other utilities necessary to run the project, and 

unscheduled maintenance costs not covered by a warranty or OEM contract. Industry representative, email 

communication with USITC staff, March 20, 2013. 20 Industry representatives, interviews with USITC staff, March 4, 2013. 21 Eligible projects include adding capacity at an existing hydropower facility; adding hydropower to an 

existing dam; conduit energy; and ocean, tidal, or wave projects. Industry representative, email message to 

USITC staff, June 12, 2013. 22 Deonta Smith, “Hydroelectric Power in the U.S.,” July 2012, 7–8. 23 Kleinschmidt, “ITC/PTC—What’s in It for Hydro and Wind Developers?” (accessed March 7, 2013). 24 “The Investment Tax Credit (ITC) allows project developers to take a tax credit equal to 30 percent 

of the cost of constructing their project, and is in effect through the end of 2013 for wind, biomass, 

geothermal, hydropower, marine and tidal energy.” BNEF, Sustainable Energy in America 2013 Factbook, 

January 2013, 21-2. 25 Kleinschmidt, “ITC/PTC—What’s in It for Hydro and Wind Developers?” (accessed March 7, 2013). 
5-8 

definitions of eligible renewable energy technologies. Like the PTC and ITC, these statelevel incentives have been significant drivers of new renewable energy capacity.26

Most hydropower projects in the United States are licensed and regulated by the FERC. 

The licensing process is a long and difficult one, which reduces the supply of new 

projects. Owners may choose from three different FERC licensing processes, but in all 

cases, the process averages 6–10 years from beginning to end, and is widely blamed for 

raising project development costs. Projects rated at capacities of 5 MW or less may be 

exempt from FERC licenses, although exempted projects are still regulated by state 

authorities. 27 All hydropower projects, both licensed and exempted, require 

environmental reviews, public participation, and agency consultation before development 

can proceed.28 The FERC licensing process for small hydropower projects may face 

changes in the near future (box 5.1). The complexity of the process has created an entire 

category of legal and regulatory consulting service providers specialized in assisting 

project developers with the FERC licensing process.29

BOX 5.1 Changes to the FERC licensing process 

Two bills changing the conditions for development of small hydropower were signed into law by President Obama in 

August 2013: H.R. 267, the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-23), and H.R. 678, the Bureau of 

Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower and Rural Jobs Act (P.L. 113-24). Under the previous law, all hydropower 

projects were required to be licensed or exempted by FERC, but the new law changes that. 

P.L. 113-23 allows FERC to exempt hydropower projects of up to 10MW that use existing canals, pipelines, or other 

conduits from its usual permitting process (under previous law, only projects up to 5 MW were exempt). It also 

waives license requirements for certain projects of 5 MW or less. According to hydropower industry representatives, 

the cost of the FERC licensing process is a high hurdle for small projects, sometimes surpassing actual project 

development costs. The measure also orders FERC to explore a two-year licensing process for hydropower 

development at existing non-powered dams and closed-loop pumped storage projects (significantly faster than the 

current process). In addition, it directs the Department of Energy to study pumped storage to support intermittent 

renewable energy sources like wind and solar. 

P.L. 113-24 authorizes the development of small hydropower facilities at existing canals and other manmade 

waterways that are owned by the Bureau of Reclamation. The bill also streamlines the licensing process for some 

projects by removing them from coverage under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 

Sources: HydroWorld.com, “Hydroelectric Power Industry Leaders,” August 12, 2013; HydroWorld.com, “Obama 

Signs Hydroelectric Power Bills,” August 9, 2013; CRS, Bill Summary & Status, H.R. 267, CRS Summary; industry 

representative, telephone interviews with USITC staff, March 13 and April 4, 2013. 

Sales of hydropower equipment for hydropower O&M services, particularly turbines, are 

an important demand factor because the equipment needs to be maintained and repaired. 

Most manufacturers of turbines initially provide maintenance and repair services under 

the warranty on their equipment. 30 Once the warranty period has passed, many 

hydroelectricity producers continue to receive these services from the same 

 26 BNEF, Sustainable Energy in America 2013 Factbook, January 2013, 22, 38; IER, “The Status of 

Renewable Electricity Mandates,” n.d. (accessed March 29, 2013) ; Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, 

“Renewable and Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards,” March 21, 2013. 27 Exempted projects do not require renewed applications to FERC to continue operating, as opposed to 

licenses, which have terms of 30–50 years and must then undergo a relicensing process. 28 Industry representatives, interviews with USITC staff, March 4 and 12, 2013; BNEF, Sustainable 

Energy in America 2013 Factbook, January 2013, 39. 29 Industry representatives, interviews with USITC staff, March 4 and 12, 2013. 30 The length of the warranty period varies according to the manufacturer. 
5-9 

manufacturers; others may contract for O&M services with another manufacturer or an 

independent service provider. Leading manufacturers of hydropower turbines in the 

United States and globally, all of which provide O&M services, include General Electric, 

Siemens, Weir American Hydro, Voith, Andritz, and Alstom. 31 One firm which 

specializes in contract O&M work is NAES, headquartered in Issaquah, WA. It is an 

affiliate of Itochu Corporation (Japan).32

U.S. Industry Trends 

The U.S. hydropower industry is mature, with few sites left for building new large-scale 

dams, and significant opposition to doing so.33 Nonetheless, the federal government plans 

to significantly increase U.S. hydropower production by upgrading existing facilities, 

adding power-generating capacity to dams that currently have none, and developing small 

hydropower facilities.34 In one example of a project that uses existing facilities to produce 

new power, U.S.-based American Municipal Power Ohio is building four new 

hydroelectric power plants along the Ohio River at existing dams and locks in West 

Virginia, Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio. Germany-based Voith will supply generators, 

turbines, and automation systems from its plant in York, Pennsylvania, generating 

313 MW of renewable energy without adding environmental impact.35 Another potential 

area of growth is the emerging technology of marine and hydrokinetic power (box 5.2). 

Two leading service sectors related to hydropower project development are engineering 

design and construction services for new power plants. Table 5.4 presents the top five 

leading U.S. firms in each of the latter categories in 2012, and the firm’s hydropowerrelated revenue for those activities. 

Global Market for Hydropower-related Services 

Market Size 

Hydropower provided 16 percent (about 3,500 TWh) of the world’s electricity in 2010. It 

supplied more electricity than nuclear power did (12 percent) and much more than wind, 

solar, geothermal, and other renewable sources combined (4 percent), but much less than 

fossil fuel plants (67 percent). China is the world’s leading generator of hydroelectricity, 

followed by Brazil and Canada (table 5.5). The 10 countries listed in the table produce 

70 percent of the world’s hydroelectricity.36 Hydropower added 25 GW of new power 

generation capacity in 2011, bringing the global total to 970 GW.37 Hydropower facilities 

tend to be long-lived—some existing projects were commissioned as early as the 1870s. 

 31 Company websites; industry representative, interview with USITC staff, Washington, DC, March 14, 

2013. 32 Industry representative, interview with USITC staff, Washington, DC, March 14, 2013. 33 Deonta Smith, “Hydroelectric Power in the U.S.,” July 2012, 12. 34 The U.S. Department of Energy, Department of Interior, and Army Corps of Engineers signed a 

memorandum of understanding for hydropower in March 2010, with a focus on increasing generation from 

federal hydropower facilities and reducing environmental impacts. IEA, 2012 Hydropower Technology 

Roadmap, 22. 35 Voith Website, http://voith.com/en/markets-industries/industries/hydro-power/large-hydroplants/main-4354_m_special_ohio_river-4354.html (accessed June 14, 2013). 36 IEA, 2012 Hydropower Technology Roadmap, 2012, 9. 37 REN21, Renewables 2012, 2012, 97. 
5-10 

BOX 5.2 Renewable energy from marine and hydrokinetic power 

Besides classic hydropower electricity generation, FERC also regulates projects using an emerging technology called 

marine and hydrokinetic power (MHK). MHK generates electricity from three types of sources: ocean tides, waves, 

and current; temperature gradients in the ocean; and free-flowing rivers and streams, but without using dams or 

barrages, as in traditional hydropower projects. 

As of March 2013, FERC has issued one MHK commercial license, for the Reedsport OPT Wave Park in Oregon, 

and three pilot licenses. The pilot license process was developed in 2008 specifically to test the emerging MHK 

technology. Pilot licenses are issued for 10 years, and are initiated by a draft application with appropriate 

environmental analysis. All pilots must be small, short-term, removable projects located in an environmentally nonsensitive area. Licensees must be able to shut them down on short notice, and must remove them and restore the 

site before the end of the license term unless they obtain a new license. 

The first pilot license for a tidal energy project was issued for Verdant Power’s 1 MW-rated MHK project in New 

York’s East River. As of March 2013, FERC had also issued 100 preliminary MHK permits (see table), which 

authorize permit holders to maintain rights to a particular site while conducting feasibility studies and before applying 

for a license. Most of the inland projects are located on the Mississippi River, with a few in the Great Lakes. The tidal 

projects are located in the Northeastern states, Washington state, and Alaska, while the wave permits are located in 

California, Oregon, and Alaska. 

Summary of FERC preliminary permits for MHK power projects 

 Number of permits Capacity (MW) 

Tidal 22 171.1 

Wave 5 3,290.0 

Inland 73 6,754.7 

Total 100 10,215.8 

Source: FERC, “Issued HydroKinetic Preliminary Permits,” n.d. 

Many services relevant to hydropower will also be relevant to MHK electricity projects, including engineering 

consulting and advising, environmental and engineering analysis, and legal and management consulting services. In 

addition, because MHK technology is so new, there is a relatively undeveloped market for resource assessment 

services to inform investors about the energy extraction potential of a particular water resource, along with 

environmental and economic aspects of a particular site. If this technology develops and becomes more widely used, 

U.S. firms that develop expertise in such resource assessment services are likely to generate additional market 

potential in related site development services and equipment sales, both for domestic sales and for exports. 

Sources: FERC, “FERC Issues First Pilot License,” January 23, 2012; Taylor, written submission to the Commission, 

March 1, 2013. 

TABLE 5.4 Leading U.S. hydropower design firms and contractors, 2012 

Design firms Construction firms 

Company 

Hydroplant revenue 

(million $) Company 

Hydroplant revenue

 (million $)

Aecom Technology 182.7 Kiewit 414.0

Tetra Tech 70.0 The Walsh Group 152.5

MWH Global 68.0 PCL Construction Enterprises 48.8

HDR 48.5 The Shaw Group 35.3

AMEC 33.1 The Cianbro Cos. 7.2

Source: ENR, “The Top Contractors in Power,” September 17, 2012; ENR, “The Top Design Firms in Power,” July 2, 

2012. 

 
5-11 

TABLE 5.5 Top 10 global hydropower producers in 2010

Country 

Hydroelectricity 

production 

(TWh) 

Hydropower share of 

country’s electricity 

generation (%) 

Country share of global 

hydropower production (%)

China 694 14.8 20

Brazil 403 80.2 12

Canada 376 62.0 11

United States 328 7.6 9

Russia 165 15.7 5

India 132 13.1 4

Norway 122 95.3 3

Japan 85 7.8 2

Venezuela 84 68.0 2

Sweden 67 42.2 2

Source: IEA, Hydropower Technology Roadmap 2012, 2012, 10, and calculations by the Commission. 

Note: Data includes all hydropower, not just small hydro. These numbers do not include electricity imports such as 

those from Paraguay’s side of the Itaipu hydropower plant to Brazil, which represent almost half of that hydropower 

plant’s generation (36 TWh). 

Although the primary focus of this chapter is small hydropower, projects rated at 

capacities of less than 50 MW account for only a small share of all hydropower 

generation capacity (figure 5.2). Moreover, large hydropower projects are on the rise, as 

they often deliver the greatest returns in terms of power generation, especially in 

countries like China and Brazil where energy demand is rising faster than new capacity 

can be installed (box 5.3). 

There were at least 2,600 small hydropower projects in operation (commissioned) 

globally at the end of 2012, with a total capacity of just over 29,400 MW, equal to less 

than 3 percent of all global hydropower capacity.38 The average project size for reported 

small hydropower projects was 12.8 MW, but individual projects varied in size from 

0.1 MW up to the cutoff of 50 MW.39 Figure 5.3 shows newly commissioned small 

hydropower projects on an annual basis beginning in 2007. 

 38 BNEF compiles data on small hydropower (capacity less than or equal to 50 MW) on a project-byproject basis. These calculations are based on BNEF estimates of 24.8 GW of small hydropower capacity and 

IEA estimates of 1,067 GW of total hydropower capacity, both for 2011. The actual small hydro share may 

be higher, as the BNEF database likely does not include all small hydropower projects in operation around 

the world. IEA, 2012 Hydropower Roadmap, 2012, 18. 39 BNEF database, accessed March 6, 2013. Data reported by BNEF for the United States show a 

significantly smaller number of projects than does data from FERC, which is likely to be more much more 

complete. However, FERC provides only U.S. data. We report the BNEF data here to allow cross-country 

comparisons of small hydro projects. 
5-12 

 

Small 

Hydropower 2%

Large 

Hydropower 65%

Other renewable 

energy 33%

FIGURE 5.2. Hydropower accounted for the majority of renewable energy 

capacity globally in 2012

Total capacity: 1,470 GW

Source: REN-21, Renewables 2013, 2013, 94.
5-13 

 

BOX 5.3 Recent Developments in Large Hydropower 

Large hydropower projects have raised social and environmental concerns given that they may change the 

natural course of rivers, lessen the supply of water available to traditional downstream users, and may flood wide 

areas for reservoirs behind new dams. For these reasons, and because large hydropower is often already pricecompetitive with existing fossil fuel power plants, government policies that subsidize and promote renewable 

energy generally apply only to small hydropower facilities. Hence, the discussion of hydropower in this report 

concentrates primarily on small hydropower facilities where possible. 

Nevertheless, large hydropower facilities accounted for more than three-fifths of renewable energy generation 

capacity worldwide at the end of 2012 (see figure 5.2). Moreover, there are many large hydropower projects 

underway and in the planning stages; these projects certainly present potential opportunities for U.S. service 

providers. In addition, attitudes toward large hydropower may be changing, as electricity providers search for a 

way to expand access to electric power while remaining consistent with stated goals with respect to climate 

change. For example, the World Bank announced in May 2013 that it would once again begin funding hydropower 

projects after scaling back dramatically in the mid-1990s. The Bank stated that it sees large hydropower as the 

only way to meet its global development objectives without accelerating greenhouse gas emissions.a

China led the world in new capacity additions in 2012, as it has in other recent years, followed by Turkey, Brazil, 

Vietnam, and Russia. China installed 15.5 GW of new capacity, reaching almost 229 GW of installed hydropower 

capacity. China’s three largest hydropower facilities are Three Gorges (22.5 GW), Xiluodu (13.9 GW when 

completed), and Xianjiaba (6.4 GW when completed). The Three Gorges achieved full capacity in July 2013, and 

reached a record output of 98.1 TWh in 2012. China targets a total of 290 GW of installed hydropower capacity by 

2015.b

Turkey is increasing its hydropower capacity at a rapid rate to address chronic shortages of electricity and 

frequent power outages, adding about 2 GW in 2012, for a total of 21 GW installed. Brazil placed 1.86 GW of 

hydropower into operation in 2012, including 394 MW of reported small-scale (<30 MW) capacity, for a total of 84 

GW. Construction continued on hydropower facilities around the country, including the 11.2 GW Belo Monte 

project, expected to be Brazil’s second largest after the 14 GW Itaipu plant. Itaipu set another output record in 

2012, matching China’s Three Gorges at more than 98 TWh.c

Vietnam added at least 1.8 GW of new capacity in 2012, raising its total capacity to 12.9 GW. The country’s Son 

La plant is reportedly the largest hydropower project in Southeast Asia, with a total capacity of 2.4 GW.d

In Canada, the 200 MW Wuskwatim plant was commissioned in Manitoba, and Hydro-Québec completed the 

768 MW Eastmain 1-A powerhouse, with the 150 MW Sarcelle plant scheduled to come online in 2013. India 

added about 750 MW of hydropower capacity in 2012, of which 157 MW was categorized as small-scale 

(<25 MW), for a total of about 43 GW. 

Ethiopia’s Grand Renaissance Dam is under construction, with commissioning of the first phase to start in late 

2013. The final project is expected to deliver 6 GW and to be the largest hydropower facility in Africa. Several 

transmission projects are also under way, to permit Ethiopia to export hydropower to neighbors in the Horn of 

Africa.e

_____________ 

a

 Hydroworld.com, “World Bank Announces Renewed Support for Large Hydropower,” May 30, 2013; South 

China Morning Post, “World Bank U-turn Brings Hydropower in From Cold,” May 11, 2013. b

 REN21, Renewables 2013, 2013, 35. c

 Ibid., 35. 

d

 Ibid., 36. 

e

 Ibid., 38. 
5-14 

 

China and Brazil lead the rankings of countries with small hydropower projects, as they 

do for all hydropower, but Japan and India rank third and fourth, even though the latter 

two countries rank lower in the listing of total hydropower generation. China, Brazil, and 

India are rapidly adding new small hydropower capacity: 60 percent, 55 percent, and 40 

percent, respectively, of each country’s small hydropower capacity has been added since 

2007. In contrast, less than 1 percent of Japan’s small hydropower capacity has been 

added since 2007; Japan ranked first globally for small hydropower generation capacity 

in 2006.40 Table 5.6 shows the top 10 countries by total small hydropower capacity in 

2013. 

TABLE 5.6 Largest small hydropower producers, by country and generation capacity, projects commissioned through 

February 2013 

Country Capacity (MW) Number of projects 

Average capacity per 

project (MW) 

China 6,942.8 416 16.7 

Brazil 5,339.1 414 12.9 

Japan 3,613.6 487 7.4 

India 2,622.0 327 8.0 

Canada 1,180.7 75 15.7 

Vietnam 934.5 72 13.0 

United States 825.9 91 9.1 

Chile 736.4 41 18.0 

Australia 702.9 56 12.6 

Colombia 587.7 48 12.2 

Source: BNEF database (accessed March 1, 2013). 

 40 Industry representative, interview with USITC staff, Tokyo, May 10, 2013; BNEF database, accessed 

March 6, 2013. Data for China reflect projects with reported commissioning dates, which were only about 

half of all reported projects. 

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Cumulative capacity (MW)

FIGURE 5.3 Small hydropower generation capacity has steadily increased from 2007–12 76 projects 109 projects 90 projects 86 projects 163 projects

114 projects

Source: BNEF database (accessed January 18, 2013).

Note: Includes projects reported by BNEF. May not include all existing projects.

New generation capacity
5-15 

As was the case for the U.S. market, the Commission relied on the EIA for data on global 

hydropower capacity, and estimates from B&V for the share of services in a hydropower 

project to estimate the size of the global hydropower services market (table 5.7).41 China 

was the largest market for EPC services in 2010, given its significant installation of new 

capacity that year, followed by Brazil, India, and Turkey. The market for O&M services 

(both fixed and variable) was dominated by China, Europe, Brazil, the United States, and 

Canada, reflecting those countries’ well-established hydropower resources. 

TABLE 5.7 Estimated market for hydropower-related services based on existing large and small hydropower 

projects, by region and selected country, 2010a 

 Hydropower capacity (total) Estimated size 

of project 

development 

services market 

Estimated size 

of fixed O&M 

services 

market 

Estimated size 

of variable 

O&M services 

Country 2009 2010 market

2009–10 

growth

 MW Million $ 

 

China 196,800 219,000 22,200 23,310.0 3,285.0 6,100.6 

Brazil 79,291 80,703 1,412 1,482.6 1,210.5 2,248.1 

Turkey 14,553 15,831 1,278 1,341.9 237.5 441.0 

India 39,598 40,610 1,012 1,062.6 609.2 1,131.3 

Japan 21,784 22,362 578 606.9 335.4 622.9 

Canada 74,510 74,901 391 410.6 1,123.5 2,086.5 

United States 78,518 78,825 307 322.4 1,182.4 2,195.8 

Sweden 16,544 16,624 80 84.0 249.4 463.1 

France 18,199 18,229 30 31.5 273.4 507.8 

Venezuela 15 15 0 0.0 0.2 0.4 

Russia 46,873 46,873 0 0.0 703.1 1,305.7 

Norway 28,188 27,677 (511) 0.0 415.2 771.0 

World (all hydro) 887,378 917,544 30,166 31,674.0 13,763.2 25,559.8 

World (small hydropower 

 only, rated at ≤50 MW 

 capacity) 22,471 23,676 1,205 1,265.3 355.1 659.5 

Sources: Capacity data: EIA, International Energy Statistics, 

http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=2&pid=2&aid=7; (accessed March 20, 2013); calculations by 

the Commission. Information on share of services is from B&V, “Cost Estimates and Performance Data,” 2012, 34–5. 

Note: Figures for the market for project development services include estimates of EPC and owners’ costs, and are 

based on the annual market for one year’s new construction. Owners’ costs primarily include services such as 

feasibility studies, environmental impact studies, resource assessments, and permitting and other legal costs. Figures 

for the market for fixed and variable O&M services are based on the cumulative reported capacity for each market. 

Figures for small hydropower projects are based on those in the BNEF database, which likely does not include all 

global small hydropower projects and should be seen as a base (floor) estimate. 

The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that annual O&M costs range from 

$5 to $20/MWh for new medium to large hydropower plants, and approximately twice as 

much for small hydropower. 42 The Commission’s estimates of the O&M market are 

 41 Even though B&V estimates apply to a hydropower plant located in the United States, this study uses 

the same estimates for the global market because detailed cost breakdowns are not available for all countries. 

The Commission excluded construction labor costs from its estimates because for most projects, construction 

workers are hired locally, at local labor rates, which vary dramatically by country. These services are unlikely 

to be performed by non-local companies, and it is highly unlikely that foreign construction labor comprises a 

significant export market for U.S. service providers. It is likely that EPC and owners’ costs will also vary by 

country, but less so than labor costs. As noted earlier, for O&M services, B&V estimated average costs in 

2010 for a 500 MW plant in the United States to be $15/kW-yr in fixed costs and $6/MWh in variable costs. 42 This varies somewhat from the B&V estimates used above. The Commission uses the B&V to 

estimate the market size for services in this chapter because B&V provides a breakdown of costs between 

services and goods. IEA, Renewable Energy: Markets and Prospects by Technology, 2011, 28. 
5-16 

slightly higher than the high end of the range provided by the IEA. According to one 

industry representative, O&M costs are generally calculated as 1–2 percent of annual 

revenue, which depends on the plant load factor.43 This factor is different for all sites and 

ranges from 30 to 70 percent for most projects.44

Factors affecting initial investment costs and the return on investment include the project 

scale, which can range from over 10,000 MW to less than 0.1 MW; the project location; 

the costs of site preparation and materials; the presence and size of existing reservoirs; 

the use of the power supplied, whether for baseload or peak load or both; and whether a 

project is designed to handle functions other than electricity generation, such as flood 

control, irrigation, or freshwater supply.45

Factors Affecting Global Supply and Demand for Hydropower 

Services 

There is significant global development potential for new hydropower generation 

capacity, which would bring with it demand for hydro-related services. Global installed 

hydropower capacity has grown by an average of more than 24 GW annually in recent 

years, reaching close to 1,000 GW at the end of 2012. Total capacity is expected to reach 

1,300 GW in 2017, also implying strong growth in the market for related services. Given 

the long lead times for developing hydropower projects, these figures represent capacity 

that is currently under construction and is virtually certain to come on line. Global 

hydropower capacity will increase by approximately 180 GW by 2020 if projects 

currently under construction proceed as planned, an increase of one-fourth of currently 

installed capacity. One‐third of this increase is expected to come from China alone, 

followed by Turkey, Brazil, and India.46 

Despite these promising numbers, hydropower developers must face diverse problems at 

different stages of their projects. These include the rising cost of construction, including 

increasing costs for some raw materials; increasing social and environmental opposition 

to new hydropower projects; and the costs of security for staff and property.47

Global Industry Trends 

The IEA forecasts global installed hydropower capacity of 1,947 GW by 2050, nearly 

twice the current level but a less certain estimate than that for 2020. At that level, 

generation of hydroelectricity would near 7,100 TWh, doubling the power currently 

generated and substantially increasing the market for related services. Ten countries 

(China, the United States, Russia, Brazil, Canada, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 

 43 Plant load factor represents the output produced by actual operation of a given site, relative to its 

maximum capacity. So, for a 20 MW capacity project, a plant with a 30 percent load factor would generate 

an average of 6 MW of electricity over time, while a plant with a 70 percent load factor would generate an 

average of 14 MW over time. The actual load factor for a given plant depends on specific site conditions and 

the equipment chosen for the site. 44 Industry representative, telephone interview with USITC staff, February 6, 2013. According to 

another analysis, compared with large hydropower, the cost per installed kW tends to be higher because in 

most cases, small hydropower sites have low water heads (meaning that the water drops only a small 

distance); costs per kW decrease rapidly as head increases. At about 15 m, the rate of decrease levels out and, 

eventually, the cost stabilizes. ESHA, “State of the Art of Small Hydropower, 9 (accessed April 1, 2013). 45 IEA, Renewable Energy: Markets and Prospects by Technology, 2011, 28. 46 IEA, 2012 Hydropower Roadmap, 2012, 18-24; REN21, Renewables 2013 Global Status Report, 

2013, 93. 47 Industry representative, telephone interview with USITC staff, Beijing, May 17, 2013. 
5-17 

India, Indonesia, Peru, and Tajikistan) account for about two-thirds of global long-term 

hydropower potential, with emerging markets expected to supply the largest share of the 

growth. 48 In addition to new construction, many existing hydropower plants could 

increase their capacity by 5–20 percent by installing new and more efficient turbines. 

Refurbishment projects are often easier to carry out, for both technical and social reasons, 

and are completed faster than new plants.49

Trade and Investment 

Imports and Exports 

Data on U.S. trade in services related to hydropower generation are not available.50

However, it is likely that services constitute the biggest part of the hydropower industry, 

and with an increasing number of firms developing projects in foreign markets, services 

trade may outpace hydropower equipment trade. 

Independent power producers (IPPs) are the principal owners and developers of small 

hydropower projects; the development of large hydropower plants is generally a utilityor state-led effort.51 Globally, Canada-based Brookfield Renewable Energy Partners is 

the largest IPP owner of small hydropower assets, controlling 103 U.S. projects in 11 

states, for a total of 1,966 MW of capacity. Brookfield also owns other large and small 

hydropower assets in Canada and Brazil. In March 2013, the company completed the 

acquisition of 19 existing hydropower projects and eight upstream storage reservoirs in 

Maine and New Hampshire, collectively valued at about $760 million and with 351 MW 

of hydroelectric generating capacity. The acquisitions will bring Brookfield’s assets in 

New England to nearly 1,300 MW of installed hydropower capacity. 

Table 5.8 presents the leading international design and construction firms in hydropower 

for 2012, by revenue. Many of these companies have global subsidiaries that perform 

work in a variety of countries. Chinese firms are prominent on both lists, consistent with 

China’s adding more hydropower capacity than any other country in recent years. Three 

U.S.-based firms are among the top hydropower designers (Aecom Technology, Tetra 

Tech, and MWH Global). Kiewit Corporation is the only U.S.-based firm among the top 

10 hydropower contractors. 

According to one industry representative, the global market leaders in hydroelectric 

turbine manufacturing, in order of market share, are Voith (Germany), Alstom (France), 

Andritz (Austria), Dongfang Electric (China), and Toshiba (Japan). The five companies 

together represent two-thirds of the global market, with Voith and Alstom each 

accounting for slightly less than 20 percent of the total.52 Firms around the world reported

 48 IEA, 2012 Hydropower Roadmap, 2012, 18–20; IEA, Renewable Energy: Markets and Prospects by 

Technology, 2011, 28–30. 49 IEA, Renewable Energy: Markets and Prospects by Technology, 2011, 28–30. 50 However, U.S. exports of hydroelectricity were $83.3 million in 2012, primarily to Canada, and 

imports were $1.8 billion, again mostly from Canada. The U.S. and Canadian electricity transmission systems 

are closely interconnected along the border, and Canada generates significantly more hydropower than it can 

use. Smith, “Hydroelectric Power in the U.S.,” July 2012, 4; industry representative, telephone interview with 

USITC staff, March 14, 2013. 51 HydroWorld.com, “Brookfield Renewable Completes Acquisition,” March 5, 2013; BNEF, 

Sustainable Energy in America 2013 Factbook, January 2013, 39–40. 52 Industry representative, interview with USITC staff, Tokyo, May 10, 2013. 
5-18 

TABLE 5.8 Top international contractors and design firms for hydropower plants 

Design firms Construction firms 

Rank Company 

Home 

country 

Revenue 

(million $) Rank Company 

Home 

country 

Revenue

(million $)

1 Hydrochina China 159.2 1 Sinohydro China 1,687.0

2 Aecom 

Technology 

United 

States 

84.0 2 China Gezhouba Group Co. China 806.7

3 Lahmeyer 

International 

Germany 69.3 3 Construtora Norberto 

Odebrecht 

Brazil 668.0

4 Poyry Finland 54.0 4 Kiewit Corporation United 

States 

413.0

5 AF Sweden 35.3 5 Dongfang Electric China 345.7

6 Sinohydro 

Group 

China 34.1 6 China National Machinery 

Industry 

China 309.6

7 Tetra Tech United 

States 

30.0 7 C.M.C. Di Ravenna Italy 199.9

8 Amec United 

Kingdom 

28.9 8 Astaldi Italy 148.7

9 MWH Global United 

States 

27.0 9 OAS Brazil 140.4

10 Fichtner Germany 21.0 10 China International Water & 

Electric 

China 117.4

Source: ENR Sourcebook, December 10, 2012. 

increased sales in 2011, likely generating increased services and foreign trade revenues as 

well. For example, Dongfang Electric reported the production of 11 hydroelectric turbine 

generator sets totaling 2.5 GW in the first six months of 2011; Voith reported a sales 

increase of 6 percent and a dramatic increase in forward orders, up 81 percent over 2010. 

Other manufacturers, including Andritz, Alstom, IMPSA (Argentina), and Toshiba, also 

reported increased sales and/or backlogs in filling orders. Consistent with this demand, 

several large manufacturers have invested in new plants or in acquisitions of smaller 

firms. Alstom, for instance, opened a new equipment factory in India, expanded its 

turbine factory in Tianjin, China, and agreed with RusHydro on a joint manufacturing 

facility in Russia. Voith, which spent $106 million on research and development in 2011, 

has a new turbine component manufacturing facility in Brazil and a new workshop in 

Austria. Andritz continued to expand its Chengdu (China) facility for large hydropower 

components, and IMPSA is expected to open a new production facility in Brazil in 

2012.53 

Investment 

In the United States, BNEF estimates financing of hydropower assets at $1.9 billion 

between 2008 and 2011. This figure was primarily attributable to American Municipal 

Power, which began construction on several plants totaling 300 MW of new capacity on 

the Ohio River in 2009–11, with total estimated costs of $1.7 billion for these new 

installations. 54 In the fourth quarter of 2012 alone, there were 13 greenfield small 

hydropower deals in the United States, collectively valued at $1.4 billion. 55 Global 

investment in small hydropower totaled $6 billion in 2011, a 59 percent increase over the 

previous year.56 Globally, small hydropower was the only renewable energy sector to 

 53 REN21, Renewables 2012, 2012, 45. 54 BNEF, Sustainable Energy in America 2013 Factbook, January 2013, 39. 55 BNEF, “Global Trends In Clean Energy Investment,” January 14, 2013, 25–26 56 BNEF, “Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2012, Chart Pack,” n.d., 5. 
5-19 

show report investment growth in 2012, compared with 2011, with a 17 percent increase 

in investment to $7.6 billion.57 

The World Bank and other global development banks are important sources for financing 

both small and large hydropower projects in emerging markets (table 5.9). As of March 

2013, the World Bank Group had $6 billion of lending to hydropower projects under 

development; one-fourth of these were projects to rehabilitate existing hydropower 

plants.58 The World Bank often funds hydropower projects as part of financing syndicates 

that involve funding from one or more development banks, commercial banks, and local 

governments.59 Most development banks have programs focused on funding sustainable 

development and renewable energy projects, including hydropower projects. Much of the 

related services work, including resource assessment, feasibility studies, environmental 

impact statements, engineering design, construction management, and quality control, is 

carried out by firms from the United States and other developed countries that can meet 

the qualification requirements of the funding entities.60 

In addition to funding capital costs for particular projects, some global development 

banks also contribute equity financing to companies based in developing countries. In 

one example, in 2013 the Asian Development Bank announced its first equity investment 

of $30 million in a private, India-based renewable energy company—India-based NSL 

Renewable Power Private Ltd. The company will use the funds toward construction of 

the 100 MW Tidong run-of-river hydropower project in Himachal Pradesh and a 75 MW 

Chilarewadi wind plant in Maharashtra. 61 A representative of one development bank 

noted that hydropower projects can be particularly difficult to finance due to their social 

and environmental impacts; run-of-river projects were easier than others, presumably 

because they tend to have the lowest impacts.62

Trade Barriers 

There are very few barriers specifically targeting hydropower service providers, though 

more general restrictions on investment or movement of workers may affect a firm’s 

ability to operate in a given market. One of the barriers to exporting hydropower services 

reported by U.S. industry representatives was difficulty matching the financing terms that 

some foreign firms are able to offer to project developers. 63 A U.S. industry 

representative working on small hydropower projects in India also reported that in his 

experience, U.S. firms face particular scrutiny from the Indian government, compared 

with local firms, including frequent tax audits, difficulty moving money out of the 

country, and high tariffs (22 percent) on imported equipment. This situation has led at 

least one company to rely much more extensively on Indian-made equipment than they

 57 As noted, this refers to projects of 50MW or less, including both greenfield and refurbishment 

projects. BNEF, “New Investment in Clean Energy Fell 11%,” January 14, 2013. 58 World Bank website, n.d. http://water.worldbank.org/node/84059 (accessed March 19, 2013). 59 Industry representative, interview with USITC staff, Tokyo, March 10, 2013; industry representative, 

interview with USITC staff, Beijing, May 17, 2013. 60 Environmental Business Journal, “Multilateral Development Banks Push Ahead,” 2012, 33. 61 BNEF Newswatch, “Asian Development Bank Invests in Indian Renewable Power Company,” 

May 2, 2013. 62 Government representative, interview with USITC staff, Tokyo, May 13, 2013. 63 Industry representative, telephone interview with USITC staff, May 14, 2013. 
5-20 

TABLE 5.9 Selected small hydropower projects with financing contributed by global development banks

Country Development Bank Project details 

Brazil Inter-American 

Development Bank 

(IADB) 

A government-backed rural electrification program called Luz Para Todos 

has installed small solar, wind, and hydropower projects in remote villages 

throughout Brazil since 2003. One particular small hydropower project is 

the 50kW Cachoeira de Aruã micro-hydro facility in the Amazonian state 

of Pará, which benefits 50 low-income households in a remote area where 

it would be difficult to bring in transmission lines from larger power 

generation facilities. 

Honduras IADB Two small hydropower plants with a total installed capacity of 6.4 MW 

form part of the MIPYMES Verdes program, which has disbursed almost 

$7 million to small and medium-sized companies to develop projects to 

cut energy consumption, improve efficiency, or generate power from 

renewables. 

Suriname IADB At the end of 2011, Suriname’s rural electrification program received more 

than $25 million in loans and grants to fund electrification in rural villages 

in Suriname’s interior. The project aims to install almost 700kW of solar 

photovoltaic capacity and about 2.7 MW of micro hydropower plants. 

Haiti IADB In Haiti, one small hydropower project, the 48 MW Peligré plant, 

represents 45 percent of the country’s total electricity capacity. However, 

the plant fails to operate at full capacity most of the time, due to lack of 

water during the dry season and aging equipment. In 2011, Haiti received 

a $20 million grant from the Inter-American Development Bank to 

rehabilitate Peligré. In 2012, France-based Alstom said it would provide 

turbines to restore the project to its full nameplate capacity. 

Panama IADB In Panama, small hydropower is the largest destination for clean energy 

investment, with most of the $1.1 billion in such investment in recent years 

destined for the small hydropower sector. 

Sri Lanka Asian Development 

Bank (ADB) 

In Sri Lanka, a $1.29 million credit line from the Asian Development Bank 

(ADB) Sustainable Power Sector Support Project will be used to 

rehabilitate and repair 19 micro-hydropower projects. The credits will be 

granted to private developers and will finance up to 100 percent of the 

total estimated costs for restarting the small hydropower sites. The 19 

projects will add about 1.3 MW of combined capacity. Similar programs 

have existed in Sri Lanka since the mid-1990s, rehabilitating numerous 

small hydropower projects of 0.25 MW to 10 MW. These have added 

more than 253 MW of total hydroelectric capacity to Sri Lanka's grid. 

Papua New 

Guinea 

ADB ADB approved a loan of $57.3 million to the local utility to fund renewable 

energy projects including run-of-river hydro. 

India ADB India is developing four run-of-river hydropower projects for a total 

capacity of 856 MW, with $800 million in ADB funding. 

Ecuador China Development 

Bank 

$680 million for four hydropower plants, rated at 21 MW, 276 MW, 

50 MW, and 15 MW. Financed through an 8-year loan at 6.9 percent, with 

a 2-year grace period. 

Romania European Bank for 

Reconstruction & 

Development 

(EBRD) 

$150 million to state-owned hydropower company Hidroelectrica S.A. in 

May 2011 for modernization work on an existing 210 MW project. The 

loan will pay for refurbishing six units, adding 30 years to the life 

expectancy of the plant. 

Macedonia EBRD $8.2 million for development of four small hydropower plants with a total 

capacity of 4.1 MW. 

Sources: Ingram, “Banks Provide Critical Support,” November 1, 2011; BNEF, Climatescope 2012, 2012; development 

bank websites; HydroWorld.com, “Sri Lanka Micro Hydro Rehabilitation Projects,” January 18, 2013. 

would otherwise.64 In Indonesia, the government also imposes local-content requirements 

on hydropower based on the size of the project.65 

 64 Industry representative, telephone interview with USITC staff, February 6, 2013. 65 For projects up to 15 MW, local content must be a minimum of 64.20 percent for goods and 

86.06 percent for services, or 70.76 percent combined. This is gradually reduced as projects get larger, with 

projects rated at greater than 150 MW required to have 47.82 percent local content for goods and 

46.98 percent for services, with a combined rate of 47.60 percent. PWC, Power in Indonesia, 2013, 16. 
5-21 

Regional Profiles 

Asia and Latin America are expected to experience the most rapid growth in 

hydroelectricity generation in coming years, leading to overall growth in those regions in 

the market for related services. In Africa and Europe, some growth in small hydropower 

projects is expected, but rapid growth of large hydropower projects is less likely. 

Latin America 

There was at least 8.4 GW of installed small hydropower capacity in Latin America and 

the Caribbean at the end of 2011, or 2.8 percent of total installed power capacity in the 

region.66 Small hydropower accounted for a particularly large share of the renewable 

energy portfolio in certain countries, including Belize (39 percent), Honduras (9 percent), 

Peru (6 percent) and Ecuador (6 percent). With 241 MW of capacity, small hydropower 

represented 10 percent of total installed hydropower capacity in Guatemala, and had 

attracted $152.5 million in new capital at the end of 2011.67 Brazil has a larger amount of 

installed small hydropower capacity (5,339 MW) but it represents a lower overall share 

of power (4 percent). 68 In Chile, there is a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) that 

includes small hydro, but only for projects rated at 20 MW or less. For large hydropower 

companies, such projects are not economically sound, but smaller companies are 

reportedly more interested in developing small hydropower projects in Chile.69 

Brazil’s 2009 national energy plan shows the country’s small hydropower capacity 

doubling to 9 GW by 2030, and all hydropower almost doubling, relative to 2010, to 

150 GW.70 However, according to industry representatives, small hydropower projects 

are generally not competitive with either large hydropower or other renewable energy 

sources, particularly wind. In recent years, Brazil has held reverse auctions for renewable 

energy development, which set a cap for the price paid for energy. Small hydropower 

from newly developed projects has not been cost competitive compared with other 

renewables because the cost of the civil works (dam construction) has grown 

tremendously in recent years, now accounting for about 70 percent of project costs. Labor 

costs and concrete prices are very high in Brazil, as is construction risk, making it more 

difficult for small hydropower projects to recoup their investment. However, costs are 

significantly lower for new hydropower capacity coming online from retrofitting and 

modernizing existing dams.71

According to one industry representative, the future of small hydropower in Brazil will 

depend on government policies that support small hydropower, which is competitive only 

at rates of 140 reais/MWh ($61.50/MWh), compared with large hydropower, which is 

competitive at rates of 70 reais/MWh ($30.75/MWh). 72 Recently, new hydropower 

capacity has been split between new large hydropower projects (83 percent), 

modernization and upgrades of existing large hydropower projects (6 percent) and new 

small hydropower projects (10 percent).73 

 66 BNEF, Climatescope 2012, 6. 67 Ibid., 38, 60, 68, 76, 96. 68 Brazil relies on large hydro facilities for 67 percent of its power. BNEF, Climatescope 2012, 43. 69 Industry representative, interview with USITC staff, Santiago, Chile, May 15, 2013. 70 REN21, Renewables 2013, 2013, 51. 71 Industry representatives, interviews with USITC staff, São Paulo, May 9 and 10, 2013. 72 Industry representatives, interviews with USITC staff, São Paulo, May 8 and 9, 2013. 73 Industry representative, interview with USITC staff, São Paulo, May 9, 2013. 
5-22 

Brazil’s National Bank for Economic and Social Development (BNDES) offers 

significantly lower interest rates than local commercial banks, making it the leading 

source of financing for project developers. However, BNDES financing generally carries 

a 60 percent local-content requirement and other restrictions.74 To get the financing, some 

firms import equipment and parts and assemble them in Brazil. The project can start with 

40 percent local content, but must have a plan to reach 60 percent. From 2003 to June 

2008, BNDES contributed about $10.5 billion to 142 power generation projects, of which 

$6.7 billion went to hydroelectricity. In addition to BNDES financing, there are some 

federal tax benefits associated with wind and small hydropower related to the valueadded tax (VAT) and income taxes, and some income tax incentives for small 

hydropower projects offered by the northern Brazilian states.75

Asia 

Asia is expected to experience continuing growth in hydropower capacity through at least 

2030, which will also lead to growth in the hydro-related services market. Countries with 

growing markets include Burma, Laos, Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines.76 In 

India, hydropower provided the majority of renewable electricity in 2012 and will 

continue to grow, with hydropower capacity expected to add 25 GW by 2030.77 An 

Indian program to privatize small hydropower sites to encourage development has 

provided rare opportunities for small U.S. engineering services companies that do not 

have the resources to handle large hydropower projects. Such opportunities for small 

firms can be difficult to find in the United States.78 

China has become a major market for hydro-related services. In 2011, its total installed 

hydropower capacity (large and small) was about 230 GW, with another 50 GW under 

construction.79 The total was expected to grow to at least 300 GW by 2020, including 

41 GW of pumped hydro, and possibly to 400 GW by 2030,80 ensuring a growing market 

for hydropower-related services. 

Chinese companies are also actively involved in exporting equipment and services for 

both small and large hydropower projects. Most Chinese firms active in hydropower 

globally have focused on providing EPC services, but a few are also providing O&M 

services. In general, management teams are sent from China to the foreign locations, but 

the companies tend to hire mostly local employees, consistent with the practices of large 

firms based in the United States and elsewhere when operating outside their home 

markets. Chinese firms have been particularly active in Asia and Africa, notably 

Pakistan, Vietnam, and Nigeria. 

Foreign firms active in China’s hydropower market include Alstom and Shanghai Fuji. 

Alstom Hydro China Co. is investing in the second phase of its hydropower technology 

center in Tianjin, which is expected to be the company’s largest hydropower equipment 

 74 BNDES likely considers the services component of hydropower construction costs to count toward 

the local-content requirements, as construction costs are a large majority of total hydropower project 

development costs. Industry representative, interview with USITC staff, Rio de Janeiro, May 7, 2013. 75 Industry representatives, interviews with USITC staff, Rio de Janeiro, May 7, 2013, and Santiago, 

Chile, May 14, 2013; Lobo, “Global Renewable Energy Developments,” January 16, 2013; IEA, 2012 

Hydropower Roadmap, 2012, 44. 76 Industry representative, interview with USITC staff, Tokyo, March 10, 2013. 77 REN21, Renewables 2013, 2013, 48. 78 Industry representative, telephone interview with USITC staff, February 6, 2013. 79 Reuters, “China Urges Hydropower Developers to Heed Environment,” January 17, 2012. 80 REN21, Renewables 2013, 2013, 47. 
5-23 

factory when completed in mid-2013. Alstom has partnered with Chinese firms to work 

on hydropower projects in China, Ghana, and Iran.81 

In Japan, small hydropower has been slow to expand, because smaller power stations 

have typically been considered to be a high-cost technology. Nonetheless, Japan still 

ranks third globally in total small hydropower capacity.82 Japan enacted a strong feed-in 

tariff (FIT) to promote investment in renewable energy in late 2011. The FIT applies to 

small hydropower (capacity rated at less than 30 MW),83 as well as other renewable 

energy technologies, and is encouraging the development of new small hydropower 

projects and related services. However, the FIT is likely to be less effective at promoting 

small hydropower than other renewables, because hydropower takes longer to design and 

is generally more difficult to implement than projects based on other renewable energy 

technologies.84 

Africa 

In parts of Africa, where regional instability may make it difficult to secure financing for 

the significant investments required for large hydropower projects, small hydropower 

may play an important role in alleviating power shortages. An increasing number of IPPs 

are actively developing small hydropower projects in Africa. Hydropower and other 

renewable energy sources are seen as a way to reduce dependence on fossil fuels in areas 

far from the existing power grid, such as in mining operations. Smaller hydropower 

projects are often easier to fund, have faster startup times, and have smaller social and 

environmental impacts than more traditional, large hydropower projects. Small 

hydropower plants are often used off-grid, or in small “mini-grids”; large plants tend to 

be connected to centralized grids in order to fully utilize their generation capacity.85

South Africa’s 20-year resource plan, introduced in 2012, calls for renewables to 

represent 38 percent of all new electricity capacity added through 2030; while the new 

capacity is expected to draw largely on wind and solar sources, the plan also envisions 

2.6 GW of new hydropower.86

European Union 

Recent EU regulations will have significant impacts on hydropower development. On one 

hand, the EU Water Framework Directive aims to turn rivers back to their original state 

as far as possible, with a focus on pollution reduction. In certain rivers, this will reduce 

hydropower generation capacity. On the other hand, to promote renewable energy, many 

EU countries have introduced economic support programs such as FITs that promote new 

hydropower projects. Some of these systems include smaller-scale hydropower, but most 

exclude large hydropower projects. The lack of harmonization between overall EU 

energy policy and EU water management policies reportedly serves as a significant 

 81 Industry representative, telephone interview with USITC staff, Beijing, May 17, 2013; Bloomberg 

News, “Alstom Building Center in China to Expand Hydro Business,” July 11, 2012. 82 Government representative, interview with USITC staff, Tokyo, May 13, 2013. 83 Small hydro was defined as having a project capacity of less than 30 MW for the FIT because that 

was the dividing line for a project’s ability to cover its investment costs. Industry representative, interview 

with USITC staff, Tokyo, March 10, 2013. 84 Industry representative, interview with USITC staff, Tokyo, March 10, 2013; REN21, Renewables: 

Global Futures Report 2013, 2013, 46. 85 IRENA, “Renewable Energy Technologies: Hydropower,” June 2012, 5. 86 REN21, Renewables 2013, 2013, 50. 
5-24 

barrier for future development of hydropower in Europe.87 Table 5.10 highlights policies 

that support small hydropower in EU countries. 

TABLE 5.10 Support policies for small hydropower in the EU, 2011 

Type of policy Relevant countries 

Feed-in tariff (guarantees a certain 

price per kWh for power generated) 

Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, 

Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Portugal, 

Slovakia, Spain, United Kingdom 

Feed-in premium (FIP) (offers a 

premium above the average spot 

electricity market price) 

Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain 

Quota obligation/green certificates 

(require electricity suppliers to show 

that a certain amount of electricity 

delivered to consumers comes from 

renewable energy) 

Belgium, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Sweden, United Kingdom 

Investment grants (direct support to 

research and investment projects) 

Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, Greece, Luxembourg, Poland, 

Slovakia 

Tax exemptions, deductions, or other 

fiscal incentives (permits project owners 

to deduct a percent of investment costs 

from taxable profits) 

Belgium, Germany, Greece, Netherlands 

Tendering (contracts offered by the 

government for designated projects) 

Belgium, France 

Source: ESHA, Small Hydropower Roadmap: Condensed Research Data for EU-27, 2013, 14–16. 

Until 2012, there was considerable incentive for developers to build small hydropower 

plants in Italy, including a comprehensive FIT system for hydropower projects up to 

1 MW. The success of the sector prompted communities to look into small hydropower 

projects and pursue joint public-private opportunities. Although this has encouraged 

some development, some observers believe that the incentives created a problem by 

overly encouraging development of small hydropower plants anywhere in the country. 

Starting in 2013, a new incentive system is in force in Italy that decreases all tariffs and is 

expected to reduce new small hydropower plant installations as a result.88 In Spain, in an 

effort to reduce government deficits, new measures were approved in February 2013 to 

cut the revenue that renewable energy plants receive from the FIT. FITs for clean energy, 

as well as other power system costs, will now rise annually based on a reduced inflation 

index. In addition, generators will no longer be able to switch between a tariff and 

subsidized market rates. The measures were expected to save between €600 million 

($775 million) and €800 million ($1.0 billion) in 2013.89

 

 87 IEA, 2012 Hydropower Technology Roadmap, 2012, 23. 88 Under the new system, the following tariffs apply: for plants rated at 1–20 kW, the tariff is 

€57/MWh; for plants rated at 20–500 kW, it is €219/MWh; and for plants rated at 500–1,000 kW, it is 

€115/MWh. HydroWorld.com, “The Road to Sustainable Development,” February 1, 2013. 89 Roca, “Spain Limits Payments to Renewables,” February 1, 2013; BNEF database, 

http://www.bnef.com (accessed February 12, 2013). 
5-25 

Geothermal Energy 

Although about two-thirds of global geothermal energy is delivered in the form of direct 

heat,90 this section focuses on the services related to the electricity generation segment of 

the geothermal energy market. The United States is the world leader in geothermal 

electricity production and installed geothermal power capacity.91 Geothermal energy is an 

important source of U.S. renewable energy in the western United States, where there is a 

concentration of geothermal resources. However, geothermal energy production is 

limited by several factors, including geography, lack of access to transmission lines, and 

the relatively high development and capital costs associated with significant exploration 

and production risks. Indeed, geothermal power’s installed costs are among the highest of 

all renewables.92 Government policies have been key in helping defray some of these 

costs and facilitating the development of geothermal energy projects. 

International demand for geothermal energy continues to grow at a healthy pace, creating 

a significant opportunity for U.S. suppliers of geothermal equipment and services. 

Indeed, the pace of investment growth in the global geothermal energy sector has been 

strong over the last five years. Emerging markets and developing countries represent 

most of the untapped growth potential. Given the highly competitive U.S. geothermal 

market, it is not surprising to find evidence of U.S. geothermal services companies 

expanding their operations to international markets. More U.S. companies may follow 

suit, especially to high-potential and low-barrier countries.93

Overview of Geothermal Energy Services 

Geothermal services include a variety of activities provided by engineering and 

consulting firms, petrochemical exploration and development firms, and original 

equipment manufacturers (OEMs). Firms in this sector provide a wide variety of services, 

including exploration; field development; project engineering and analysis; field 

operations and project management; plant design; drilling engineering services (well 

design, drilling program design, onsite supervision, drilling program management, and 

engineering support); geology, geochemistry, and hydrogeology services; and training 

services.94 Particular O&M-related services identified by one geothermal power operator 

include construction, rental of drilling rigs, other equipment rental, engineering services, 

and warehouse services. 95 Table 5.11 identifies the CPC codes associated with the 

services most relevant to the production of geothermal energy. 

 

 90 REN21, Renewables 2012, 2012. 91 EIA, “Geothermal Explained.” 

92 Lowder et al., Renewable Energy Finance Tracking Initiative, 2012. 93 Industry observer, interview by USITC staff, Washington, DC, December 19, 2012. 94 USITC, Renewable Energy Services, 2005. 95 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Jakarta, July 3, 2013. 
5-26 

TABLE 5.11 Services related to development of geothermal energy 

CPC code Description Geothermal services 

8675 Certain related scientific and 

technical consulting services 

Project development related services (e.g., geological 

surveying, site assessment, environmental impact 

assessment) 

System design (well design, drilling program design) 

Operations and maintenance (monitoring, corrective 

maintenance; possibly preventative or condition-based 

maintenance) 

Project development related services (e.g., project 

management, PPA negotiations, interconnection 

agreements, permitting) 

Engineering and construction (e.g., drilling, onsite 

supervision, electrical connections, substation 

construction) 

861, 862, 863, 

8672, 8673, 9312, 

93191, 932 

Certain professional services, 

including engineering and 

integrated engineering services 

633, 8861–8868 Maintenance and repair of 

equipment, except transportrelated equipment 

865 Management consulting and 

related services 

511–518 Construction and related 

engineering services 

Source: Compiled by USITC. 

U.S. Market for Geothermal Energy Services 

Market Size 

U.S. geothermal energy production and installed capacity grew moderately between 2007 

and 2011, yet the geothermal sector continues to represent a very small share of U.S. 

renewable energy generation. Between 2007 and 2011, U.S. geothermal electricity 

production grew from about 15 billion kWh to 17 billion kWh, while total installed 

geothermal capacity increased from 2.2 GW to 2.4 GW.96 Further, between 2007 and 

2012, U.S. geothermal revenues are estimated to have grown by 17 percent annually 

reaching $2.4 billion in 2012.97 Despite this growth, geothermal electricity production 

still accounted for only about 3 percent of total U.S. renewable energy generation and an 

even smaller share (0.4 percent) of total U.S. electricity generation in 2011. 98 In 

comparison, during the same period, production of wind energy increased by almost 

250 percent to 119.7 billion kWh, 99 while solar power generation grew by over 

200 percent, although from a low base.100 

The cost of constructing geothermal power plants varies significantly depending on a 

number of factors, including resource temperature and pressure, location, drilling market, 

and the number and types of plants. 101 While the development and construction of 

geothermal power plants require large investments in capital, services also represent an 

important cost when it comes to establishing new plants and then operating and 

 96 EIA, Annual Energy Review 2011, 2012, 224 and 258. 97 IBISWorld, “Geothermal Electricity Plant Operation in the U.S.,” 2012. 98 EIA, Annual Energy Review 2011, 2012. 99 EIA, Annual Energy Review 2011, 2012, 224. Note that the 2005 USITC Renewable Energy Services 

study reported that geothermal energy generated 40 percent more electricity than wind technology, 

suggesting that the wind power sector has grown significantly since then. 100 EIA, Annual Energy Review 2011, 2012, 224. For more information on the solar and wind energy 

services sectors, see chapters 3 and 4 of this report. 101 IEA, Renewable Energy Essentials, 2010. 
5-27 

maintaining those plants.102 As shown in table 5.12, the U.S. market for geothermalrelated project development costs was estimated to be $34.3 million in 2010, and the 

market for variable O&M services was estimated at $594 million.103

TABLE 5.12 Estimated U.S. market for geothermal-related energy services based on existing capacity, 2010 

 Geothermal power capacity Estimated size 

of project 

development 

Country 2009 2010 services market 

2009–10

growth

 Estimated size 

of variable O&M 

services market

 MW Million $ 

United States 2,381.9 2,405.0 23.1 

 

34.3 594.3 

North America 3,346.9 3,370.0 23.1 34.3 832.8 

World 9,892.8 10,104.9 212.1 315.0 2,497.1 

US share of North America 71.2% 71.4% 100.0% 100.0% 71.4% 

US share of world 24.1% 23.8% 10.9% 10.9% 23.8% 

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), “Annual Energy Review 2011,” 2012; B&V, “Cost Estimates and 

Performance Data for Renewable Electricity Technologies,” 2012; and calculations by the Commission. 

Notes: Figures for the market for project development services include estimates of EPC and owners’ costs, and are 

based on the annual market for one year’s new construction. Owners’ costs primarily include services such as 

feasibility studies, environmental impact studies, resource assessments, and permitting and other legal costs. Figures 

for the market for variable O&M services are based on the cumulative reported capacity for each market. According to 

B&V, fixed O&M costs for geothermal are zero, although other sources do quote fixed O&M costs for geothermal 

plants. Since the estimates in this chapter rely on B&V, we do not cite fixed O&M costs here. North America includes 

the United States, Canada, and Mexico. 

Factors Affecting U.S. Supply and Demand for Geothermal Power 

and Related Services 

Factors affecting the development of geothermal energy in the U.S. market are primarily 

found on the supply side, due to the relatively high development and capital costs of 

geothermal projects. These include advances in technology, government incentives and 

regulations, transmission access, project lead times, and the price of electricity and 

alternative fuels. 

 102 According to an industry observer, O&M services in the global geothermal power industry are 

usually provided by utility companies or independent power producers (IPPs). Few independent service 

providers are active in this service area. Industry observer, interview by USITC staff, Washington, DC, 

December 19, 2012. 103 The Commission estimated the size of the market for project development-related geothermal 

energy services based on a constant share of total development costs for new projects, multiplied by the total 

of new capacity developed in the most recent data year (2010). In order to estimate the size of the market, 

the Commission relied on data for global geothermal capacity from the EIA, and estimates of the share of 

services in a geothermal project, for both development and O&M services, from B&V. According to B&V 

estimates, EPC costs are approximately 8 percent of total project costs, and owners’ costs (primarily services 

such as feasibility studies, environmental impact studies, resource assessments, and permitting and other legal 

costs) are approximately 17 percent of total project costs, so about 25 percent of total project costs are likely 

to be services. This estimate does not include the costs of materials and labor for actual plant and civil works 

construction, which vary significantly, based on geothermal resources and particular site characteristics, but 

does include construction management and project management costs. For O&M services, B&V estimated 

average costs in 2010 to be $31/MWh in variable costs, with zero fixed O&M costs. Industry representative, 

telephone interview with Commission staff, March 14, 2013; EIA, International Energy Statistics, 

http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=2&pid=2&aid=7 (accessed March 20, 2013); 

calculations by the Commission. Information on share of services is from B&V, “Cost Estimates and 

Performance Data,” 2012, 35. 
5-28 

Recent technological advances have facilitated the expansion of the geothermal power 

industry to new areas. Traditionally, the expansion of geothermal power production was 

limited by geography, because deposits of high-temperature groundwater are required to 

produce geothermal electricity. However, new technologies like “binary” geothermal 

technology can use lower temperatures to generate electricity, which has allowed plants 

to be built in areas where geothermal development was previously unfeasible. In addition, 

enhanced geothermal systems (EGSs), although more costly, represent an emerging 

technology allowing use of geothermal energy resources not otherwise accessible.104

 

Government incentives and regulations have also played a role in the development of 

geothermal energy. Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA or the 

Stimulus Bill), the Department of Energy’s Geothermal Technologies Office made 148 

awards for a total of $368.2 million, including cash grants, tax credits, and funding for 

research and development. These awards provided an unprecedented level of fiscal 

stimulus for the industry and are likely to lead to new private sector investment.105 In 

addition, as discussed in chapter 2, more stringent renewable energy requirements and 

new laws and regulations at the state level are also expected to promote new investment 

in renewable energy and renewable energy services, including geothermal energy.106

Other factors affect the development of geothermal energy projects in different ways. For 

instance, the lack of access to transmission lines is an important factor limiting the 

growth potential of geothermal power plants, as most geothermal resources are not near 

existing transmission infrastructure. 107 In addition, geothermal power projects take 

significantly longer to complete than many other renewable energy projects, such as wind 

or solar farms (it can take 4–8 years to complete a geothermal power project). This time 

factor adds to project risk. The price of electricity and alternative fuels like natural gas 

can also affect the competitiveness of geothermal power producers. For instance, the 

recent trend towards low natural gas prices may constrain the ability of geothermal power 

plants to be competitive once the plant becomes operational. By contrast, rising 

electricity prices make renewable sources of energy more attractive to consumers and 

more profitable for geothermal power companies.108

U.S. Industry Trends 

Geothermal energy production has traditionally been concentrated geographically. 

However, advances in technology are allowing geothermal energy production to expand 

to new states. For example, although California and Nevada currently account for about 

97 percent of U.S. geothermal installed capacity,109 Hawaii, Utah, Idaho, Alaska, Oregon, 

and Wyoming have also established operational geothermal energy plants. 110 The 

industry’s geographical reach is widening as new methods such as binary geothermal 

technology, which uses lower temperatures to generate electricity, allow plants to be built 

in places where it was previously unfeasible.111 In fact, in 2012 there were 130 confirmed 

projects at various stages of development spread out over 15 U.S. states, of which threequarters were greenfield projects rather than expansions of existing ones. This is an 

 104 EIA, “U.S. Has Large Geothermal Resources,” November 18, 2011. 105 Geothermal Technologies Office, “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.” 106 EIA, Annual Energy Outlook, 2012, 11. 107 EIA, “U.S. Has Large Geothermal Resources,” November 18, 2011. 108 Ibid. 109 GEA, Annual U.S. Geothermal Power Production, April 2012. 110 Ibid. 111 Ibid. 
5-29 

increase from 123 confirmed projects under development in 2011, and represents about 

1,800 MW of new planned capacity.112

There were 58 suppliers of geothermal energy in the United States in 2011. Although a 

few electric utility companies own and operate geothermal plants, 113 IPPs produced 

approximately 93 percent of all geothermal electricity in the United States in 2011.114 The 

top two companies, Ormat Industries and Calpine Corporation, are expected to account 

for 35 percent of total industry revenue in the United States.115 Table 5.13 presents the 

top 10 companies operating in the United States as measured by installed and operating 

capacity, while table 5.14 presents the top 10 as measured by geothermal MWs under 

development. 

TABLE 5.13 Top geothermal power companies in the United States by installed and operating capacity 

Company Installed capacity (MW) Operating capacity (MW)

Calpine 1,310 725

Ormat Technologies 627 408

Terra-Gen Power 352 344

CalEnergy 329 300

Northern California Power Agency 220 108

Enel Green North America 65 65

U.S. Renewables Group 55 11

Nevada Geothermal 50 45

PacificCorp 32 32

Alterra Power Corp. 23 11

Source: Islandsbanki, United States Geothermal Energy Market Report, October 2011, 16. 

Note: Some of the listed companies are affiliates of or foreign multinational companies. For example, Enel North 

America is affiliated with Enel Green Power of Italy; Nevada Geothermal and Alterra Power Corp. are Canadianbased companies. 

TABLE 5.14 Geothermal energy capacity under development, by company 

Company Capacity under development (MW)

Gradient Resources Inc. 1,035

Oski Energy 563

Ram Power Corp. 541

Nevada Geothermal 268

U.S. Geothermal 264

Alterra Power Corp. 231

Terra-Gen Power 200

Ormat Technologies 198

CalEnergy 159

Eureka Green Systems 150

Source: Islandsbanki, United States Geothermal Energy Market Report, October 2011, 16. 

Note: Capacity under development includes geothermal projects in the exploration, pre-feasibility, and feasibility 

phases, as well as the design and construction phases. 

 

 112 When accounting for unconfirmed projects, the range of PCA in development is about 1961–

2023 MW. Of this, 949–956 MW are advanced-stage (phase 3–4) geothermal projects. GEA, Annual U.S. 

Geothermal Power Production, April 2012, 9–10; IBISWorld, “Geothermal Electricity Plant Operation in the 

U.S.,” 2012. 113 EIA, “Existing Nameplate and Net Summer Capacity,” October 2012. 114 EIA, “Table 1.19.B. Net Generation from Geothermal by State,” December 2012. 115 IBISWorld, “Geothermal Electricity Plant Operation in the U.S.,” 2012. 
5-30 

There is some overlap between the two top 10 groups. Ormat Technologies, CalEnergy, 

and Terra-Gen are major players when it comes to owning and operating plants as well as 

developing new geothermal energy capacity. Ormat Technologies, Ram Power Corp., 

U.S. Geothermal, Cal Energy, Chevron, and Unocal Corp are among the most active U.S. 

geothermal companies operating outside of the United States.116 The majority of these 

companies provide EPC and O&M services, but there are some like Ormat Technologies, 

which manufactures equipment as well. 

Global Market for Geothermal Energy Services 

Market Size 

Comprehensive published data on the size of the global market for geothermal energy 

services are unavailable. However, the growth in global geothermal power production 

likely reflects a vibrant market for geothermal services. The United States is the world 

leader in geothermal energy production and installed capacity. In 2011, the U.S. 

geothermal power sector held 28 percent of the 11.2 GW in global installed geothermal 

power capacity. Worldwide, there were at least 24 countries generating electricity from 

geothermal power plants in 2012. 117 In addition to the United States, seven other 

countries, most situated in the Ring of Fire area of the Pacific, account for the bulk of the 

remaining global installed geothermal capacity: the Philippines (1.9 GW), Indonesia 

(1.2 GW), Mexico (just under 1 GW), Italy (0.8 GW), Iceland (0.7 GW), New Zealand 

(nearly 0.6 GW), and Japan (0.5 GW) (figure 5.4).118 

 116 BNEF database (accessed February 10, 2013). 117 REN21, Renewables 2012, 2012, 40. 118 Ibid., 40–41. The Ring of Fire, a seismically active belt that circles the Pacific Ocean, includes 

Bolivia, Canada, Chile, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, the Philippines, Russia, the United States, 

and other countries. 

United States 28%

Philippines 17%

Indonesia 11%

Mexico 9%

Italy 7%

Iceland 6%

New Zealand 5%

Japan 4%

Other 13%

FIGURE 5.4 The U.S. was the global leader in geothermal electricity generating capacity in 2011

Source: REN21, Renewables 2012, 2012, 40.

Total = 11.2 GW
5-31 

Global geothermal power capacity grew by a modest 136 MW in 2011. This growth came 

entirely from three countries: Iceland (90 MW), Nicaragua (36 MW), and the United 

States (10 MW). While growth was modest in 2011, it is expected to accelerate with 

projects under development in traditional markets, emerging markets, and new markets in 

developing economies, such as Rwanda and countries elsewhere in East Africa.119 Indeed, 

most of the untapped growth potential lies in developing countries and emerging markets, 

especially those with significant proven untapped conventional geothermal resources, 

such as Chile.120 By some estimates, global installed geothermal capacity is expected to 

grow by roughly 6–13 GW by 2021. 121 These long-run scenarios offer sizable 

opportunities for geothermal energy service providers. 

As was the case for hydropower, the Commission relied on the EIA for data on global 

geothermal capacity, and estimates from B&V for the share of services in a geothermal 

power project to estimate the size of the global geothermal services market 

(table 5.15).122 New Zealand and Italy installed the most new geothermal power capacity 

in 2010, so had the largest markets for services related to project development. The 

United States and the Philippines had the most installed geothermal capacity, and thus the 

largest markets for geothermal O&M services. 

Factors Affecting Global Supply and Demand for Geothermal 

Services 

Factors affecting the development of geothermal energy are primarily supply-side due to 

the relatively high development and capital costs of geothermal energy projects. 

Particularly important are advances in technology, which are making the development of 

geothermal energy production feasible in new countries. Government policies, including 

aggressive geothermal energy targets, renewable portfolio standards (RPSs), and feed-in 

tariffs (FITs), are also helping to facilitate the sector’s growth, especially in emerging 

markets and developing countries.123

One particular problem for geothermal power, as opposed to solar and wind, is 

identifying the extent of existing geothermal resources. As in the case of oil and gas, 

developers must drill wells to verify that resources exist, and only a minority of the wells 

are successful, making the exploration process both risky and expensive. In one effort to 

overcome this problem, the government of Indonesia has instituted a geothermal energy 

funding facility which funds exploratory activities through local governments, aiming to

 119 Ibid., 40–41. 120 Recent trends in geothermal energy investment (discussed below) have underscored the importance 

of emerging markets and developing countries when it comes to growth in the geothermal energy market. 

Industry observer, interview by USITC staff, Washington, DC, December 19, 2012; GEA, Geothermal: 

International Market Overview Report, May 2012. 121 Taylor, “East Africa in Global Geothermal,” November 23, 2012. 122 Even though B&V estimates apply to a geothermal power plant located in the United States, the 

Commission uses the same estimates for the global market because detailed cost breakdowns are not 

available for all countries. The estimates exclude construction labor costs because for most projects, 

construction workers are hired locally, at local labor rates, which vary dramatically by country. These 

services are unlikely to be performed by non-local companies, and it is highly unlikely that foreign 

construction labor comprises a significant export market for U.S. service providers. EPC and owners’ costs 

are also expected to vary by country, but less so than labor costs. As noted earlier, for O&M services, B&V 

estimates average variable O&M costs of $31/MWh for a standard hydrothermal power plant in the United 

States in 2010, with zero fixed O&M costs. 123 REN21, Renewables 2012, 2012. 
5-32 

TABLE 5.15 Estimated market for geothermal energy-related services based on existing projects, by region and 

selected country, 2010 

 Geothermal power capacity Estimated size 

of project 

development 

services market 

Estimated size of 

variable O&M 

Region/country 2009 2010 services market

2009-10 

growth 

 MW Million $ 

New Zealand 633.0 731.0 98.0 145.5 180.6 

Italy 700.0 750.0 50.0 74.3 185.3 

United States 2,381.9 2,405.0 23.1 34.3 594.3 

Philippines 1,953.0 1,966.0 13.0 19.3 485.8 

Indonesia 1,189.0 1,197.0 8.0 11.9 295.8 

Japan 535.0 537.0 2.0 3.0 132.7 

Mexico 965.0 965.0 – – 238.5 

Iceland 575.0 575.0 – – 142.1 

El Salvador 204.4 204.4 – – 50.5 

World 9,892.8 10,104.9 212.1 315.0 2,497.1 

Sources: U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), “Annual Energy Review 2011,” 2012; B&V, “Cost Estimates 

and Performance Data for Renewable Electricity Technologies,” 2012; and calculations by the Commission. 

Note: Figures for the market for project development services include estimates of EPC and owners’ costs, and are 

based on the annual market for one year’s new construction. Owners’ costs primarily include services such as 

feasibility studies, environmental impact studies, resource assessments, and permitting and other legal costs. Figures 

for the market for variable O&M services are based on the cumulative reported capacity for each market. According to 

B&V, fixed O&M costs for the geothermal sector are zero, although other sources do quote fixed O&M costs for 

geothermal plants. Since the estimates in this chapter rely on B&V, we do not cite fixed O&M costs here. 

provide potential investors and financing entities with better information about 

geothermal resources prior to the tendering process for specific development blocks. The 

program had received about $200 million as of 2012. Another program provides loan 

guarantees to certain geothermal energy project developers after the tendering process, as 

they actively develop new power projects.124 

In contrast, unclear government policies, conflicting regulations, and bureaucratic 

problems in obtaining project permits have acted as roadblocks to new development in 

Indonesia, a country with aggressive targets and some of the world’s largest geothermal 

energy resources. 125 Argentina, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Kenya, and the Philippines have 

among the most ambitious long-term geothermal energy targets, although it remains 

unclear whether those targets will be met. In Indonesia, for example, industry observers 

consider it unlikely that the country will meet its 2020 targets for new geothermal power 

production.126 On the demand side, populations and economic growth are increasing the 

need for affordable and reliable energy in emerging markets. Other significant factors are 

access to power transmission, project lead times, and the price of electricity. 

Global Industry Trends 

The global geothermal power industry is dominated by multinational firms that provide 

geothermal energy services worldwide. The industry is relatively concentrated—the top 

10 geothermal energy producers account for 64 percent of installed geothermal power 

 124 Government representatives, interviews with USITC staff, Jakarta, July 3 and 4, 2013. 125 Industry representatives, interviews with USITC staff, Jakarta, July 3 and 4, 2013. 126 REN21, Renewables 2012, 2012; industry representatives, interviews with USITC staff, Jakarta, 

July 3 and 4, 2013. 
5-33 

capacity worldwide (table 5.16).127 Chevron, a U.S. multinational energy producer, is 

reportedly the largest producer of geothermal energy. In 2012, Chevron’s geothermal 

operations in Indonesia and the Philippines had a total capacity of 1,273 MW, and the 

company is assessing the prospects for additional development of geothermal energy 

production in both countries.128

TABLE 5.16 Companies owning geothermal energy capacity over 300 MW in 2010

Company Country 

Installed 

capacity (MW) Country of operations 

Calpine United States 1,310 United States 

Chevron United States 1,087 Philippines and Indonesia 

CFE Mexico 958 Mexico 

Enel Green Power Italy 915 Italy and Latin America 

Ormat Israel 749 United States 

EDC Philippines 707 Philippines 

Terra Gen United States 337 United States 

Contact Energy New Zealand 335 New Zealand 

Reykjavik Energy Iceland 333 Iceland 

CalEnergy Generation United States 329 United States 

Source: World Bank, ESMAP, Geothermal Handbook, 2012, 28. Handbook based on Bertani 2010. 

Drilling accounts for a large share of the services revenue produced by geothermal 

energy development. The drilling techniques for geothermal energy are not the same as 

those used for oil and gas drilling, but the same type of equipment is often used in both 

industries. Specific services performed in connection with geothermal drilling include 

provision of drilling fluids; completions (putting pipe into the ground); servicing of drill 

bits; wireline and proliferating services; and testing of wells.129

Drilling companies that focus on oil and gas operations also perform drilling for 

geothermal projects, In fact, Schlumberger and Halliburton, two multinational firms 

associated primarily with oilfield services, dominate the geothermal drilling services 

market.130 This involvement of oil and gas companies in geothermal project development 

contributes to greater geothermal production capacity and expands the size of the global 

geothermal market. On the other hand, the geothermal industry competes with oil and gas 

companies for access to drilling rigs. This competition sometimes reduces geothermal 

drilling, as it causes drill rig costs to rise to levels that are difficult for geothermal 

companies to pay. Within large companies involved in both geothermal and oil and gas 

exploration, there also may be competition for drilling rigs or other resources, requiring a 

balance between the two.131

Trade and Investment 

Imports and Exports 

The top international markets for geothermal energy services include Argentina, Chile, 

Iceland, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico, New Zealand, Nicaragua, and the Philippines. These 

 127 World Bank, ESMAP, Geothermal Handbook, June 2012, 25. 128 Chevron website, updated April 2013, http://www.chevron.com/deliveringenergy/geothermal/. 129 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Jakarta, July 4, 2013. 130 KPMG, World Geothermal Market and Outlook, n.d., 10–11. 131 World Bank, ESMAP, Geothermal Handbook, June 2012, 26; industry representative, interview 

with USITC staff, Jakarta, July 3, 2013. 
5-34 

countries have the largest pipeline of geothermal projects and the largest amount of 

recently installed geothermal power plant capacity.132 As noted previously, U.S. firms 

like Chevron, Schlumberger, and Halliburton are actively involved in foreign markets 

and contributing to U.S. exports of geothermal energy services. While comprehensive 

published data on trade in geothermal energy services are unavailable, evidence suggests 

that it is common for multinational companies that are engaged in geothermal services 

trade to set up affiliates abroad to facilitate access to the market.133

Investment 

Global investment in geothermal energy grew from $1.4 billion in 2007 to $2.9 billion in 

2011.134 Of this, $1.8 billion went to developed countries and $1.1 billion to developing 

countries. 135 Development banks represent a major source of investment in new 

geothermal projects, particularly in developing or emerging markets that have potential 

geothermal energy sources.136 

One significant source of funding for geothermal power in emerging markets is the 

World Bank. Between 2007 and 2012, the World Bank lent $1.1 billion for geothermal 

energy projects, with annual funding growing from $73 million to $336 million over the 

period.137 Much of this funding is directed toward purchases of geothermal services. As 

noted above, geothermal energy, unlike other sources of renewable energy, requires a 

substantial and risky exploration and drilling process to confirm the extent of the usable 

resource, and many private sector firms are not able to bear that risk. 

In order to attract more funding to project development, in 2013 the World Bank 

announced the Global Geothermal Development Plan (GGDP), a $500 million 

geothermal investment fund focused on funding exploration and drilling in emerging 

markets. This new initiative expands on previous efforts by its global scope and its focus 

on test drilling. It will identify promising sites and leverage financing for exploratory 

drilling, to enable development of commercially viable projects. The initial effort will 

work to mobilize $500 million from donors, who can contribute through bilateral aid or 

through such existing World Bank programs as the Climate Investment Funds (CIFs) or 

the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The GGDP will be managed by the World 

Bank’s long-standing Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP). Donors 

will also be able to contribute by identifying viable projects.138

Trade Barriers 

Important emerging markets such as Indonesia and the Philippines are, to varying 

degrees, considered to be fairly open to foreign geothermal energy development 

companies entering their countries. For example, Indonesia permits foreign geothermal 

energy development companies to own 95 percent of the project, with 5 percent of equity 

required to be owned by an Indonesian firm. Under the 2009 Electricity Law, Indonesia 

 132 USITC staff analysis of BNEF data. 133 Industry observer, interview by USITC staff, Washington, DC, December 19, 2012. 134 FS and UNEP, Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2012, 2012, 15. 135 Ibid., 21. 136 BNEF, “East Africa in Global Geothermal,” 2012. 137 World Bank, “Full Steam Ahead,” March 6, 2013. This figure includes direct lending and loan 

guarantees from the International Finance Corporation, the International Bank for Reconstruction and 

Development, the International Development Association, and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee 

Agency. “Renewable Energy,” World Bank website, n.d. 138 World Bank, “Full Steam Ahead,” March 6, 2013.
5-35 

also has local content requirements that vary based on the size of the project.139 Other 

countries have higher entry barriers; still others allow entry, but not at certain stages of 

the project. In Kenya’s case, it is difficult to enter at the initial development stage, but 

once the steam field development is complete, then the barriers to entry are reportedly 

low.140 

Regional Profiles 

Southeast Asia (Indonesia and the Philippines) 

Indonesia has enormous geothermal potential, as noted above, and has instituted an 

ambitious plan to expand geothermal power production by 2,000 to 3,000 MW by 2020. 

However, it is unlikely that the country will be able to meet those targets. There has been 

no new geothermal power development in Indonesia since 2003, even though a number 

of blocks were opened to exploration through a tender process (the second Fast Track 

Program or FTP2), beginning in 2010, following the promulgation of the 2009 Electricity 

Law.141 

Industry observers cite several problems inhibiting new development: 

 Confusion over the FIT rates that will be paid to project developers, and the 

government’s reverse auction system that requires project developers to bid for 

the lowest acceptable tariff, and may force prices below viable rates; 

 A tender process that awards exploration blocks to the lowest bidder, even 

though that bidder may not be qualified to carry out the work, or be able to obtain 

financing; 

 A new geothermal regulation widely expected to be introduced in the second half 

of 2013, encouraging project developers to delay breaking ground for new 

projects; 

 Regulatory conflict between government agencies. For example, projects 

licensed by the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources may have difficulty 

obtaining permits from the Forestry Ministry to build on forest land, or projects 

that were planned to rely on loan guarantees may not be able to meet 

requirements from the Ministry of Finance; 

 Local protests may prevent developers from beginning construction.142 

The Philippines will likely add new capacity as well, although less than 1,000 MW by 

2020. The overall additions will depend on the respective governments’ ability to 

 139 For projects up to 5 MW, local content must be a minimum of 31.30 percent for goods and 89.18 

percent for services, or 42.00 percent combined. This is gradually reduced for larger projects with projects 

rated at greater than 110 MW required to have 16.00 percent local content for goods and 58.40 percent for 

services, with a combined rate of 28.95 percent. PWC, Power in Indonesia, 2013, 17. 140 Industry representative, interview with USITC staff, December 19, 2012. 141 Electricity Law No. 30/2009. PWC, Power in Indonesia, 2013, 9, 13. 142 Industry and government representatives, interviews with USITC staff, Jakarta, July 3 and 4, 2013. 
5-36 

mobilize new investment from private sector developers. Malaysia and Papua New 

Guinea are also likely candidates to increase their geothermal capacity in the next 

decade.143

 

East Africa 

The East African Rift Valley is the region with the second-strongest geothermal potential 

after Asia, and Kenya is the region’s leader in geothermal power development. The 

Kenyan government has taken concrete steps to encourage new development, including 

the creation of a dedicated public company, Geothermal Development Company (GDC), 

and is planning to add 2,000 MW of capacity by 2020. Based on 2011 project 

preparations, Djibouti and Ethiopia are also likely to increase their installed capacity by 

50 to 200 MW in coming years. 144 As of March 2013, Tanzania, Burundi, Rwanda, 

Uganda, and Ethiopia were participating in a “Geothermal Compact,” led by the World 

Bank and Iceland, which supports surface exploration studies and provides technical 

assistance toward developing geothermal resources. Zambia is expected to join the 

compact soon.145 

Rwanda is believed to have total geothermal resources of more than 700 MW, and in 

2011, the Rwandan government announced plans to spend an estimated $935 million to 

develop 310 MW of new geothermal capacity by 2017.146 Rwanda started exploratory 

drilling for geothermal resources near the Karisimbi volcano in April 2013. If tests are 

successful, a 10 MW pilot phase of the project will be constructed. Great Wall Drilling 

Company (China) won the contract for test drilling, a Rwandan firm will handle 

rehabilitation of the road to the drilling site, and Yashinoya Ltd. (Kenya) will handle civil 

works engineering. Exploratory drilling in Rwanda’s Kinigi region, another area likely to 

hold significant geothermal resources, is expected to begin in 2014.147

Latin America 

The countries most likely to develop new geothermal power projects in Latin America 

are Mexico, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and El Salvador. Total additional capacity is 

expected to be in the range of 500 to 1,500 MW by 2020, depending on particular country 

policies and available funding. Other countries with geothermal resources and the 

potential for new development include Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Colombia, 

Ecuador, Chile, Bolivia, Cuba, Haiti, and Dominica.148

Japan 

Japan ranks eighth in installed geothermal energy capacity, but third globally in potential 

geothermal resources (its last large geothermal power plant was completed in 1999).149

Japan has implemented an FIT and has at least partially deregulated the sector. Combined 

 143 World Bank, ESMAP, Geothermal Handbook, June 2012, 30. 144 World Bank, ESMAP, Geothermal Handbook, June 2012, 30. 145 World Bank, “Full Steam Ahead,” March 6, 2013. 146 Reuters, “Rwanda to Spend $935 Mln on Geothermal Power,” March 22, 2011; New Times,

“Geothermal Drilling Starts Next Month,” March 27, 2011. 147 Cichon, “Rwanda Set to Start Major Geothermal Development,” March 27, 2013; New Times,

“Geothermal Drilling Starts Next Month,” March 27, 2011. 148 World Bank, ESMAP, Geothermal Handbook, June 2012, 30. 149 Industry representative, interview by USITC staff, Tokyo, May 13, 2013; KPMG, World 

Geothermal Market and Outlook, n.d., 10–11. 
5-37 

with the need for new power generation following the March 2011 Tohoku earthquake 

and tsunami, these actions are seen as encouraging the development of new geothermal 

energy plants.150 Obstacles, however, remain. One of the main challenges in developing 

geothermal resources in Japan is that most of the best resources are in national parks 

and/or close to areas that rely on hot springs to support their local economy; in such 

areas, residents and businesses are concerned about the potential impact of geothermal 

power plants on the hot springs.151 In addition, the development of large power plants 

typically takes 8 to 10 years, so it is unlikely that a significant number of new large 

power plants will come online in the next few years. Smaller plants can, however, be 

developed more quickly.152

While no large projects have moved forward recently, U.S.-based equipment supplier 

Ormat has been active in the Japanese market. It supplied equipment in 2004 for at least 

one smaller project, a 2 MW plant, and is the supplier for an upcoming 1.5 MW project. 

Several other projects, both small and large, have been announced, but available 

information indicates that participation in these projects by U.S. firms is limited, at least 

so far.153 

 150 Industry representatives, interviews by USITC staff, Tokyo, May 13, 2013, and May 14, 2013; 

Crowe, “Japan’s Geothermal Resources Get a Closer Look,” May 11, 2011; Watanabe, “Japan Considering,” 

April 9, 2013. 151 Industry representatives, interviews by USITC staff, Tokyo, May 13, 2013, and May 14, 2013. 152 Ibid. 153 BNEF database (accessed June 3, 2013). 
5-38 

Bibliography 

American Chamber of Commerce in China. White Paper, 2013. 

Black & Veatch Corporation (B&V). “Cost Estimates and Performance Data for Renewable Electricity 

Technologies.” Prepared for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2012. 

Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). “Global Trends in Clean Energy Investment,” January 14, 

2013. 

———. “Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2012: Chart Pack,” n.d. (received via email 

from BNEF on January 10, 2013).

———. Climatescope 2012: Assessing the Climate for Climate Investing in Latin America and the 

Caribbean, 2012.

http://www5.iadb.org/mif/Climatescope/2012/img/content/pdfs/eng/Climatescope2012-

report.pdf. 

———. “New Investment in Clean Energy Fell 11% in 2012.” Press release, January 14, 2013. 

http://about.newenergyfinance.com/about/press-releases/new-investment-in-clean-energy-fell-11-

in-2012-2/. 

———. Sustainable Energy in America 2013 Factbook, January 2013. 

http://www.bcse.org/factbook/pdfs/BCSE_BNEF_Sustainable_Energy_in_America_2013_Factbo

ok.pdf. 

Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) database. http://www.bnef.com (accessed various dates). 

Bloomberg News. “Alstom Building Center in China to Expand Hydro Business,” July 11, 2012. 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-11/alstom-building-center-in-china-to-expand-hydrobusiness.html. 

BNEF Newswatch. “Asian Development Bank Invests in Indian Renewable Power Company.” May 2, 

2013. 

Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, “Renewable and Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards,” 

March 21, 2013. http://www.c2es.org/us-states-regions/policy-maps/renewable-energy-standards. 

Cichon, Meg. “The Next Challenge for Geothermal: Turning the Corner toward Private Investment.” 

RenewableEnergyWorld.com, April 10, 2013. 

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/04/the-next-challenge-forgeothermal-turning-the-corner-towards-private-investment. 

———. “Rwanda Set to Start Major Geothermal Development.” RenewableEnergyWorld.com, March 27, 

2013. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/03/rwanda-set-to-startmajor-geothermal-development. 

Congressional Research Service (CRS). Bill Summary & Status, H.R.267—113th Congress (2013-2014), 

CRS Summary. http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th/house-bill/267. 
5-39 

Crowe, Robert. “Japan’s Geothermal Resources Get a Closer Look.” Renewable Energy World, May 11, 

2011. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/05/japans-geothermalresources-gets-a-closer-look. 

EIA. See U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 

Engineering News-Record (ENR). “The Top Contractors in Power,” September 17, 2012. 

———. “The Top Design Firms in Power,” July 2, 2012. 

Environmental Business Journal (EBJ). “Multilateral Development Banks Still Influential in Water and 

Now Renewables.” EBJ 25, (2012), 33–38. http://ebionline.org/ebj-archives/1355-ebj-v25n06-07. 

European Small Hydro Association (ESHA). Small Hydropower Roadmap: Condensed Research Data 

for EU-27, 2013. 

http://www.esha.be/fileadmin/esha_files/documents/publications/2013/SHPRoadmap_FINAL_Pu

blic.pdf. 

———. State of the Art of Small Hydropower in EU-25. 

http://www.esha.be/publications/publications.html, (accessed April 1, 2013).

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). “Issued HydroKinetic Preliminary Permits.” 

http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/gen-info/licensing/hydrokinetics/licences.asp

(accessed March 21, 2013). 

———. “FERC Issues First Pilot License for Tidal Power Project in New York.” News release, January 

23, 2012. http://www.ferc.gov/media/news-releases/2012/2012-1/01-23-12.asp. 

———. “Present Development of Conventional Hydroelectric Projects.” June 13, 2013. 

http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/gen-info/regulation/present-dev.asp. 

Frankfurt School of Finance and Management (FS) and United Nations Environment Programme 

(UNEP). Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2012. Frankfurt, Germany: FS, 2012. 

GE Energy. “GE Energy Industrial Solutions: GE Serves Hydro.” Marketing brochure, 2011. 

Geothermal Energy Association (GEA). Annual U.S. Geothermal Power Production and Development 

Report, April 2012. http://geoenergy.org/pdf/reports/2013AnnualUSGeothermalPowerProductionandDevelopmentReport_Final

.pdf. 

———. Green Jobs through Geothermal Energy, 2010. http://geoenergy.org/pdf/reports/GreenJobs_Through_Geothermal_Energy_Final_Oct2010.pdf ? 

———. “New Geothermal Terms and Definitions: A Guide to Reporting Resource Development 

Progress and Results to the Geothermal Energy Association,” November 2010. http://geoenergy.org/pdf/NewGeothermalTermsandDefinitions_January2011.pdf. 

Hopwood, David. “Renewable Power Generation—2010 Figures.” Renewable Energy Focus, January 10, 

2012. http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com/view/23029/renewable-power-generation-2010-

figures/. 
5-40 

HydroWorld.com. “Brookfield Renewable Completes Acquisition of New England Hydropower 

Projects,” March 5, 2013. http://www.hydroworld.com/articles/2013/03/brookfield-renewablecompletes-acquisition-of-new-england-hydrop.html. 

———. “Hydroelectric Power Industry Leaders, Policy Makers React to Bill Enactment,” August 12, 

2013. http://www.hydroworld.com/articles/2013/08/hydroelectric-power-industry-leaders-policyleaders-react-to-bill-enactment.html. 

———. “Obama Signs Hydroelectric Power Bills,” August 9, 2013. 

http://www.hydroworld.com/articles/2013/08/obama-signs-hydroelectric-power-bills-h-r-267-

and-678-now-federal-law.html. 

———. “The Road to Sustainable Development: Small Hydro in the EU,” February 1, 2013. 

http://www.hydroworld.com/articles/print/volume-21/issue-01/articles/small-hydro/the-road-tosustainable-development-small.html. 

———. “Sri Lanka Micro Hydro Rehabilitation Projects Receive Boost from New ADB Loan,” January 

18, 2013. http://www.hydroworld.com/articles/2013/january/sri-lanka-micro-hydro-rehabilitationprojects-receive-boost-from.html. 

———. “Voith Signs Deals for Two South American Small Hydroelectric Projects,” January 28, 2013. 

http://www.hydroworld.com/articles/2013/january/voith-signs-deals-for-two-south-americansmall-hydroelectric-pro.html. 

———. “World Bank Announces Renewed Support for Large Hydropower,” May 30, 2013. 

http://www.hydroworld.com/articles/2013/05/world-bank-announces-renewed-support-for-largehydropower.html. 

IBISWorld. “Geothermal Electricity Plant Operation in the U.S.,” 2012. 

Ingram, Elizabeth. “Banks Provide Critical Support for Hydro Project Development.” HydroWorld.com.,

November 1, 2011. http://www.hydroworld.com/articles/2011/11/banks-provide-critical-supportfor.html. 

Institute for Energy Research (IER). “The Status of Renewable Electricity Mandates,” 

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable-mandates/ (accessed July 9, 2013). 

International Energy Agency (IEA). 2012 Hydropower Technology Roadmap, 2012. 

http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/name,32864,en.html. 

———. Renewable Energy: Markets and Prospects by Technology, 2011. 

http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/Renew_Tech.pdf. 

———. Renewable Energy Essentials: Geothermal, 2010. 

http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/name,3914,en.html. 

International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). “Hydropower.” In Renewable Energy Technologies: 

Cost Analysis Series. Vol. 1: Power Sector, issue 3/5, June 2012. 

Islandbanki Geothermal Research. U.S. Geothermal Industry Overview, February 2011. 

http://skjol.islandsbanki.is/servlet/file/store156/item102416/US%20Geothermal%20Energy%20

Market%20Report%20web.pdf. 
5-41 

Kleinschmidt. “ITC/PTC—What’s in It for Hydro and Wind Developers?” www.kleinschmidtUSA.com

(accessed March 7, 2013). 

KPMG. World Geothermal Market and Outlook, n.d. http://www.kpmg.com/IS/is/utgefidefni/greinar-ogutgefid/Documents/KPMG_WorldGeothermalMarketandOutlook_oct2010.pdf, July 10, 2013.

Lobo, Marcello. “Global Renewable Energy Developments: Trends, Innovations and Developments in 

Brazil.” Webinar presentation sponsored by American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), 

January 16, 2013. 

Lowder, Travis, Ryan Hubbell, Michael Mendelsohn, and Karlynn Cory. Renewable Energy Finance 

Tracking Initiative (REFTI): Snapshot of Recent Geothermal Financing Terms. National 

Renewable Energy Labor (NREL) Technical Report, NREL/TP-6A20-54438, September 2012. 

National Hydropower Association. “Hydro Works for America,” n.d. http://www.hydro.org/wpcontent/uploads/2010/12/Pumped-storage5.pdf (accessed June 26, 2013). 

New Times (Rwanda). “Geothermal Drilling Starts Next Month,” March 27, 2013. 

http://www.newtimes.co.rw/news/index.php?i=15309&a=65341. 

Oregon State University. “Dam Construction to Reduce Greenhouse Gases Causes Ecosystem Disruption.” 

Press release, June 18, 2013. http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2013/jun/dam-constructionreduce-greenhouse-gases-causes-ecosystem-disruption. 

Ormat. “Ormat and JFE Engineering Enter into a Cooperation Agreement for Implementing Geothermal 

Projects in Japan.” News release, June 28, 2010. http://www.ormat.com/news/general/ormat-andjfe-engineering-enter-cooperation-agreement-implementing-geothermal-projects-. 

PWC. Power in Indonesia: Investment and Taxation Guide, 2nd Ed. April, 2013. 

Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century (REN21). Renewables 2012: Global Status 

Report, 2012. 

———. Renewables: Global Futures Report 2013, 2013. 

www.ren21.net/Portals/0/REN21_GFR_2013_print.pdf . 

Reuters. “China Urges Hydropower Developers to Heed Environment,” January 17, 2012. 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/17/china-hydropower-idUSL3E8CH2AC20120117

(accessed June 12, 2013). 

———. “Rwanda to Spend $935 Mln on Geothermal Power,” March 22, 2011. 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/22/ozabs-rwanda-geothermalidAFJOE72L0CX20110322. 

Roca, Marc. “Spain Limits Payments to Renewables to Reduce Tariff Deficit,” February 1, 2013. 

Smith, Deonta. IBISWorld. “Hydroelectric Power in the U.S.” IBISWorld Industry Report 22111c, 

July 2012. 

South China Morning Post. “World Bank U-turn Brings Hydropower in From Cold,” May 11, 2013. 

http://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1234897/world-bank-u-turn-brings-hydropower-cold. 
5-42 

Taylor, Mark. “East Africa in Global Geothermal.” Presentation at ARGEO-C4, Nairobi, November 23, 

2012. 

U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Annual Energy Review 2011.

DOE/EIA-0384 (2011), September 2012. http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/index.cfm. 

———. Electric Power Monthly. Data for February 2013, released April 22, 2013. 

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly. 

———. “Existing Nameplate and Net Summer Capacity by Energy Source, Producer Type and State 

(EIA-860).” October 2, 2012. http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/. 

———. “Geothermal Explained.” http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=geothermal_use

(accessed November 7, 2012). 

———. International Energy Statistics. 

http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=2&pid=2&aid=7 (accessed March 20, 

2013). 

 

———. Monthly Energy Review, October 2012. 

———. Renewable Energy Consumption and Electricity Preliminary Statistics 2010. 

http://www.eia.gov/renewable/annual/preliminary/ (accessed January 1, 2013). 

———. “Table 1.19.B. Net Generation from Geothermal by State, by Sector, Year-to-Date through 

October 2012 and 2011.” In Electric Power Monthly, December 2012. 

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/pdf/epm.pdf. 

———. “Today in Energy.” http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=3970 (accessed May 31, 

2013). 

U.S. Department of Energy. Geothermal Technologies Office. “American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act.” http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/recovery.html (accessed June 27, 2013). 

U.S. Geological Survey. “Fact Sheet 2008—3082,” 2008. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3082/ (accessed 

July 9, 2013). 

Verdant Power. Written submission to the U.S. International Trade Commission in connection with inv. 

no. 332-534, Renewable Energy and related Services: Recent Developments, March 1, 2013. 

Watanabe, Chisaki. “Japan Considering 21 Geothermal Plants after Fukushima.” Bloomberg, April 9, 

2013. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-09/japan-considering-21-geothermal-plansafter-fukushima-meti-says.html. 

———. “JFE Engineering Unit Wins Geothermal Plant Order.” Bloomberg, February 20, 2013. 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-20/jfe-engineering-unit-wins-order-to-constructgeothermal-plant.html. 

World Bank. Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP). Geothermal Handbook: 

Planning and Financing Power Generation. Technical Report 002/12, June 2012. 

http://www.esmap.org/sites/esmap.org/files/FINAL_Geothermal%20Handbook_TR002-12.pdf. 
5-43 

———. “Full Steam Ahead: World Bank Seeks ‘Global Push’ for Geothermal Energy Revolution,” 

March 6, 2013. 

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:23367555~pagePK:343

70~piPK:34424~theSitePK:4607,00.html. 

———. “Renewable Energy.” n.d. 

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTENERGY2/0,,contentMDK:2250

5284~menuPK:4140690~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:4114200,00.html (accessed 

June 4, 2013). 

World Bank website. http://water.worldbank.org/node/84059 (accessed March 19, 2013). 

6-1 

CHAPTER 6 

Market Effects of Clean Energy Incentive 

Programs 

Introduction 

This chapter examines incentives that promote investment in renewable energy. It 

identifies the goals of such incentives, and examines the structure and implementation of 

feed-in tariffs (FITs), renewable portfolio standards (RPSs), and production tax credits. It 

then analyzes the effect of incentives on profits and renewable energy deployment. 

The overarching purpose of these incentives is to “internalize” the external benefits of 

using renewable energy instead of other energy sources. These spillover benefits exist 

because electricity generated from nonrenewable sources, particularly fossil fuels, often 

has negative externalities (i.e., social costs imposed at the regional and global levels) in 

the form of pollution, health costs, and carbon emissions. For example, fossils fuels yield 

large quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2) compared to renewable energy.1

 The emission of 

carbon dioxide may play a role in trapping heat in the earth’s atmosphere, potentially 

leading to an acceleration in climate change. Often, firms do not face the full social costs 

of producing electricity using CO2-emitting power plants.2

 Policies intended to reduce 

negative externalities include carbon taxes or a cap-and-trade system that would set the 

private cost of energy at a price closer to its social cost. However, these policies can be 

politically controversial and technically challenging. Providing incentives to develop and 

use renewable energy can thus help reduce CO2-related negative externalities insofar as 

renewable energy replaces fossil fuel-based energy. 

Renewable energy policies are also used to meet an array of additional goals. They can be 

industrial policies for governments that anticipate growing demand for renewable energy 

in the future (in the same way that governments promote investment in high-tech 

manufacturing and other industries). Policymakers often talk about the need to improve 

domestic competitiveness and increase their country’s share of the global renewable 

energy market. 3 Renewable energy incentives are also used to achieve economic 

development, job creation, and environmental justice (for example, reducing emissions of 

particulates such as soot and ash near low-income communities). Renewable energy 

incentives that are sufficiently powerful can accomplish these goals, but such goals are 

often in tension with each other. For example, a policy that aims to deploy renewable 

 1

 A coal generator without scrubbing systems has estimated lifecycle emissions of 1,050 gCO2e per 

kWh (the equivalent of grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour), while an offshore wind generator has 

estimated lifecycle emissions of 9 gCO2e per kWh. Sovacool, “Valuing the Greenhouse Gas Emissions from 

Nuclear Power,” 2008, 2950. 2

 A 2013 estimate by the U.S. government puts the social cost of carbon at about $36 per ton of CO2. 

U.S. Government, Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, Technical Update, May 2013. 

Other estimates, relying on different methodologies and discount rates, put such costs as high as $266 per ton 

of CO2. Johnson and Hope, “The Social Cost of Carbon in U.S. Regulatory Impact Analysis,” September 

2012. For more information on climate change, see IPCC, “Climate Change 2007,” 2007. 3

 “President Barack Obama, May 6, 2011, Remarks at Allison Transmission Headquarters, Indianapolis, 

Indiana. Cited in Morris et al., “Clean Energy,” June 4, 2012, 1. 
6-2 

energy and create jobs simultaneously may cost more per job and per kilowatt-hour (kWh) 

than single-focus policies.4

Renewable energy incentives can be either quantity-based or price-based. Quantity-based 

incentives, such as RPSs, mandate a particular goal for electricity production (for 

example, that a particular percentage of electricity must come from renewable sources 

within 10 years), regardless of the cost. FITs and other fiscal incentives are price-based, 

meaning the cost of the policy is certain at least in a relative sense (for example, that 

producers will receive a particular dollar amount per kWh of electricity generated from 

renewable energy sources), but the total amount of energy that will be created is 

unknown.5

 In practice, governments often use a mix of quantity-based and price-based 

incentives simultaneously. For example, Texas has a statewide RPS aiming to achieve 

5,880 megawatts (MW) of capacity by 2015 (and 10,000 MW by 2025), while San 

Antonio and Austin have municipal RPSs of 20 percent and 35 percent respectively by 

2020. Texas also incentivizes renewable energy with tax benefits (corporations can 

deduct up to 10 percent of the amortized cost of a solar energy system from the state 

franchise tax, and the cost of installing solar or wind-powered systems can be deducted 

from property tax) and with loans and grants (the Texas Department of Rural Affairs 

offers grants via the Renewable Energy Demonstration Pilot Program). Additionally, 

governments can establish regulations and standards that facilitate renewable energy 

deployment without directly incentivizing it. For example, the Public Utility Commission 

of Texas established interconnection standards in 1999 that allow on-site distributed 

generation.6

FITs and RPSs are the most widely used renewable energy incentives. However, the 

variety and complexity of FITs and RPSs make it difficult to draw broad conclusions 

about their relative merits. It is nonetheless possible to measure the effect of the existence 

of FITs or RPSs. By some accounts, developers may prefer FITs, as RPSs can prompt 

overly aggressive bidding processes. 7 In addition, one study found that FITs may 

outperform RPSs in promoting wind-energy capacity installation.8

 

The Need for Incentives 

The renewable energy sector is affected by technology, regulations, institutions, financial 

markets, human capital, politics, and physical infrastructure. All of these factors can pose 

barriers to current deployment and be sources of future risk, both in their absolute levels 

and in their fluctuations (for example, both the price of natural gas and the volatility of 

that price shape investment decisions about renewable energy). To drive investment in 

renewable energy, incentives must increase the risk-adjusted net present value of 

renewable energy projects enough to attract investors. However, even large renewable 

 4

 Industry representatives, interview by USITC staff, San Francisco, California, November 1, 2012. 5

 Price and quantity instruments should theoretically have the same effect on social welfare. However, 

quantity instruments may be more efficient when the “benefit function” is steeply sloped (curved) and the 

“cost function” is flat (linear), meaning that it is better for a policy to cost more than expected than to have 

fewer benefits than expected; by contrast, price instruments may be more efficient when benefits are linear 

and costs are curved. In wind energy, costs are mostly linear, suggesting in theory that an RPS, as a quantity 

instrument, may be more efficient. Weitzman, “Prices vs. Quantities,” October 1974; Dong, “Feed-in Tariff 

vs. Renewable Portfolio Standard,” 2012, 477. 6

 North Carolina Solar Center DSIRE database (accessed November 30, 2012). 7

 Alagappan et al., “What Drives Renewable Energy Development?” 2011. 8

 Dong, “Feed-in Tariff vs. Renewable Portfolio Standard,” 2012. 
6-3 

energy incentives may not be enough to overcome high political risk, excessive 

permitting requirements, limited access to capital, or other constraints.9

Diverse financial challenges confront efforts in this sector. Some technologically 

advanced renewable energy projects with high up-front costs can fall into a situation in 

which no one wants to finance a project without a successful demonstration, yet 

successful demonstrations require financing (the so-called “Valley of Death”). 10

Additionally, projects like rooftop solar panels often face a financing mismatch, such as 

when landlords incur the upfront costs of installing renewable energy while tenants reap 

the benefits of lower heating costs. These gaps can theoretically be addressed through 

contracts, but in practice, doing so can be difficult. Broader events can affect the financial 

landscape as well; for example, California’s electricity crisis during 2000–01 dried up 

renewable energy financing in the state. 11 Greater financial challenges require larger 

incentives to achieve a given amount of renewable energy deployment. 

Along with financial needs, an International Energy Agency (IEA) survey found that risk 

of policy changes was among the largest barriers to renewable energy deployment.12

Credible commitments to long-term policies are important for investor certainty. An 

example is the U.S. wind production tax credit, which subsidizes wind power by 2.2 cents 

per kWh. The tax credit was established in 1992 but has had a checkered history: it was 

allowed to expire in June 1999 before being restored in December 1999, expired again in 

December 2001 and was restored in March 2002, expired again in December 2003 and 

was restored in October 2004, and expired yet again at the end of 2012 before being 

extended a few days later (applying only to wind projects that are under construction by 

the end of 2013). By some accounts, the uncertainty regarding the tax credit’s post-2012 

status made investors reluctant to finance wind projects (see figure 6.1).13 Stable policy 

frameworks allow companies to take a long-term perspective, enabling them to take the 

plunge and optimize their supply chains, while “stop and go” policies can prompt firms 

and banks to take a wait-and-see approach.14

Regions with a good supply of relevant resources, such as wind, solar, and geothermal 

endowments, reliable electrical grid infrastructure, and advanced supporting industries 

(such as silicon wafer manufacturing and engineering services), are well positioned to 

deploy renewable energy, and can meet ambitious renewable energy targets at lower cost. 

For example, renewable energy producers in San Diego benefit from complementary 

defense and biotech industrial clusters; research institutions at the University of 

California, San Diego, and the Scripps Research Institute; proximity to the Imperial 

Valley (which has a lot of sunshine) and to Baja California (which has low-cost 

manufacturing); and the availability of venture capital.15 Similarly, Hamburg, Germany, 

evolved naturally into a renewable energy industry cluster due to its robust wind 

resources, its well-developed financial sector, and the fact that its shipbuilders were able 

 9

 Industry representatives, interview by USITC staff, Bonn, Germany, May 14, 2013. 10 Jenkins and Mansur, “Bridging the Clean Energy Valleys of Death,” November 2011. 11 Bird et al., “Policies and Market Factors Driving Wind Power,” 2005. California’s utilities were 

paying extremely high prices for electricity on spot markets, putting them under financial pressure and 

eventually driving the state’s largest utility (the Pacific Gas and Electric Company) into bankruptcy. As a 

result, new electricity generators found it difficult to secure power purchase agreements and obtain financing. 

California Energy Commission, “Renewable Energy Program,” December 2002, 15. 12 IEA, “Renewable Energy: Policy Considerations,” November 2011, 43. 

13 Cardwell, “Tax Credit in Doubt,” September 20, 2012. 14 Industry representatives, interview by USITC staff, Madrid, Spain, May 8, 2013. 15 Industry representatives, interview by USITC staff, San Diego, California, October 31, 2012. 
6-4 

to build turbine blades (which are similar to propellers) and large steel wind towers in 

their shipyards.16 

Other factors that influence regional adoption of renewable energy include energy 

security (net fossil fuel importers are more likely to deploy renewables),17 expertise in 

high-tech manufacturing (which is correlated with how long countries have been using 

renewable energy technology), 18 and income (which may help countries afford high 

energy prices and/or high regulatory costs related to the use of renewable energy).19 One 

study found that U.S. states’ use of renewable energy was negatively correlated with 

electricity use per capita, the percentage of petroleum and coal manufacturing in the state 

product, and deregulation.20

Incentives are often tailored to specific phases of renewable energy deployment. 21

Initially, incentives try to provide the industry with a “jump start,” aiming to create 

consumer confidence, insulate investors from some financial risks, and overcome the lack 

of supply chains and other supportive infrastructure. Then, once the industry is 

established, policies become more focused on reducing costs, often through scheduled 

reductions in incentives based on fixed time periods or on installed-capacity benchmarks. 

Finally, in mature energy markets, policies try to accommodate daily fluctuations in 

supply and demand, facilitate the use of least-cost solutions for the system as a whole, 

 16 Industry representatives, interview by USITC staff, Hamburg, Germany, May 15, 2013. 17 IEA, “Renewable Energy: Policy Considerations,” November 2011, 27. 

18 Widiantoro et al., “Porter’s Diamond,” November 6, 2011. 19 Marques et al., “Motivations Driving Renewable Energy in European Countries,” 2010. 20 Carley, “State Renewable Energy Electricity Policies,” 2009. 21 Industry representatives, interview by USITC staff, Bonn, Germany, May 14, 2013. 

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

MW

Percent

Year-on-year installed capacity growth (%) Total installed capacity (MW)

FIGURE 6.1 The expiration of Production Tax Credits in 1999, 2001, and 2003 impacted wind 

power growth in the United States

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration database (accessed May 30, 2013).
6-5 

and optimize energy flows through space (by incentivizing grid extension and integration) 

and time (by incentivizing storage).22 

Feed-in Tariffs 

Feed-in tariffs (FITs) are contracts that guarantee a payment rate (e.g., dollars per kWh) 

to renewable energy producers for a period of time, often 15 to 20 years. These policies 

encourage investment in renewable energy generation by providing a certain degree of 

price certainty: the greater security of future cash flows lowers the risk of investing in 

renewable energy ventures, which are often capital-intensive projects with high up-front 

costs and high ratios of fixed to variable costs.23 FITs can be either fixed-price, in which 

the tariff is absolute, or premium-price, in which the FIT provides a premium payment 

above spot-market prices, and is therefore tied to changes in market prices for 

electricity. 24 FITs often impose few eligibility restrictions, so both small and large 

renewable energy generators can participate. 

FITs can be designed in elaborate ways. They can include regular degression (in which 

reimbursements are lowered over time),25 growth caps (in which reimbursements are 

lowered once annual installed capacity exceeds a target), stepped tariffs (in which tariffs 

are set relative to the expected power output of individual plants so that locations with 

especially good wind or sun resources do not benefit disproportionately), and net 

metering (in which reimbursement depends on the grid load so that providing excess 

electricity is not compensated).26 Some fixed-price FITs have full or partial inflation 

adjustment; for example, Ontario, Canada, offers inflation adjustment on 20 percent of 

the base price of electricity for wind, biomass, and hydroelectric sources over the course 

of a 20-year contract.27 On average, premium-price FITs are more costly than fixed-price 

FITs, and result in more uncertainty, without eliminating the danger that energy 

producers will be overcompensated. But relying on markets allows a more efficient 

assignment of grid costs: when supply is scarce and demand is high, prices rise, which 

induces suppliers to provide more electricity at peak usage times. 28 For that reason, 

premium-price FITs are especially attractive in regions with large gaps between peak and 

off-peak demand. 

FITs are widely used, particularly in Europe: they are the main support instrument for 

renewable energy in 20 EU countries and are used as secondary instruments in another 4 

EU countries.29 In the EU, total remuneration of onshore wind power generation in 2012 

ranged from €36.6 per megawatt-hour (MWh) in Denmark, which used a fixed-price FIT 

system, to €101.3 per MWh in Germany, which used a sliding FIT system based on 

 22 Industry representatives, interview by USITC staff, Hamburg, Germany, May 15, 2013. 23 Couture and Gagnon, “An Analysis of Feed-in Tariff Remuneration Models,” 2010. 24 Cory et al., “Feed-in Tariff Policy,” March 2009, 4. 25 For example, Minnesota offers higher tariffs for the first 10 years of contract terms, while in Slovenia 

premiums drop by 5 percent after the first 5 years of the project’s life and 10 percent after 10 years. Couture 

and Gagnon, “An Analysis of Feed-in Tariff Remuneration Models,” 2010. 26 Ragwitz et al., “Recent Developments of Feed-in Systems in the EU,” January 2012, 11. Under net 

metering schemes, producers can reduce their electricity bills by providing electricity to the grid. The value 

of that electricity (and therefore the compensation provided to producers) varies depending on overall supply 

and demand. 27 Couture and Gagnon, “An Analysis of Feed-in Tariff Remuneration Models,” 2010. 28 Ibid. 

29 Ragwitz et al., “Recent Developments of Feed-in Systems in the EU,” January 2012, 4. 
6-6 

monthly average electricity prices.30 By some measures, FITs have been the primary 

policy driver of renewable energy deployment in Germany, Spain, Portugal, and 

Denmark.31 

Setting FITs at the right level is difficult.32 FITs aim to provide a steady revenue stream 

that stimulates long-term large-scale investment, but if they are set too high they will 

generate windfall profits for developers, leading to unnecessary public spending or 

customer dissatisfaction at overpriced electricity. 33 In many cases, FITs are adjusted 

downwards after being established. Germany recently reduced its FIT by 15 percent for 

open-field solar installations and 16 percent for rooftop solar installations,34 while Italy 

reduced its solar FIT by 22–30 percent in 2011.35 In this way FITs can be victims of their 

success: they are reduced or eliminated when they drive growth faster than projected (see 

box 6.1). 

Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPSs) 

RPSs mandate specific amounts of renewable energy deployment, either in terms of 

absolute capacity or as a percentage of total electricity use. Unlike FITs, which support 

renewable energy generation at an established rate regardless of quantity, RPSs 

encourage generators to bid against each other to supply the targeted amount of 

electricity at the lowest cost. 36 RPS targets are intended to be cost-effective and 

technically feasible, but the precise target tends to be arbitrary, as RPSs are typically 

established via political processes (for example, the mandatory RPS targets in 13 U.S. 

states are all multiples of 10). 

The design of each RPS specifies a target, an end date, an application process, eligibility 

requirements, and administration and enforcement details. In some cases there are annual 

targets set, with penalties for not reaching targets, though longer compliance periods help 

accommodate the fact that renewable energy development can be “lumpy” (involving 

large and irreversible up-front costs). 

Thirty U.S. states currently have mandatory RPSs (up from three in 1998). These exhibit 

a wide diversity in type (absolute capacity versus share in total electricity mix), as well as 

in target chosen, time frame, and coverage (for example, some states exempt or give 

lower targets to municipal utilities or rural electric cooperatives) (table 6.1). The 

stringency of state-level RPSs varies: in Texas, RPS policies were ambitious enough to 

have contributed to substantial growth in renewable energy use, while Maine’s RPS has 

largely endorsed existing levels of renewable energy generation. 37 Some states have 

changed their targets over time. For example, California’s original RPS target called for 

20 percent of statewide electricity to come from renewable sources by 2017; now it 

mandates 33 percent by 2020. While changing targets can create policy uncertainty, this 

tightening RPS program has helped build a mature renewable energy market in California.

 30 About $45 to $125. Ragwitz et al., “Recent Developments of Feed-in Systems in the EU,” January 

2012, 15. 31 Couture and Gagnon, “An Analysis of Feed-in Tariff Remuneration Models,” 2010. 32 Industry representatives, interview by USITC staff, Madrid, Spain, May 10, 2013. 33 Industry representatives, interview by USITC staff, San Francisco, California, November 1, 2012. 34 Stromsta, “German Politicians Stand Firm,” April 23, 2010. 

35 CleanTechnica, “Italy to Levy Carbon Tax,” April 18, 2012. 

36 Wiser et al., “Renewables Portfolio Standards,” April 2007, 2. 

37 Ibid., 6. 
6-7 

BOX 6.1 Feed-in Tariffs in Spain 

Spain’s history with FITs illustrates both the effectiveness of FITs and the difficulty of calibrating them. Spain has 

promoted renewable energy deployment through FITs since 1998, motivated by the desire for energy security, 

industrial development, and climate change mitigation.a

 In 2004, renewable energy generation had increased to the 

point where policymakers were concerned about grid stability and voltage drops, among other issues, and generators 

felt that the annual FIT revisions were non-transparent and arbitrary, so the FIT program was modified.b It was further 

modified in 2007, adopting a cap-and-floor price to help control system costs and improve the security of the 

electricity supply.c 

However, Spain’s solar installations in 2008 exceeded expectation by a wide margin. The government forecast 

achieving 400 MW of solar capacity by 2010, but under the FIT system 2.6 gigawatts of capacity was installed in 

2008 alone, which accounted for 40 percent of total global installations that year and resulted in Spain having the 

largest installed concentrated solar power (CSP) capacity in the world.d This rapid deployment was largely due to the 

fact that the costs of solar panels collapsed while FITs remained unchanged.e

 The country’s solar energy market 

crashed in 2009; there had been excessive construction and payments,f

 and demand for electricity, which was closely 

tied to real estate development, had collapsed. The Spanish government temporarily closed its FIT system starting in 

2012 (with an exception for plants already receiving payments and plants already registered for pre-allocations), 

citing the country’s economic crisis.g

 The country also implemented several retroactive changes to renewable energy 

contracts, including a lifetime cap on FITs for plants connected to the grid before 2008, which prompted some global 

investors to seek international arbitration.h Firms, and banks that loaned money to them, had made their investing 

and financing decisions based on anticipated FITs.i

Spain’s frequent FIT modifications created an unpredictable policy environment, and resulted in price uncertainty and 

high volatility in the renewable energy market.j

 Yet Spain was able to transform its energy mix by deploying an 

enormous amount of renewable energy in a short span of time. Although Spain’s FITs did not provide the renewable 

energy industry with stable and competitive economic underpinnings, the frequent amendments and policy shifts did 

not discourage renewable energy investment in the country.k

_____________ 

a

 Industry representatives, interview by USITC staff, Madrid, Spain, May 8, 2013. b

 Del Río González, “Ten Years of Renewable Electricity Policies in Spain,” 2008. c

 Del Río González, “Ten Years of Renewable Electricity Policies in Spain,” 2008. d

 SolarServer, “Spanish Government Halts PV, CSP Feed-in Tariffs,” January 30, 2012. 

e

 Industry representatives, interview by USITC staff, Madrid, Spain, May 8, 2013. f

 Voosen, “Spain’s Solar Market Crash Offers a Cautionary Tale,” August 18, 2009 

g

 SolarServer, “Spanish Government Halts PV, CSP Feed-in Tariffs,” January 30, 2012. 

h

 ICIS, “Cloud of Legal Action,” November 30, 2011. 

i

 Industry representatives, interview by USITC staff, Madrid, Spain, May 7, 2013. j

 Industry representatives, interview by USITC staff, Madrid, Spain, May 8, 2013. k

 Ibid. 

 
6-8 

TABLE 6.1 Mandatory renewable portfolio standards by U.S. state 

State Details Target Year

Arizona 15% 2025

California 33% 2020

Colorado Investor-owned utilities 30% 2020

Electric cooperatives and municipal utilities 

serving more than 40,000 customers 10% 2020

Connecticut 27% 2020

Delaware 25% 2027

District of Columbia 20% 2020

Hawaii 40% 2030

Illinois 25% 2025

Iowa 105 MW capacity 2000

Kansas 20% 2020

Maine 40% 2017

Maryland 20% 2022

Massachusetts New resources 15% 2020

Existing resources 7.1% 2009

Michigan 10% 2015

Minnesota Xcel Energy 30% 2020

Other utilities 25% 2025

Missouri 15% 2021

Montana 15% 2015

Nevada 25% 2025

New Hampshire 24.8% 2025

New Jersey 20.38% 2021

New Mexico Investor-owned utilities 20% 2020

Rural electric cooperatives 10% 2020

New York 29% 2015

North Carolina Investor-owned utilities 12.5% 2021

Electric cooperatives, municipal utilities 10% 2018

Ohio 12.5% 2024

Oregon Large utilities 25% 2025

Small utilities 10% 2025

Very small utilities 5% 2025

Pennsylvania 18% 2021

Rhode Island 16% 2019

Texas 5,000 MW capacity 2014

Washington 15% 2020

Wisconsin 9.55% 2015

Sources: USDOE; DSIRE database (accessed November 29, 2012). 

One industry representative estimates that the RPS motivated approximately $50 billion 

in investment in the state’s renewable energy sector, including substantial investment 

from overseas.38

Most RPSs also set up a market for tradable certificates, allowing renewable energy 

generators to sell certificates representing one MWh of renewable electricity generation. 

If a large consumer or retailer of electricity is required to meet renewable energy targets 

 38 Industry representatives, interview by USITC staff, San Francisco, California, November 1, 2012. 
6-9 

under a RPS, it can purchase a certificate in lieu of deploying one MWh of its own 

renewable energy. Renewable energy generators can receive revenue both from selling 

electricity on the open market and from selling certificates to entities covered by the RPS. 

With a robust certificate market, regions can meet their RPSs by deploying renewable 

energy wherever within the area of coverage it is cheapest to do so.39 However, the prices 

of tradable certificates can be volatile. In Connecticut, prices fell from more than $30 per 

MWh in June 2005 to less than $10 in October 2005, due to changes in the eligibility of 

biomass-based generators under the state’s RPS. Maine’s certificate prices hovered near 

zero through 2006, reflecting the fact that Maine’s target could be met entirely with 

existing renewable energy generation.40

Most RPSs have been implemented since 2000—for example, the EU imposed 

mandatory renewable energy targets for member countries in 200141—so there are limited 

data on their impact. One study on U.S. states found that RPSs do not predict the percent 

of renewable energy generation in a state’s total electricity mix, but each additional year 

that a state has a RPS increases total renewable energy generation.42

Tax Incentives and Public Financing 

Many countries and regions use tax codes to provide incentives for renewable energy 

investment. Such incentives effectively replicate direct government spending while being 

more popular and easier to implement politically. In China, advanced and new 

technology enterprises in the solar, wind, and geothermal energy sectors are subject to a 

reduced corporate income tax rate, and 50 percent of the value-added tax on sales of wind 

power is refunded.43 Romania exempts renewable electricity from excise duties,44 while 

the Republic of Korea reduces import duties by 50 percent for components and 

equipment used in renewable energy plants.45

Another type of tax incentive is accelerated depreciation. Many countries allow 

renewable energy generators to adopt accelerated depreciation schedules, in which 

equipment depreciates at a higher rate early during the life of the asset compared to later 

years. This accounting technique reduces the taxable profits, especially in the first years 

of operation, of firms who claim depreciation as an expense (even though their actual 

assets depreciate more slowly than the schedule). For example, wind farms in India built 

before April 1, 2012, could claim accelerated depreciation on 80 percent of the cost of 

equipment, and this tax incentive was estimated to be a factor in 70 percent of all India’s 

wind installations in 2011.46 Renewable energy projects often have large up-front costs, 

and accelerated depreciation attempts to soften this particular barrier to investment by 

deferring tax payments. 

 39 Some proposed federal RPS programs would facilitate interstate certificate trading, which would 

further increase the size and liquidity of the market. Where cross-border trade is allowed and certificates are 

trustworthy, regions that do not have RPSs still have incentives to develop renewable energy in order to get 

certificates that can be sold to their neighbors. University of Texas at Austin, Harmonization of Renewable 

Energy Credit Markets, November 2009. 40 Wiser et al., “Renewables Portfolio Standards,” April 2007, 11. 

41 EU directive 2001/77/EC. 

42 Carley, “State Renewable Energy Electricity Policies,” 2009. 43 KPMG International, “Taxes and Incentives for Renewable Energy,” June 2012, 17. 44 Ibid., 36. 

45 Ibid., 37. 

46 Ernst & Young, “Renewable Energy Country Attractiveness Indices,” May 2012, 27. 
6-10 

There are multiple U.S. tax incentives for investing in renewable energy, including the 

investment tax credit for renewable energy (Internal Revenue Code section 48) and the 

renewable electricity production credit (IRC section 45A). 47 Under the former, 

investments in solar energy property, fuel cells, and small wind systems may receive a 

30 percent tax credit, while investments in geothermal systems, microturbines, and 

combined heat and power technologies (which simultaneously produce electricity and 

heat from a single fuel source) may qualify for a 10 percent tax credit.48 The latter credit 

includes the most effective federal incentive for wind power, a per-kWh credit applied to 

the output of qualifying facilities during the first 10 years of their operation. Total 2011 

tax expenditures for the investment tax credit were an estimated $300 million, while the 

production tax credit resulted in an estimated $1.4 billion of foregone revenue in 2011.49

There are also tax incentives at the state level; for example, North Carolina has tax 

incentives for manufacturing renewable energy equipment and for investing in renewable 

energy property.50 (Federal and state tax incentives apply to fossil fuel industries as well, 

so tax codes may not provide a net benefit to renewable energy relative to other energy 

sources.)51

Governments also provide various forms of direct public financing that facilitates the use 

of renewable energy. As part of the U.S. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 

Congress established a temporary grant program (the “1603 Program”) that entitled 

project developers to receive a cash payment worth 30 percent of a project’s capital cost. 

The 1603 Program awarded $11.6 billion to 38,000 projects before expiring at the end of 

2011.52 The Department of Energy also plays a major role in providing loan guarantees 

for projects that use new (or significantly improved) clean energy technologies, and as of 

September 2011 had made $15.1 billion in loan guarantees. 53 For example, 

SolarReserve’s 110-MW Crescent Dunes CSP project in Nevada is backed by a 

$737 million loan guarantee. The guarantee, combined with a 25-year power purchase 

agreement with NV Energy, provides a long-term financial and policy framework that 

has helped facilitate a large investment in a new technology (molten salt storage).54

However, the Department of Energy generated some controversy when it provided over 

$500 million in loan guarantees to the solar company Solyndra, which later went 

bankrupt in part due to the falling price of silicon panels. It has been argued that some 

defaults are to be expected to the extent that such loan programs invest in unproven 

technologies (by one estimate, 30–40 percent of high-potential U.S. start-ups fail).55

 47 There is also a deduction for energy-efficient commercial buildings (IRC section 179D), an energyefficient appliance credit (IRC section 45MA), and an energy-efficient home credit (IRC section 45LA), as 

well as a nonbusiness energy property tax credit (IRC section 25C) and a residential energy-efficient property 

tax credit (IRC section 25D) for improvements that affect energy efficiency of dwellings. Bourgeois et al., 

“Tax Incentives of Going Green,” November 2010. 48 Sherlock, “Impact of Tax Policies,” April 19, 2012, 2. Typically such credits apply to the eligible 

basis of energy property placed in service during the taxable years. 49 Sherlock, “Impact of Tax Policies,” April 19, 2012, 3. 

50 Cosmo, “States Provide Tax Incentives,” September–October 2011. 51 Environmental Law Institute, “Estimating U.S. Government Subsidies to Energy Sources,” 

September 2009. Significant federal tax preferences for fossil fuel industries include the expensing of 

exploration and development costs, as well as the “excess of percentage over cost depletion” deduction, 

which allows oil, gas, and coal producers to deduct a percentage of gross income from production instead of 

recovering the cost of investments based on the fraction of resources extracted. This deduction is typically 

more favorable than the standard depreciation deduction. 52 Mendelsohn and Harper, “§1603 Treasury Grant Expiration,” June 2012, iii. 53 GAO, DOE Loan Guarantees, March 2012. 54 Industry representatives, interview by USITC staff, Madrid, Spain, May 10, 2013. The loan 

guarantee will result in an estimated $300 million in interest payments to the U.S. government. Trabish, 

“SolarReserve’s CEO Weighs In on CSP,” August 27, 2012. 55 Gage, “The Venture Capital Secret,” September 19, 2012. 
6-11 

However, the Solyndra bankruptcy has made renewable energy firms less certain about 

the availability of public loan guarantees in the future.56

Incentives and Return on Equity 

The Commission examined the ability of the renewable energy industry to generate 

profits from shareholders’ equity (i.e., from assets minus liabilities). It used a global 

company database to assemble information about firms in 54 countries from 2003 to 

2012, focusing on firms with a primary North American Industry Classification System 

(NAICS) code of 221119 (“other electric power generation facilities”). This code covers 

firms that convert solar, wind, and tidal energy (but not hydroelectric, fossil fuel, or 

nuclear energy) into electricity and provide such electricity to power transmission 

systems. The return on equity (ROE) was measured by summing the net income and 

summing the shareholders’ equity for all available firms in each country-year, and then 

dividing the former by the latter, in an attempt to capture the ROE for the entire “other 

electricity” sector. When a particular country in a particular year had fewer than three 

firms, that observation was dropped. The Commission then estimated the ROE for all 

industries other than NAICS 221119 in each country-year (using each country’s top 

30,000 firms, excluding renewable energy firms), to compare the performance of 

renewable energy to the performance of the rest of the economy. The Commission 

derived a “ROE differential” measure for each country in each year, equal to the 

difference between ROE in renewable energy and ROE in all non-renewable energy 

sectors. 

The average ROE differentials are presented in figure 6.2. No clear patterns emerged, 

though the graph illustrates the high variance in the performance of renewable energy 

sectors relative to the rest of the economy in different countries. In econometric analysis, 

the Commission did not find a significant relationship between ROE differentials and the 

presence of FITs, or between total installed wind energy capacity and ROE differentials, 

holding other variables constant. This suggests that the deployment of FITs may not 

improve the ability of the renewable energy industry to turn equity into profits. It also 

suggests that the quantity of installed wind energy capacity in a country may primarily be 

driven by factors other than the profitability of its renewable energy sector. 

One possibility is that the introduction of a FIT may draw resources into the renewable 

energy sector rapidly, leading to high levels of competition that limit firms’ profits. 

Anecdotally, industry representatives have suggested that profits in the renewable energy 

industry are limited by the competitive and fragmented nature of the market, and by 

underlying market conditions (for example, the stagnation or decrease in energy demand 

in many countries following the 2008 global financial crisis). 57 Additionally, 

overcapacity in the solar market, as well as low maintenance costs for wind farms (i.e., 

they have high up-front costs and low marginal costs), may put negative pressure on 

prices in competitive markets.58 Finally, some industry representatives note that small 

investors, particularly in the EU, will often put money into small-scale renewable energy 

plants as a “savings account,” and are content with relatively low rates of return (e.g., 5 

or 6 percent).59 FITs may not be powerful enough to consistently overcome these factors 

and significantly increase the profitability of the renewable energy sector. 

 56 Kho, “What the Solyndra Bankruptcy Means,” September 23, 2011. 57 Industry representatives, interview by USITC staff, Bonn, Germany, May 14, 2013. 58 Ibid. 

59 Ibid. 
6-12 

-0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Countries that had FITs during the period

FIGURE 6.2 The average 2002–12 difference between 'Other Electricity' return-on-equity (ROE) and total country returnon-equity was not significantly different for countries that had feed-in tariffs during the period

Australia

Bulgaria

Brazil

Bosnia & Herzegovina

Austria

Canada

Croatia

China

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Greece

Germany

France

Finland

Hungary

Ireland

India

Israel

Italy

Kazakhstan

Luxembourg

Lithuania

Latvia

Korea

Malaysia

Netherlands

Moldova

Philippines

Portugual

Serbia

Switzerland

Spain

Slovenia

Slovakia

Thailand

United Kingdom

Ukraine

United States

Belguim

Iceland

Poland

Norway

New Zealand

Mexico

Romania

Sweden

Russian Federation

Vietnam

Source: Compiled by Commission staff from Bureau van Dijk, 'ORBIS database,' accessed various dates.

Difference between ROEs
6-13 

Incentives and Installed Wind Capacity 

The Commission examined the relationship between FITs and installed wind capacity in 

54 countries from 2006 to 2010. Data on FITs were drawn from the Renewable Energy 

Policy Network for the 21st Century’s annual reports and supplemented with additional 

research, while data on installed wind capacity were drawn from the World Wind Energy 

Association’s World Wind Energy Reports. The analysis controlled for gross domestic 

product (GDP) per capita, electric power consumption per capita, oil rents as a 

percentage of GDP,60 and net energy imports (all from the World Bank’s World Data 

Indicators). Summary statistics are presented in table 6.2. 

TABLE 6.2 Summary statistics 

Variable Mean Std. Dev. Min Max

Installed wind capacity (MW) 2,572 6,378 0 44,733

GDP per capita 15,747 13,188 578 56,285

Electric power consumption (KWH per capita) 6,586 4,928 459 25,175

Net energy imports (percentage of energy use) 8.958 119.371 –736.16 97.565

Oil rents (percentage of GDP) 2.188 4.961 0 31.041

FITs 0.614 0.488 0 1

Source: REN21; WWEA; World Bank; USITC calculations. 

FITs were time-varying, as several countries adopted FITs during the period, and were 

represented using a binary variable: “1” if the country in question employed a FIT that 

year, and “0” if not. Using this dummy variable conceals the wide variety in the 

significance and design of FITs across countries, so the coefficient on the FIT variable 

identifies the effects of FITs per se—that is, the significance of simply having a policy 

called a FIT, regardless of its details or magnitude. 

The regression used year dummy variables and controlled for country fixed effects 

(which includes the natural wind resource endowments of countries). Results are 

presented in table 6.3. For countries in this sample, having a FIT policy was correlated 

with an additional 1,856 MW of installed wind capacity. The correlation was significant 

at the 5 percent level. Other variables were not significant. (These findings were roughly 

consistent with other estimations; see Jenner 2012 for an overview of empirical studies of 

FITs.) 

 60 Oil rents are the difference between the value of crude oil production at world prices and the total 

costs of production. 
6-14 

௧௜ݕݐܽܿ݅݌ܽܥ	ܹ݅݊݀	݈݈ܽ݁݀ݐݏ݊ܫ

௧ሻ௜ݏݐݎ݋݌݅݉	ݕ݃ݎ݁݊݁	ݐܰ݁ଷሺߚ ൅ ௧ሻ௜ܿ݌	݊݋݅ݐ݌݉ݑݏ݊݋ܿ	ݎ݁ݓ݋ܲଶሺߚ ൅ ௧ሻ௜ܿ݌	ܲܦܩଵሺߚ ൅ ଴ߚ ൌ

ሻ௜ݏݐ݂݂݁݁ܿ	݁݀ݔ݅ܨሺ ൅ ሻ2010ሺ଴ଵߚ൅⋯൅ ሻ2006ሺ଺ߚ ൅ ௧ሻ௜ݏܶܫܨହሺߚ ൅ ௧ሻ௜ݏݐ݁݊ݎ	ܱ݈݅ସሺߚ ൅

௧௜ߝ ൅

 

TABLE 6.3 Regression results (the dependent variable is total installed wind capacity) 

Variable 

Coefficient

(t score)

GDP per capita –0.490

(–1.12)

Electric power consumption (KWh per capita) 0.955

(1.19)

Net energy imports (percentage of energy use) –12.586

(–0.66)

Oil rents (percentage of GDP) 180.362

(0.64)

FITs 1,855.871 † 

(2.05)

Number of observations 267

Note: † indicates a 5 percent level of significance. 
6-15 

Bibliography 

Alagappan, L., R. Orans, and C. K. Woo. “What Drives Renewable Energy Development?” Energy 

Policy 39, no. 9 (September 2011): 5099–5104. 

Bird, Lori, Mark Bolinger, Troy Gagliano, Ryan Wiser, Matthew Brown, and Brian Parsons. “Policies 

and Market Factors Driving Wind Power Development in the United States.” Energy Policy 33, 

no. 11 (July 2005): 1397–1407. 

Bourgeois, Matt, Kevin Breaux, Michael Chiasson, and Shawn Mauldin. “Tax Incentives of Going Green.” 

CPA Journal 80, no. 11 (November 2010): 19–26. 

Bureau van Dijk. Orbis database. https://orbis.bvdinfo.com/version2013527/home.serv?product=orbisneo (accessed various dates). 

California Energy Commission. “Renewable Energy Program: Annual Project Activity Report to the 

Legislature.” P500-02-068, December 2002. http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/2003-01-13_500-

02-068.pdf. 

Cardwell, Diane. “Tax Credit in Doubt, Wind Power Industry Is Withering.” New York Times, September 

20, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/business/energy-environment/as-a-tax-creditwanes-jobs-vanish-in-wind-power-industry.html?pagewanted=all. 

Carley, Sanya. “State Renewable Energy Electricity Policies: An Empirical Evaluation of Effectiveness.” 

Energy Policy 37, no. 8 (2009): 3071–81. 

CleanTechnica. “Italy to Levy Carbon Tax, Cut Solar FIT in Wake of Record-Setting Growth,” April 18, 

2012. http://cleantechnica.com/2012/04/18/italy-to-levy-carbon-tax-cut-solar-fit-in-wake-ofrecord-setting-growth/. 

Cory, Karlynn, Toby Couture, and Claire Kreycik. “Feed-in Tariff Policy: Design, Implementation, and 

RPS Policy Interactions.” National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Technical Report NREL/TP6A2-45549, March 2009. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/45549.pdf. 

Cosmo Jr., Vito A. “States Provide Tax Incentives for Investing in Alternative/Renewable Energy 

Products.” Journal of State Taxation 29, no. 6 (September–October 2011). 

Couture, Toby, and Yves Gagnon. “An Analysis of Feed-in Tariff Remuneration Models: Implications for 

Renewable Energy Investment.” Energy Policy 38 (2010): 955–65. 

Del Río González, Pablo. “Ten Years of Renewable Electricity Policies in Spain: An Analysis of 

Successive Feed-in Tariff Reforms.” Energy Policy 36, no. 8 (2008): 2917–29. 

Dong, C. G. “Feed-in Tariff vs. Renewable Portfolio Standard: An Empirical Test of Their Relative 

Effectiveness in Promoting Wind Capacity Development.” Energy Policy 42, 2012. 

Environmental Law Institute. “Estimating U.S. Government Subsidies to Energy Sources: 2002–2008,” 

September 2009. http://www.elistore.org/Data/products/d19_07.pdf. 
6-16 

Ernst & Young. “Renewable Energy Country Attractiveness Indices,” May 2012. 

http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Renewable_energy_country_attractiveness_indices_

-_Issue_33/$FILE/EY_RECAI_issue_33.pdf. 

Gage, Deborah. “The Venture Capital Secret: 3 Out of 4 Start-Ups Fail.” Wall Street Journal, 

September 19, 2012. 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443720204578004980476429190.html. 

GAO. See U.S. Government Accountability Office. 

Ghosh, Arunabha and Himani Gangania. “Governing Clean Energy Subsidies: What, Why, and How 

Legal?” International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Global Platform on Climate 

Change, Trade and Sustainable Energy, August 2012. 

http://ictsd.org/downloads/2012/09/governing-clean-energy-subsidies-what-why-and-howlegal.pdf. 

ICIS. “Cloud of Legal Action Overshadows Spain’s Solar Electricity Subsidies.” November 30, 2011. 

http://www.icis.com/heren/articles/2011/11/30/9512912/cloud+of+legal+actions+overshadows+s

pains+solar+electricity.html. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report.” 2007. 

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf. 

International Energy Agency (IEA). Renewable Energy: Policy Considerations for Deploying 

Renewables, November 2011. 

http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/Renew_Policies.pdf. 

Jenkins, Jesse and Sara Mansur. “Bridging the Clean Energy Valleys of Death.” Breakthrough Institute, 

November 2011. http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/Valleys_of_Death.pdf. 

Jenner, Steffen. “Did Feed-in Tariffs Work? An Econometric Assessment,” August 1, 2012. 

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2121261. 

Johnson, Laurie T., and Chris Hope. “The Social Cost of Carbon in U.S. Regulatory Impact Analysis: An 

Introduction and Critique.” Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 2, no. 3 (September 

2012): 205–21. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13412-012-0087-7. 

Kalkuhl, Matthias, Ottmar Edenhofer, and Kai Lessman. “Renewable Energy Subsidies: Second-best 

Policy or Fatal Aberration for Mitigation?” Resource and Energy Economics 35 (2013): 217–234. 

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/edenh/publications-1/Renewableenergysubsidies.pdf. 

Kho, Jennifer. “What the Solyndra Bankruptcy Means for Clean Tech Investors.” Forbes, September 23, 

2011. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jenniferkho/2011/09/23/solyndra-bankruptcy-impactcleantech-investing/. 

KPMG International. “Taxes and Incentives for Renewable Energy,” June 2012. 

http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/taxesincentives-renewable-energy-2012.pdf. 

Marques, António, José A. Fuinhas, and J. R. Pires Manso. “Motivations Driving Renewable Energy in 

European Countries: A Panel Data Approach.” Energy Policy 38, no. 11 (2010): 6877–85. 
6-17 

Mendelsohn, Michael, and John Harper. “§1603 Treasury Grant Expiration: Industry Insight on Financing 

and Market Implications.” National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Technical Report NREL/TP6A20-53720, June 2012. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/53720.pdf. 

Morris, Adele, Pietro S. Nivola, and Charles L. Schultze. “Clean Energy: Revisiting the Challenges of 

Industrial Policy.” Brookings Institute. Climate and Energy Economics Discussion Paper, June 4, 

2012. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988312002009. 

Ragwitz, Mario, Jenny Winkler, Corinna Klessmann, Malte Gephart, and Gustav Resch. “Recent 

Developments of Feed-in Systems in the EU: A Research Paper for the International Feed-in 

Cooperation.” Commissioned by the Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and 

Nuclear Safety (Germany), January 2012. http://www.feed-incooperation.org/wDefault_7/download-files/research/101105_feed-in_evaluation_updateJanuary-2012_draft_final_ISI.pdf. 

Sherlock, Molly. “Impact of Tax Policies on the Commercial Application of Renewable Energy 

Technology.” Testimony before the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, and Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, 

April 19, 2012. 

http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/hearings/HHRG112-SY21-WState-MSherlock-20120419.pdf. 

SolarServer. “Spanish Government Halts PV, CSP Feed-in Tariffs,” January 30, 2012. 

http://www.solarserver.com/solar-magazine/solar-news/current/2012/kw05/spanish-governmenthalts-pv-csp-feed-in-tariffs.html. 

Sovacool, Benjamin K. “Valuing the Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Nuclear Power: A Critical Survey.” 

Energy Policy 36, no. 8 (August 2008): 2940–53. 

Stromsta, Karl-Erik. “German Politicians Stand Firm Behind 16% Solar FIT Decrease.” Recharge News, 

April 23, 2010. http://www.rechargenews.com/solar/article1285424.ece. 

Trabish, Herman. “SolarReserve’s CEO Weighs in on CSP, Policy, Jobs, Election.” Greentech Solar, 

August 27, 2012. http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/what-do-solar-power-towers-sayabout-the-doe-loan-program. 

University of Texas at Austin. Bureau of Economic Geology. Center for Energy Economics. 

Harmonization of Renewable Energy Credit Markets Across the U.S. Prepared for State Energy 

Conservation Office, Texas, November 2009. 

http://www.beg.utexas.edu/energyecon/transmission_forum/CEE_National_RECs_study.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE). DSIRE Database of State Incentives for Renewables and 

Efficiency. http://www.dsireusa.org/ (accessed various dates). 

U.S. Government. Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon. Technical Support Document: 

Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive 

Order 12866, May 2013. 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/social_cost_of_carbon_for_ria_2013_

update.pdf.

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). DOE Loan Guarantees: Further Actions Are Needed to 

Improve Tracking and Review of Applications. GAO 12-157, March 2012. 

http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/589210.pdf. 
6-18 

Voosen, Paul. “Spain’s Solar Market Crash Offers a Cautionary Tale about Feed-in Tariffs.” New York 

Times, August 18, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/08/18/18greenwire-spains-solarmarket-crash-offers-a-cautionary-88308.html?pagewanted=all. 

Weitzman, Martin L. “Prices vs. Quantities.” Review of Economic Studies 41, no. 4 (October 1974): 477–

49. http://qed.econ.queensu.ca/pub/faculty/garvie/eer/weitzman.pdf. 

Widiantoro, Dimas Mukhlas, Daudi Pascal, Kiet Nguyen, and Muhammad Usman Sharief. “Porter’s 

Diamond: National Competitiveness in Solar Energy Industry,” November 6, 2011. 

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2078915.

Wiser, Ryan, Christopher Namovicz, Mark Gielecki, and Robert Smith. “Renewables Portfolio Standards: 

A Factual Introduction to Experience from the United States.” Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley 

National Laboratory, April 2007. http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/9wr9062r. 
APPENDIX A 

Request Letter

   

EXECUTIVE GFFIQE OF THE PRESIDENT

THE U't~ll'F'EIDSTATES TRADE REPREISENTATIYE

WfitE§"ilN{’;TUN DAY. 295538

ENE‘

kfiifi

The Honorable Irvin A. Williamson ,

Chairman g Z C3

U.S. International Trade Commission ------- -5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1

500 E Street,s.w. “if? We .

Washington, DC 20436 int‘! tree‘:-lilélciyriirintssion I

Dear Chairman Williamson,

111% '$W;

. ~ 1:,-~*:" ‘<4",*\.'m*:,*v’~( -~ J‘ \. .4 ~ .-!'lw>\ r.

. »: mitt, >2-'1. 3;, ..)Yv:~lfill\z‘::‘iii.,§f§e

2

‘L 1».-= 3-8,59

l ?ll‘l?

: :4t.<.;t.;v; ~.'.—-.~-- .~ ._'.:.»:~..-.::.-1.; . Al'

I am writing to request that the U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission) conduct two

investigations under section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1332(g)) regarding trade

and market trends in the environmental services and renewable energy services sectors.

Since the publication of the Commission’s investigations on environmental and renewable

energy services in 2004 and 2005, the U.S. and global markets for such services have undergone

significant change. In recent years, overall demand in the environmental services market has

continued to rise due to new regulations, population and industry growth, and aging

infrastructure. However, factors such as new technologies, tightening government budgets, and

growing interest in environmental sustainability have altered the means through which such

services are supplied. In the renewable energy services sector, technological improvements and

decreasing prices have led to rapid growth in demand, particularly in the industry’s wind and

solar power segments. At the same time, changes in government incentive programs have

created uncertainty regarding the future of the renewable energy market.

T0 assist us in better understanding recent developments in the environmental services and

renewable energy services sectors, I request that the Commission conduct two investigations and

prepare reports, as described below. I understand that the Commission will shape its approach to

these investigations by the extent to which it can develop appropriate analytical frameworks and

collect the requisite data. I I 1 I

Investigation 1: Based on available information, I request that the Commission provide a first

report on environmental and related services that, to the extent practicable:

0 Estimates the size of the U.S. and global markets for certain environmental and related

services~~~includingwater and wastewater services, solid and hazardous waste services,

and remediation services--identifies top suppliers and key country markets for such

services, investigates factors affecting supply and demand in these market segments, and

highlights market developments that have occurred within the last five years;

I Estimates the value of trade and investment in the subject environmental services

segments, identifies key export and import markets for such services, and discusses

recent trends in environmental services trade and investment; and

I Identifies barriers to trade and investment in the subject environmental services segments,

discusses recent efforts to liberalize trade and investment in environmental services, and

investigates the potential impact of further liberalization in environmental services.

A-3
l request that this report be delivered eight months from the date of receipt of this letter.

Investigation 2: Based on available information, I request that the Commission provide a second

report on renewable energy and related S€1'ViC-6Sthat, to the extent practicable:

r Defines types of renewable energy and related services, identifies leading suppliers, and

generally describes the relationship ofrenewable energy services to the development of

renewable energy projects worldwide;

v Estimates the size of the U.S. and global markets for certain renewable energy services,

identifies key export and import markets for such services, and describes factors

affecting supply and demand;

I Examines U.S. and global renewable energy services trade during 2007-l 1, and

highlights recent trends in investment in renewable energy projects and finns, including

new business strategies or practices;

1 identifies barriers to U.S. trade and investment in renewable energy services, and

examines recent efforts to liberalize trade in leading markets for such services; and

I Examines the role of clean energy incentive programs in encouraging investment in and

creating markets for renewable energy goods and services.

The report should focus on services incidental to the development, generation, and distribution of

renewable energy, with particular emphasis on wind energy (onshore and offshore) and solar

energy, and other technologies that the Com1nission’s research shows to be of significance. Such

services include scientific and technical consulting, services incidental to energy distribution.

professional services, construction and engineering services, management consulting and related

services, and maintenance and repair of equipment, among others.

I request that the second report be delivered eleven months from the date of receipt of this letter.

As we intend to make the Commission’s reports available to the public, these reports should not

include confidential business or national security classified information.

I appreciate the Commission’s continued assistance and cooperation on this matter.

Sine ely

3 Q-r-'1/e-\ .

5 iflj;

Ambassador Ron Kirk

A-4
A-5

APPENDIX B 

Federal Register Notice

   

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2012 / Notices 53233 

• Washington State Department of 

Ecology, 4601 North Monroe, 

Spokane, Washington; telephone 

(509) 329–3400 

Libraries 

• Basin City Branch, Mid-Columbia 

Library, Basin City, Washington 

• Benton-Franklin County Regional Law 

Library, Columbia Basin College, L 

Building, 2600 North 10th Avenue, 

Pasco, Washington 

• Big Bend Community College Library, 

Building 1800, 7611 Bolling Street 

NE., Moses Lake, Washington 

• Columbia Basin College Library, 2600 

North 20th Avenue, Pasco, 

Washington 

• Connell Branch, Mid-Columbia 

Library, 118 North Columbia Avenue, 

Connell, Washington 

• Coulee City Public Library, 405 West 

Main Street, Coulee City, Washington 

• Ephrata City Library, 45 Alder Street 

Northwest, Ephrata, Washington 

• Grant County Law Library, 35 C Street 

NW., Ephrata, Washington 

• Kahlotus Branch, Mid-Columbia 

Library, East 225 Weston, Kahlotus, 

Washington 

• Moses Lake Community Library, 418 

East 5th Avenue, Moses Lake, 

Washington 

• Odessa Public Library, 21 East 1st 

Avenue, Odessa, Washington 

• Othello Branch, Mid-Columbia 

Library, 101 East Main, Othello, 

Washington 

• Pasco Branch, Mid-Colombia Library, 

1320 West Hopkins, Pasco, 

Washington 

• Quincy Public Library, 108 B Street 

Southwest, Quincy, Washington 

• Ritzville Public Library, 302 West 

Main, Ritzville, Washington 

• North Central Regional Library, Royal 

City Library, 136 Camelia Street, 

Royal City, Washington 

• Seattle Public Library, Central 

Library, 1000 Fourth Avenue, Seattle, 

Washington 

• Sprague Public Library, 119 West 

Second Street, Sprague, Washington 

• North Central Regional Library, 

Warden Library, 305 South Main 

Street, Warden Washington 

• Washington State Library, 6880 

Capitol Boulevard South, Olympia, 

Washington 

Public Disclosure Statement 

Before including your address, phone 

number, email address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Dated: August 27, 2012. 

Lorri J. Lee, 

Regional Director, Pacific Northwest Region. 

[FR Doc. 2012–21572 Filed 8–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 332–534] 

Renewable Energy and Related 

Services: Recent Developments 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of investigation and 

scheduling of public hearing. 

SUMMARY: Following receipt of a request 

on July 30, 2012 from the U.S. Trade 

Representative (USTR) under section 

332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 

U.S.C. 1332(g)), the U.S. International 

Trade Commission (Commission) 

instituted investigation No. 332–534, 

Renewable Energy and Related Services: 

Recent Developments. 

DATES:

November 15, 2012: Deadline for 

filing requests to appear at the public 

hearing. 

November 19, 2012: Deadline for 

filing pre-hearing briefs and statements. 

November 29, 2012: Public hearing. 

December 17, 2012: Deadline for filing 

post-hearing briefs and statements. 

March 1, 2013: Deadline for filing all 

other written submissions. 

June 28, 2013: Transmittal of 

Commission report to USTR. 

ADDRESSES: All Commission offices, 

including the Commission’s hearing 

rooms, are located in the United States 

International Trade Commission 

Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, 

DC. All written submissions should be 

addressed to the Secretary, United 

States International Trade Commission, 

500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 

20436. The public record for this 

investigation may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at https://edis.usitc.gov/edis3-internal/ 

app. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Project Leader Lisa Alejandro (202–205– 

3486 or Lisa.Alejandro@usitc.gov) or 

Deputy Project Leader Samantha Brady 

Pham (202–205–3459 or 

Samantha.Pham@usitc.gov) for 

information specific to this 

investigation. For information on the 

legal aspects of this investigation, 

contact William Gearhart of the 

Commission’s Office of the General 

Counsel (202–205–3091 or 

william.gearhart@usitc.gov). The media 

should contact Margaret O’Laughlin, 

Office of External Relations (202–205– 

1819 or margaret.olaughlin@usitc.gov). 

Hearing-impaired individuals may 

obtain information on this matter by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal at 202–205–1810. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). 

Persons with mobility impairments who 

will need special assistance in gaining 

access to the Commission should 

contact the Office of the Secretary at 

202–205–2000. 

Background: In his letter the USTR 

requested that the Commission prepare 

two reports, one on environmental and 

related services, and a second on 

renewable energy and related services, 

and deliver the reports in 8 and 11 

months, respectively, after receipt of the 

letter. This notice announces the 

institution of an investigation and 

schedule, including the date for a public 

hearing, relating to the preparation of 

the second report, on renewable energy 

and related services; the Commission 

published notice of the institution of the 

first investigation, No. 332–533, 

Environmental and Related Services, in 

the Federal Register of August 21, 2012. 

As requested by the USTR, the 

Commission will provide a report on 

renewable energy and related services 

that, to the extent practicable: 

• Defines types of renewable energy 

and related services, identifies leading 

suppliers, and generally describes the 

relationship of renewable energy 

services to the development of 

renewable energy projects worldwide; 

• Estimates the size of the U.S. and 

global markets for certain renewable 

energy services, identifies key export 

and import markets for such services, 

and describes factors affecting supply 

and demand; 

• Examines U.S. and global 

renewable energy services trade during 

2007–11, and highlights recent trends in 

investment in renewable energy projects 

and firms, including new business 

strategies or practices; 

• Identifies barriers to U.S. trade and 

investment in renewable energy 

services, and examines recent efforts to 

liberalize trade in leading markets for 

such services; and 

• Examines the role of clean energy 

incentive programs in encouraging 

investment in and creating markets for 

renewable energy goods and services. 


EMCDONALD on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES

B-3
53234 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2012 / Notices 

As requested by the USTR, the report 

will focus on services incidental to the 

development, generation, and 

distribution of renewable energy, with 

particular emphasis on wind energy 

(onshore and offshore) and solar energy, 

and other technologies that the 

Commission’s research shows to be of 

significance. The USTR defined such 

services to include scientific and 

technical consulting, services incidental 

to energy distribution, professional 

services, construction and engineering 

services, management consulting and 

related services, and maintenance and 

repair of equipment, among others. 

As requested, the Commission expects 

to deliver this second report to the 

USTR no later than June 28, 2013. 

Public Hearing: A public hearing in 

connection with this investigation will 

be held at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC, beginning at 9:30 a.m. 

on November 29, 2012. Requests to 

appear at the public hearing should be 

filed with the Secretary no later than 

5:15 p.m., November 19, 2012. All prehearing briefs and statements should be 

filed no later than 5:15 p.m. November 

6, 2012 and all post-hearing briefs and 

statements should be filed no later than 

5:15 p.m., December 17, 2012. All preand post-hearing briefs and statements 

must be filed in accordance with the 

requirements in the ‘‘Written 

Submissions’’ section below. In the 

event that no witnesses are scheduled to 

appear at the hearing as of the close of 

business on November 15, 2012, the 

hearing will be canceled. Any person 

interested in attending the hearing as an 

observer or nonparticipant should 

contact the Office of the Secretary at 

202–205–2000 after November 1, 2012, 

for information concerning whether the 

hearing will be held. 

Written Submissions: In lieu of or in 

addition to participating in the hearing, 

interested parties are invited to file 

written submissions concerning this 

investigation. All written submissions 

(other than those related to the hearing) 

should be addressed to the Secretary, 

and should be received no later than 

5:15 p.m., March 1, 2013. All written 

submissions must conform with the 

provisions of section 201.8 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR 201.8). Section 201.8 

and the Commission’s Handbook on 

Filing Procedures require that interested 

parties file documents electronically on 

or before the filing deadline and submit 

eight (8) true paper copies by 12:00 p.m. 

eastern time on the next business day. 

In the event that confidential treatment 

of a document is requested, interested 

parties must file, at the same time as the 

eight paper copies, at least four (4) 

additional true paper copies in which 

the confidential information must be 

deleted (see the following paragraph for 

further information regarding 

confidential business information). 

Persons with questions regarding 

electronic filing should contact the 

Secretary (202–205–2000). 

Any submissions that contain 

confidential business information (CBI) 

must also conform with the 

requirements in section 201.6 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR 201.6). Section 201.6 

of the rules requires that the cover of the 

document and the individual pages be 

clearly marked as to whether they are 

the ‘‘confidential’’ or ‘‘non-confidential’’ 

version, and that the confidential 

business information be clearly 

identified by means of brackets. All 

written submissions, except for 

confidential business information, will 

be made available for inspection by 

interested parties. 

In the request letter, the USTR stated 

that his office intends to make the 

Commission’s report available to the 

public in its entirety, and asked that the 

Commission not include any 

confidential business information or 

national security classified information 

in the report. Any confidential business 

information received by the 

Commission in this investigation and 

used in preparing this report will not be 

published in a manner that would 

reveal the operations of the firm 

supplying the information. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: August 27, 2012. 

Lisa R. Barton, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2012–21492 Filed 8–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–817] 

Certain Communication Equipment, 

Components Thereof, and Products 

Containing the Same, Including Power 

Over Ethernet Telephones, Switches, 

Wireless Access Points, Routers and 

Other Devices Used in LANs, and 

Cameras; Commission Determination 

Not to Review Initial Determinations 

Terminating Respondent Avaya Inc. 

Based on Settlement and Terminating 

the Investigation Based on Withdrawal 

of the Complaint; Termination of the 

Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined not to 

review two initial determinations 

(‘‘IDs’’) (Order Nos. 23–24) of the 

presiding administrative law judge 

(‘‘ALJ’’) granting a joint motion by 

Complainant and Respondent Avaya 

Inc. (‘‘Avaya’’) to terminate the 

investigation for Respondent Avaya 

based on settlement and a motion by 

Complainant to terminate the 

investigation in its entirety based on 

withdrawal of the complaint. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amanda S. Pitcher, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–2737. Copies of non-confidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

investigation are or will be available for 

inspection during official business 

hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the 

Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone (202) 205–2000. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

Internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. 

The public record for this investigation 

may be viewed on the Commission’s 

electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// 

edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired 

persons are advised that information on 

this matter can be obtained by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal on (202) 205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on December 7, 2011, based on a 

complaint filed by ChriMar Systems, 

Inc. d/b/a DMS Technologies 

(‘‘ChriMar’’) of Farmington Hills, 

Michigan. 76 FR 76436–37 (Dec. 7, 

2011). The complaint alleges a violation 

of section 337 by reason of infringement 

of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 

7,457,250 by certain communication 

equipment, components thereof, and 

products containing the same, including 

power over ethernet telephones, 

switches, wireless access points, routers 

and other devices used in LANs, and 

cameras. The Notice of Investigation 

named a number of respondents, 

including Avaya of Basking Ridge, New 

Jersey; Cisco Consumer Products LLC of 

Irvine, California, Cisco Systems 

International B.V. of the Netherlands, 

Cisco-Linksys LLC of Irvine, California 

(collectively, ‘‘Cisco’’); Hewlett-Packard 

Co. (‘‘HP’’) of Palo Alto, California; and 

Extreme Networks, Inc. (‘‘Extreme’’) of 

Santa Clara, California. 


EMCDONALD on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES

B-4
26394 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 87 / Monday, May 6, 2013 / Notices 

complaint and in this notice may be 

deemed to constitute a waiver of the 

right to appear and contest the 

allegations of the complaint and this 

notice, and to authorize the 

administrative law judge and the 

Commission, without further notice to 

the respondent, to find the facts to be as 

alleged in the complaint and this notice 

and to enter an initial determination 

and a final determination containing 

such findings, and may result in the 

issuance of an exclusion order or a cease 

and desist order or both directed against 

the respondent. 

Issued: April 30, 2013. 

By order of the Commission. 

Lisa R. Barton, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2013–10601 Filed 5–3–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 332–534] 

Renewable Energy and Related 

Services: Recent Developments 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Extension of date for 

transmitting report. 

SUMMARY: Following the receipt of a 

letter on April 15, 2013, from the United 

States Trade Representative (USTR), the 

Commission has extended to August 30, 

2013, the date for transmitting its report 

to USTR in investigation No. 332–534, 

Renewable Energy and Related Services: 

Recent Developments. 

DATES: 

April 15, 2013: Receipt of the letter from 

USTR. 

August 30, 2013: New date for 

transmitting the Commission’s report 

to USTR. 

Backround 

The Commission published notice of 

institution of the investigation in the 

Federal Register on August 31, 2012 (77 

FR 53233). In its original notice of 

investigation, the Commission indicated 

that it would transmit its report to USTR 

on June 28, 2013. The notice is also 

available on the Commission Web site at 

http://www.usitc.gov. All other 

information about the investigation, 

including a description of the subject 

matter to be addressed, contact 

information, and Commission 

addresses, remains the same as in the 

original notice. The public record for 

this investigation may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/ 

edis.htm. 

Issued: April 30, 2013. 

By order of the Commission. 

Lisa R. Barton, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2013–10535 Filed 5–3–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[USITC SE–13–010] 

Sunshine Act Meetings 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

TIME AND DATE: May 13, 2013 at 11:00 

a.m. 

PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 

(202) 205–2000. 

STATUS: Open to the public. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

1. Agendas for future meetings: none. 

2. Minutes. 

3. Ratification List. 

4. Vote in Inv. No. 731–TA–894 

(Second Review) (Ammonium Nitrate 

from Ukraine). The Commission is 

currently scheduled to transmit its 

determination and Commissioners’ 

opinions to the Secretary of Commerce 

on or before May 24, 2013. 

5. Outstanding action jackets: none. 

In accordance with Commission 

policy, subject matter listed above, not 

disposed of at the scheduled meeting, 

may be carried over to the agenda of the 

following meeting. 

Dated: May 2, 2013. 

By order of the Commission. 

William R. Bishop, 

Supervisory Hearings and Information 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2013–10746 Filed 5–2–13; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

[OMB Number 1105–0084] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed Collection; 

Comments Requested: Application for 

Approval as a Nonprofit Budget and 

Credit Counseling Agency 

ACTION: 60-Day Notice. 

The Department of Justice, Executive 

Office for United States Trustees, will be 

submitting the following application to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and clearance in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. The application 

is published to obtain comments from 

the public and affected agencies. 

Comments are encouraged and will be 

accepted for 60 days until July 5, 2013. 

All comments and suggestions, or 

questions regarding additional 

information, to include obtaining a copy 

of the proposed application with 

instructions, should be directed to 

Wendy Tien, Deputy Assistant Director, 

at the Executive Office for United States 

Trustees, Department of Justice, 441 G 

Street NW., Suite 6150, Washington, DC 

20530. 

Written comments and suggestions 

from the public and affected agencies 

concerning the collection of information 

are encouraged. Comments should 

address one or more of the following 

four points: 

1. Evaluate whether the application is 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

2. Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

collection of information, including the 

validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; 

3. Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; 

4. Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES


B-5

APPENDIX C 

Positions of Interested Parties

 
 
C-3 

Summary of Views of Interested Parties 

The Commission invited interested parties to file written submissions for its investigation 

on U.S. and global markets for renewable energy services. This appendix summarizes the 

views expressed to the Commission via written submissions and reflects only the 

principal points made by each party. The views summarized are those of the submitting 

parties and not the Commission. In preparing this summary, the Commission did not 

confirm the accuracy of, or otherwise correct, the information summarized. For the full 

text of all written submissions, see entries associated with investigation no. 332-534 at 

the Commission’s Electronic Docket Information System (https://edis.usitc.gov). 

Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International 

(SEMI)1

In a written submission, the Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International 

(SEMI) stated that it is a global trade association representing the equipment makers and 

material suppliers in the microelectronics industries. SEMI said that it has 2,000 members 

globally, of which approximately 500 are involved in the production of solar 

photovoltaics (PV). SEMI stated that there are more than 5,000 companies in the U.S. 

solar value chain, with at least 39 active facilities manufacturing PV components 

(polysilicon, wafers, cells, modules, inverters) spread across 17 states. According to 

SEMI, while some solar manufacturing operations have closed due to obsolete 

equipment, uncompetitive technology, or other reasons, a strong supply chain does still 

exist in the United States. SEMI stated that U.S. companies are represented in every step 

of the value chain, including manufacturing equipment, materials, solar cells and 

modules, and balance of system components. 

SEMI said that the U.S. PV industry accounted for over 119,000 jobs in 2012, with only 

24 percent of these jobs in manufacturing, since a majority of PV cells and modules are 

made overseas. According to SEMI, GTM Research found that the U.S. solar supply 

chain had a $2 billion trade surplus in 2010, but that this changed to a $1.5 billion deficit 

in 2011 and that, as a result, some U.S. material manufacturing plants and Research and 

Development centers are likely to move overseas. SEMI indicated that after years of 

continuous growth, the solar PV industry now finds itself in a sustained period of rapidly 

falling prices for PV cells and modules, mostly due to overcapacity of production, even 

as global installation numbers continue to grow. The global industry is worth billions of 

dollars and employs hundreds of thousands of people, according to SEMI, but 

competition is fierce, and this has resulted in trade friction. 

SEMI indicated that there are a number of trade complaints between the United States, 

China, the European Union, The Republic of Korea (Korea), India, and Canada, and that 

other trade and market barriers have arisen in areas related to investment, government 

procurement, local-content requirements, and conflicting standards and certification 

requirements. SEMI stated that there is a need to level the global playing field for PV 

products in order to support U.S. competitiveness, and that what is needed is a highstandard, comprehensive, and global accord to control for improprieties that have 

 1

 SEMI, written submission to the USITC, 
C-4 

contributed to the current market surplus. It recommended the establishment of a global 

free trade agreement for renewable energy products, and indicated that the World Trade 

Organization’s Information Technology Agreement (ITA) is a model for such an 

agreement. 

Verdant Power (Verdant)2

In a written submission to the Commission, Mr. William H. Taylor, Co-founder and 

President of Verdant Power, said that marine and hydrokinetic (MHK) energy is derived 

from ocean tides, waves, and currents; temperature gradients in the ocean; and freeflowing rivers and streams. Mr. Taylor stated that an important MHK-related service 

involves resource assessment, wherein potential MHK energy resources and sites are 

analyzed to determine the technical and economic feasibility of deploying of MHK 

devices and long-term project development. Mr. Taylor noted that MHK resource 

assessment services are not fully developed globally and represent an opportunity for 

U.S. firms. According to Mr. Taylor, the global market for MHK resources is an 

estimated 400,000 GW, but there are few firms focused on providing such detailed 

resource assessment services. Mr. Taylor noted that most investment in the MHK sector 

has been related to MHK device developers, but in recent years investment has declined 

due to the Great Recession and cheap natural gas in North America. Mr. Taylor stated 

that MHK resource assessment services have been secondary to MHK device 

development and limited mostly to macro assessments of MHK resources. 

According to Mr. Taylor, a primary barrier to the provision of site-specific resource 

assessment is the experience required to provide these services effectively. Mr. Taylor 

noted that the service provider must understand resource assessment/project feasibility 

from a scientific perspective and from the perspective of a device/project developer. Mr. 

Taylor stated that Verdant, based in New York City, is uniquely equipped with this 

combined expertise. He noted that the firm installed and operated the world’s first gridconnected array of MHK tidal devices through its Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy Project 

located in the East River of New York. Mr. Taylor stated that this project has increased 

the firm’s resource assessment techniques as well as its device/project developer 

capabilities. Mr. Taylor said that Verdant has used its resource assessment methodology 

to assess sites in Canada and the United States. According to Mr. Taylor, an additional 

barrier to site-specific resource assessments is a lack of public funding. Mr. Taylor noted 

that funding mechanisms should be developed for MHK resource assessments in order to 

increase domestic expertise in this area and to expand U.S. exports of these services. 

 2

 Verdant, written submission to the USITC, March 1, 2013.