Industry Structure and Company Strategies 

of Major Domestic and Foreign Wind and Solar Energy Manufacturers: 

Opportunities for Supply Chain Development in Appalachia 

Co-Principal Investigators 

Gerald I. Susman, Ph.D. 

Smeal College of Business 

210 Business Building, University Park, PA 16802 

814-863-0448 

Amy K. Glasmeier, Ph.D. 

College of Earth and Mineral Sciences 

302 Walker Building, University Park, PA 16802 

814-865-7323 

Technical Advisors 

Susan K. Stewart, Ph.D. 

Research Associate, Energy Science and Power Systems, Applied Research Laboratory 

David R. Riley, Ph.D. 

Associate Professor, Architectural Engineering, College of Engineering 

The Pennsylvania State University 

University Park, PA 16802 

Researchers 

Jared Freer, Graduate Assistant 

Barbara B. Kinne, Research Assistant 

Michael H. Patullo, Research Consultant 

Jenna P. Stites, Research Assistant 

Carmen Strand, Research Assistant 

Michael Waldhier, Graduate Assistant 

ARC Project Number CO-15810-07 

October 1, 2007–February 27, 2009 

Final Report Submitted 

November 20, 2009 

Project Director 

Gerald I. Susman, Ph.D. 

Smeal College of Business 

The Pennsylvania State University 

814-863-0448 

 
2 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Data Dictionary ................................................................................................................................5 

Executive Summary .........................................................................................................................6 

Phase I. Industry Market Structure, Forecast, and Potential: 

Part 1: The Solar Industry................................................................................................................8 

 Demand for Solar Energy ....................................................................................................8 

 Solar Energy Technologies ................................................................................................10 

 Markets and Applications ..................................................................................................10 

 Industry Participants ..........................................................................................................12 

 Photovoltaic (PV) Supply Chain ........................................................................................16 

 Competitive Strategies .......................................................................................................17 

 Strategic Groups.................................................................................................................21 

 Future Directions ...............................................................................................................25 

Part 2: The Wind Industry 

 Demand for Wind Energy ..................................................................................................27 

 Policies that Stimulate Demand for Wind Energy .............................................................27 

 Wind Energy Systems ........................................................................................................30

 Markets and Applications ..................................................................................................31 

 Industry Participants ..........................................................................................................32 

 Wind System Supply Chain ...............................................................................................35 

 Competitive Strategies .......................................................................................................40 

 Industry Evolution .............................................................................................................48 

 Future Directions ...............................................................................................................50 

Phase II: Solar and Wind Energy Industry Participation within the Appalachian Region 

 Introduction ........................................................................................................................52 

NAICS Codes to Identify Potential Firms 

and Employment in Solar and Wind Industries .................................................................52 

 Part 1. Pattern of Manufacturing Activities and Potential Employment in Appalachia ....54 

 Part 2. Identifying and Surveying Firms Involved in the Solar and Wind Industries ........58 

 Analysis of Survey Results ....................................................................................68 

 Part 3. Review of the Policy Landscape in the Appalachian Region .................................77 

 Demand-Side Incentives ....................................................................................................78 

 Supply-Side Incentives ......................................................................................................82 

 Novel Policy Strategies ......................................................................................................83 

Major Findings and Observations ..................................................................................................85 

Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................91 

 
3 

List of Tables 

Table 1 Shipments of PV Cells and Modules by Application (peak kilowatts) ...........................11 

Table 2 Shipments of PV Cells and Modules by Market and Type (peak kilowatts) ...................12 

Table 3 Materials, Components, and Equipment Suppliers in Appalachian Counties .......14 

Table 4 Distributors/Installers in Appalachian Counties ....................................................15 

Table 5 Plant Locations of Top Fifteen Cell Manufacturers ..............................................18 

Table 6 Worldwide MW Additions, Plant Locations, and U.S. Installations 

 of Top Ten Wind Turbine Manufacturers in 2008 .................................................33 

Table 7 Wind Turbine Suppliers and Locations .................................................................37 

Table 8 Component and Equipment Suppliers in Appalachian Counties ...........................39 

Table 9 Product Line Range of the Global Top-Ten Turbine Manufacturers ....................41 

Table 10 Size Distribution of Turbines from 1998–2007 .....................................................42 

Table 11 R&D as a Percentage of Sales for Top-Ten Turbine Manufacturers .....................45 

Table 12 NAICS 2007 Codes of Solar and Wind Industry Participants ...............................62 

Table 13 Founding Years of Responding Firms ...................................................................69 

Table 14 NAICS 2007 Codes of Survey Respondents .........................................................70 

Table 15 Sectors Served by Founding Years of Responding Firms .....................................71 

Table 16 Position in the Supply Chain..................................................................................71 

Table 17 Products/Services Provided by Survey Respondents, by Sector ...........................72 

Table 18 Preparedness of Employees for Participation in the Solar or Wind Industry ........75 

Table 19 Renewable Portfolio Standards in Appalachian States ..........................................78 

Table 20 Tax Incentives that Apply to Solar and/or Wind Installations, by State ................79 

Table 21 ARC State Grant and Loan Programs Applicable to Solar and/or Wind ...............80 

Table 22 Profile of Typical Established and Emergent Firms ..............................................87 

List of Figures 

Figure 1 PV Solar Supply-Chain ..........................................................................................17 

Figure 2 Strategic Groups––PV Solar Industry ....................................................................24 

Figure 3 Supply-Chains for Two Major Wind System Components ...................................36 

Figure 4 Strategic Groups in the Wind Industry – 2004 ......................................................49 

Figure 5 Potential Renewable Energy Manufacturing Employment in ARC Counties 

 (by State) ................................................................................................................55

Figure 6 Total Establishments with Renewable Manufacturing Potential 

 in ARC Counties (by State) ...................................................................................55 

Figure 7 Counties with Potential Solar Manufacturing Jobs over 500 .................................56 

Figure 8 The Number of Firms and Components for Counties with Potential 

 Solar Job Totals over 500 ......................................................................................56 

Figure 9 Counties with Potential Wind Manufacturing Job Totals over 1,000 ....................57 

Figure 10 Number of Firms and Components in Counties with Potential 

 Wind Manufacturing Jobs over 1,000 ....................................................................57 

Figure 11 Phase II––Construction of Firm Database .............................................................60 

Figure 12 Collection of Firms ................................................................................................61 
4 

List of Maps 

Map 1 Potential Participants in Solar and/or Wind Industry ............................................64 

Map 2 Participants in Solar and/or Wind Industry ............................................................65 

Map 3 Manufacturers in Solar and/or Wind Industry .......................................................66 

Map 4 Service Providers (Including Installers) in Solar and/or Wind Industry ................67 

List of Appendices 

Appendix I Profiles of Solar Energy Industry Companies by Strategic Groups ......................99 

Appendix II Acquisitions, Partnerships, and Framework Agreements between Turbine 

Manufacturers, Suppliers and Buyers ..................................................................104 

Appendix III NAICS Codes for Manufacturing Firms with Technical Potential to Enter 

 Solar PV and/or Wind Turbine Markets ..............................................................109 

Appendix IV Summary State Potential Employment and Establishment Data by Renewable 

Resource ...............................................................................................................110 

Appendix V Survey Instrument ...............................................................................................112 

Appendix VI Database of Potential Participants in Solar and/or Wind Energy Industry ..........117 
5 

DATA DICTIONARY 

ARC Appalachian Regional Commission 

AWEA American Wind Energy Association 

BIPV Building Integrated Photovoltaic 

CNC Computer Numerical Controlled 

CPV Concentrated Photovoltaic 

CSP Concentrated Solar Power 

CPS Concentrated Power Systems 

DFIG Double Fed Induction Generators 

EEC European Economic Community 

EPACT Energy Policy Act 

EPV Energy Photovoltaic 

EVA Ethyl Vinyl Acetate 

Feed-in Tariff The price per unit of electricity that a utility or supplier has to pay for 

renewable electricity from private generators. The government regulates 

the tariff rate. [http://glossary.eea.europa.eu] 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

GW Gigawatt [1 gigawatt = 1,000 megawatts = 1 billion watts] 

IPO Intellectual Property Owner 

IPP Independent Power Producers 

ISO Independent System Operators 

ITC Investment Tax Credit 

Kerf Loss Material loss associated with any type of cutting and sectioning 

kW Kilowatt [1 kilowatt = 1,000 watts] 

kWh Kilowatt Hour [1 kWh = 1,000 watts of electricity used for one hour] 

Likert Scale Psychometric scale used in attitude/opinion research 

MW Megawatts [1 megawatt = 1,000 kilowatts = 1 million watts] 

MWh Megawatt Hour [1 MWh = 1,000 kilowatts of electricity used for one hour] 

NAICS North American Industrial Classification System 

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

NYSERDA New York State Energy Research and Development Authority 

OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development 

PM Permanent Magnet 

PPA Power Purchase Agreement 

PTC Production Tax Credit 

PV Photovoltaic 

REC Renewable Energy Credit 

RES Renewable Energy Standards 

ROI Return on Investment 

RPS Renewable Portfolio Standards 

RTO Regional Transportation Organization 

SCADA Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition 

VEETC Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax 

W Watt [standard unit of power, or energy unit per time]
6 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This report presents results from a two-phase study of the status of the solar and wind industries 

in the U.S., with special focus on product and service suppliers in the thirteen Appalachian 

states, and the challenges these firms and their state governments face in preparing for and 

competing in these two rapidly emerging worldwide industries. 

Phase I concerns the structure of the solar and wind energy industries, and focuses on sets of 

firms that follow similar competitive strategies. A brief overview of the dimensions of these 

competitive strategies is provided, including choice of market, geographical region, breadth of 

product line, and vertical integration. Other factors that influence competitive strategy are cost 

dynamics, differentiation, technology choice, and technology leadership. The evolution of these 

industries depends on demand that is stimulated by government mandates, feed-in tariffs, tax 

incentives, rebates, price of conventional energy and carbon offsets. It also depends on supply 

that is influenced by production capacity, availability of raw materials, process innovation, rate 

of learning, and economies of scale. 

Some of these demand and supply factors affect all firms in these industries equally, while others 

affect strategic groups differently, and thus their current and future market share and 

profitability. The performance of firms in these industries also depends on strategic choices (e.g., 

preemptive moves, plant location, and rate of market expansion). This report provides an 

overview of current and projected structure in these two industries, and speculates on the 

challenges that firms within these industries face now and in the future. 

Phase II, Part 1 reviews a previously sponsored ARC study that focuses on the spatial location of 

establishments and employment in the component elements of the solar and wind industries. The 

study adopted a commonly used methodology that relates NAICS codes that are associated with 

manufacturing solar and wind components to establishments in the targeted region. The study 

identified two distinct geographical patterns: concentration and dispersal; that is, although most 

jobs and plants are concentrated in a few predominantly urban counties, a significant number of 

counties have at least one plant within them. 

At the state level, potential solar and wind employment and plants are found in relatively few 

states. Pennsylvania, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and New York 

embrace the lion’s share of employment and plants in the Appalachian region. Pennsylvania 

alone accounts for 30% of total employment in the two industries. At the county level, a state’s 

plants and potential employment in the wind or solar industry is concentrated in very few, 

generally urban counties. In eight of the 13 ARC states, 30% or more of solar-related 

employment is concentrated in one county. Additionally, single plants rather than small numbers 

of jobs are found in many counties. 

Part 2 presents findings from a survey of firms that operate facilities in the ARC region. These 

firms were identified by using relevant NAICS codes and by consulting industry association 

websites and published reports that list firms reputed to be in the solar or wind industry. The 

survey documented the characteristics of the firms (e.g., age, size, corporate structure), their 

typical means of market entry, their awareness of their competitive context, the extent of their 
7 

awareness of and need for specific resources, including skilled labor, and the extent of their 

involvement in international markets. 

 

Of the 363 firms in ARC designated counties we contacted in the survey, 72 (20%) reported that 

they were involved in the solar or wind industry. The survey revealed a limited number of 

manufacturing firms that were potential suppliers to the solar or wind industry. Manufacturers 

are generally older, established firms with a small percentage of their domestic or international 

sales derived from the solar or wind industry. Few reported that the solar or wind industry was 

the primary function of the business. We found many more service providers that had the 

capacity to serve as installers or distributors of renewable energy products, primarily to 

residential customers. The barriers to market entry are lower for them than for their 

manufacturing counterparts. The workforce of established firms requires specialized training that 

is transferable between making renewable and non-renewable products. The workforce of 

emergent firms focuses mainly on installing, servicing, or selling renewable energy products, and 

requires more general skills development. 

In Phase II, Part 3, we examine the policy environment in the region on a state-by-state basis and 

the programs available to stimulate and support the development of renewable energy industries 

in the region. The states are predominantly emphasizing conventional economic development 

practices, including tax abatements, location incentives and grant and loan programs. Seven of 

the 13 Appalachian states have a renewable energy portfolio standard or goal. New York and 

Pennsylvania have aggressive policies that encourage experimentation and demonstrate a variety 

of innovative industry-state collaborative approaches to solar and wind energy development. 

Although nationwide policies that would promote wind and solar industry development have 

been proposed, nothing has developed thus far. States that do have rapid growth in solar or wind 

installations and/or manufacturing have introduced a set of mutually reinforcing policies that 

lower the initial capital outlay for solar or wind installations (e.g., feed-in tariffs, rebates, low 

interest loans, sales or property tax abatement), have a renewable portfolio standard (usually with 

a solar or wind set-aside), and/or have energy costs above the national average, thus shortening 

the payback period for these investments. 

The highly decentralized policy environment that is characteristic of the U.S. has impeded 

growth of the renewable energy industry. States have myriad policies that are varied and subject 

to change. Appalachia, more than other regions of the nation, is unlikely to emerge as a leader in 

the global renewable energy industry due to insufficient incentives and the general lack of a 

supportive policy framework that would encourage industry development. The presence of so 

many firms that could contribute to the wind and solar industry supply chain in Appalachia 

means that there is a great deal of potential for development of the industry, given the right mix 

of policies and incentives. In some states, wind energy is at grid parity with conventional energy 

sources. However, in states with low energy prices, energy efficiency improvements are a more 

cost-effective way to reduce energy costs and avoid carbon emissions. Thus, it may make sense 

to focus policy, incentives, and resources on improving energy efficiency in the near term, while 

continuing to encourage a policy environment that is more conducive for development of the 

domestic wind and solar industry. 
8 

PHASE I. INDUSTRY MARKET STRUCTURE, FORECAST, AND POTENTIAL 

PART 1: THE SOLAR INDUSTRY 

Demand for Solar Energy 

Solar cell production grew 85% in 2008; 7.9 gigawatts (GW) were added worldwide. The top 

five photovoltaic (PV)-producing countries are China, Germany, Japan, Taiwan, and the U.S.1

Cumulative PV power installed worldwide jumped from 9 GW in 2007 to almost 15 GW in 

20082

. Worldwide photovoltaic (PV) installations reached a record high of 5.95 GW in 2008. 

Spain led the world in new solar installations in 2008 (2,011 MW); Germany (1,500), United 

States (342), Korea (274), Italy (258), and Japan (230) follow in that order3

. Cumulative 

installations in the U.S. in 2008 totaled 9,183 MW, an increase of 16% from 2007. California 

accounted for the lion’s share of installations (178.6 MW). New Jersey was second in 

installations (22.5 MW). Colorado (21.6 MW) Nevada (14.9 MW) and Hawaii (11.6 MW) are 

third, fourth, and fifth, respectively4

. 

Germany has one of the highest electricity rates (cost/kWh) in the world, and is heavily 

dependent on imported oil. That explains why political support in the German parliament was 

sufficient to enact a strong feed-in tariff in 1999 (revised in 2004 and 2008). The feed-in tariff 

requires utilities and other power providers to buy renewable energy at above market rates for up 

to 20 years. Thus, they pay owners of solar panels more for the energy they generate (via 

rebates) than the owners pay utilities or independent power producers (IPPs) for conventional 

energy. This subsidy is scheduled to decrease each year in order to encourage the industry to 

pass on lower costs to the end users. The feed-in tariff in Germany is 0.50-0.60 USD/kWh. It is 

lower in other EEC countries, but still substantial. Spain’s generous feed-in tariff prompted a 

huge increase in solar installations during 2008. In September, the government significantly 

reduced payments under the feed-in tariff and capped annual PV installation from 2009 through 

2010, aiming at a target of 3,000 MW by the end of 20105

. 

One might expect demand to be highest where solar is most efficient; for example, where the 

hours/days of solar radiation per year (i.e., insolation) are highest, but this fact matters far less 

than government subsidies. Solar insolation in Los Angeles, California is 5.62 KWh/m2

/day 

when a solar array is providing peak output; it is 2.63 kWh/m2

/day in Hamburg, Germany6. This 

clearly suggests that Germany’s current leadership in cumulative solar installations is less related 

to insolation than it is to subsidies. 

 

1

 PHOTON International. (2009, March). Little smiles on long faces. PHOTON International, p. 170. 2

 Li, Y. (2009, June 20). Solar Power Experiences Strongest Year of Growth Yet. Worldwatch Institute. 3 LaPedas, M. (2009, March 24). U.S. lags in top 10 solar markets. EE Times. 4

 Solar Energy Industries Association. (2009, March). US solar industry year in review. 5

 RenewableEnergyWorld.com. (2008, September 29). Spain Makes Changes to Solar Tariff. Retrieved from 

RenewableEnergyWorld.com.

6

 NASA Atmospheric Science Data Center. (2009). NASA surface meteorology and solar energy data set. Retrieved 

from http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/sse/sse.cgi?+s01#s01 
9 

In the U.S., investors in solar energy are allowed a 30% investment tax credit (ITC)7. Also most 

forms of renewable energy are eligible for accelerated depreciation over five years. The 

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (October 2008) extended the ITC for eight years, 

removed the $2,000 cap on residential installations and allowed participation of utilities. The 

American Reconstruction and Recovery Act (February 2009) provides commercial businesses 

with a cash payment to cover 30% of the cost of installing solar equipment. The Act also created 

a fund to provide up to $60 billion in loan guarantees for renewable energy and transmission 

projects8

. 

Twenty-nine U.S. states and the District of Columbia have renewable portfolio standards (RPSs), 

which mandate that a certain percentage of renewable energy be available by a specific date9

. 

Five states have renewable portfolio goals (Virginia, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, and 

Utah). Liberal RPSs include those in California (20% by 2010), New Jersey (20% by 2020 of 

which 1,500 MW must be solar) and New York (24% by 2013). Some states also offer cash 

incentives or rebates for solar investments. For example, the California Solar Initiative offers 

cash incentives up to $2.50 per watt (based on system performance) for installations on existing 

homes in areas served by specified public utilities. California has set a goal to create 3,000 MW 

of new solar-produced electricity by 2017 at a cost of $3.3 billion. Solar must be offered as an 

option on all new homes in 2011. Other states offer a mix of grants, loans and rebates to support 

the goals of their RPS. 

Several states also allow renewable energy credits (RECs) to be traded like commodities. REC 

owners can claim to have purchased renewable energy equal to 1 MWh of electricity that was 

generated from an eligible renewable energy source. Buyers of RECs (e.g., utilities) raise the 

cost of producing conventional electricity (to comply with a state’s RPS) and subsidize 

producers of electricity generated from renewable sources (REC sellers). 

Subsidies are expected to remain in place in most countries until “grid parity” is reached 

sometime around 2012. Grid-parity (when the price/kWh for solar is the same as grid-based 

price/kWh for oil, gas, coal) already exists in California and New Jersey, and in 15% of OECD 

countries (for peak load rates). Solar demand in the U.S. is highest in areas with the highest 

price/kWh, e.g., New England ($0.14), Mid-Atlantic ($0.11), and California ($0.12)10. Most 

north and south central states and southeastern states have low average cost per kWh ($0.06-

$0.07), so there are fewer subsidies and less use of solar energy. 

 

7

 Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (DSIRE). (n.d.). Retrieved August 25, 2008, from 

http://www.dsireusa.org

8

 Solar Energy Industries Association. (2009, March). US solar industry year in review. 9

 Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (DSIRE). (n.d.). Retrieved August 25, 2008, from 

http://www.dsireusa.org 

10 Think Energy Management. (n.d.). Electricity Costs. Retrieved from http://www.thinkenergy.net/electricitycosts.htm 
10 

Solar Energy Technologies 

The most common solar energy technology is based on the photovoltaic effect that was 

discovered by A.E. Becquerel in 1830. This effect occurs in solar cells that are comprised of two 

layers of semiconducting material: P+

 and N-. The boundary between P+ and N- acts as a diode: 

electrons can move from N- to P+ but not the other way. The voltage difference can be used as a 

power source. The P+ and N- layers are created by doping silicon or similar materials with boron 

and phosphorous, respectively. Silicon-based PV cells (mono- and multi-crystalline) made up 

87% market share in 2007. Thin-film-based PV cells make up about 13% of market share11. 

The conversion efficiency (ratio of sunlight to energy produced) of mono-crystalline cells is 

higher than for multi-crystalline cells12. However, multi-crystalline cells are cheaper to make. 

The conversion efficiency of thin-film is lower than for silicon-based cells, but they have other 

advantages. For example, they use much less material – the cell's active area is usually only 1 to 

10 micrometers thick, whereas silicon-based cells typically are 100 to 300 micrometers thick. 

Also, thin-film cells usually can be produced with an automated, continuous production process. 

Finally, thin-film material can be deposited on flexible substrates (e.g., metal, plastic, glass) that 

enhance their utility, (e.g., integrated into roofs and windows). Major thin-film producers are: 

Uni-Solar and EPV Solar (uses amorphous silicon); First Solar (uses cadmium telluride (CdTe)); 

and Heliovolt, Nanosolar, Miasole (uses copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS)). Thin-film 

market share is expected to grow to 20% in the next four years13. Finally, concentrator PV or 

CPV uses Fresnel lenses to concentrate diffuse sunlight onto a smaller, but highly focused cell or 

module area (Amonix, Concentrix). 

Solar thermal is another solar energy technology. Concentrating solar power (CSP) uses mirrors 

to heat fluids and thereby create steam that drives turbines. CSP projects are large-scale and 

expensive, thus mainly utilities or large power producers use this technology. Different 

companies use different types of solar thermal technologies, e.g., parabolic troughs (Ausra and 

Schott Solar), dish-Stirling engines (Stirling Engine Systems), Distributed Power Towers (Luz 

II). Solar thermal technology can also be used to heat hot water tanks and swimming pools 

(Heliodyne, Thermomax). 

Markets and Applications 

By far, the most common application of solar energy in the U.S. is electricity generation for 

private and public buildings (94% - See Table 1)14. This percentage includes crystalline-based, 

thin-film silicon, and concentrator silicon cells and modules15. The remaining 6% of applications 

include government and industrial, (e.g., street lights, roadside call boxes, telecommunications, 

water pumps, and health). Also included are space applications, (e.g., satellites). 

 

11 PHOTON International. (2008c, March). The Q factor, Sharp and the market. PHOTON International, p. 140. 12 Solarbuzz.com. (n.d.). Solar cell technologies. Retrieved from http://www.solarbuzz.com/Technologies.htm 13 Bradford, T., Grama, S., Wesoff, E., & Bhargava, A. (2007, August). The future of thin film solar. Greentech 

Media and Prometheus Institute , 1 (1). 14 Energy Information Administation. (n.d.). Annual photovoltaic module/cell manufacturers survey, Form EIA-63B.

15 Although these figures are for cells and modules, they are a reasonable proxy for installed systems in the U.S. EIA 

data show that 130,757 kilowatts (39%) were exported. 
11 

Table 1. Shipments of PV Cells and Modules by Application (peak kW) 

Application (end-use) Total (2007) Percent of Total (2007) 

Electricity 

 Grid Connected 253,101 .902

 Off-Grid 10,867 .039

Communications 2,836 .010

Consumer Goods 589 .002

Transportation 4,018 .014

Water Pumping 3,852 .014

OEMs16 4,802 .017

Health 410 .001

Total 280,475 100.00

Source: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-63B, “Annual Module/Cell Manufacturing Survey” 

On-grid/Off-grid. Utilities and independent power providers (IPPs) generate solar energy from a 

centralized location (large PV power plant or CSP plant) to customers in relatively populated 

areas via state or regional grids. In such cases, solar energy generally supplements conventional 

energy, and is especially useful during peak loads when conventional energy is most expensive. 

Off-grid applications are more common in rural settings or in developing countries, and for 

industrial applications such as those mentioned above. In the U.S., 90% of total installed PV 

systems were on-grid in 200717.

Centralized/Decentralized. As previously discussed, on-grid solar energy originates from a 

central location, but private residences, government agencies or businesses that install small PV 

solar systems (5-8 kW) on or around their structures are decentralized. If the latter are also offgrid, such systems may need batteries to store solar energy generated during sunlight. 

Solar energy systems are sold in residential, commercial, industrial, electric power and 

transportation (See Table 2)18. Crystalline-based systems are used more than twice as often in 

commercial (50%) and residential (24%) markets. The ratio is nearly identical for thin-film 

systems; commercial (50%) and residential (25%) (percentages by type are not shown in Table 

1). Although the percentages of use of thin-film are small in the remaining markets, its use in the 

commercial market grew faster than in other markets between 2006 and 2007. This trend is 

assumed to have continued in 200819. Thin-film may be preferred in commercial applications 

because it is cheaper to produce, but its lower conversion efficiency means that thin-film 

installations require more space (i.e., fewer kilowatts generated per square meter). Higher 

efficiency crystalline-based systems have an advantage in roof-based residential installations, 

where limited space is more an issue. 

 

16 Original Equipment Manufacturer 

17 Energy Information Administation. (n.d.). Annual photovoltaic module/cell manufacturers survey, Form EIA-63B.

18 Energy Information Administation. (n.d.). Annual photovoltaic module/cell manufacturers survey, Form EIA-63B.

19 EIA data for 2008 not available as of November 2009 
12 

Solar energy systems may be roof-based or ground-based. They also may be retrofitted on 

existing buildings (e.g., installed on roofs) or integrated into the walls, windows or roofs when 

buildings are constructed (BIPV or building integrated PV). Major home builders are starting to 

make solar standard in new construction (e.g., Lennar Homes, Lyon Homes, and Clarum Homes 

in California). Lennar is the third largest builder in the U.S. Clarum and Lyon are prominent 

builders in the Western states. 

 

Table 2. Domestic Shipments of PV Cells and Modules by Market and Type (peak kW)

Market Crystalline 

Silicon20

Thin-Film 

Silicon 

Concentrator 

Silicon 

Total (2007) Percent of 

Total (2007) 

Residential 54,793 13,624 -- 68,417 .24

Commercial 113,780 26,404 250 140,434 .50

Industrial 22,064 10,638 -- 32,702 .11

Electric Power 32,682 1,876 737 35,294 .13

Transportation 3,627 -- -- 3,627 .02

Total 226,946 52,542 987 280,475 100.00

Source: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-63B, “Annual Module/Cell Manufacturing Survey” 

Industry Participants 

Manufacturers. The top-fifteen PV cell producers in 2008 were Q-Cells (582 MW), First Solar 

(504 MW), Suntech (498 MW), Sharp (473 MW), JA Solar (300 MW), Kyocera (290 MW), 

Yingli (282 MW), Motech (272 MW), SunPower (237 MW), Sanyo (215 MW), Trina Solar (210 

MW), SolarWorld (190 MW), Gintech Energy (180 MW), Ningbo Solar (175 MW), and 

Solarfun (160-180 MW). These fifteen companies produced 4.57 GW, which represents 58% of 

the world’s PV cell production21. By region, two companies are European, three are Japanese, six 

are Chinese, two are American, and two are Taiwanese. Three Asian companies became topfifteen cell producers in 2008 (Trina Solar, Solarfun and Gintech). Two European companies 

(BP Solar, Isofoton), and one Japanese company (Mitsubishi) dropped out of the top-fifteen. 

Most of these companies are also major module manufacturers, but a few are “pure play” cell 

producers. Some are completely integrated from polysilicon to distribution of complete solar 

energy systems. Others buy from or become partners with suppliers of materials or components 

along various segments of the supply-chain. Further details on vertical integration will be 

provided later. Most of these fifteen companies focus mainly on producing crystalline-based 

cells. First Solar is the only one that uses thin-film material exclusively. Other companies are 

increasingly adding thin-film cells to their product mix. Sanyo’s cells are hybrids of single 

crystalline silicon surrounded by ultra-thin amorphous silicon layers. Sharp and Sanyo are 

planning to build large thin-film solar manufacturing facilities in Japan22. Q-Cells has invested in 

a number of small thin-film companies, but remains predominately a crystalline-based cell 

producer. 

 

20 Includes single crystal and cast and ribbon types 

21 Dividing this number by total worldwide production of 7900 MW equals 58% (see PHOTON International. (2009, 

March). Little smiles on long faces. PHOTON International , p. 170.) 22 PV TECH. (2007, November 27). Sanyo and Sharp boost solar cell production in 2008. PV TECH.
13 

Polysilicon Suppliers. The top-seven polysilicon producers are Hemlock, Wacker, Tokuyama, 

MEMC, REC, Mitsubishi, and Sumitomo23. Several also make ingots and wafers (e.g., Wacker, 

REC, and MEMC). These suppliers are currently in a strong bargaining position because of the 

very high demand for use of polysilicon in solar cells. The price for solar grade polysilicon has 

risen substantially since 2004, and has encouraged many new entrants24,25. The U.S. supplies 

nearly half of the world’s polysilicon production. Hemlock (MI) and MEMC (MO) are based in 

the US. REC (Norway) owns two facilities in Montana and Washington. AE Polysilicon recently 

started to produce in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. RSI Silicon, another start-up, plans to begin 

production in 2009 in Northhampton County, Pennsylvania. One of the key reasons for AE 

Polysilicon’s investment is that Pennsylvania offered the company over $7 million in lowinterest loans and grants in addition to a 13-year tax holiday from most state and local taxes. 

Also, the company’s CEO said “Try recruiting highly skilled engineers to the middle of nowhere 

versus the heart of the Northeast near New York City and Philadelphia”26. 

The shortage and high prices for polysilicon have also led to a significant increase in the number 

of start-up companies that use thin-film materials. More than thirty companies in the U.S. are 

actively involved in the commercialization of thin-film PV technologies27. The U.S. currently 

leads the world in thin-film PV cell production28. 

Materials, Components, and Equipment Suppliers. A prominent solar industry website, 

solarbuzz.com, divides solar manufacturers into nine categories: solar process equipment, test 

equipment, solar materials, cells, module, inverters, batteries, charge controllers, and solar 

products29. Another website, energy.sourceguides.com, covers six of these nine categories. Table 

3 shows the combined number of U.S. firms in each category that is listed on the two websites30. 

Also shown are the names of firms that are located in counties that the Appalachian Regional 

Commission recognizes as Appalachian counties. 

 

23 PV News. (2007, May). Polysilicon Update -- Careening Ahead... PV News , 26 (5). 24 PV News. (2007, May). Polysilicon Update -- Careening Ahead... PV News , 26 (5). 25 Solarbuzz.com. (2008). MarketbuzzTM 2008: Annual world solar photovoltaic industry report. Retrieved from 

http://www.solarbuzz.com/Marketbuzz2008-intro.htm

26 PHOTON International. (2008, April). A brighter future under the sun, p. 48. 27 Winegarner, R. M. (2007). A comprehensive report on the use of silicon wafers, silicon ingot, and polysilicon in 

the semiconductor industry on a fab by fab basis. Healdsburg, CA: Sage Concepts. 28 Maycock, P., & Bradford, T. (2007). PV Technology,Pperformance and Cost-2007 Update. PV Energy Systems 

and Prometheus Institute.

29 Solarbuzz.com. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://solarbuzz.com/solarindex.expo.htm 30 Energy Source Guides (www.energy.sourceguides.com) does not have categories for test equipment (separate 

from process equipment), solar products, and solar materials. For the remaining six categories, the numbers shown 

in the table reflect elimination of duplicate entries at the two websites. The combined numbers do not represent all 

U.S. companies in the industry. 
14 

Table 3. Materials, Components, and Equipment Suppliers in Appalachian Counties 

Type of Supplier 

United 

States 

(Counties) 

Appalachian Counties (in parentheses) 

Solar process equipment31 88 (1) Kurt J. Lesker, Clairton, PA (Allegheny) 

Solar test equipment 16(1) Thermal Product Solutions, White Deer, PA (Union) 

Solar materials32 19 (2) AFG Industries, Kingsport, TN; Kurt J. Lesker Clairton, PA (Allegheny) 

Cells 85 (1) Solar Power, Inc., Belle Vernon, PA (Fayette) 

Modules 317 (15) PowerQuest Inc., Duluth, GA (Gwinnett); Solairgen Inc., Dahlonega, GA (Lumpkin); 

Four Winds Renewable Energy, Arkport, NY (Steuben); Great Brook Renewable 

Energy, South New Berlin, NY (Chenango); Marsland Renewable Energy, Greene, NY 

(Chenango); Tri-State Life Safety & Electric Systems Inc., Murphy, NC (Cherokee); 

Friedman & Sun Access Store, Dillsboro, NC (Jackson); Rock Castle Solar Inc., 

Asheville, NC (Buncombe); Sundance Power Systems, Mars Hill, NC (Madison); 

Jetstream Power International, Holmesville, OH (Holmes); Solar Power Industries Inc., 

Belle Vernon, PA (Fayette); Springhouse Energy Systems Inc., Washington, PA 

(Washington); Big Frog Mountain, Chattanooga, TN (Hamilton); National Solar 

Supply, Tellico Plains, TN (Monroe); GreenBrilliance, Sterling, VA (Floyd) 

Inverters 411 (9) Solairgen Inc., Dahlonega, GA (Lumpkin); Stationary Power Services, Norcross, GA 

(Gwinnett); SureOn Power Systems, Acworth, GA (Cherokee); Creative Energy 

Technologies, Summit, NY (Schoharie); Marsland Renewable Energy, Greene, NY 

(Chenango); Jetstream Power International, Holmesville, OH (Holmes); Motors & 

Controls International, Hazelton, PA (Luzerne); Big Frog Mountain, Chattanooga, TN 

(Hamilton); National Solar Supply, Tellico Plains, TN (Monroe) 

Batteries 834 (25) Jones Batteries, Clanton, AL (Chilton); Symmetry Resources Inc., Arab, AL (Marshall); 

Digital Communications Systems, Dallas, GA (Paulding); Solairgen Inc., Dahlonega, 

GA (Lumpkin); Stationary Power Services, Norcross, GA (Gwinnett); Supreme Battery, 

Waleska, GA (Cherokee); SureOn Power Systems, Acworth, GA (DeKalb); Superior 

Battery Manufacturing Company, Russell Springs, KY (Russell); Alternative Traxx, 

New Berlin, NY (Chenango); Silicon Solar, Sidney, NY (Delaware); Saft American 

Inc., Valdese, NC (Burke); Command Mobility, Franklin, NC (Forsyth); Douglas 

Battery Manufacturing Company, Winston-Salem, NC (Forsyth); Progressive 

Technologies Inc., Pilot Mountain, NC (Surry); Jetstream Power International, 

Holmesville, OH (Holmes); Batteries Plus, Pittsburgh, PA (Allegheny); A. C. Moore 

Inc., Pittsburgh, PA (Allegheny); Battery Systems Inc., Washington, PA (Washington); 

Gorilla Solar Company, East Stroudsburg, PA (Monroe); New Castle Battery 

Manufacturing Company, New Castle, PA (Lawrence); Suntara Energy, Pittsburgh, PA 

(Allegheny); The Right Way Solar, Williamsburg, PA (Blair); Compact Solutions, 

Greenville, SC (Greenville); Radford Enterprises, Marietta, SC (Greenville); Big Frog 

Mountain, Chattanooga, TN (Hamilton) 

Charge controllers 79 (1) Sun Selector, Parkersburg, WV (Wood) 

Solar products 12 (0) 

 

31 This category includes fused silica crucibles, screen printers, PV cell cutters 32 This category includes pastes, chemicals, glass, Tedlar, EVA, tabbing ribbons 
15 

Distributors/Installers. A few companies have authorized dealerships or alliances with a limited 

number of distributors (Kyocera, Sharp, BP Solar). However, most cell and module 

manufacturers (78%) sell their products to wholesale distributors and installers33. Almost 14% of 

manufacturers sell directly to end-users. Wholesale distributors and installers vary considerably 

in size; some have multiple outlets across the U.S. (e.g., Akeena, Sunwize, REC Solar) and 

others are single-outlet sole proprietorships. Many distributors and installers also buy inverters, 

charge controllers and batteries from manufacturers and sell complete systems to designers, 

integrators and installers. Table 4 shows the number of distributors/installers that are listed on 

solarbuzz.com34 and energy.sourceguide as well as the names of firms that are located in 

Appalachian counties35. 

Table 4. Distributors/Installers in Appalachian Counties 

Number of 

firms Appalachian Counties (in parentheses) 

1,458 (U.S.) 

41 

(Appalachian 

Counties) 

GreenWorks Design/Build, Blountsville, AL (Blount); Solar Enterprises, Enterprise, AL 

(Marshall); Advanced Energy Systems Inc., Snellville, GA (Gwinnett); One World Sustainable 

Energy Corporation, Colbert, GA (Madison); Solairgen Inc., Dahlonega, GA (Lumpkin); 

Southeast Solar Co., Duluth, GA (Gwinnett); TEC Restorations, Canton, GA (Cherokee); 

Kentucky Solar Living, Richmond, KY (Madison); Energy Elements LLC, Hagerstown, MD 

(Washington); Creative Energy Technologies Inc. Summit NY (Schoharie); ETM Solar Works, 

Endicott NY (Broome); Four Winds Renewable Energy, Arkport, NY (Steuben); Great Brook 

Renewable Energy, South New Berlin, NY (Chenango); Marsland Renewable Energy, Greene, 

NY (Chenango); Renovus Energy Inc., Ithaca, NY (Tompkins); Advanced Thermal Solutions, 

Hendersonville, NC (Henderson); Appalachian Energy Services, Brasstown, NC (Clay); Rock 

Castle Solar Inc., Asheville, NC (Buncombe); Sundance Power Systems, Inc. Mars Hill and 

Weaverville, NC (Buncombe & Madison); Surry Solar Services, Mount Airy, NC (Surry); 

Susten.com Building Energy Solutions, Asheville, NC (Yancey); T-Square Builders Inc., Banner 

Elk, NC (Avery); Thermacraft Energy Services, Asheville, NC (Buncombe); Tri-State Life 

Safety & Electric Systems Inc., Murphy, NC (Cherokee); Dovetail Solar and Wind, Athens, OH 

(Athens); Solar Creations, Holmesville, OH (Holmes); Third Sun Solar and Wind Power, Athens, 

OH (Athens); Control Alt Energy Inc., Auburn, PA (Schuylkill); Fitch Consulting, Berwick, PA 

(Columbia, Luzerne); Gorilla Solar Company, East Stroudsburg, PA (Monroe); Heat Shed, Inc., 

Revere, PA (Somerset); K.C. Larson Inc., Williamsport, PA (Lycoming); Rick Bowmaster 

Construction, Bellefonte, PA (Centre); Solair Energy Ralson, PA (Lycoming); Springhouse 

Energy Systems, Washington, PA (Washington); Sunspot Solar & Heating, Delaware Water Gap, 

PA (Monroe); Suntara Energy, Pittsburgh, PA (Allegheny); The Right Way for Solar, 

Williamsburg, PA (Blair); Solar Heating Specialists, Blacksburg, SC (Cherokee); Sunstore 

Energy Solutions, Greer, SC (Greenville); Big Frog Mountain, Chattanooga, TN (Hamilton) 

 

33 Energy Information Administation. (n.d.). Annual photovoltaic module/cell manufacturers survey, Form EIA-63B. 

34 Solarbuzz.com. (n.d.). United States Solar Organizations. Retrieved from 

http://www.solarbuzz.com/companylistings/unitedstates.htm 35 The number (1,458) may reflect duplicate entries at the two websites, and thus may be lower than is shown. 
16 

Public or investor-owned utilities develop large-scale systems or buy completed systems from 

developers or IPPs and then sell the solar energy that is generated to end-users. Xcel Energy 

operates the largest PV-based and utility-supported solar energy system in the U.S. (8.2 MW). It 

is located in Alamosa, Colorado and was financed, built, and will be maintained by SunEdison36. 

The largest PV-based system in the Eastern United States (3.7 MW) is being built in Falls 

Township, Pennsylvania for Exelon by Conergy subsidiaries, Epuron and SunTechnics. It started 

operations in November 200837. 

 

Developers/IPPs/financiers invest in and/or develop large-scale solar systems (e.g., SunEdison, 

MMA Renewable, Epuron, GE Energy Financial Services). After completion, they may sell a 

large centralized system to a utility or sell the energy that the system produces via a long-term 

(15-20 years) power purchase agreement (PPA). A similar arrangement exists for consumers 

who have residential and small commercial systems. If they own their system, they can sell in 

some countries any excess energy to a utility for a rebate on their monthly bill. Alternatively, 

they can allow an IPP to install and maintain a system on their premises and then pay the IPP a 

rate per kWh for the electricity they use. 

Photovoltaic (PV) Supply Chain 

The most common solar energy system consists of PV cells that are connected and encased in 

modules that in turn are connected, configured, and mounted on a roof or the ground. The supply 

chain for other types of systems, (e.g., solar thermal), will not be discussed in this paper38. The 

supply-chain for crystalline-based systems typically includes polysilicon, ingots, wafers, cells, 

modules, systems, and distribution, as shown in Figure 1. Some new manufacturing methods for 

producing crystalline-based cells eliminate the need for shaping and cutting ingots, going 

directly from ribbons of liquid silicon to wafers, (e.g., Evergreen’s use of String Ribbon 

Technology). Suppliers of manufacturing equipment and ancillary raw materials, (e.g., paste, 

acids, Tedlar, EVA), sell products for use in relevant supply-chain segments39. Suppliers also sell 

system components such as inverters that convert DC electrical current into the AC current, 

charge controllers, ground-based or roof-based mounting systems, and storage batteries. 

 

36 Sun Edison News Press Release. (2007, December 17). SunEdison activates largest U.S. photovoltaic power plant 

for Xcel Energy.

37 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (2007, August 30). Governor Rendell says largest solar power facility in eastern 

U.S. will be built in Bucks County. Retrieved from http://www.state.pa.us 38 Solar thermal systems include concentrating solar power (CSP) and hot water heating. CSP installations require 

significant sunlight and acreage, both of which are plentiful in the Southwest where virtually all installations are 

currently being planned. Solar thermal hot water heating is a highly fragmented industry with low entry barriers and 

localized manufacturing. It doesn’t appear to offer a unique economic development opportunity for Appalachia. 

39 The Purchasing Department at BP Solar in Frederick, MD indicated that supplies for manufacturing solar cells 

include glass, ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), back-sheet, aluminum frames, wires, connectors, sodium hydroxide, 

hydrochloric acid, hydrofluoric acid (personal communication, July 2009).
17 

Figure 1. PV Solar Supply-Chain 

Thin-film cells start with different raw materials, (e.g., cadmium telluride, amorphous silicon), 

and use different manufacturing processes. For example, cells do not start with ingots and 

wafers; instead the raw material is deposited onto substrates of metal, plastic, or glass. Most thinfilm cells are placed in modules, but BIPV products are often shaped directly into roof tiles, 

windows or walls. 

Although many companies survive and prosper as specialists in one or more of the above seven 

supply-chain segments, for reasons to be discussed shortly, they often don’t remain specialists 

for extended periods of time. Specialist companies are acquiring or are being acquired by other 

companies upstream or downstream in the supply-chain, or forming strategic partnerships with 

them. 

Competitive Strategies 

Capacity Expansion. The manufacture of PV cells requires significant capital investment, (e.g., 

$100-200 million to build a 100 MW plant)40. This is true for manufacturing cells composed of 

silicon or thin-film material. In either case, the cost per watt can be reduced substantially by 

spreading fixed costs over more units. Virtually every industry incumbent has announced 

capacity expansion plans for 2008-2010; much of the investment in new capacity will be made in 

countries that offer significant incentives for renewable energy production, and in low wage 

countries in Eastern Europe and Asia41. Also, the experience curve reduces production costs 

(e.g., throughput, yield) by 18-20% for every doubling of production volume. Consequently, 

most of the major PV cell manufacturers have been expanding capacity rapidly. Minimum 

efficient scale raises entry barriers for potential new entrants. Larger scale also enhances a firm’s 

bargaining position when purchasing raw materials from suppliers. 

Plant Location. The typical configuration of plants among the largest cell and module 

manufacturers is to produce cells in the home country, usually at or near headquarters where 

R&D facilities tend to be located. If expansion is required, companies usually build more laborintensive module assembly plants in low wage countries. Because the dollar value added per unit 

weight is low, transportation costs are also relatively low, so it pays to manufacture in low-cost 

regions and ship to where the product is used. Also, U.S. export growth is limited by China’s 

requirement that at least 80 percent of components used in its solar and wind projects be made in 

China. World Trade Organization rules ban use of local content requirements that force 

companies to set up factories in a country instead of exporting to it. However, China has not 

signed the W.T.O. agreement on government procurement and is technically exempt, even 

 

40 Solarbuzz.com. (n.d.). Solar cell manufacturing plants. Retrieved from http://www.solarbuzz.com/Plants.htm 41 Government incentives play a critical role in plant location. For example, the Malaysian government provided a 

15-year income tax holiday as an incentive for First Solar's investment in Malaysia. The Philippine government 

guaranteed SunPower a “reasonably priced” steady supply of electricity to the plant. 

Polysilicon Ingots Wafers Cells Modules Systems Distribution 
18 

though it agreed to do so when it joined the free trade group in 2001 and won low-tariff access to 

foreign markets42. Furthermore, concerns have arisen that China is selling solar panels on the 

American market at prices that are below the marginal cost of production, and the Chinese 

government has provided generous public subsidies, low interest loans, and free land for 

development. Given these challenges, the U.S. government is reviewing options to place tariffs 

on panel imports from certain nations to ensure a level playing field in solar panel production43. 

From the U.S. perspective, there is relatively little foreign or domestic investment in building 

new plants or expanding existing ones in the U.S. Table 5 shows that among the top-fifteen cell 

manufacturers, only four have invested in the U.S. Sharp (Memphis, TN), SunPower (Richmond, 

CA), and First Solar (Perrysburg, OH), Solar World (Camarillio, CA, Hillsboro, OR). Solon, a 

top-ten module assembler, is building an assembly plant in Tucson, AZ. Companies that 

specialize in CSP for large-scale applications are investing in manufacturing plants in the 

Southwestern U.S., close to where they will build power plants (e.g., Ausra in Nevada, 

BrightSource in California, Schott in New Mexico)44. 

Table 5. Plant Locations of Top Fifteen Cell Manufacturers

Company Megawatts Percent Growth over 2007 Plant Location (current and planned) 

Q-Cells 582 MW 49% Germany, Sweden, Malaysia 

First Solar 190 MW 152% US (Ohio), Germany, Malaysia 

Suntech 498 MW 46% China 

Sharp 473MW 30% Japan, US (Tennessee) 

JA Solar 300 MW 127% China 

Kyocera 290 MW 40% Japan, Czech Republic 

Baoding Tianwei Yingli 282 MW 93% China 

Motech 272 MW 54% Taiwan 

SunPower 237 MW 137% US (California), Philippines 

Sanyo 215 MW 30% Mexico, Hungary 

Trina Solar 210 MW 624% China 

SolarWorld 190 MW 12% Germany, US (California, Oregon) 

Gintech Energy 180 MW 199% Taiwan 

Ningbo Solar 175 MW 75% China 

Solarfun 160 MW 104% China 

Because the U.S. has more thin-film start-ups and a higher percent (39%) of thin-film production 

relative to crystalline production than does Europe or Asia, one might expect to see more 

domestic expansion. However, only two of the top-ten thin-film manufacturers are based in the 

U.S. As mentioned above, First Solar has a plant in Perrysburg, Ohio, but it is expanding mainly 

in Germany and Malaysia. Uni-Solar is expanding mainly in the US (Auburn Hills, MI and 

Greenville, MI). The other eight manufacturers are based in Europe or Asia and have no plans to 

build plants in the U.S. Many of the US-based start-ups are not in production mode yet, but 

expect to be in 2009, e.g., Nanosolar (CA), Miasole (CA), Heliovolt (TX), Ascent (CO). 

 

42 Bradsher, K., (2009a, July 13). China Builds High Wall to Guard Energy Industry. New York Times.

43 Bradsher, K., (2009b, August 14). China Racing Ahead of U.S. in the Drive to Go Solar. New York Times. 44 Schott will produce both PV modules and receivers for CSP power plants (see SCHOTT North America, Inc. 

(2008, March 3). SCHOTT Solar Breaks Ground on Manufacturing Facility in Albuquerque, New Mexico.). 
19 

Market Expansion. In tandem with capacity expansion is a parallel drive to expand markets 

rapidly to new applications, new regions, and new customers. Installations are currently highly 

geographically concentrated. Sixty-six percent of worldwide installations are in Spain and 

Germany. Within the U.S., 69% of grid-tied installations in 2008 were in California and New 

Jersey45. These countries and American states served as platforms for scale economies and 

learning. Now that costs are lower, significant opportunities must be found for geographical 

expansion. As will be discussed, companies are finding new applications in new regions. For 

example, developing countries offer opportunities for off-grid application due to lack of 

infrastructure (e.g., Kyocera Isofoton). Off-grid applications still account for greater shares of 

new and existing installed capacity in more than 50% of countries46. Also, most industrial 

applications are off-grid (e.g., transportation, communications). Some companies are finding 

opportunities in BIPV, especially in thin-film materials because of the flexibility in shaping them 

for use in walls, ceilings and roofs. 

Acquisition, Partnerships, Long-Term Agreements. The need for reliable suppliers and 

customers has stimulated considerable vertical integration (backward and forward) and/or 

encouraged partnerships, and long-term agreements (see Appendix I). For example, polysilicon 

shortages prompted REC (Norway) to acquire two U.S. polysilicon producers in Montana and 

Washington. DC Chemical (South Korea) acquired a 15% stake in U.S.-based Evergreen Solar in 

a supply pact that runs through 2014. Also, Suntech Power (China) signed a 10-year supply pact 

with MEMC (U.S.), which received a warrant equal to a 4.9% stake in Suntech. Motech 

Industries (Taiwan) entered into a strategic five-year supply agreement with AE Polysilicon 

(U.S.), which is developing an innovative process for the production of polysilicon feedstock. 

The fifteen largest PV cell manufacturers that were mentioned earlier vary in their degree of 

vertical integration. Sharp, Kyocera, BP Solar, and SolarWorld are the most integrated of the 

companies that focus heavily on residential and/or commercial markets. First Solar, SunPower, 

and Yingli are the most integrated of the companies that focus on large-scale utilities and 

industrial markets. Suntech and Ningbo are the least integrated companies in their respective 

targeted markets. Three companies are “pure play” cell manufacturers that sell most or all of 

their production to OEMS; JA Solar, Motech and Q-Cells. Depending on how backward 

integrated they are, they secure reliable supplies of polysilicon, ingots, and/or wafers via joint 

ventures and long-term contracts. 

 

At the systems integration and distribution end of the supply-chain, PV cell manufacturers have 

sought to develop better access to customers through acquisition or partnership. SunPower 

acquired developer Powerlight for access to new production homes and to authorized dealers for 

access to the retrofit market. Powerlight also develops large-scale power plants. First Solar 

acquired Turner Renewable Energy, which designs and deploys commercial solar projects for 

utilities and Fortune 500 companies in the U.S. Suntech acquired Japanese BIPV producer MSK. 

MSK provides customer-tailored PV products that give an esthetic finish to a building by 

replacing conventional building materials. Suntech also obtained a license from Akeena Solar to 

 

45 Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), (2009, March). U.S Solar Industry Year in Review, 2008.

46 Open Energy Technology Bulletin. (2004, June). International Energy Agency, Special Issue IEA Photovoltaic 

Power Systems Programme, No 19-23. 
20 

manufacture and distribute Akeena’s patented solar panels. These panels have lower installation 

costs because of built-in wiring, grounding and racking. 

 

The types of customers to which these top-fifteen producers sell systems explain differences in 

their acquisition and partnership targets. For example, acquisitions made by SunPower and First 

Solar allowed them to work directly with the customers who will ultimately use their products. 

Powerlight and Turner Renewable Energy both design and develop large-scale systems. Sharp, 

Kyocera, and BP Solar focus mainly on residential and small-scale commercial systems, and thus 

leave system integration and installation to their network of authorized dealers. 

Technological Innovation. All fifteen manufacturers are investing heavily in R&D to reduce 

cost/watt. Opportunities for cost reduction exist throughout every segment of the value chain. QCells estimated that investment in cost reduction research in silicon, wafers, cells, modules, and 

balance of systems has a cumulative cost reduction impact of 40-50%47. Sun Power has drawn a 

similar conclusion48. Also, the number of patents that surround innovation in each segment is a 

strong deterrent to new entrants. 

Efficient manufacturing processes. Research is being undertaken to find ways to make each 

production step more efficient or to reduce the number of steps in the production process. For 

example, Q-Cells makes wafers using String-Ribbon Technology (obtained through EverQ, its 

joint-venture with Evergreen Solar and REC). With this process, liquid silicon is drawn through 

two super-heated carbon or quartz fibers or stings. A thin skin is formed between these two 

strings, which crystallizes into a broad band – the ribbon – when it cools. The ribbon is then cut 

into square wafers. There is no need to melt ingots and then cut them into wafers, which wastes 

up to 40 % of the silicon that is used. Solar World is experimenting with a similar process called 

Ribbon Growth on Substrate. 

Recycling silicon. Most companies recycle used silicon and if their manufacturing process 

requires sawing ingots into wafers, they invest in equipment that allows less kerf loss during the 

sawing process. Kerf is the material lost due to the width of the saw blade’s cut. 

Reducing wafer thickness. All manufacturers of crystalline cells are undertaking research to 

reduce wafer thickness. Thinner wafers reduce the consumption of polysilicon. Q-Cells is testing 

wafers with a thickness of 160 μm, and expects to reduce thickness to 130 μm by 2010. 

SolarWorld also expects to reduce thickness from 210 μm to 160 μm. 

Raising the conversion efficiency of cells. The average cell conversion efficiency is 18-22% for 

silicon and 8-12% for thin-film49. Higher efficiency cells reduce the number of cells needed per 

module and the number of modules per system. This in turn reduces total system cost and the 

area required to install a system. The conversion efficiency of PV cells is enhanced by improving 

their surface properties so that the infrared and ultraviolet rays captured are more fully utilized, 

 

47 Milner, A. (2006, April). International Advanced Photovoltaic Manufacturing Technology Conference. Munich, 

Germany.

48 Werner, T. (2006). Letter to Stockholders, SunPower Annual Report.

49 Wikipedia. (2008, June 1). Solar cell. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar-cell
21 

and reducing light shading by narrowing the metal grid in the front of a PV cell. Theoretical 

limits are calculated to be 33% for silicon cells and 28% for thin-film cells50. 

Increasing wafer size. Similar to semiconductor chips, unit costs can be reduced by increasing 

wafer size. Since more cells can be cut from a larger wafer, the material unit cost of a cell goes 

down with increasing wafer size. Q-Cells expects to increase wafer size from 156 mm x 156 mm 

to 210 x 210 mm or larger by 201051. 

Automating the assembly of solar modules and panels. The assembly of modules and panels 

involves encapsulating them between tempered glass and EVA (ethyl vinyl acetate). The entire 

laminate is installed in an anodized aluminum frame for structural strength and ease of 

installation. 

Reducing installation costs. Installation cost is the largest contributor to total solar system cost, 

mainly due to time and labor. SunPower estimates that 50% of total installed system cost is in 

installation52. SunPower nearly pre-assembles product to minimize onsite construction costs. 

Sharp reduces the cost of installation with OnEnergy, which uses a simplified, flexible mounting 

system to improve both the speed of installation and aesthetics. Systems can be configured 

online and shipped to the installation site. Akeena also simplifies installation and focuses on 

esthetics, which play an important role in non-flat roofs and non-penetrating installation. 

Strategic Groups 

Strategic groups provide “an intermediate frame of reference between looking at the industry as a 

whole and considering each firm separately”53. Such groups consist of companies that make 

similar choices regarding degree of vertical integration and what markets to enter. Other choices 

are possible, (e.g., technology leadership, diversification), but the above two choices are the most 

prominent. According to Porter54, the more strategic groups in an industry and the greater the 

strategic distance (on multiple dimensions) between them, the more intense the competition in 

the industry (e.g., on price, product performance, branding), especially if each group targets the 

same markets for a substantial percentage of its sales. In an emerging industry, like solar, 

mobility barriers between strategic groups are weak (e.g., insufficient economies of scale and 

branding) and strategic groups tend to pursue overlapping target markets. As industries mature, 

mobility barriers between strategic groups tend to strengthen, which can stabilize industry 

competition if it leads these groups to start pursuing separate target markets. Testing these 

assumptions is beyond the scope of this paper. However, it is appropriate to speculate on the 

likely direction in which the industry might develop. 

 

50 Ayres, R. U., (Ed.) & Weaver, P. (Asst. Ed.) (1998). Eco-restructuring: Implications for sustainable development.

New York: The United Nations University.

51 Milner, A. (2006, April). International Advanced Photovoltaic Manufacturing Technology Conference. Munich, 

Germany.

52 Werner, T. (2006). Letter to Stockholders, SunPower Annual Report. 53 Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy. New York: The Free Press. 54 Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy. New York: The Free Press.
22 

The top-fifteen PV cell manufacturers produce products that look superficially similar and 

perform similar functions55. For the purpose of this paper, we will focus on these companies’ 

primary targeted market. It is clear, however, that some of these companies sell products in more 

than one market, e.g., sell modules to distributors or installers and cells to original equipment 

manufacturers (OEMs). There is not space to offer details on the dynamics of the market of 

every supply-chain segment. 

Three of the fifteen companies are “pure play” cell manufacturers, and the other twelve 

companies are part of larger companies that sell modules or integrated systems. They may sell 

their products directly to end-users (e.g., large-scale utilities) or rely on independent distributors 

and installers. A review of their annual reports, websites, and industry newsletters suggests that 

four strategic groups are identifiable among these fifteen manufacturers. Two companies, both 

Chinese, do not fit easily into any of these strategic groups56. 

 

The first strategic group consists of Solar World, Kyocera, Sharp, and BP Solar. These four 

companies are integrated across six or seven supply-chain segments, (i.e., polysilicon and/or 

ingots to systems and/or distribution)57. They produce or at least brand some of their own system 

components, e.g., invertors, racks. They have an authorized dealer network and focus heavily on 

the residential market. Kyocera and BP solar are wholly-owned businesses within much larger 

and diversified companies. BP Solar and Sharp are active in the building-integrated 

photovoltaics (BIPV) market, which focuses mainly on new construction, but also can be used 

for retrofits. BP Solar recently entered this market by partnering with OCR Solar & Roofing. 

Both companies’ products can be integrated into roofs of buildings (e.g. shingles), and if made 

from translucent material, they can be used for skylights and windows. 

The second strategic group consists of Isofoton, Mitsubishi, and Sanyo. These three companies 

are integrated across four or five segments, (i.e., ingots to modules). They rely heavily on 

independent distributors and installers to integrate their modules into systems and sell them to 

end-users. Their websites suggest their products are used more in commercial than residential 

markets, but definitive data are lacking. Differences in targeted markets generally are not 

apparent at the module level, and these companies do not undertake systems integration 

themselves. Sanyo sells its products through Conergy and Sunwize, which integrate them into 

systems and sell them through their own sales network. Conergy, for example, uses Sanyo 

modules in its large-scale utility projects. The Mitsubishi website lists fourteen installers of its 

products. Some sell Mitsubishi products exclusively and others sell other companies’ products. 

 

55 The following analysis was done for the top-fifteen PV cell manufacturers in 2007 as data on the top-fifteen 

producers in 2008 were not available when this analysis was performed (in late 2008). Conclusions are not expected 

to vary significantly for 2008 data. 

56 Each of the two companies could be viewed as a strategic group by itself, indicating that there are actually six 

strategic groups in this industry. Both Chinese companies have grown dramatically in recent years and they 

eventually may position themselves more like companies in one of the larger groups that focus on residential and/or 

commercial target markets. 

57 Companies in strategic groups have the same number of integrated segments, but may vary in which ones are 

integrated. For example, BP Solar is more integrated upstream than is Kyocera (polysilicon), but Kyocera is more 

integrated downstream (distribution). The exact configuration of segments may be more or less important depending 

on the specific hypotheses that are formulated and tested. 
23 

The third strategic group consists of First Solar, Yingli, and SunPower. These companies are 

highly integrated (six or seven value-chain segments) and focus mainly on large-scale utility and 

commercial projects. Their customers are project developers that typically sell turnkey systems 

to IPPs or utilities. SunPower and First Solar recently forward integrated by acquiring developers 

so that they could directly access these customers. SunPower acquired Powerlight and First Solar 

acquired Turner Renewable Energy. Each company has a highly concentrated customer base. For 

example, SunPower had two customers that accounted for 49% of sales in 2006 (Conergy, 

Solon). First Solar had six customers (German) that accounted for 90% of sales in 2006. Its 

customer base expanded in 2008 to fourteen and now includes Spanish, French, Australian, and 

American companies. SunPower is more diversified than First Solar. It also makes and sells 

modules and BIPV products for residential and small commercial markets. It sells these products 

in the retrofit market though authorized dealers and partners with major home builders (e.g., 

Lennar) for new construction. Yingli has completed several large projects in Germany, Spain, 

Portugal, and China. Like First Solar and SunPower, Yingli also has a limited customer base. Its 

top five customers accounted for 83% of total outstanding accounts receivable in 2007. 

The fourth strategic group consists of JA Solar, Q-Cells, and Motech. These three companies are 

“pure play” cell manufacturers, that is, they only make cells for original equipment 

manufacturers (OEMs) that integrate them into modules and systems. They buy wafers from 

suppliers and sell their product to companies that manufacture modules. Motech recently 

integrated backwards by acquiring AE Polysilicon. Motech and Q-Cells are pursuing very 

different expansion paths. For example, Motech focuses on low cost production and broadening 

its line of crystalline PV modules. Q-Cells is a technology leader and leverages its expertise in 

crystalline PV cells to the development and manufacture of cells using a variety of thin-film 

materials. It also entered into a three-way joint venture with REC and Evergreen Solar (called 

EverQ) to make crystalline cells using Evergreen’s patented String-Ribbon Technology. 

It is noteworthy that the two companies that didn’t fit into any strategic group are Chinese. As 

suggested in footnote 56, this pattern may be transitory. Their cell and module operations have 

grown rapidly, and if they vertically integrate as many companies have, then Suntech might join 

the first strategic group, and Ningbo might join the fourth group. Alternatively, they may choose 

to remain where they are because their current position is attractive. It is too early to draw 

conclusions about this. Suntech is much different than Ninbo. It is one of the world’s largest 

solar cell producers and may become the largest by 2009 or 2010. Ningbo is older than Suntech, 

but Ningbo is more diversified and has much smaller production capacity, but is growing rapidly. 

Chinese companies in general share some advantages in the world solar market. They are wellfinanced by IPOs or private equity. Their net margins are good (10-30%), driven by low-cost 

labor and low tax rates58. They also buy low cost Chinese manufacturing equipment or buy the 

latest technology from American or European suppliers. Also, strong government incentives 

encourage solar system installations in China, thereby stimulating domestic demand. All of these 

factors have encouraged Chinese companies to expand capacity aggressively. Growth has been 

constrained and excess capacity has been high, however, mainly due to lack of long-term supply 

contracts for polysilicon, and payment of high spot market prices. This constraint has stimulated 

significant investment in polysilicon startups in China59. If, as expected, polysilicon shortages 

 

58 PHOTON International. (2006, January). China’s rapid ascent, p. 60.

59 PHOTON International. (2007, June). China’s Rapid Ascent II: Catching Europe, p. 136.
24 

ease by 2010, Chinese cell and module manufacturers may become the world’s lowest cost 

producers and be placed very well for continued expansion60. 

Figure 2 shows thirteen of the fifteen PV solar companies organized into four strategic groups 

and positioned according to their level of integration and primary target market (grid-connected 

applications). The remaining two companies are also positioned in the figure. The symbols that 

characterize the strategic groups differ to aid visualization of their relative strategic position in 

the industry. Each strategic group is positioned to reflect the target market that is its primary 

focus, although companies within it may also compete in other target markets61. 

Figure 2. Strategic Groups - PV Solar Industry

 

60 BP Solar announced that it will transfer solar module assembly operations in Frederick, MD to its joint venture 

partners in China and India in order to reduce unit costs by 25% in 2010. This will result in laying-off 140 workers. 

Cheyney, T. (2009, April 1). Headline blues: BP Solar puts ‘cost reduction’ spin on job cuts as ‘third-party’ deal 

looms, Retreived from http://www.PV-Tech.org. 61 Appendix I includes profiles of solar energy industry companies by strategic group.
25 

Future Directions 

The rapid capacity expansion by so many PV cell manufacturers at once may lead to an 

oversupply of PV cells in 2010. The worldwide recession of 2009 increases this risk, but the 

recent eight-year extension of the ITC in the U.S. reduces it. Sustained or enhanced incentives in 

other regions of the world also may reduce the risk of oversupply. As noted previously, PV cell 

production reached 7.9 GW in 2008, up from 4.28 GW in 2007 (85% increase)62. One solar PV 

website estimated worldwide PV production capacity to be 16.8 GW and capacity utilization at 

64% at the end 2008. The latter figure is up from 40% in 2007. Cell production utilization is 

estimated to be 40%, 48% and 65% in 2010, 2011 and 2012 respectively63. The capacity 

expansion will come primarily from incumbents that produce silicon-based cells, not from new 

entrants. The scale economies that encourage production expansion also raise barriers for new 

entrants. The rate of expansion could be moderated by the current shortage of polysilicon, which 

may last until 2010. Most new entrants are assumed to use thin-film materials. 

The first strategic group may maintain or increase profitability because its companies can brand 

their products and differentiate them by esthetics and ease of installation, and capture more 

profits in the supply-chain by selling its products directly to end-users at retail prices. They also 

may lower operating costs by avoiding “middle-man profits” along their integrated supply-chain. 

The companies in the second strategic group sell most of their products to distributors at 

wholesale prices, so don’t capture profits from the systems integration and distribution supplychain segments. Also, they may face a greater challenge in differentiating their modules. As one 

might expect, it is very difficult to determine or explain the profitability of specific businesses in 

large diversified companies. Thus these profit conjectures must remain unanswered for now. 

 

The companies in the second strategic group had the slowest rate of cell production growth 

(19%) compared to the average cell production for all fifteen companies (69%). All three 

companies dropped in rank among the top-fifteen producers in 2007 compared to 2006. The 

companies in the first group had slightly higher growth (27%), mainly because of SolarWorld 

(89%). Sharp actually had negative growth (-16%)64. Six of the seven companies of the 

combined groups are part of large diversified companies (exception is SolarWorld), which may 

be investing at a slower rate in this industry than are non-diversified companies. Also, Sharp and 

Sanyo had unutilized capacity due to polysilicon shortages and both are investing heavily in thinfilm capacity, which will not be on-line until 201065. Both factors may have contributed to lower 

growth rates in cell production for these companies in 2007 and 200866. 

Companies in both strategic groups will face continuing pressure from thin-film products, which 

have a broader range of applications than crystalline products. There may be more growth 

opportunity in the new construction market than in the retrofit market. Even with all the existing 

incentives, owners of residential and commercial property still have to make a relatively large 

 

62 PHOTON International. (2009, March). Little smiles on long faces. PHOTON International, p. 170. 

63 PV Society. (2009, July 6). Waiting for Better Solar Alignment. Retreived from http://www.PVSociety.com 64 PHOTON International. (2008c, March). The Q factor, Sharp and the market. PHOTON International, p. 140. 65 PV TECH “Sanyo and Sharp to boost solar cell production in 2008” 27 November 2007 

66 Data for 2008 (see Table 5) is consistent with assessment of these strategic groups. Average cell production for 

Sanyo, Sharp, Kyocera and Solar World is only 28% versus average cell production for all fifteen companies (69%). 

BP Solar, Isofoton, Mitsubishi are no longer among the top-fifteen producers. 
26 

capital investment to install solar systems on their roofs. The cost of solar systems for new 

construction, conventional or BIPV, can be wrapped into a 30-year mortgage and the interest 

deducted. This makes use of solar systems in new construction a very attractive option. Also 

thin-film material offers new opportunities for BIPV use due to more versatility in applications 

in walls, windows, and ceilings. BIPV applications in new construction suggest a need to 

develop new distribution and sales channels. Building contractors are as likely as distributors and 

installers to be customers. Architects who design buildings will need to learn how to design for 

BIPV applications, and contractors and their employees will need to be trained in how to install 

them. The initiative and expense for such training may fall on members of this strategic group. 

The third strategic group had the highest growth of cell production (195%). Companies in this 

group compete not only against each other, but also against companies that develop concentrated 

power systems (CPS). The kW/h generated by CPS is considerably larger than generated by any 

PV facility. For example, Acciona Energy has a CPS project in Nevada that will generate 64 

MW, and Ausra’s in California will generate 177 MW67. By comparison, the largest PV-based 

system in the U.S. at Nellis Air Force Base generates 17 MW from 70,000 panels68. CPS is 

difficult to match on a cost per kW/h basis69. CPS is more likely to compete with wind farms for 

utility-based projects. PV-based systems will intensify their focus on large-scale solar 

commercial projects, where esthetics and land-use are as important as cost70. 

The fourth strategic group had the second highest overall production growth rate in 2007 

(159%)71. Their expansion plans suggest that they may contribute to the oversupply discussed 

earlier. China became the number one producer of solar cells in 2007, and currently exports 90% 

of its production, mainly to Germany and Spain72. The firms in this strategic group may benefit 

from the heavy industry focus on cost reduction until cost/kWh reaches grid parity. Costs 

undoubtedly will continue to go down afterwards. However, these companies will need to learn 

how to compete on the basis of differentiation and gain further supply-chain economies by 

integrating forward into module manufacturing, as Suntech did. Q-Cells is different from the 

other two companies in this group. Although it is concerned with cost reduction, it also plans to 

grow by leveraging its development and manufacturing expertise in crystalline cells for 

application to thin-film materials. 

 

67 Kho, J. (2007, November). Ausra to build 177-megawatt solar-thermal plant. Greentech Media. 68 Metaefficient: The Optimal Green Guide. (2007, December 28). North America's largest solar-electric plant 

switched on. Retreived from http://www.metaefficient.com. 69 Although the relative advantage of CPV versus PV in cost per KW/remains in 2009, the gap has narrowed 

considerably. Also, First Solar (688 MW) and SunPower (250 MW) have utility-scale projects in advanced 

development in California that when completed will easily eclipse in size the Nellis AFB facility and approach the 

scale of CPS. See PHOTON International. (2009, March). From pipe dream to pipeline. PHOTON International, pp. 14-21. 70 CPS has a slight advantage in land area required, but PV has a clear advantage in water usage - unless CPS goes 

to dry cooling, Ibid. See PHOTON International. (2009, March). From pipe dream to pipeline. PHOTON 

International, pp. 14-21. G. Hering 71 This strategic group remained the second highest growth cell producer in 2008 (77%) and the third group retained 

its position as highest growth cell producer (127%). Initial assessment of the newcomers to the top-fifteen producers 

suggests the following provisional assignments to strategic groups; Trina Solar (#3), Gintech Energy (#4), and 

Solarfun (#2). If confirmed, then strategic groups 3 and 4 will retain their 2007 ranks in 2008. The result for strategic 

group 2 is inconclusive because growth data for the top fifteen drop-outs, Mitsubishi and Isofoton, are unavailable. 

72 PHOTON International. (2008c, March). The Q factor, Sharp and the market. PHOTON International, p. 140. 
PART 2: THE WIND INDUSTRY 

Demand for Wind Energy 

Wind installations worldwide grew by about 29% in 2008; 28,190 MW were added73. 

Cumulative worldwide generating capacity in 2008 was 120,800 GW74 and is projected to be 

287,000 MW by 2012. This represents an average annual growth rate of 20.7%75. The top five 

countries in wind capacity additions in 2008 were the U.S. (8,545 MW), China (6,300 MW), 

India (1,800 MW), Germany (1,665 MW), and Spain (1,609 MW)76. In 2008, the U.S. overtook 

Germany as the world leader in cumulative installed capacity (25,369 MW)77; Germany, Spain, 

China and India follow in that order. In 2008, the capacity addition of 8,545 MW in the U.S. 

represents an overall growth rate of 51% over 2007 (16,823 MW)78. The top five U.S. states in 

capacity additions were Texas (2,671 MW), Iowa (1,600 MW), Minnesota (456 MW), Kansas 

(450 MW) and New York (407 MW)79. The top five states in cumulative capacity were Texas 

(7,118 MW), Iowa (2,791 MW), California (2,517 MW), Minnesota (1,754 MW), and 

Washington (1,447 MW)80. 

Policies that Stimulate Demand for Wind Energy 

Feed-in Tariffs stimulate demand for renewable energy systems by providing system owners 

with a steady stream of income over a fixed term that is sufficient to recover system costs and 

make a profit. Many European Union countries have national feed-in tariffs to promote the 

development of renewable energy (Germany, Austria, Spain, Portugal, France, and Greece). 

Ontario, Canada has a feed-in tariff and six U.S. states are considering legislation to introduce 

them (California, Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois, Rhode Island, Hawaii)81. National feed-in tariff 

legislation also has been introduced82. Typically, feed-in tariffs guarantee owners of renewable 

energy systems a connection to the electrical grid, and require utilities to pay a premium rate to 

the system owners so that they can earn a reasonable profit over a fixed term, usually 15-20 

years. The premium rate varies by technology to insure that each renewable energy type can 

profitably be installed and operated83. Utilities spread these added premium costs across all of 

their customers, thus raising prices for conventional energy. The guaranteed price decreases over 

time as scale economies lower renewable energy costs and encourage energy system innovation. 

Feed-in tariffs tend to favor distributed systems that are owned by private residents, small 

businesses, or communities. This preference is explicit in legislation in California and 

 

73 Global Wind Energy Council (2009). Global Wind Report 2008; BTM Consult (2009). World Market Update 2008.

74 Global Wind Energy Council (2009). Global Wind Report 2008 75 BTM Consult. (2008). International Wind Energy Development, World Market Update 2007, Forecast 2008-2012 76 Wiser, & Bolinger. (2008). Annual report on U.S. wind power installation, cost, and performance trends: 2007.

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; Global Wind Energy Council (2009). Global 

Wind Report 2008; American Wind Energy Association (2009) Annual Wind Industry Report Year Ending 2008. 77American Wind Energy Association. (2009). Annual Wind Industry Report Year Ending 2008. 78 American Wind Energy Association. (2009). Annual Wind Industry Report Year Ending 2008. 79 American Wind Energy Association. (2009). Annual Wind Industry Report Year Ending 2008. 80 American Wind Energy Association. (2009). Industry Rankings Factsheet 2008. 81 Rickerson, W., Bennhold, F., & Bradbury, J. (2008). Feed-in Tariffs and Renewable Energy in the USA -- A Policy Update. 82 Hering, G. (2008, April). Whispers of a new direction: First national feed-in legislation introduced in US 

Congress. PHOTON International, pp. 44-46. 83 Prices of RECs can vary greatly from $5 to $200 per MWh. The fluctuation of prices depends on many factors, 

including the type of energy, location of the facility generating the RECs, and the supply/demand situation.
28 

Minnesota, which limits the size of the systems that qualify for the tariff (e.g., less than 1.5 

MW)84. 

Tax Credits are used extensively in the United States to stimulate demand for renewable energy. 

The production tax credit (PTC) allows a tax credit of 0.02 per kW/h for the production of 

electricity from qualified wind energy facilities and other sources of renewable energy for up to 

ten years85. The PTC is widely viewed as responsible for the accelerated number of wind energy 

installations in 2007 and 2008. Developers rushed to complete projects before the PTC was 

assumed to expire at the end of 2008. Congress extended the PTC for another year in October 

2008. Additionally, most renewable energy systems are eligible for accelerated depreciation over 

five years. The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 allows energy system owners to deduct a bonus 

depreciation of 50% of the adjusted property basis for eligible renewable-energy systems 

acquired and placed in service in 200886. The remaining 50% of the adjusted basis of the 

property is depreciated over the ordinary tax depreciation schedule87. Tax credits and 

depreciation tend to favor large investors with sizable tax liabilities. Such investors often enter 

partnerships with other investors only long enough to gain tax benefits and then depart (called 

“partnership flip structures”), leaving the remaining investors to earn income from land leases or 

energy sales. The financial crisis of late 2008 and projected economic downturn are expected to 

reduce the demand for tax equity deals because fewer investors will be profitable enough to have 

tax liabilities. 

Renewable Portfolio Standards. The U.S. also uses renewable portfolio standards extensively to 

stimulate demand for renewable energy. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have 

renewable portfolio standards (RPS) which mandate that utilities (mostly investor owned) 

generate a certain percentage of renewable energy by a specific date88,89,90. Most RPSs have 

interim compliance targets. Utilities that do not meet these targets may be required to make

“alternative compliance payments” to a fund that provides grants, loans, and rebates for 

installation of renewable energy or energy efficient systems. Utilities may also comply with the 

RPS by buying renewable energy credits (RECs) from owners of renewable energy systems. 

Each REC is equal to 1 MWh of renewable energy. Utilities that buy RECs subsidize the owners 

of renewable energy systems. 

 

 

84 Farrell, J. (2008). Minnesota feed-in tariff could lower cost, boost renewables and expand local ownership. New 

Rules Project.

85 Rural electric cooperatives and municipal utilities and other government or non-for-profit organizations are 

eligible for the Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI) program instead of the PTC. It operates similarly to 

the PTC, but provides a direct payment (not a tax credit) per kW/h generated (.015 per kW/h) to publicly owned and 

cooperatively owned electric utilities. 

86Rives, S. (2008). Economic stimulus package allows bonus depreciation for projects completed in 2008. Portland, 

OR. Retrieved on August 25, 2008 from 

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/partner/story?id=51515&src=rss 87 Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (DSIRE). (n.d.). Retrieved August 25, 2008, from 

http://www.dsireusa.org 88 Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (DSIRE). (n.d.). Retrieved July 24, 2009, from 

http://www.dsireusa.org 

89 Municipal utilities and cooperatives are often exempt or must comply with different rules. 

90 Five states have renewable portfolio goals (Virginia, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Utah). 
29 

Each of the five states with the highest wind capacity additions in 2008 has an RPS except for 

Iowa. Wind is not necessarily weighted higher in most of their RPSs, but there are exceptions. 

Illinois specifies that 75% of its renewable energy must be met by wind. Also, Minnesota 

specifies that wind must comprise a substantial percentage of its requirement (30% for its largest 

utility). Although Texas doesn’t specify a certain percentage for wind, nearly all of the state’s 

current renewable energy generation is wind. Two more states are relevant if considering 

cumulative installed capacity, Iowa and Washington. In 2001, Iowa established a voluntary goal 

of 1,000 MW of wind generating capacity by 2010. It has already reached that goal. Washington 

indicates no priority for wind. 

 

A state’s cumulative wind capacity is moderately related to its wind energy potential. The topten states in wind potential are North Dakota, Texas, Kansas, South Dakota, Montana, Nebraska, 

Wyoming, Oklahoma, Minnesota and Iowa91. Only three of the top-five states in cumulative 

wind capacity (Texas, Minnesota, and Iowa) are among the top-ten in wind energy potential. 

Finally, a state’s cumulative capacity is not related to the retail cost of electricity. The retail cost 

(in cents per kWh) of conventional electricity across all sectors in Texas ($0.104) and California 

($0.139) is above the national average ($0.096), but it is below average in the other three states 

with high cumulative capacity ($0.063-$0.078)92. 

Policy Context for Appalachian States. Seven of the thirteen Appalachian states have RPSs 

(Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, and West Virginia93). New 

York, Maryland and Virginia have provisions that specifically promote wind. The installed 

capacity of wind in the Appalachian states and their rank among the fifty states are New York 

(832 MW, 9th), Pennsylvania (361 MW, 16th), West Virginia (330 MW, 17th), Tennessee (29 

MW, 27th), and Ohio (7 MW, 31st )

94. The Tennessee Valley Authority offers utilities in the 

southeastern Appalachian states an opportunity to participate in its Power Switch Generation 

Program95. Utilities in six states (Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Kentucky, and 

Tennessee) are currently participating in this program. TVA offers a 10-year contract to purchase 

the entire output of qualifying customer-sited systems at .15/kWh for residential/small 

commercial (< 50 kWh) and 0.20/kWh for larger commercial customers (> 50 kW) plus an 

additional $500 for start-up costs. The TVA retains sole rights to any RECs96. 

 

91 Wind potential is measured by annual energy potential in the billions of kWhs, factoring in environmental and 

land-use exclusion for wind power class 3 and higher. Wind power classes range from class 1 (the lowest) to class 7 

(the highest). Each class represents a range of mean wind power density (in units of W/m2

) or equivalent mean wind 

speed at 10m and 50m above ground. Areas designated as class 3 or greater are suitable for most wind turbine 

applications (National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2008a). Wind Energy Atlas of the United States. Retreived 

from http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/).

92 Energy Information Agency. (2008). Average retail price of electricity to ultimate customers by end-use sector, by 

state. Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.6.A.

93 Virginia has a voluntary system that rewards compliance by allowing utilities to raise their allowable profit. West 

Virginia recently enacted a standard that allows use of “alternative energy resources” including natural gas and coal 

liquefaction and gasification to meet its goal. 

94 American Wind Energy Association. (2009). Annual Wind Industry Report Year Ending 2008.

95 Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (DSIRE). (n.d.). Retrieved August 25, 2008, from 

http://www.dsireusa.org

96 See Tennessee Valley Authority. (n.d.). Green Power Switch Generation Partners. Retrieved from 

http://www.tva.gov/greenpowerswitch/partners/index.htm.
30 

General Policy Assumption. There is frequent discussion regarding how long renewable energy 

should be subsidized to encourage its development. Subsidies stimulate demand, which in turn 

promote economies of scale and learning effects that reduce the cost of renewable energy. The 

general assumption is that renewable energy should be subsidized until the cost per kWh reaches 

“grid parity”; that is, when the cost of renewable energy equals that of conventional energy (e.g., 

fossil fuels). However, such comparisons are difficult to make. They depend on the type of 

renewable and conventional energy compared, geographical location, and time of use. They must 

account for investments in infrastructure, capacity (intermittency), transmission costs, operations 

and maintenance, etc. Also, the cost of conventional energy should include its own subsidies and 

the cost of carbon emission. In such comparisons, wind energy has likely reached grid parity in 

select settings. 

Wind Energy Systems 

The Renewable Energy Policy Program (REPP) study97 divided wind energy systems into four 

major components. Each major component contains several sub-components, some of which are 

mentioned in the paragraphs below. 

 

Nacelles. The nacelle is the external shell or structure that houses all of the generating 

components, i.e., gearbox, shaft, generator, etc. Turbine size ranges from 1 kW to 7 MW. Small 

wind turbines that are less than 100 kW are discussed in a separate section. A rotor 

aerodynamically converts wind energy into mechanical energy on a slowly turning shaft. A 

gearbox increases the rotor-shaft speed for the generator, which converts shaft speed into 

electrical energy. Most turbines have gearboxes, but generators can run at rotor-shaft speed and 

not require a gearbox (e.g., Enercon). The yaw drive turns the turbine horizontally on its tower 

toward angles that maximize advantage of wind direction. 

Rotors/Blades. Rotors typically have three blades that are secured to a hub by extenders. The 

dominant design for large wind turbines (above 100 kW) is variable speed and variable pitch. 

Also, the, rotor is located on the wind side (upwind) of the tower. In such systems, a pitch drive 

turns the blades to optimal angles for wind speed and desired rotation speed, e.g., perpendicular 

to the wind at low speeds and parallel at high speeds. Rotor diameter generally increases with 

turbine size for application in low and medium wind locations. 

 

Towers. For lighter wind power classes, turbines need to be raised to heights where the average 

wind speed is greater and the effects of local obstructions are fewer. Utility scale towers are 60-

100 meters in height. Towers can be made of rolled tubular or lattice-structured steel or cement. 

Most towers in the U.S. are made of rolled steel tube sections that are bolted together. 

 

Balance of System Components. These components include transformers to step up voltage for 

transmission to electrical grids, underground cables, circuit breakers, power substations, 

supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA), fiber optic cables, a control station, crane 

pad, access roads, and maintenance buildings. 

 

97 Renewable Energy Policy Project. (2004). Wind Turbine Development: Location of Manufacturing Activity. 
31 

Markets and Applications 

The most common application of wind energy is electricity generation from onshore wind 

turbines and transmission to a state or regional grid for distribution to homes and businesses. An 

application may be a single wind turbine or hundreds of them that are clustered on wind farms. 

In the latter case, the turbines must be strategically placed on the farm so that the performance of 

each turbine is maximized or at least none interferes with the performance of another. Also, 

some turbines may produce electricity when others do not because of variation in wind speed, 

direction, and location. In 2007, the most common turbine sizes (in number of installations in the 

U.S.) were 1 MW (Mitsubishi), 1.5 MW (GE Wind), 1.65 MW (Vestas), 2.3 MW (Siemens), and 

2 MW (Gamesa)98. 

Grid-tied/Off-grid. Wind turbines may be connected to the grid or be independent, stand-alone 

units. A significant percent (41%) of small wind systems (<100 kW) are still off-grid. However, 

there has been a substantial shift recently toward grid-tied applications (80.4%) in this market 

segment99. 

Centralized/Distributed. Centralized wind energy systems originate from wind farms, but 

decentralized systems originate from private residences, government agencies or businesses that 

install small wind systems (1-100 kW) on or around their structures. Distributed systems may be 

grid-tied, in which case their owners may be able to sell the electricity they generate to the grid 

(e.g., net or dual metering). If these systems are off-grid, they may need batteries to store the 

energy that was generated when there was adequate wind. 

Small Wind Systems. Small wind systems are 100 kW or less and can be roof-based or groundbased. These systems are sold to residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, transportation 

utilities, and government markets. A total of 17.3 MW were installed in the U.S. in 2008, 

representing 78% growth100. The majority of sales were for on-grid applications (80.4%). 

Cumulative installed capacity in the U.S. was 80 MW in 2008101. Of the units sold in the U.S. 

94% were produced by U.S. manufacturers (a decline of 4% from 2007)102. U.S. manufacturers 

include Southwest Windpower (AZ), Bergey Windpower (OK), Wind Turbine Industries (MN), 

Entegrity Wind Systems (CO; PEI, Canada) and Northern Power (VT). Exports accounted for 

less than 40% of the U.S. manufacturers’ sales in 2008103. 

On-Shore/Off-Shore. Worldwide cumulative installed off-shore wind capacity reached 1,471 

MW in 2007, roughly 1.2 % of all installed worldwide capacity; 314 MW were added to capacity 

in 2008104. The top-five countries in installed off-shore capacity are U.K. (591 MW), Denmark 

(409 MW), Netherlands (247 MW), Sweden (133 MW), and Belgium (30 MW). The U.K. 

overtook Denmark in 2008 as expected, yet, counter to expectations, Germany did not move into 

 

98 American Wind Energy Association. (2008a). 2007 Market Report. 99 American Wind Energy Association. (2009). Annual Wind Industry Report Year Ending 2008. 100 American Wind Energy Association. (2009). Annual Wind Industry Report Year Ending 2008. 101 American Wind Energy Association. (2009). Small Wind Turbine Global Market Study, Year Ending 2008 102 American Wind Energy Association. (2009). Small Wind Turbine Global Market Study, Year Ending 2008. 103 American Wind Energy Association. (2009). Small Wind Turbine Global Market Study, Year Ending 2008. 104 European Wind Energy Association. (2009). Sea of Change: Offshore Wind Energy Report. 
32 

the top-five. The U.S. has no presence in this market currently. However, several projects are in 

various stages of development off the coasts of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, 

Delaware and Texas, with feasibility studies being conducted also in the Great Lakes, Virginia, 

South Carolina, Georgia, and along the West Coast. 

Off-shore wind sites are generally close to shorelines because conventional monopole foundation 

technology is limited to application in waters less than 30 meters deep. There are emerging 

technologies for wider application in deeper waters, such as the “jacket” structure used for the 

two 45 meters deep turbines in the Beatrice Wind Farm off of Scotland. However, these are still 

cost restrictive for application. For deeper water applications, floating platforms that are 

anchored by chains to the sea-bed105 are also under development. The off-shore wind resource is 

stronger and steadier than on-shore wind due to the absence of flow obstructions and the air-sea 

thermal interactions, but turbines must be larger (2.5 MW and above) to justify the investment in 

floating platforms106. Also, technology needs to be developed so that platforms maintain stability 

in rough water, and turbines resist corrosion and require less maintenance. 

Industry Participants 

Wind Turbine Manufacturers. The worldwide added capacity and market share of the top-ten 

turbine manufacturers in 2008 were Vestas (5,582 MW, 19.8%), GE Wind (5,243 MW,18.6%,), 

Gamesa (3,383 MW,12.0%), Enercon (2,819 MW, 10.0%), Suzlon (2,537 MW, 9.0%), Siemens 

(1,975 MW, 6.9%), Sinovel (1,410 MW, 5.0%), Acciona (1,297 MW, 4.6%), Goldwind (1,128 

MW,4.0%), and Nordex (1,071 MW, 3.8%,)107. These ten companies added 93.7% of 28,190 

MW in worldwide added capacity in 2008 (Table 6). Six of them are European, two are Chinese, 

one is Indian, and one is American. The two Chinese companies (Goldwind and Sinovel) and a 

Spanish company (Acciona) increased their production dramatically in 2007 (see Table 6). The 

top ten turbine manufacturers supplying the U.S. in 2008 were GE Wind (3,657 MW, 42.7%), 

Vestas (1,120 MW, 13.1%), Siemens (791 MW, 9.2%), Suzlon (736 MW, 8.6%), Gamesa (616 

MW, 7.2%), Clipper (595 MW, 7.0%), Mitsubishi (516 MW, 6.0%), Acciona (410 MW, 4.8%), 

REpower (102 MW, 1.2%) and Fűhrlander (5 MW, 0.0%); the top eight companies accounted 

for over 98% of added capacity in the U.S. in 2008108. Four relatively new entrants into the U.S. 

wind industry are Clipper Windpower (plant in Cedar Rapids, Iowa) and CTC/DeWind, which 

will start to produce turbines at the TECO Westinghouse facility in Round Rock, Texas in 2009. 

Nordic Windpower will produce turbines in Pocatello, Idaho. Fűhrlander will produce turbine 

components in Butte, Montana. 

 

105 Milborrow, D. (2003). Offshore wind rises to the challenge. Wind Power Monthly. 106 Merrill Lynch. (2007). Wind turbine manufacturers; Here comes pricing power. 107 BTM Consult (2009). World Market Update 2008 108 American Wind Energy Association. (2009). Annual Wind Industry Report Year Ending 2008. 
33 

Table 6. Worldwide MW Additions, Plant Locations, and U.S. Installation Sites 

of Top Ten Wind Turbine Manufacturers in 2008

Company 

MW 2008 

(% 

Growth) 

MW 

2007 Plant Locations (current and planned) 

U.S. Installation 

Sites of Completed 

Wind Power 

Projects (2008)109

Vestas 5,582 

(23.7%) 

4,512 U.S. (Windsor, CO and Portland, OR); Spain; 

Denmark, Germany, Sweden, U.K., Italy, Norway, 

India; China 

AK, CA, IL, IA (4), 

KS(3), MI, MN, 

ND, OR, TX, WA 

(2), WI(2) 

GE Energy 5,243 

(59.6%) 

3,285 Salzbergen, Germany; Nobeljas, Spain; Shenyang, 

China, Canada and the U.S. (Pensacola, FL; 

Greenville, SC; Salem, VA; Erie, PA; Tehachapi, CA) 

IL, IN, IA (9), KS, 

ME, MI, MN (3), 

MT, NM, NY (3), 

ND (4), OR, TX (8), 

WA, WI(2), WY (2) 

Gamesa 3,383 

(11.0%) 

3,048 U.S. (Fairless Hills, PA and Ebensburg, PA); 

Silkeborg, Denmark; Aschaffenburg, Germany; Saint 

Priest, France; Rome, Italy; Various locations in Spain; 

Athens, Greece; Lisbon, Portugal; South Wales, UK; 

Beijing, China 

IL, IA (2), NH, TX 

(2), WV (2) 

Enercon 2,819 

(1.7%) 

2,771 Aurich, Emden and Magdenburg, Germany; Sweden; 

Brazil; India; Turkey; Portugal 

Suzlon 2,537 

(22.1%) 

2,078 Various locations in India; U.S. (Pipestone, MN); 

Tianjin, China; Edegem, Belgium; Australia; Brazil; 

Canada; Denmark; Greece; Italy; Nicaragua; Portugal; 

Spain; Turkey 

IL, MN(7), MO(3), 

OK, OR, PA (2), 

TX(5), UT, WY(3) 

Siemens 1,975 

(40.6%) 

1,405 Aalborg, Brande and Engesvang, Denmark; U.S. (Fort 

Madison, IA; Elgin, IL); Germany 

IA,TX(4), UT 

Sinovel 1,410 

(840.0%) 

150 China 

Acciona 1,297 

(204.5%) 

426 Navarre and Castellon, Spain; Nantong, China; 

U.S. (West Branch, IA) 

MT, ND, OK, SD 

Goldwind 1,128 

(171.2%) 416 China 

Nordex 1,071 

(112.1%) 505 Rostock, Germany; China; U.S. (Jonesboro, AR planned) 

Regional Transmission Organizations(RTO)/Independent System Operators(ISO). RTOs are 

regional or state entities that regulate interconnected transmission systems for use by energy 

providers of all types. ISOs typically perform the same functions as RTOs, but cover a smaller 

geographic area, or are not subject to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 

jurisdiction. Seven ISOs and RTOs currently operate in the U.S. They are the California 

Independent System Operator (California ISO); the Electric Reliability Council of Texas 

(ERCOT, an ISO); ISO New England (ISO-NE, an RTO); the Midwest Independent 

Transmission System Operator (Midwest ISO, an RTO); the New York Independent System 

Operator (NYISO); PJM Interconnection (PJM, an RTO); and the Southwest Power Pool (SPP, 

an RTO). 

Traditionally, vertically integrated electric utilities owned transmission systems to serve their 

customers. However, as electricity was transported over increasingly greater distances, numerous 

 

109 American Wind Energy Association. (2009). Annual Wind Industry Report Year Ending 2008.
34 

interconnections between transmission systems developed. In the late 1990s, the FERC required 

all electricity providers to join an RTO or ISO. The purpose of these entities was to assure nondiscriminatory transmission access, schedule the use of transmission lines, manage the 

interconnection of new generation, and monitor the markets to ensure fairness and neutrality for 

all participants. Wind energy providers are disadvantaged relative to other energy providers by 

greater distance between wind generation and end-use. This requires wind generated electricity 

to cross multiple transmissions systems, resulting in multiple access fees (called “rate 

pancaking”). They are also disadvantaged by wind’s unpredictability and intermittency, which 

leads to more frequent and higher penalties for schedule and output deviations110. The American 

Wind Energy Association (AWEA) has proposed several remedies to reduce these disadvantages111.

 

Owners/Investors/Developers. Independent Power Producers (IPPs) owned 83% of all new 

capacity additions in 2007. Investor- owned utilities owned 11%, publicly-owned utilities owned 

5% and communities owned 1%112. The five largest IPPs in the U.S. are Iberdrola (Spain), FPL 

(U.S.), Acciona (Spain), EDP (Portugal), and Babcock & Brown (Australia). Wind system 

owners sell energy in the open market (merchant sale) or via a long-term power purchase 

agreement (15-25 years). Developers usually own and operate the systems they build. FPL and 

Babcock & Brown have traditionally done this. Although many independent wind developers 

remain, a significant number of them are being acquired by IPPs. Most recently, European 

owners have entered the U.S. energy market or expanded their presence by acquiring U.S. 

developers. For example, in 2007, EDP acquired Horizon, Iberdrola acquired PPM and CPV 

Wind, E.ON AG acquired Airtricity North America, Acciona acquired 1300 MW worth of wind 

projects from EcoEnergy LLC, and Babcock & Brown acquired Bluewater Wind113. 

New capacity additions are most commonly financed through corporate balance sheets (debt) or 

tax equity partners who are interested in tax credits. Tax equity partners in wind projects have 

included GE Energy Financial, Goldman-Sachs, JP Morgan Capital, Lehman, and numerous 

investment banks. Such investors must have sufficient tax liabilities to benefit from the PTC and 

five-year accelerated depreciation. Within ten years (PTC limit), tax equity partners may “flip” 

their investment to IPPs or others who can still benefit from selling energy on the open market or 

from leasing land. Deteriorating financial market conditions in late 2008 have led most tax 

equity partners to abandon or suspend their participation in tax equity deals. They no longer have 

cash to invest in projects and lack the strong balance sheets that necessitate tax offsets. 

 

110 Wind power is intermittent (i.e., unavailable 35-50% of the time) because wind speed is variable and 

unpredictable. Intermittency is not a major problem for grid management when total wind penetration is relatively 

low, but could become a problem if penetration rises to 15-20% of the total energy supply. Wind farm developers 

compensate for intermittency by building a turbine reserve (excess) and configuring turbine location so that all of 

them don’t face the same wind conditions simultaneously. Higher towers also help reduce intermittency (National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2008b National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2008b). Wind Deployment Systems 

(WinDS) Model. Retrieved from http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/winds/intermittency.html). 111 American Wind Energy Association (2000). White Paper. Fair Transmission Access for Wind: A Brief 

Discussion of Priority Issues. 112 Wiser, & Bolinger. (2008). Annual report on U.S. wind power installation, cost, and performance trends: 2007.

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 113 Wiser, & Bolinger. (2008). Annual report on U.S. wind power installation, cost, and performance trends: 2007.

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 
35 

Wind Power Purchasers. Investor-owned utilities bought 48% of wind energy from new 

capacity additions in 2007. Publicly-owned utilities purchased 17% of new capacity additions. 

Power marketers, i.e., corporate intermediaries that purchase power under contract and resell to 

others, have increased significantly since 2000 (20% of new capacity in 2007). All of the above 

entities typically buy energy under long-term power purchase agreements (15-25 years). The 

remaining 15% of energy is sold through short-term contracts or the spot market (i.e., merchant 

risk).

The top-ten utilities in aggregate wind capacity on their systems at the end of 2008 were Xcel 

Energy (MN, 2,906 MW), MidAmerican Energy ( IA, 2,363 MW), Southern California Edison 

(CA, 1,137 MW), Pacific Gas & Electric (CA, 981 MW), Luminant Energy (TX, 913 MW), 

American Electric Power (OH, 468 MW), Alliant Energy (WI, 446 MW), Puget Sound Energy 

(WA, 435 MW), Excelon Energy (IL, 351 MW) and Empire District Electric Company (MO, 

255 MW)114. Eight of these ten utilities are west of the Mississippi River. American Electric 

Power owns Appalachian Power (Charleston, WV), which sought requests for proposals for wind 

energy projects in April 2008. Excelon owns PECO (Philadelphia, PA), which was the first 

utility in Pennsylvania to offer wind to its residential and business customers and is supplied by a 

wind power facility in Waymart, PA, near the Poconos. 

Wind System Supply Chain 

Figure 3 shows two major components of the wind turbine supply-chain, nacelles and 

rotor/blades. A third major component, towers, is not shown. Each major component shows 

some of its major subcomponents115. Turbines above the 1 MW size range are sold out through 

2009. Price is less an issue for many turbine manufacturers than is reliable delivery. Entry into 

the component business has been slow because margins are often low, and sales projections are 

difficult to make due to the notorious on-off nature of the U.S. production tax credit for wind 

energy. Also, the requisite skills to make components such as gearboxes and bearings are 

relatively scarce in the United States, and finding and training appropriate workers is challenging 

and costly. 

 

114 American Wind Energy Association. (2009). Annual Wind Industry Report Year Ending 2008. 115 Renewable Energy Policy Project. (2004). Wind Turbine Development: Location of Manufacturing Activity, 

decomposes wind systems into 20 major subcomponents, with turbine/nacelles having eleven subcomponents and 

rotor/blades having four of them (as shown). 
36 

Turbine Nacelles. The major subcomponents of nacelles are nacelle covers and frames, 

gearboxes, bearings and generators. Gearboxes and bearings in particular are in short

supply, and constitute a bottleneck. Many of the major turbine manufacturers own a significant 

portion of their supply chain or have long-term agreements with suppliers. This is especially so 

for those components that differentiate or enhance the capability of turbines relative to 

competitors. Most recently, Suzlon acquired gearbox supplier Hansen (2006), and Siemens 

acquired Winergy (2005). 

Bearings. Bearings can be found in gearboxes, generators, cooling systems, blade pitch and yaw 

systems, and rotor support systems. Large bearing suppliers are in a strong bargaining position 

with turbine manufacturers because wind is a small portion of the suppliers’ total revenue base, 

e.g., SKF (Sweden), Schaeffler KG (FAG) (Germany). Smaller bearing manufacturers are 

reluctant to get into the business because they are unsure of the extension of the PTC and don’t 

want to risk a downturn in business116,117. Another barrier to entry is that track record in this 

industry is important for credibility because reliability has been a problem. Lead-time for 

delivery is long (16 months). Smaller turbine manufacturers can expect longer lead-times for 

delivery of supplies. Generators are not a problem because the supply is adequate and lead-time 

for delivery is short. Table 7 shows the names of some of the major gearbox and bearing 

suppliers. 

 

116 Merrill Lynch. (2007). Wind turbine manufacturers; Here comes pricing power. 117 Anonymous. (2007, January/February). Supply chain: The race to meet demand. Wind Directions , pp. 27-34. 
37 

Table 7. Wind Turbine Suppliers and Locations

 Types of Suppliers Headquarters U.S. Manufacturing Sites

Gearbox Suppliers

Bosch Rexroth Witten Germany Bethlehem, PA

Brad Foote Gear Works Cicero, IL Cicero, IL, Pittsburgh, PA

Echesa S.A. (Gamesa Energy Transmission Asteasu, Spain

Eickhoff Bochum, Germany Pittsburgh, PA

Fellar, S.A. Valencia, Spain

Hansen Transmission Edegem, Belgium Verona, VA

Ishibashi Manufactruing Co., Ltd Nogata, Japan

Jahnel-Ketsreman Getriebewerke (JaKe) Bochum, Germany

Leroy-Somer Saint Louis, MO

Moventas Jyvaskyla, Finland IL, NC, SC, MS, TX, OK, NJ

Pujol Muntala Barcelona, Spain

Renk AG Augbery, Germany Duncan, SC

Winergy Bochert, Germany Elgin, IL

Chinese Gearbox Suppliers

China High Speed Transmssion Equipment Nanjing, China

Chongqing Gearbox Co., Ltd Chongqing, China

Hangzhou Advance Gearbox Group Co. Hangzhou/Zhejiang, China 

Bearing Suppliers

Kaydon Ann Arbor, MI SC (2), NC, OH, MI

NTN Corporation Osaka, Japan Mount Propspect, IL

SKF Group Goteburg, Sweden PA, NY (2), CN, SC, KY

The Timken Company Canton, OH Union, SC

Wangfangdian Dalian, China

Generators

ABB Zurich, Switzerland New Berlin, WI

Elin Weiz, Austria

Weier (Vestas) Eutin, Germany

Blade Suppliers

Abeking and Rasmussen Lemwerder, Denmark

HT Blade Boading City, China

LM Glasfiber Luderskov, Denmark Little Rock, AR, Grand Forks, ND

NOI (Sinoi) Nordhausen, Germany

Tecsis Sorocaba, Sao Paolo, Brazil Houston, TX

TPI Composites Scottsdale, AZ Newton, IA

Tower Suppliers

Coiper (Comonor) Ponferrada (León), Spain

DMI Industries West Fargo, ND West Fargo, ND, Tulsa, OK

Qingdao Wuxiao Tower Qingdao, China.

Roug A/S (Hendricks Industries) Herning, Denmark Keokuk, Iowa

Tower Tech Systems Manitowoc, WI WI, TX, SD

Trinity Structural Towers Fort Worth TX Fort Worth, TX, Newton, IA

Katana Summit Ephrata, WA Columbus, NE
38 

Rotors/Blades. LM Glasfiber (Denmark) is the largest supplier of blades with a 27% global 

market-share118. It has U.S. plants in Grand Forks, North Dakota, and Little Rock, Arkansas. All 

but two of the top-ten turbine manufacturers (GE Wind, Clipper) produce most of their own 

blades. Both companies buy blades from Tecsis (Brazil). GE Energy recently signed a long-term 

agreement with TPI Composites (U.S.). In support of the agreement, TPI has built a 316,000 

square foot facility in Newton, Iowa (see Table 7). Knight & Carver (U.S.) opened a 26,000 

square foot factory for manufacturing and repairing blades in Howard, SD119. 

Towers. Some of the major tower manufacturers include Ameron (California), Trinity Structural 

Towers (Texas), DMI Industries (North Dakota), Tower Tech Systems (Wisconsin), Aerisyn 

(Tennessee), Thomas & Betts (Tennessee), Beard Industries (Indiana). Hendricks Industries 

(Denmark) will produce towers in Keokuk, Iowa (see Table 7). Katana Summit of Ephrata, 

Washington is building a wind-tower manufacturing plant in Columbus, Nebraska. Valmont 

Wind Energy, which is headquartered in Omaha, makes customized towers for small wind and 

anemometer structures. 

Process Controls. Many of the large turbine manufacturers (e.g., GE Wind, Suzlon) have 

developed their own process control systems, often referred to as SCADA (Supervisory Control 

and Data Acquisition). Emerson entered this market in 2001 with the acquisition of FisherRosemount and became Emerson Process Management (Pennsylvania). Other independents 

include Bragg Crane & Rigging (California) and Second Wind (Massachusetts). 

Services. There are a growing number of independent service providers, consultants and siting 

experts. For example, EMS (Engineering Maintenance Service) of South Dakota provides 

services such as construction, engineering, operations, maintenance, component remanufacturing 

and component repair (acquired by Tower Tech Holdings). GE Wind offers installation, 

operation and maintenance services for wind turbines. North American Energy Services 

(Washington), Global Energy Concepts (Washington), Global Energy Services (Pennsylvania), 

Tetra Tech (California), BHE Environmental (Ohio and Tennessee) also provide services. 

Sourcing Strategies of Turbine Manufacturers. A review of websites that focus on wind turbine 

component suppliers suggests that turbine manufacturers currently source few components from 

U.S. suppliers. Even GE Wind and Clipper, the two largest U.S.-based turbine manufacturers, do 

not source the majority of their components domestically. For example, GE Wind obtains 

gearboxes from German suppliers Winergy, Bosch Rexroth, and Eickhoff120. Clipper obtains 

blades from Tecsis (Brazil) and generators from Potenicia (Mexico). A few foreign 

manufacturers are beginning to assemble turbines in the United States (Acciona, Nordex, 

Gamesa), but are not fabricating many turbine components domestically121. Among those 

components that are sourced domestically, one suspects that they are not critical to 

differentiating the product from those of competitors, e.g., nacelle or transmission housings. 

Rather, components that have this impact are imported from the turbine manufacturer’s home 

 

118 Merrill Lynch. (2007). Wind turbine manufacturers; Here comes pricing power.

119 South Dakota New Web. (2006). Knight & Carver breaks ground in Howard: Governor Rounds welcomes 

California wind blade manufacturer to South Dakota. South Dakota New Web. 120 GE Wind manufactures some of its own gearbox and generator components in Tehachapi, CA. 121 Fűhrlander will fabricate machine housings in Butte, Montana. 
39 

country122. A list of thirty-six wind industry manufacturing facilities on-line, announced or 

expanding through the third quarter of 2008 shows that ten are related to towers, and six related 

to blades123. These components are large and expensive. Although some towers and blades will 

continue to come through U.S. ports from Asia and Europe124, an increasing portion of them will 

be fabricated relatively close to where they will be installed. 

Table 8 shows the component and equipment suppliers for the major sub-components of 

nacelles, rotors/blades, and towers in Appalachian Counties. 

Table 8. Component and Equipment Suppliers in Appalachian Counties 

Type of Supplier Appalachian Counties (in parentheses) 

Nacelle covers and frames Hodge Foundry, Greenville, PA, (Mercer); CAB Inc., Oakwood, GA 

(Hall); 

Blades, blade extenders, 

hubs 

CAB Inc. Oakwood, GA (Hall); Hodge Foundry, Inc., Greenville, 

PA (Mercer); Gamesa, Ebensburg, PA (Cambria); 

Gearboxes Peerless Winsmith, Inc., Springfield, NY (Otsego); Hodge Foundry, 

Inc., Greenville, PA (Mercer); Renk AG, Duncan, SC (Spartanburg), 

Eickhoff, Pittsburgh, PA (Allegheny) 

Bearings Moventas, Winston-Salem, NC (Forsyth); Moventas, Greenville, SC 

(Greenville); Kaydon, Mocksville, NC (Davie); SKF Falconer, NY 

(Chautauqua), SKF, Jamestown, NY (Chautauqua); 

Generators/Inverters/Power 

Electronics 

Motors and Control International, Hazelton, PA (Luzerne); 

Towers, including base, 

flanges and bolts 

Aerisyn, Chattanooga, TN (Hamilton); CAB Inc., Oakwood, GA 

(Hall); 

Construction, Consulting, 

and Maintenance Services, 

communications systems 

Specialized Power Systems, Inc. Huntington, West Virginia 

(Cabell), Genesis Development of Kentucky, LLC (Pike); Emerson 

Process Management, Pittsburgh, PA (Allegheny)

Job Creation by Turbine Manufacturers and Suppliers. The U.S. Department of Energy125

estimates that 16,000 MW of wind energy must be added per year to achieve the proposed target 

of twenty percent wind energy (about 300,000 MW) in the U.S. by 2030. The DOE study 

estimates that this level of annual production will create 190,000 new jobs in the U.S. over 

twenty years126. However, the U.S. added 8,545 MW in new wind capacity in 2008. That is close 

to half of what is required annually to achieve the DOE’s target, and the job creation to date 

hasn’t been anywhere near proportional to what DOE would expect for this added capacity. 

Unless foreign manufacturers are required or encouraged to produce more critical components in 

the U.S., these job creation estimates for 2030 appear to be overstated. Also, three of the twenty 

 

122 Some foreign suppliers have U.S. operations, e.g., SKF, Moventas, ABB (see Table 2). However, other foreign 

suppliers only have sites that specialize in sales, distribution, and service. 123 American Wind Energy Association (2008c). 3rd Quarter 2008 Market Report 124 Knee, R. (2007). West Coast ports made of steel and wind: Pacific Coast ports find growth in non-container 

business. Pacific Shipper. 125 U.S. Department of Energy. (2008). 20% Wind Energy by 2030: Increasing Wind Energy's Contribution to U.S. 

Electricity Supply, DOE/GO-102008-2567. Available on-line from http://www.osti.gov/bridge. 126 68,800 manufacturing jobs plus 120,000 indirect and induced jobs or 1.8 jobs for every manufacturing job. 
40 

major subcomponents of wind systems that Renewable Energy Policy Project (REPP) used in its 

Wind Turbine Development: Location of Manufacturing Activity study are critical components 

(gearboxes, bearings and generators) that are unlikely to be produced in the U.S. anytime soon 

(see Table 8), mainly due to a shortage of the requisite skills to produce such components 

locally. Assuming that foreign manufacturers are willing to build plants in the U.S. to produce 

their most high value-added components or share their distinctive competence with U.S. 

suppliers, the time and resources needed to locate (relocate if necessary) and train capable 

workers are formidable challenges. 

European and American studies vary considerably in the job/MW ratios they used to estimate 

future job growth in the wind industry (0.71 to 2.79)127,128,129,130. The REPP study used a ratio of 

3.00/MW to estimate job growth, which is higher than used in most other studies131. Lastly, 

projections of job growth need to take into account productivity improvements over the next 

twenty-one years, which currently are between 6-9% per year132. 

Competitive Strategies 

Product Range. The top-ten companies offer turbines in varying sizes and applications (see 

Table 9). The smallest turbine offered is 330 kW (Nordex) and the largest is 3.6 MW (Siemens, 

GE Wind). Larger turbines are available in limited production or as prototypes (up to 7.5 MW). 

 

 

127 Algoso, & Rusch. (2004). Renewables work: Job growth from renewable energy development in the mid 

Atlantic. NJPIRG: Law and Policy Center. 128 Kammen, D., Kapadia, K., & Fripp, M. (2004). Putting Renewables to Work: How many jobs can the clean 

energy industry generate? Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory report, University of California, 

Berkeley. Retrieved from http://rael.berkeley.edu/old-site/renewables.jobs.2006.pdf

129 Pedden, M. (2006, January). Analysis: Economic impacts of wind applications in rural communities. NREL 

Technical Monitor, Subcontract Report, NREL/SR-500-39099. Retrieved from 

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/39099.pdf

130 Worldwatch Institute. (2007). Green jobs: Towards sustainable work in a low-carbon world. Preliminary Report.

Green Jobs Initiative, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), International Labour Organization (ILO), 

International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC). 131 REPP’s estimates for job creation may be more realistic for wind farm installation (700 jobs/1000 MW) and 

operations and maintenance (600/1000 MW) than for component manufacturing (3000/1000MW). This work cannot 

be performed very efficiently outside the U.S. or outsourced. 

132 Wiser, & Bolinger. (2008). Annual report on U.S. wind power installation, cost, and performance trends: 2007.

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 
41 

Table 9. Product Line Range of the Global Top-Ten Turbine Manufacturers (as of June 

2009) 

Companies Product Line Range 

Turbine Size 

(MW) 

Rotor Diameter Hub or Tower Height 

Vestas 0.85 MW 

1.65 MW 

1.8MW 

2.0 MW 

52m 

82m 

90m, 100m 

80m, 90m 

44m,49m,55m,65m,74m 

70m ,78m, 80m 

80m,95m,105m; 80m, 95m 

60m, 67m, 78m, 700m; 80m, 95m, 105m 

GE Wind 1.5MW 

2.5 MW 

3.6MW 

77m, 82.5m 

100m 

111m 

65m, 80m 

80m 

75, 85, 100 and site specific 

Gamesa 0.85 MW 

2.0 MW 

52m, 58m 

80m, 87m, 90m 

44m, 49m, 55m, 65m; 44m, 55m, 65m, 

71m 

60m, 67m, 78m, 100m; 67m, 78m, 100m 

Enercon 0.33 MW 

0.8 MW 

0.9 MW 

2.0 MW 

2.3 MW 

33.4m 

48m, 52.9m 

44m 

82m 

71m 

37m – 50m 

50m, 60m, 73m, 76m 

45m, 55m 

78m – 138m 

57m – 113m 

Suzlon 0.6 MW 

1.25 MW 

1.5 MW 

2.1 MW 

52m 

64m, 66m 

82m 

88m 

73m 

54m, 63m, 72m and site specific 

76m 

79m 

Siemens 2.3 MW 

3.6 MW 

offshore 

82.4m, 93m, 

101m 

107m 

80m or site specific 

80m or site specific 

Sinovel 1.5 MW 

3.0 MW 

prototype 

-- -- 

Acciona 1.5 MW 

3.0 MW 

70m, 77m, 82m 

100m, 109m, 

116m 

60m, 80m; 60m, 71m, 80m; 80m 

100m, 120m 

Goldwind 0.6 MW 

0.75 MW 

1.2 MW 

1.5 MW 

43m 

49m 

62m 

70.5m 

40m, 50m 

50m, 60m 

70m 

65m, 85m 

Nordex .33 MW 

1.5 MW 

2.3 MW 

2.5 MW 

2.5 MW 

offshore 

70m, 77m 

90m 

80m, 90m, 100m 

90m 

65m – 111.5m 

70m, 80m, 100m, 105m 

60m 70m, 80m; 70m, 75m, 80m, 100m, 

120m; 100m 

-- 
42 

Many companies also extend the range of applications of their existing and new turbines by 

offering them with different rotor diameters or tower heights (see Table 9). Larger rotor 

diameters and higher towers are for light or medium wind resources. Table 10 shows that the 

average turbine size has been growing in the last ten years. This is due in part to the need to 

locate wind farms in areas with lower average wind speed and because there are fewer large 

parcels of land available for wind farms133. Larger turbines capture more energy at slower blade 

rotation than smaller turbines134. Turbines for off-shore use are larger also in order to maximize 

the energy generated from the significant investment in building platforms and towers in water. 

Nordex (2.5 MW), Vestas (3 MW), Siemens (3.6 MW), and GE Wind (3.6 MW) offer offshore 

versions of their onshore turbines. None of the top-ten companies produces turbines for the small 

wind segment (less than 100 KW). 

Table 10. Size Distribution of Turbines from 1998-2007 

Turbine 

Size Range 

1998-99 2000-01 2002-03 2004-05 2006 2007 

1,018 MW 1,758 

MW 

2,125 

MW 

2,776 

MW 

2,454 

MW 

5,329 

MW 

1,425 

turbines 

1,987 

turbines 

1,757 

turbines 

1,960 

turbines 

1,532 

turbines 

3,230 

turbines 

0.05 -0.5 

MW 

1.3% 0.4% 0.5% 1.8% 0.7% 0.0% 

0.51-1.0 

MW 

98.5% 73.9% 43.4% 18.5% 10.7% 11.0% 

1.01-1.5 

MW 

0.0% 25.4% 43.5% 56.0% 54.2% 48.6% 

1.51-2.0 

MW 

0.3% 0.4% 12.5% 23.6% 17.6% 24.1% 

2.01-2.5 

MW 

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 16.3% 15.0% 

2.51-3.0 

MW 

0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.5% 1.3% 

Source: Wiser and Bolinger (2008), p. 12 

Market Scope. The primary reason that firms increase their market scope, i.e., from domestic to 

regional to global, is to gain economies of scale from fuller utilization of their existing domestic 

manufacturing capacity. As long as the price of turbines exceeds the marginal cost of producing 

them, this is an attractive option. The most efficient way for a firm to increase manufacturing 

capacity in a foreign location is to replicate its existing domestic factories that were designed to 

make a particular model or platform of turbine models. Thus turbine manufacturers typically 

enter foreign markets with a single turbine size. Siemens, Gamesa and Mitsubishi did this in 

 

133 Merrill Lynch (2007). Wind Turbine Manufacturers; Here Comes Pricing Power.

134 The power potential of a wind turbine is determined by the square of the rotor diameter, therefore a 

large turbine delivers much more power than two separate turbines with diameter half the size. (Merrill 

Lynch. (2007). Wind turbine manufacturers; Here comes pricing power). 
43 

North America, as did GE Wind in Europe. This works fine as long as the models that were 

designed for the home market are well-suited to the foreign markets entered. This may explain 

why GE Wind did not do very well in Europe with its highly successful 1.5 MW turbine, but is 

now doing much better with its recently developed 2.5 MW turbine. Larger turbines sell better in 

Europe because land for wind farms is scarce. Mitsubishi will likely do better in the United 

States with its 2.4 MW turbine than it did with its 1.0 MW turbine135. Consequently, increased 

market scope will often be followed by expanded product range. Turbine manufacturers also can 

increase market scope by acquiring a foreign firm that already has a strong presence in another 

market. This occurred when Suzlon acquired REPower in 2007. Suzlon did not have a strong 

presence in Europe; REPower had strong markets in Europe as well as Japan. 

Plant Location. Table 7 shows plant locations of the top ten turbine manufacturers. As with 

solar, the typical configuration of plants among the largest turbine manufacturers is to produce 

turbines in the home country, usually at or near headquarters where R&D facilities tend to be 

located. Most of the investment in the U.S. has been in the upper and lower mid-west. Some 

European companies ship components to the U.S. plants for assembly (e.g., Acciona in West 

Branch, IA, Nordex in Jonesboro, AR). Foreign turbine manufacturers are building plants in the 

U.S, especially to produce blades. Blades are often produced close to an installation site because 

of the expense and complexity of transport. Gamesa manufactures wind turbine blades in Fairless 

Hills, PA and Ebensburg, PA. Suzlon manufactures wind turbine blades and nose cones in 

Pipestone, MN. Siemens Power Generation chose Fort Madison, IA for its U.S. wind turbine 

blade manufacturing site. Vestas is producing blades at a factory in Windsor, CO. Towers are 

usually produced locally by independent American manufacturers. 

Acquisition, Partnerships, and Long-Term Agreements. Several of the top-ten wind turbine 

manufacturers gained their current market share through mergers and acquisitions. For example, 

GE entered the wind turbine business by acquiring Enron Wind Corporation in 2002. Gamesa 

acquired MADE in 2003. Vestas merged with NEG Micon in 2003. Like GE, Siemens entered 

the wind turbine business by acquiring Bonus in 2004. Also, the need for reliable suppliers and 

customers has encouraged acquisitions, partnerships, and long-term agreements (see Appendix 

II). For example, Suzlon acquired gearbox manufacturer Hansen, and Siemens acquired 

Winergy. Suzlon says that it is interested in further acquisitions, but Siemens and Gamesa prefer 

to form collaborative relationships with suppliers rather than acquire them136. The nature of 

agreements has also changed. They have shifted from project-driven, national agreements to 

multi-year framework agreements spanning several regions137. For example, Tower Tech 

Systems is currently under a multi-year, preferential manufacturing contract with Vestas Wind 

Systems of Denmark. 

 

 

135 Similarly, the majority of turbines in China are still 600kW, 750kW and 850kW capacity, accounting for 80% of 

installed units and 75% of installed capacity. The trend in the future will be towards 1 MW or larger models. 

(Junfeng, L., Hu, G., Pengfei, S., Jingli, S., Lingjuan, M., Haiyan, Q., et al. (2007). China wind power report -- 

2007. Beijing: China Environmental Science Press). 136 American Wind Energy Association. (2008d, October 7). AWEA Wind Power Finance and Investment 

Workshop. Panel Discussion on Turbine Supply Issues. New York.

137 Wiser, & Bolinger. (2008). Annual report on U.S. wind power installation, cost, and performance trends: 2007.

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 
44 

Technological Innovation. This section will focus on innovation for turbines only, but recognize 

that innovation in wind forecasting, grid management, tower siting, etc. is critical for a 

comprehensive understanding of wind systems as an alternative energy option. Turbine 

manufacturers vary in research intensity as measured by R&D expenditures as a percent of net 

sales (see Table 11)138. They invest in R&D to develop and introduce new turbines, improve the 

performance of existing turbines, improve manufacturing processes, and reduce installation, 

operating and maintenance costs. The firms with a broad product range, especially those that 

have entered or plan to enter the offshore turbine market segment, would be expected to have 

high R&D expenditures relative to sales, e.g., Vestas, Siemens, GE Wind. 

Power control. The technology appears to have matured toward emergence of a dominant 

design, which is a three-bladed upwind rotor with variable speed and variable pitch operation. 

This provides higher quality power output (fewer and lower power fluctuations) to the grid than 

earlier fixed speed, stall control models139. The hydraulic pitch control adjusts the rotor angle to 

obtain optimal power output at each wind speed. It also prevents overpowering of the generator 

by turning the rotor away from the wind as the wind speed exceeds the nominal operating speed. 

This reduces mechanical stress, increases power capture, reduces noise, and increases power 

quality. 

Weight reduction. Rotors typically weigh more than half as much as nacelles do and cost more 

per pound to produce, so use of lighter materials in blades provides significant opportunities for 

weight reduction140. One of the main benefits of weight reduction is ease and lower expense of 

transportation and assembly on wind turbines. Vestas and Gamesa use carbon fiber rather than 

less expensive fiberglass (resin epoxy strengthened) for their largest blades because of its lighter 

weight and strength. A design challenge is that towers need to be taller because wind speed 

increases with height above ground. The challenge is how to place increasingly larger turbines 

on ever taller towers. Increasing turbine power potential relative to weight and size is a major 

innovation challenge. 

Noise reduction. There are two potential sources of noise: the turbine blades passing through the 

air as the hub rotates, and the gearbox and generator in the nacelle. Noise from the blades is 

minimized by careful attention to the design and manufacture of the blades. The noise from the 

gearbox and generator is contained within the nacelle by sound insulation and isolation materials. 

Direct drive turbines have no gearbox or drive train, and thus no high speed mechanical (or 

electrical) components. Direct drive turbines are therefore much quieter than gearbox machines 

as they do not produce mechanical or tonal noise141. 

 

 

138 Comparisons between firms must be made carefully because an abrupt change in net sales in a given year can 

give a distorted view of change in research intensity. Also start-up firms with modest research expenditures and 

limited sales may show very high R&D expenditures as a percent of sales. Furthermore, research expenditure totals 

may include funds received from government research grants. 

139 Industry Canada. (2004). Supply-Chain Capabilities in the Canadian Wind Power Industry. 140 Zayas, J. R., & Thatcher, R. (2008). Wind energy manufacturing and supply chain development proposal. NREL 

and Sandia National Laboratories.

141 British Wind Energy Association. (2000). Noise from wind turbines: The facts. 
45 

Table 11. R&D as a Percentage of Sales for Top-Ten Turbine Manufacturers 

Company 

R&D 

(millions 

of 

Euros) 

Sales 

(millions 

of Euros 

or 

Dollars) 

R&D/Net 

Sales 

Ratio 

Source 

Vestas 127 4,861 2.6% http://iri.jrc.ec.europa.eu/research/docs/2008/Scorebo

ard_2008.pdf 

Gamesa 30.91 3,260 0.9% http://iri.jrc.ec.europa.eu/research/docs/2008/Scorebo

ard_2008.pdf 

Acciona 

Energy 16.32 1,093 1.5% 

http://www.accionaenergia.es/secciones/000109/En/ACCIONA_2007_R

esults.pdf 

Nordex 17.24 747 2.3% http://iri.jrc.ec.europa.eu/research/docs/2008/Scorebo

ard_2008.pdf 

Siemens 

Energy 510 

20,000 

(energy 

business 

only) 

2.5% 

http://www.conama.cl/portal/1301/articles43967_SiemensEnergyConama.pdf 

http://w1.siemens.com/annual/07/en/index/glance/res

earch_development.htm 

Enercon -- 2,302 -- 

http://www.hoovers.com/Enercon-Gmbh/--

HD__yryykrkct,src__global--/free-codnb_factsheet.xhtml 

Suzlon 

.29 

(millions 

of USD) 

139.9 

(millions 

of USD) 

0.21% 

http://www.suzlon.com/Content/Publication/AnnualR

eports_PDFs/Annual_Report_07-08.pdf 

Goldwind -- 

436.7 

(millions 

of USD) 

-- 

http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2007/11/20

/afx4357617.html 

GE 

Energy 

1,000 

(millions 

of USD) 

14,000 

(millions 

of USD) 

(energy 

and 

environment 

products 

only) 

7% 

http://ge.ecomagination.com/site/downloads/news/20

07ecoreport.pdf 

Sinovel -- 

28.3 

(millions 

of USD) 

-- 

www.citronresearch.com/wpcontent/uploads/2008/06/sinovel_dnb.pdf -
46 

Vibration damping and improved mechanical design have also significantly reduced noise from 

mechanical sources. Turbines can be designed or retrofitted to minimize mechanical noise. This 

can include special finishing of gear teeth, using low speed cooling fans and mounting 

components in the nacelle instead of at ground level, adding baffles and acoustic insulation to the 

nacelle, using vibration isolators and soft mounts for major components, and designing the 

turbine to prevent noises from being transmitted into the overall structure. 

Efforts to reduce aerodynamic noise have included the use of lower tip speed ratios, lower blade 

angles of attack, upwind turbine designs, variable speed operation and most recently, the use of 

specially modified blade trailing edges142. Modifications of the rotor blade trailing edge (sharp or 

serrated) and the tip design (avoiding tip vortex-trailing edge interaction by “trailing edge 

cutting”) resulted in considerable noise reduction in the range of several decibels. As blade 

airfoils have become more efficient, more of the wind energy is converted into rotational energy, 

and less into acoustic noise. 

Improved gearboxes or gearless mechanisms. Despite adherence to accepted design practices, 

wind turbine gearboxes have yet to achieve their design life goals of twenty years, with most 

systems requiring significant repair or overhaul well before the intended life is reached143. Most 

gearbox failures do not begin as gear failures or gear-tooth design deficiencies. The observed 

failures appear to start at several specific bearing locations under certain applications, which may 

later advance into the gear teeth as bearing debris and excess clearances cause surface wear and 

misalignments. These failures are occurring in spite of the fact that most gearboxes have been 

designed and developed using the best bearing-design practices available. Thus research focus 

should be aimed at discovering weaknesses in wind turbine gearbox bearing applications and 

deficiencies in the design process. 

Since bearing manufacturers do not have broad or intimate knowledge of gearbox system loads 

and responses that may be contributing to unpredicted bearing behavior beyond the bearing 

mounting location such as housing deformations, they are not capable of making thorough 

analyses on their own. A broader collaboration of the various stakeholders, each of whom holds 

a piece of the answer, is clearly needed. NREL is leading such a collaboration that will engage 

key supply chain representatives, including turbine owners, operators, gearbox manufacturers, 

bearing manufacturers, lubrication companies, and wind turbine manufacturers144. 

Generators/converters. Since the late 1990s, most of the top-ten turbine manufacturers have used 

asynchronous or doubly-fed induction generators. The advantages of DFIGs include the ability to 

allow for some slip in the rotational speed of the turbine, which permits increased energy capture 

by absorbing wind gusts as momentum, as well as reducing peak torques on the gearbox and 

improving power quality. Additionally, only 30% of the rated power needs to be sent through 

 

142 Rogers, A. L., & Manwell, J. F. (2002). Wind turbine noise issues. University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 

Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering. A white paper prepared by the Renewable Energy Research 

Laboratory, Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Unpublished manuscript. 

143 Enercon has demonstrated that gearless mechanisms can be very successful. None was installed in the U.S. last 

year, however.

144 Musial, W., Butterfield, S., & McNiff, B. (2007). Improving wind turbine gearbox reliability. Preprint from 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
47 

power conditioning equipment for compliant connection with the grid145. However, transient grid 

events can result in loading on the generator and gearbox, and therefore gearbox reliability 

depends on grid quality. 

Synchronous generators increase system cost because they require conversion of 100% of the 

rated power, but they provide greater grid stability (voltage and frequency). Enercon uses 

electrically excited synchronous generators because they are better suited for direct drive 

(gearless) systems. 

Permanent magnet (PM) synchronous generators eliminate much of the weight associated with 

more traditional wound motors146. The newest generation of design, such as GE Wind’s 2.5xl, 

uses a PM generator with full power conversion, which allows for more control and no feedback 

from the grid. With a 2.5% efficiency increase in power curve output at lower wind speeds, the 

added cost of the full power conversion is more than offset. 

Preventative and condition-based maintenance. Condition monitoring is not standard on many of 

the wind turbines on the market and it is often not cost effective to include this equipment aftermarket. As wind turbine installations extend to offshore areas, maintenance has to be minimized 

through the introduction of preventative maintenance strategies and tools that have been 

developed on the basis of low cost and extremely reliable condition monitoring methods147. 

However, cost-benefit analyses will have to dictate the nature and extent of monitoring 

equipment to include. Embedded diagnostics and sensors can be incorporated on thousands of 

pieces of equipment, but it may take just a few key readings to understand the health of the 

machinery. For instance, hub mounted fiber optic blade monitoring standards are now available 

that can provide information about rotor blade loading conditions. 

Experience curve/Economies of scale. The cost per kilowatt can be reduced substantially by 

spreading fixed costs over more units. As with the solar industry, virtually every industry 

incumbent has announced capacity expansion plans for 2008-2010. Also, the experience curve 

reduces production costs (e.g., throughput, yield) by 6-9% for every doubling of production 

volume148. Consequently, most of the major turbine manufacturers have been expanding capacity 

rapidly. Minimum efficient scale raises entry barriers for potential new entrants. Larger scale 

also enhances a firm’s bargaining position when purchasing raw materials from suppliers. 

 

145 Industry Canada. (2004). Supply-Chain Capabilities in the Canadian Wind Power Industry. 146 Loi, L. L., & Chan, T. F. (2007). Distributed Generation: Induction and Permanent Magnet Generators. New 

York: John Wiley and Sons.

147 European Wind Energy Technology Platform. (2008). Strategic Research Agenda Market Deployment Strategy, 

From 2008 to 2030. SYNOPSIS. 148 Wiser, & Bolinger. (2008). Annual report on U.S. wind power installation, cost, and performance trends: 2007.

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 
48 

Industry Evolution 

Market Concentration. The global wind turbine industry is less concentrated now than it was 

four years ago149. In 2004, the top-five global manufacturers had a total market share of 

85.5%150. In 2008, the top-five manufacturers had a market share of 69.4%. Two of the 

newcomers are Chinese (Goldwind, Sinovel), one is Indian (Suzlon) and another is Spanish 

(Acciona). These four companies built up sales in a fairly well-protected home market first 

before they expanded internationally151. Three of these companies licensed turbine technology 

from established European companies to manufacture turbines in their home country, e.g., 

Suzlon from NEG Micon (now Vestas), Goldwind from REPower (now Suzlon), and Sinovel 

from Fűhrlander. Although not a newcomer, Gamesa also had a licensing agreement with Vestas. 

International Diversification. Suzlon and Acciona are now expanding rapidly in international 

markets. Sinovel says that it plans to market and sell 3 MW (in 2008) and 5 MW (by 2011) 

turbines worldwide for on-shore and off-shore use152. The fifth newcomer to the top-ten list, 

Nordex, is just beginning to expand beyond Europe into the U.S. The U.S. wind turbine industry 

concentration has been changing also. Gamesa, Siemens, and Clipper had little or no presence in 

the U.S. market in 2005, but had a combined U.S. market share of 28% in 2007153. Now that the 

U.S. market is the fastest growing in the world, six foreign turbine manufacturers have built or 

are building plants here, mainly for blades and turbine assembly. 

Expanding Product Range and Market Scope. The product range and market scope of wind 

turbine manufacturers has also changed considerably since 2004154. At that time, the top-ten 

turbine manufacturers could be organized into three strategic groups (see Figure 4)155. Only 

Vestas and Enercon offered a wide range of products; for example, they offered sub-1MW, 1-3 

MW (for heavy and light wind) and off-shore turbines. Siemens, GE Wind, Gamesa, (see Table 

9) and Mitsubishi offered a narrow range of products. They concentrated mainly on one or two 

turbine sizes, but expanded early from their home base into international markets. A few 

companies (Nordex, Suzlon) offered somewhat broader product ranges that were tailored to their 

home markets, but had no ambitious plans for international expansion at that time. 

 

 

149 This contrasts with increased concentration among developers, independent power producers, and public utilities 

that are the turbine manufacturers’ customers (Merrill Lynch. (2007). Wind turbine manufacturers; Here comes 

pricing power). 150 BTM Consult. (2005). Ten year review of the international wind power industry, 1995-2004 151 Lewis, J. I. (2007). A comparison of wind power industry development strategies in Spain, India and China. 

Studies in Comparative International Development, 43 (3-4), pp. 208-232. 152 Renewable Energy World. (2007, July 25). AMSC Receives $70M Order from China’s Sinovel Wind. Retrieved 

from http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=49428

153 Wiser, & Bolinger. (2008). Annual report on U.S. wind power installation, cost, and performance trends: 2007.

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 154 Wied, M. (2007). Windy prospects: An Approach to Strategic Foresight in the Global Wind Turbine Industry.

Unpublished master's thesis, Roskilde University, Denmark, Department of Technology and Socioeconomic Planning. 155 According to Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy. New York: The Free Press, strategic groups are “an 

intermediate frame of reference between looking at the industry as a whole and considering each firm separately”. 

Such groups consist of companies that make similar choices regarding degree of vertical integration, what markets 

to enter, etc. 
49 

Companies generally expand their product range and market scope by creating or growing 

market segments that were non-existent or underserved, (e.g., new product applications or 

geographical regions). Accordingly, by 2008, most of the above firms chose either to expand 

their product line or their market scope, depending on which expansion path they had taken first. 

The arrows in Figure 4 suggest the direction of movement of firms in product range or market 

scope. Thus, Siemens, GE Wind, and Mitsubishi, which were already global companies, 

expanded their product range (mainly to the off-shore market segment). Suzlon and Nordex, 

which were domestic or regional companies, expanded globally. Economic logic suggests that it 

is difficult to expand product range and geography simultaneously because it is overwhelmingly 

costly and complex to do so. Thus, companies tend to take one path first and then the other. 

Figure 4. Strategic Groups in the Wind Industry – 2004* 
50 

No matter the order of the paths taken, the major players are now beginning to look more similar. 

They look more like Vestas did in 2004, when Vestas already had a wide product range and a 

global scope. Vestas could do this because it had been in this industry longer than the others and 

focused exclusively on wind power (not being part of a larger diversified company). 

Interestingly, Enercon, the other early wide product-range company, expects 90% of its projects 

after 2010 to be in Europe and sees the greatest potential for its wind turbines in the German 

market156. Goldwind and Sinovel remain national companies thus far, but it will be interesting to 

see what path they take towards growth. As mentioned above, Sinovel has announced plans to 

sell larger size turbines in international markets. 

Foreign companies that entered the U.S. market in the last four years did so with a single turbine 

size; Gamesa (2 MW), Siemens (2.3 MW), Suzlon 2.1 (MW), Acciona (2.3 MW). Mitsubishi 

only had a 1 MW turbine until recently, and is now offering a 2.4 MW turbine. Domestic 

manufacturers also did the same, GE Wind (1.5 MW) and Clipper (2.5 MW). Vestas still offers 

the widest product range worldwide (500 kW, 1.65 MW, 1.8 MW, 3 MW), but only installed the 

1.65 MW turbine in the U.S. in 2007157. This evidence suggests that the easiest path to 

international expansion is with a single product line. Components for any one product are interrelated and their configuration shifts with product size and perhaps application. The supply chain 

would increase greatly in complexity for multiple product class offerings. Supply chains tend to 

differ between turbine sizes. Qualifying and certifying multiple component suppliers is difficult 

enough for one product class, let alone for multiple offerings. This is especially the case in shifts 

to larger platforms, e.g., from 2 MW to 3 MW turbines. For example, there are currently very 

few suppliers in the world that are capable of making bearings for 3 MW turbines and larger158. 

Future Directions 

Industry Consolidation. High entry and exit barriers related to minimum efficient scale and 

specialized assets may encourage consolidation among incumbent turbine manufacturers. 

Whether the same will occur for component manufacturers and service providers is less certain. 

Utilities and independent power producers are acquiring developers, and as they do, they become 

more knowledgeable and sophisticated customers and likely will demand stronger warranties, 

more services, and enhanced product performance from turbine manufacturers. Turbine 

manufacturers may acquire developers also. However, this trend in the U.S. is apparent only 

among the two Spanish manufacturers, Gamesa and Acciona159. 

 

 

156 Windblatt. (2008). ENERCON's future markets. 3, 6-7. 157 Three of the top-ten turbine manufacturers expanded their product range in U.S. projects in 2008. Vestas 

introduced 500 kW, 1.8 MW and 3.0 MW turbines, Suzlon introduced 1.25 MW turbines, and Mitsubishi introduced 

2.4 MW turbines. 

158 deVries, E. (2008). The challenge of growth: Supply chain and wind turbine upscaling challenges. Renewable 

Energy World Magazine, 11 (3).

159 Wiser, & Bolinger. (2008). Annual report on U.S. wind power installation, cost, and performance trends: 2007.

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 
51 

Product and Process Innovation. As mentioned earlier, rapid market growth has resulted in 

shortages of turbines and components. In order to reduce uncertainty over sourcing and delivery, 

buyers and sellers at all levels have increasingly entered into three to five year framework 

agreements. These agreements may encourage turbine manufacturers and their component 

suppliers to increase investments in process innovation to enhance productivity, e.g., shift from 

batch to serial production, at least in the 1.5 MW to 2.5 MW range. Product innovation will 

remain strong in the 3 MW and higher turbine sizes, especially for firms that seek to enter the 

off-shore market segment. 

Rivalry among Competitors. The current economic downturn has reduced the price of energy 

substitutes, especially natural gas, which competes directly with wind for sale to utilities. 

Whether the extension of the PTC for another year is sufficient to counter the enhanced 

competiveness of natural gas remains to be seen. Rivalry between competitors (developers or 

turbine manufacturers) is generally not intense as long as the overall market grows rapidly, but 

could intensify if the market stops growing or even shrinks. This would be reflected in price cuts 

and more likely by offering more services and enhanced product performance to customers. 

Projections of Growth. It is too early to tell if projections of growth in installed capacity need to 

be revised downward in light of current economic conditions. BTM Consult (2008) expected the 

three regions of the world (Europe, Asia, and the United States) currently producing renewable 

energy capacity to contribute about equally to the projected increase in global capacity between 

2007 (19,791 MW) and 2012 (287,000 MW). There is no reason to expect the proportion to 

change in an economic downturn. European growth is expected to come more from Eastern than 

Western Europe because penetration in Western Europe is already high and sales rely heavily on 

replacement of older smaller turbines with newer larger ones (plus new off-shore installations). 

Asian growth (mainly China) will increasingly come from Chinese companies. The market share 

of Chinese manufacturers relative to foreign manufacturers has increased from 21.1% to 55.4% 

in only four years160. In the U.S., a national renewable portfolio standard or feed-in tariff would 

likely raise the expected capacity addition for 2012 above the current projection of 14,000 

MW161 to that targeted by the DOE to reach 20% wind energy power by 2030 (16,000 MW per 

year). 

 

160 BTM Consult. (2008). International Wind Energy Development, World Market Update 2007, Forecast 2008-2012 161 BTM Consult. (2008). International Wind Energy Development, World Market Update 2007, Forecast 2008-2012
52 

PHASE II. SOLAR AND WIND ENERGY INDUSTRY PARTICIPATION WITHIN THE 

APPALACHIAN REGION 

Introduction 

Phase II contains three parts, each of which studies aspects of the solar and wind industries in 

Appalachian counties. Part 1 is a review of an analysis of industrial distribution and 

concentration of manufacturing activities that was commissioned by the ARC162. It uses County 

Business Patterns data on estimated employment and plants to examine the geographical 

dispersion within the region of potential parts suppliers in the solar and wind industries and 

employment prospects. Part 2 describes the creation of a database of firms in the region that were 

identified as potentially involved in the solar and wind industries. This database included 

manufacturing firms as well as service providers such as installers and distributors. We contacted 

all of these firms to identify which ones were actually involved in the solar or wind industry. We 

sent surveys to those who reported that they were involved so that we could understand the 

organizational, workforce and competitive challenges they faced. Part 3 reviews the policy 

landscape in the Appalachian region to identify where and how policies encourage the 

development of the solar and wind industries in the region. 

NAICS Codes to Identify Potential Firms and Employment in Solar and Wind Industries 

We identified a significant number of potential firms in the solar and wind industries by using 

the six-digit NAICS codes that were used by the wind and solar Renewable Energy Policy 

Project (REPP) studies of manufacturing activity that were completed in 2004163 and 2005164, 

respectively. REPP is an advocacy group responsible for some of the early research in the U.S. 

on the potential of renewable energy to seriously augment the nation’s supply of electricity. 

REPP took the key components of renewable energy products and broke them down into their 

constituent parts and then linked them to their corresponding NAICS codes––classifying 

industrial activity based on the elemental parts of a product165. The fundamental analytical basis 

of these reports has been utilized by both government and private sector researchers to identify 

potential job creation and industrial development in particular geographic areas166. While using 

the REPP strategy as a baseline, several important studies augmented the original approach of 

REPP to form tailored lists of parts and link them to firms with potential to supply renewable 

energy industries. 

According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which administers the NAICS 

system, the NAICS system was originally designed (1) “to facilitate the collection, tabulation, 

 

162 Glasmeier, A. K., Feingold, R., Guers, A., Hay, G., Lawler, T., Meyer, A., et al. (2007, September). Energizing 

Appalachia: Global challenges and the prospect of a renewable future (Research Report). Washington, D.C.: 

Appalachian Regional Commission. Retrieved from http://www.arc.gov/images/reports/2008/energy/ARC_EnerApp_Final_full. 163 Sterzinger, G., & Svrcek, M. (2004, September). Wind turbine development: Location of manufacturing activity 

(Technical Report). Renewable Energy Policy Project. 164 Sterzinger, G., & Svrcek, M. (2005, January). Solar PV development: Location of economic activity (Technical 

Report). Renewable Energy Policy Project. 165 See Appendix III 166 See U.S. Department of Energy. (2008). 20% Wind Energy by 2030: Increasing Wind Energy's Contribution to 

U.S. Electricity Supply, DOE/GO-102008-2567. Available on-line from http://www.osti.gov/bridge. 
53 

presentation, and analysis of data relating to establishments, and (2) to promote uniformity and 

comparability in the presentation and analysis of statistical data describing the North American 

economy.”167 

NAICS codes, although useful in accounting for the elemental activities of business 

establishments were, for the purposes of our study, limited in their ability to reflect unique 

system element components of industries such as wind and solar energy. We utilized the 

classification system in both ways in which it was intended; however, it presented real 

limitations when studying an industry that had heretofore not been distinctly classified for 

accounting or research purposes. Although we could identify constituent elements of wind and 

solar systems, we could not uniquely identify establishments producing parts for these industries 

alone. This systemic problem plagues all researchers following the REPP classification 

procedure168. Throughout the locational analysis and survey administration and data collection 

process, issues arose concerning the level of effectiveness of NAICS codes when attempting to 

identify firms in the emerging industries of wind and solar energy. 

Two major limitations of the REPP procedure emerged as we proceeded. First, in Part 1, it was 

evident that the REPP listing of potential NAICS169 codes was not sufficiently comprehensive. In 

particular, depending on the REPP study, the definition of the product components of the 

industries varies by geography. For example, the breakdown of product components for the wind 

industry in Pennsylvania differs significantly from a similar study done in a state like 

Massachusetts. Thus as we built our listing of NAICS to track potential employment and 

establishments, we had to ensure we were able to account for differences in the presence of 

industry product components across the ARC states. Second, in Part 2, sole reliance on codes 

identified in REPP studies limited the sample size and the representation of potential product 

components and services in the solar and wind industries. Thus, we expanded the sample by 

adding companies that were identified in other studies or listed in industry databases or 

websites170. We found their NAICS code by consulting www.manta.com or 

www.hoovers.com.

171 By adding these firms and their NAICS code to the list of firms that were 

identified through NAICS codes used in the REPP studies, we were able to compile a database of 

firms to contact in order to verify and learn more about their involvement in the industry. 

 

167 Office of Management and Budget. Executive Office of the President. (2009, January 7). 2007 North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) -- Updates for 2012. Federal Register, 74 (4), pp. 764-768. 168 This problem is not unique to renewable energy industries. Back in the early 1980s, when high technology 

industries were beginning to emerge as sources of employment, the standard procedure for uniquely identifying 

constituent elements of these industries was the use of the occupational profile of them. This occupational profile of 

industries and product groups were identified using Standard industrial Classification codes (precursor to the 

NAICs). The parallels with today's attempt to identify the employment potential of renewables are striking. In the 

case of high tech, misclassification, especially related to the location of establishments and potential of employment 

similarly plagued the early researchers working on high technology industry regional development (see Markusen, 

A. R., Hall, P. & Glassmeier, A. (1986). High-Tech America: The What, How, Where and Why of the Sunrise 

Industries. London: Allen and Unwin).

169 See Appendix III for codes identified in REPP Reports. 170 See Major Survey Findings/Observations of this report, p.76-77 171 Another shortcoming of using NAICS codes is that codes are not necessarily unique and reference sources don’t 

always agree on the code. This is because sometimes a firm manufactures, installs and sells its product. One source 

may consider manufacturing to be the firms’ primary function and another source considers it to be distribution. 
54 

Part 1. Pattern of Manufacturing Activities and Potential Employment in Appalachia 

Sources and Methodology. This section of the report analyzes the capacity of the Appalachian 

region to supply major manufactured components for renewable energy industries, compiling 

information on existing manufacturing establishments, estimated employment totals, locations 

and sector concentrations within the region172. Six-digit NAICS codes were analyzed for all 

counties within the Appalachian region. Using County Business Patterns (CBP) data, which 

includes establishment counts and estimated employment levels, NAICS codes were used to 

identify product components associated with the solar and wind industries. The component 

NAICS codes were derived from reports produced by the Renewable Energy Policy Project173. 

As previously discussed, this analysis reflects industry specific manufactured components that 

are similar to, or substitutable for, the major manufactured components in the solar and wind 

energy industries. 

In this analysis, existing establishments that manufacture the relevant components in the 

Appalachian region were isolated. We aggregated the NAICs-code identified establishments into 

two groups, wind and solar, for ease of discussion. The results are presented for the wind and 

solar sectors, and for counties that meet one of four criteria: 1) estimated job totals of 500 or 

greater; 2) 10 or greater establishments; 3) an average estimated establishment employment size 

of 125 employees or greater; or 4) five or more components for the industry are produced. 

Several NAICS codes are relevant to more than one renewable energy industry. 

 

The analysis that follows is aimed at demonstrating the relative capacity of counties within ARC 

states to participate in the potential manufacture of components for the wind and solar industries. 

This analysis reflects not only the potential capacity to manufacture renewable components from 

existing establishments within the region, but also the potential distribution of increased 

manufacturing that might accompany continued growth in the renewable energy sector. Analysis 

in this section of the report reveals distribution of existing establishments within states, and 

potential clusters of manufacturers with the potential to produce parts for individual energy 

sectors. 

Results. The share of employment and the location of establishments are not equally distributed 

between all of the ARC member states or their respective counties (see Figures 5 and 6)174. 

Pennsylvania possesses the largest job potential in the region, followed by Tennessee, North 

Carolina and South Carolina, respectively. Employment totals range from 1,438 in Maryland, 

possessing 1% of the potential, up to 60,115 in Pennsylvania with 30% of the employment 

potential175. 

It is important to note that the number of counties encompassed within the ARC varies greatly 

between member states, ranging from all of West Virginia’s 55 counties to 52 of Pennsylvania’s, 

to only six from South Carolina and three from Maryland. 

 

172 The analysis in this section is based on research by A. Glasmeier, et al., Ibid. 173 Sterzinger, G., & Svrcek, M. (2005). Component Manufacturing: Ohio’s Future in the Renewable Energy 

Industry. Renewable Energy Policy Project. 174 See Appendix IV for more detailed data aggregated by state. 175 Several NAICS codes are relevant to more than one renewable energy industry. State-based totals include 

potential facilities for solar, wind and biomass production. 
55 

Figure 5. Potential Renewable Energy Manufacturing Employment in ARC Counties (By State)

Figure 6. Total Establishments with Renewable Manufacturing Potential in ARC Counties (By State) 

County-Level Solar Manufacturing Capacity. Counties with substantial presence of 

establishments that have the potential to produce components for the solar industry were selected 

for either their total number of potential jobs in the solar sector, total number of firms per county, 

the potential number of different types of components for the solar sector, or average 

establishment size176. Figures 5-10 show solar job totals, number of potential establishments and 

the number of different solar components for counties with job totals over 500 and wind 

components for counties with job totals over 1000. 

 

176 See Glasmeier, et al., Sources & Metholodogy, pp 34-35. 

Potential Renewable Energy Manufacturing Employment in ARC Counties

Alabama, 9,064, 5% Georgia, 15,293, 8%

Kentucky, 7,206, 4%

Maryland, 1,436, 1%

New York, 12,526, 6%

North Carolina, 16,604,

8%

Ohio, 9,787, 5%

Pennsylvania, 60,115, 30%

South Carolina, 16,319,

8%

Tennessee, 26,244, 13%

West Virginia, 9,833, 5%

Mississippi, 6,681, 3%

Virginia, 8,690, 4%

Total Establishments with Renewable Manufacturing Potential in ARC Counties

Alabama, 135, 5%

Georgia, 258, 9%

Maryland, 33, 1%

New York, 138, 5%

North Carolina, 237, 9%

Ohio, 191, 7%

Pennsylvania, 866, 33%

South Carolina, 170, 6%

Tennessee, 355, 13%

West Virginia, 148, 5%

Mississippi, 72, 3%

Kentucky, 66, 2%

Virginia, 68, 2%
56 

Figure 7. Counties with Potential Solar Manufacturing Jobs over 500 

Figure 8. The Number of Firms and Components for Counties with Potential Solar Job Totals over 500 

Counties with Potential Solar Manufacturing Jobs Over 500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Wood

Allegheny

Watauga

Westmoreland

Greenville

Spartanburg

Forsyth

Burke

Luzerne

Erie

Oconee

Washington

MadisonHawkins

Muskingum

Schuylkill

Hamilton

Buncombe

Beaver

Steuben

WV PA NC PA SC SC NC NC PA PA SC OH KY TN OH PA TN NC PA NY

Number of Firms and Components for Counties with Potential Solar

Manufacturing Jobs Over 500 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Wood

Allegheny

Watauga

Westmoreland

Greenville

Spartanburg

Forsyth

Burke

Luzerne

Erie

Oconee

Washington

MadisonHawkins

Muskingum

Schuylkill

Hamilton

Buncombe

Beaver

Steuben

WVPA NC PA SCSCNCNCPA PA SCOHKY TNOHPA TNNC PA NY

Number of

Firms

Number of

Components
57 

Figure 9. Counties with Potential Wind Manufacturing Job Totals over 1,000 

Figure 10. Number of Firms and Components in Counties with Potential Wind Manufacturing Jobs over 1,000 

Counties with Potential Wind Manufacturing Jobs Over 1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Erie

Greenville

Westmoreland

Gwinnett

Broome

Anderson

Allegheny

Lycoming

Knox

Spartanburg

Watauga

Buncombe

Hall

Cherokee

Ritchie

Chautauqua

Jackson

Beaver

Rutherford

PA SC PA GA NY SC PA PA TN SC NC NC GA SC WV NY KY PA NC

Number of Firms and Components in Counties iwith Potential Wind

Manufacturing Jobs Over 1000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Erie

Greenville

Westmoreland

Gwinnett

Broome

Anderson

Allegheny

Lycoming

Knox

Spartanburg

Watauga

Buncombe

Hall

Cherokee

Ritchie

Chautauqua

Jackson

Beaver

Rutherford

PA SC PA GA NY SC PA PA TN SCNC NC GA SCWV NY KY PA NC

Number of

Firms

Number of

Components
58 

Part 2. Identifying and Surveying Firms Involved in the Solar and Wind Industries 

The first task of Part 2 was to build a database of firms that have the potential to be involved in 

the solar and/or wind industries in the Appalachian region. We only included firms with 

solar/wind facilities in Appalachian counties (as defined by Appalachian Regional Commission 

standards)177. This was the only way to ensure an objective and consistent basis for inclusion or 

exclusion in the study. Firms on this list were then contacted to document their involvement in 

the target industries. We then administered surveys to those firms that reported to be involved in 

these industries. 

Database Construction. In the ARC region, using NAICS codes as identifiers, the universe of all 

companies involved in the solar and/or wind industries is unknown and largely undefined within 

existing means of categorization. Given the previously noted constraints of the classification 

system, we recognized in this project there was no feasible way absent a much larger and more 

resource intensive study to develop a 100% inclusive count of firms involved in the two 

industries. To the best of our ability, and following the practice of other researchers in the field, 

we developed a list of firms for potential interviews, using several widely used and publicly 

available sources to construct a database of firms to contact. 

Typically, a research project that has as its goal the identification of firms based on industry 

location and activity relies on a database that yields both a high degree of specificity and 

geographic precision. However, few publicly available databases can provide the level of detail 

necessary to accomplish that goal. In light of these limitations, using multiple recognized 

sources, we chose a reasonable pathway to achieve our goal of finding solar and/or wind energy 

companies within Appalachia. 

We expanded our sample of potential firms by adding 85 firms that were identified in Phase I of 

this report178. We also utilized industry reports and databases (listed below) to supplement the 

Phase I listing. Finally, we searched Hoover’s online-database using the NAICS codes identified 

in the REPP reports. A detailed description of each source and the number of companies 

identified follows: 

Saint Francis University Renewable Energy Directory179––Fourteen firms came from this small 

database that is compiled by St. Francis University’s (Loretto, PA) Renewable Energy Center. 

The selection of this source was based on the center's role in small scale renewable energy 

industries. In particular, the St. Francis center is a DOE-funded program for the deployment and 

study of small wind systems. Its client base is national in scope. It contains over 60 firms that 

were pre-contacted and confirmed to serve the biofuels, geothermal, hydro, solar, or wind 

sectors. Mainly, the directory is focused on installers that connect equipment manufacturers with 

end users. The database contains 24 firms in solar and 17 in wind energy. Some firms are crosslisted and appear as installers/distributors of both types of systems. 

 

177 See Appalachian Regional Commission. (n.d.). http://www.arc.gov/index.do?nodeID=27 for a listing of ARCdefined counties.

178 See Phase I of this report, Table 4 on p. 14 and Table 8 on p. 38. 

179 Saint Francis University. (n.d.). Pennsylvania Renewable Energy Directory. Retrieved from Saint Francis 

University Renewable Energy Center Website: http://www.francis.edu/renewableenergy4pa.htm 
59 

Alternative Energy Report: Central PA Workforce Development Area180 ––We gathered the 

names of 113 firms from this report, which was prepared by the Central Pennsylvania Workforce 

Development Corporation (CPWDC) for the Central Pennsylvania Workforce Investment Board. 

These organizations are driven by their common mission––to support labor and job training 

demands in central Pennsylvania. The report identifies firms, using the standard REPP-defined 

NAICS codes for both solar and wind, that have the potential to be involved in either sector in a 

nine-county region in central Pennsylvania. 

Pennsylvania Wind Energy Symposium––We utilized the list of participants from the 2008 

Pennsylvania Wind Energy Symposium, held in November 2008 at Penn State, to help build our 

database of firms. This symposium was regional in scope, with participants from states including 

Kentucky, Maryland, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. After 

reviewing the listing of individuals, we determined that 42 associated companies/organizations 

fell within the ARC borders. These individuals and firms encompassed installers, manufacturers, 

educators, and many other roles within the national wind market. We utilized information that 

was provided to conference organizers to contact these respective entities. 

Hoover’s Database––Hoover’s is a Dun & Bradstreet commercial database that provides 

information on more than 19 million firms worldwide. The interface allows users to input search 

criteria and generate a list of companies that fits user-defined criteria and falls within the 

inherent limits of the database itself. Aware of the limits of the REPP studies – the methodology 

used to identify renewable energy companies in various government and private sector studies181

– we focused our Hoover’s search on two major limiting factors––location within the 

Appalachian Region and REPP-defined NAICS codes. We utilized REPP codes in this search in 

order to maintain a level of comparability and standardization across geography and firms. Our 

search yielded 109 firms to add to the database. 

It is important to note that Hoover’s search criteria focus exclusively on metropolitan areas thus 

skewing the collection of firms toward urban locations. This, along with other previously 

mentioned limiting factors, makes it impossible to identify all potential firms in the target 

industries and prevents the compiled universe of companies from being a representative sample. 

As a result of this information gathering, we compiled a list of 363 firms that were in the ARC 

region and potentially involved in the solar and/or wind industries, but were unconfirmed 

participants. The next section describes the process used to refine this list and determine 

involvement in the solar and/or wind energy industries. See Figure 11 for more detail. 

 

180 Central Pennsylvania Workforce Development Corporation. (2007, September). Alternative energy report: 

Central Pennsylvania workforce investment area (Research Report). Lewisburg, PA: Central Pennsylvania 

Workforce Investment Board.

181 See earlier section: “Identifying Constituent Elements of Wind and Solar Energy Industries” for further 

discussion.
60 

Figure 11. Phase II – Construction of Firm Database

Sample Details. Of the 363 total companies identified, 132 (36%) come from Pennsylvania. The 

Commonwealth is oversampled in this collection of possible firms for two main reasons: (1) the 

need to pilot the survey and test its ability to collect quality data, and (2) more than 30% of 

regional renewable energy industry capacity, as identified by Energizing Appalachia182, is 

located in Pennsylvania. In order to capture the widest swath of sectors within the wind and solar 

 

182Glasmeier, A. K., Feingold, R., Guers, A., Hay, G., Lawler, T., Meyer, A., et al. (2007, September). Energizing 

Appalachia: Global challenges and the prospect of a renewable future (Research Report). Washington, D.C.: 

Appalachian Regional Commission. Retrieved from http://www.arc.gov/images/reports/2008/energy/ARC_EnerApp_Final_full. 
61 

industries, we needed to ensure that as many companies from Pennsylvania were included as 

possible. 

Limiting the Collection of Potential Companies. Once we assembled contact information for all 

363 firms, we used both Internet searches and telephone calls to determine their involvement in 

the target industries. First, we attempted to contact all 363 firms by telephone. If we were unable 

to contact a firm, we turned to information available on the Internet to determine the extent of its 

solar or wind activities. If no information was available online, we considered the firm ‘unable to 

contact.’ 

Of the original set of 363 firms, we found that two of the 74 currently involved firms were 

duplicates (in both cases the company was listed under both the owner’s name and the company 

name at the same address). We confirmed that the remaining 72 companies or 20% were 

involved in solar and/or wind energy industry activities; significant supply chain participation for 

an emerging industrial sector. Of the 207 with no industry involvement, 194 responded with a 

definitive “no” when asked about involvement and 13 firms said that they were involved, but had 

solar or wind production or service facilities only outside the region. We were unable to verify 

the product or services of 54 firms via the phone or Internet. In addition, 28 companies had 

phone lines that were disconnected, or when answered, responded that the company was “out of 

business”. We considered these firms to be defunct. See Figure 12 for a graphic representation of 

how the database of firms is constructed. 

Figure 12. Collection of Firms (361 Total)

After attempting to reach all 363 companies, we confirmed that 72 companies were involved in 

solar and/or wind energy industry activities. This number includes manufacturers and service 

providers. For the purposes of this study, we defined service providers as including installers, 
62 

site developers, maintenance technicians, and/or distributors. Based on linking firms with their 

NAICS code, we determined that 21 firms were involved in manufacturing components for the 

wind or solar industry and 34 firms were service providers. We were unable to determine the 

NAICS code for 17 of the 72 firms. A check of the websites of most of these 17 firms suggests 

that they are service providers. However, we will leave their designation as undetermined for 

purposes of this study. See Table 12 for a listing of NAICS codes and corresponding 

products/services for companies that we identified as involved in the solar or wind industries. 

Table 12. NAICS 2007 Codes of Solar and Wind Industry Participants (n =72) 

# NAICS NAICS Industry Sample Products/Services 

19 221119 

236115 

236116 

238210 

238220 

238290 

Plumbers, electricians, HVAC contractors, 

commercial and residential builders, code 

221119 includes developers/installers of 

large wind farms, solar systems 

Construction of buildings, installation of 

solar panels, wind systems on residential 

or commercial buildings. Some repair and 

distribution of systems. 

21 325211 

326199 

327211 

331511 

332312 

332991 

333295 

333612 

334413 

334513 

334517 

335312 

335313 

335911 

335931 

335999 

336412 

Manufacturing: plastics material and resin, 

flat glass, iron foundries, fabricated 

structural metal, ball and roller bearings, 

semiconductor and related device, 

instruments and related products, 

measuring, displaying, and controlling 

industrial process variables, motors and 

generators, switchgear and switchboard 

apparatus, storage battery, current-carrying 

wiring device, all other miscellaneous 

electrical equipment and components, 

aircraft engine and engine parts 

Materials used in wind/solar, wind turbine 

blades, glass forsolar panels; solar 

incorporated skylights, wind turbine hubs, 

bedplates, and gearbox housings for wind 

turbines and solar arrays, wind turbine 

tower, wind turbine bearings, slip rings 

used in electronic control of wind turbines; 

solar modules, SCADA manufacturing and 

fabrication, turbine inspection equipment, 

wind turbine blades, electrical systems 

used in wind turbines, solar energy storage 

battery development and distribution, 

production of switchgear equipment for 

solar PV, distributors and installers of 

renewable energy systems, gearboxes for 

wind turbines 

9 423510 

423610 

423620 

444110 

444190 

453998 

488999 

Electrical apparatus and equipment, wiring 

supplies, and related equipment merchant 

wholesalers, electrical and electronic 

appliance, television, and radio set 

merchant wholesalers 

home centers, other building material 

dealers 

Wholesale and retail distribution of solar 

PV, small wind systems, miscellaneous 

renewable energy products, some 

installation, repair, maintenance of solar 

and wind systems 

6 517919 

541330 

541611 

541990 

561110 

561990 

All other telecommunications, engineering 

services, all other professional, scientific, 

and technical services, office 

administrative services 

Professional services, consulting, 

feasibility assessment, some design and 

installation of solar and small wind 

systems 

17 Unable to determine NAICS code 
63 

Spatial Analysis of Firms. In order to identify the spatial distribution of the firms included in the 

database and those involved in the industries, we mapped the information. The maps that follow 

(See Maps 1 through 4) are choropleth in style and display the density of firms at the county 

scale. 

Map 1 displays the spatial distribution of all 363 firms identified as having the potential to be 

involved in the solar and/or wind energy industries in the Appalachian region. The companies 

are distributed across 108 unique counties and all 13 ARC states are represented. While the 

distribution seems haphazard at first glance, two major themes emerge. First, clusters appear 

around major urban areas (especially in the South) and traditional industrial hubs. This may be 

due to the limitations of Hoover’s database in areas in which less supplementary data were 

available to us. Second, the concentration of companies, in general, is consistent with earlier 

research presented in Energizing Appalachia183.

Map 2 identifies the 72 firms that we determined to be involved in either industry. Spread across 

51 unique counties, the pattern is somewhat dispersed, but with most firms coming from New 

York, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina. Alabama and Mississippi showed the fewest number of 

involved firms in either industry. 

Map 3 identifies the 21 firms involved, in some way in the manufacturing of goods along the 

solar or wind energy equipment supply chain. These companies are located within 18 regional 

counties. This map clearly shows the gap between potential involvement (presented in Map 1) 

and actual participation in the solar/wind industries in the region. Pennsylvania’s Allegheny 

County has the most companies involved in manufacturing. 

Map 4 shows service providers. They are spread rather evenly across the region and are more 

frequently found than their manufacturing counterparts. In fact, the map identifies 34 firms in 39 

separate counties. Theoretically, the spatial distribution of these companies could be correlated 

with the wind and solar resource geography in the region. 

 

183 Glasmeier, et al., Ibid 
64 

MAP 1 
65 

MAP 2 
66 

MAP 3 
67 

MAP 4 
68 

Identifying and Contacting Firms through Survey. Prior to administering the survey across the 

entire region, we pilot-tested it with Pennsylvania-based firms that were listed in the Central 

Pennsylvania Workforce Development Corporation (CPWDC) report. As a result, we revised 

some of the survey questions. We sent the survey to the 72 firms that were identified as involved 

in the solar and/or wind industries184. Forty surveys were returned or completed via telephone 

interview. We sent several reminders to the firms that did not return the survey. 

 

Firms could complete the survey and mail or email it to us, or they could answer the questions 

over the phone185. Per the research proposal, the survey sought to gain insight into the challenges 

these companies faced in entering the solar or wind industry and in obtaining and developing 

their workforce. 

 

The survey is one of several sources of data that we collected for this study, and should be 

interpreted in light of all of the sources of data collected. Instead the findings serve mainly to 

suggest directions for more refined future research. The responses, however, provide valuable 

case-by-case insight into regional firms involved in the two industries. 

The following section offers an in-depth, question-by-question analysis of the survey results186. 

Note that variation in number of survey responses between questions is a result of non-response 

on those items, not a decision to exclude any data provided. This additional caveat serves to 

reinforce our point that the survey results, while suggestive, are not necessarily indicative of 

industry-wide practices or trends. 

Analysis of Survey Results 

Company/Organization Information. In the first part of the survey, we asked for basic 

identifying information, as well as year established, location, NAICS classification, number of 

employees, legal structure, primary functions and markets, and position along the supply chain. 

Table 13 shows the firms that responded by type of firm and year of establishment. 

 

 

184 Because of the small number of manufacturing firms in the initial sample that reportedly were involved in solar 

or wind industry, we decided to mail a second set of surveys in June 2009 that included manufacturing firms among 

the original 72 that did not respond our first request. We also included 12 manufacturing firms from the original 363 

that were identified as “involved but outside the region” because they had engineering or sales facilities in the 

region. Finally, we included nine firms listed in a publication from the Tennessee Department of Labor and 

Workforce Development (Growing Green: The Potential for Green Job Growth in Tennessee, November 2008), two 

from a study by Marshall University (Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in Appalachia: Policy and Potential, 

August 28, 2006), and seven identified by an auto glass manufacturer in Pennsylvania. These 18 additional firms are 

included in Appendix VI in bold type.

185 A complete version of the survey instrument is available in Appendix V. 186 All 363 potential participant firms are listed in Appendix VI. No firm names or contact information are 

associated with their survey results in the item analysis, however. Non-disclosure is a requirement of university 

Human Subjects policies. Furthermore, we indicated to firms surveyed that no identifying information would be 

made public or discussed in the final report such that an individual firm could be identified. 
69 

 

Table 13. Founding Years of Responding Firms (n=39) 

Type of 

Firm 

Year Established 

1850–1900 1901–1950 1951–2000 2001- 

Installers 0 0 5 4 

Manufacturers 4 5 10 4 

Distributors 0 1 3 3 

As expected, installers and distributors are younger firms than are manufacturers. Most installers 

and distributors likely entered the solar or wind industry to take advantage of perceived 

opportunities in the 1990s and afterwards. As the majority of manufacturers were founded before 

solar or wind technology was very well developed or barely existed, these manufacturing firms 

were able to adapt their existing technologies and capabilities to produce products for the solar 

and wind industries. A few manufacturing firms were created for the sole purpose of serving 

these industries. 

Manufacturers had the highest average number of employees (412), with a range from 1 to 

39,000. Installers had the lowest average number of employees (12.4) and distributors had an 

average of 59.7 employees, but this number was elevated due to one company having 300 

employees. Manufacturers conducted business from an average of 10.6 locations, but one large 

firm elevated the average by having 160 location (median = 1). Installers were almost 

exclusively single location businesses (average = 1.4). Most distributors operate from few 

locations (median = 2), but the average was elevated to 48.6 locations because one firm reported 

that its products were sold at 325 locations by licensed franchisees. 

Question 11. We asked each firm to describe its legal structure. Thirty-nine firms responded to 

this question. There is no discernable pattern between types of firms. Thirteen firms identified 

themselves as S-Corporations, an IRS tax election used by small businesses with fewer than 75 

shareholders187. Nine firms were Limited Liability Corporations (LLCs). Twelve firms were 

conventional corporations. Two firms were sole proprietorships. Three firms gave answers that 

were not on our list of options, (e.g., dealership). 

We also asked firms to provide us with their NAICS 2007 code. In most cases, we knew the 

codes for these firms from other sources; however, the data collected allowed us to compare our 

designation with theirs. In almost all cases, our designation and theirs were in agreement. In a 

few cases, respondents didn’t know their NAICS code nor could we find it in the sources we 

consulted. The NAICS codes, their industry description, and the products and/or services they 

produce are shown in Table 14. 

 

 

187 U.S. Internal Revenue Code, Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter S, Part I, §1361(b)(1)(A). (n.d.). S 

corporation defined. Retrieved from www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/1361(b)(1)(A).html 
70 

Table 14. NAICS 2007 Codes of Survey Respondents (n=40) 

# NAICS Industry Products/Services Provided 

10 236116 

236118 

237130 

237132 

238220 

238290 

238390 

238990 

Plumbing, Heating, and AirConditioning Contractors Installation, maintenance, repair, and distribution of 

wind and solar systems 

23 325211 

325510 

326199 

327211 

331511 

332312 

332710 

333411 

333611 

333612 

334513 

335312 

335911 

335931 

335999 

339113 

Manufacturers: plastics material and 

resin, all other plastics products, 

flat glass manufacturing, iron 

foundries, fabricated structural 

metal, current-carrying wiring 

device, all other miscellaneous 

electrical equipment and 

components 

Manufacture input materials used in wind/solar, wind 

turbine blades, glass used in construction of solar 

panels; installation of solar incorporated skylights, 

wind turbine hubs, bedplates, and gearbox housings for 

wind turbines and solar arrays, wind turbine towers, 

switchgear equipment for solar PV, paint and coating 

manufacturing 

4 

423490 

423510 

453998 

Electrical apparatus and equipment, 

wiring supplies, and related 

equipment merchant wholesalers, 

electrical and electronic appliance, 

television, and radio set merchant 

wholesalers 

home centers, other building 

material dealers 

Wholesale and retail distribution of solar PV, small 

wind systems, miscellaneous renewable energy 

products, some installation, repair, maintenance of 

solar and wind systems 

1 517919 All other telecommunications Professional services and consulting, feasibility 

assessment, design, installation of wind/solar systems 

2 Unable to determine NAICS code 

Question 12. Forty respondents answered this question. Respondents were asked to describe the 

primary functions of their businesses based on the products or services they provide to their 

customers. The answers indicate that most firms served primary, secondary or more markets, 

including the solar and wind energy industries. Most of the installers (7) reported that the 

primary function of the business was solar or wind related. Most of the manufacturers (19), 

however, reported that the primary function of their business was not wind or solar related. The 

distributors were mixed with half the firms reporting that their primary business was solar or 

wind, and half reporting other products or services. 
71 

Question 13. Forty respondents answered this question. They were asked to indicate who their 

customers are, (i.e., what sectors do they serve). In a few cases, their answers were unclear or did 

not address the question sufficiently. We were able in these cases to obtain the information that 

we sought from their company websites. Generally, their answers fell into four major categories: 

residential, commercial, industrial, or public sector. Many respondents reported that they served 

more than one sector. As expected, manufacturing firms serve the commercial sector almost 

exclusively. Installers and distributors served both residential and commercial/industrial sectors, 

with the former serving residential customers more heavily. The responses are shown in Table 

15. 

 Table 15. Sectors Served by Founding Years of Responding Firms (n=40) 

Type of 

Firm 

Sectors 

Residential Commercial/ 

Industrial 

Public Sector 

Installers 8 4 2 

Manufacturers 0 21 2 

Distributors 3 5 1 

Question 14. This question asked respondents whether they were an OEM, first-tier, second-tier 

or third-tier supplier. Table 16 shows the responses. The total number of responses is greater 

than 40 because some respondents reported more than one position in the supply chain. This 

question was intended originally for manufacturers before we expanded the sample to include 

installers and distributors. Consequently, we believe that many installers and distributors had 

difficulty answering the question. Six respondents indicated that they were unsure of their 

supply-chain position. It seems likely also that some installers who reported themselves as firsttier suppliers interpreted OEMs as the end-user or customer. Thus answers to this question 

should be interpreted cautiously. 

 

Table 16. Position in the Supply-Chain (n=40) 

 

Type of 

Firm 

Supply Chain Position 

OEM First Tier Second Tier Third Tier Unsure 

Installers 1 6 2 2 3 

Manufacturers 6 11 6 4 2 

Distributors 0 5 2 0 1 
72 

Experience in Solar or Wind Industries. In the second part of the survey, we gathered 

information about the ways in which companies are involved in the solar and/or wind industries. 

Items about products provided to these markets, challenges in starting to produce renewable 

energy products, sales, and changes over time allowed us to deepen our understanding of the 

characteristics of firms in these respective markets. 

Question 15. Thirty respondents answered this question. We asked respondents to indicate the 

products or services they provide to the solar or wind industry. In most cases, manufacturing 

firms were limited to just one industry. Installers and service providers, however, often served 

both industries. Specifically, they provide services for installation of solar PV and small wind 

turbines. Three of the manufacturers indicated that they were not currently supplying either 

industry, but had done so previously or currently were bidding for contracts. Table 17 provides 

the details of their responses. 

Table 17. Products/Services Provided by Survey Respondents, by Sector (n=30) 

SOLAR WIND BOTH 

Covered glass Turbine bases Design services 

Batteries Turbine towers Installation 

Steel Products Blades Sales of PV and wind equip. 

Switchgears/Electronics Enclosed gears 

Pumps Hubs 

Controls Gearboxes 

Inks and polymers Main shafts for turbines 

Question 16. Twenty-four respondents answered this question. The question asked if their firms 

had been created to serve the solar or wind industry. Although a seemingly straightforward 

question, the large number of missing answers (16) was due to the question being omitted in the 

early surveys. The pattern among the 24 responses received was that installers and distributors 

were much more likely to have been created for the solar or wind industry than manufacturers (7 

versus 2), and manufacturers more likely than installers and distributors not to have been created 

for this purpose (13 versus 2). 

Question 17. This question had two parts: (a) If your business was not originally created to 

provide renewable energy products, what prompted you to start doing so? (b) In what year did 

you begin to sell products to the wind and solar industries? Some respondents were confused by 

the phrasing of the question and answered even if their business was created originally for 

renewable energy products. Specifically, seven installers and distributors and three 

manufacturers reported that solar or wind was their original business. Many of the manufacturers 

cited recognition of opportunity as the reason for entry into this business, but most interesting is 

that five of these firms reported that they entered the business because their customers requested 

that they make parts or components for them. Part b of the question asked what year they started 

to work in the solar or wind industry. Nine respondents did not answer this question. Perhaps 

they did not see that the question had two parts. Only ten of the 31 firms that answered part b 

reported having entered the solar or wind industry before 2000. 
73 

Question 18. Thirty-seven respondents answered this question, which asked respondents about 

the challenges they faced in starting to sell solar or wind-related products. The most frequent 

answer related to customer education and awareness of the benefits of solar and wind energy as 

well as the extent and certainty of demand. The second most frequent response related to 

acquisition of technical knowledge. The third most frequent response concerned foreign 

competition. Manufacturing firms cited technical knowledge most frequently and installers and 

distributors cited customer demand, education and awareness most frequently. 

Question 19. This question had three parts, which may explain the high number of missing cases 

in the last two parts. Also, some respondents may not have answered questions because the 

answers required disclosure of sensitive data. First, we asked what percentage of overall yearly 

profit came from sales in the wind/solar sector. Twenty-four respondents answered the question. 

Twelve respondents indicated that five percent of sales or less came from solar or wind. All but 

one of these respondents were manufacturers. Eight of the remaining twelve respondents 

reported that 50% or more of their sales came from solar or wind. Seven of the eight respondents 

were installers or distributors. Second, we asked about growth of sales. The remaining four 

respondents reported sales between 5-49% from solar or wind. Eleven respondents answered this 

question. Eleven indicated that sales had increased over the past year. Third, we asked about 

market share. Only eleven respondents answered this question. Most of them indicated less than 

1%. The large number of missing answers (26) was due to many respondents saying they did not 

know, could not determine, or the frame of reference for market share was unclear, e.g., state, 

region, national. 

Question 20. This question asked respondents if they provide services (e.g., product design 

solutions, customer support, collaboration, etc.) to their domestic customers, and how essential 

they were in selling their products and competing in the marketplace. Twenty-five respondents 

answered this question. Twenty-one said that such services were essential to selling their 

products. Four did not think such services were essential. 

Question 21. This question asked respondents if overall sales had been growing in the renewable 

portion of their business. This question was asked only in a revised version of the survey, 

essentially as a stand-alone question instead of a part of question 19. Only twenty-two 

respondents were asked this question. Fourteen of them said that sales were growing and eight 

said that sales were slowing, flat or down. When combined with the eleven answers from the 

second part of question 19, we have a total of 25 respondents who said that sales were growing 

and nine who said they were not. 

Question 22. We asked those companies that reported growth in their wind and/or solar energy 

businesses to list the factors that contributed to their growth. Reasons cited included an increase 

in production efficiency, overall industry growth, greater public awareness, increased ROI for 

consumers, greater federal solar tax incentives, new product development, commercialization of 

the technology, increased internal capacity, and soaring energy prices. All of these are factors 

generally seen as working together to help promote renewable energy in the U.S. 

Workforce Issues. Policy makers are concerned about the extent to which human capital is 

available for the growth of the solar and wind industries. There is no comprehensive study of the 

growing number of training programs that are designed to develop a workforce for the renewable 
74 

energy industries. In the absence of consensus about the required skills to work in these 

industries and the limited, but growing number of programs of varying quality, duration, and cost 

that are available to train workers for these industries, firms in these industries must address 

workforce issues especially as they relate to product standards and the ability of the existing 

workforce to meet skill requirements. 

 

The third part of the survey asked about workforce issues. We asked questions about new hires, 

identification of potential employees, requisite skills needed for wind/solar energy production, 

training programs, and overall workforce preparedness. 

Question 23. We asked respondents if providing products and/or services to the solar or wind 

industry has led them to hire any new people in the last twelve months. Thirty-four respondents 

answered this question. Fifteen respondents said yes and 19 said no. There was no discernable 

difference between manufacturers, installers and distributors. These data indicate that companies 

may be entering the solar and wind industries, but job creation does not necessarily follow. Two 

firms reported that growth in their solar and wind business did not require them to hire new 

workers because they could shift workers from other businesses that had slowed recently. 

 

Question 24. We asked firms that increased their workforce due to growth in the wind/solar 

industry last year how they identified new employees. Twenty-three companies reported that 

they did not grow188. Among the 17 that grew, there was no commonly cited means or source for 

identifying new employees. Some used traditional advertising methods, career fairs, and resume 

collection. Others used contacts within the industry or took employees from other parts of their 

business. Temporary agencies, headhunters, networking, technology schools, cooperative 

programs, and government organizations were also cited as ways to identify potential employees. 

Question 25. As a follow up, we asked if companies faced difficulty in hiring or finding a 

sufficient number of workers for their business. Thirty-three respondents answered this question. 

Twenty-one said they had no difficulty in hiring or finding or hiring workers. However, many of 

them reported in the previous question that their sales had not grown nor were they hiring any 

new workers. Twelve respondents reported they had difficulty in hiring workers. 

Question 26. This question asked respondents to indicate whether or not they had used statesponsored programs to locate new employees, train them, or locate their business. Thirty-six 

respondents answered this question. Twenty-three respondents said they did not use such 

programs. Thirteen said that they used such programs. Ten of the thirteen were manufacturing 

firms. 

Question 27. Thirty respondents answered this question. The question asked respondents if solar 

and/or wind production required a different set of skills as compared to other products that they 

produce. Interestingly, 10 of the 15 firms that said yes, that different sets of skills were required, 

were installers or distributors, and 12 of the 15 firms that said no were manufacturers. 

 

188 Respondents left the space for this answer blank if their workforce did not grow. 
75 

Question 28. This question asked respondents what types of skills they wanted their employees 

to obtain. There was a follow-up question that asked if their employees already obtained the 

skills they wanted them to have. The follow-up question was unanswered in virtually all cases. 

As regards the first question, nine installers and distributors focused on general ability, good 

math and verbal skills, and on-the-job training. Manufacturers were more specific in the skills 

they wanted their employees to obtain, such as welding and machining skills, blueprint reading, 

electrical and mechanical knowledge, and CAD drawing. As was noted in question 26, 

manufacturers frequently use state-sponsored training programs for the skills they want their 

workers to obtain. 

Question 29. We asked firms to grade the preparedness of their employees for participation in the 

solar or wind industry along an ordinal scale from 1 (not prepared) to 5 (extremely prepared). No 

discernable differences were apparent between manufacturers, installers and distributors. 

Table 18. Preparedness of Employees for Participation in the Solar or Wind Industry (n=40)

# of Firms Scale of Preparedness 

9 5 – Extremely Prepared 

14 4 – Well Prepared 

12 3 – Somewhat Prepared 

3 2 – Insufficiently Prepared 

0 1 – Not Prepared 

Questions 30–31. The answers to these two questions were combined. Question 30 asked if 

training would be required to prepare employees. Question 31 asked if skills needed to be 

upgraded in the future, what sources would be considered for help with training. The most 

common response for these combined questions was in-house training, vo-techs, community 

colleges, consultants, internships, seminars, and trade publications were mentioned. Two 

installers/distributors mentioned NABCEP certification. 

Question 32. This question asked if involvement in the wind/solar industries required updating, 

expanding, or relocating any business facilities. This question was not asked in an earlier version 

of the survey. Therefore, only 21 of 40 respondents answered this question. Only seven of these 

21 respondents answered yes to this question. Six were manufacturers, one was an installer and 

one was a distributor. 

Question 33. This question asked companies to look to the next five years and indicate whether 

they thought that growth in wind and solar energy markets would require them to hire additional 

workers. Twenty-nine of 32 respondents indicated that more workers would be needed in the 

future. One answered that it depends on growth in demand. The remaining two respondents said 

that they would not be required to hire more workers. 

Foreign Markets Involvement. The fourth part of the survey asked participants about their 

involvement in foreign markets. Since many of the major OEMs and tier 1 suppliers in the solar 

and wind industries are foreign-based, it was thought important to explore how U.S. firms 

competed against foreign suppliers on the latter’s native turf. 
76 

Question 34. We asked firms if they sold their product or service in another country. Of the 36 

firms that answered this question, fourteen firms reported that they sold internationally, 22 firms 

did not, and four firms did not answer this question. As might be expected, 12 of the 14 firms 

that sold internationally were manufacturers. The remaining two respondents, an installer and a 

distributor, sold products in international markets. The installer sold its products in this 

hemisphere, e.g., Canada, Caribbean. 

Question 35. Of the fourteen respondents indicating some international sales, the percent of 

foreign sales varied between 5 and 67%. One firm expected foreign sales to decrease as a percent 

of total sales due to an anticipated increase in domestic sales. Another firm sold a substantial 

percent of products to foreign companies in the U.S., but these do not qualify as exports. 

Questions 36–38. Firms were asked their opinion regarding what specific qualities of their 

products or services helped to explain their success in foreign markets. The fourteen responding 

companies indicated that a variety of product-specific qualities explained their success. One 

glass manufacturer indicated that its product was unique. Another company indicated that 

product quality explained its success. Another company indicated that its success was due to an 

ability to customize its product to specific customer needs. Other contributors to success 

included the low American dollar, demand and plant location matched, and new plant capacity, 

easy access to capital, and customers that are predominantly foreign. Firms were also asked if 

they provided their foreign customers with services. These fourteen firms replied that they 

provide on-site assistance, customer support, engineering support, maintenance, and design 

services. Finally, the respondents were asked about any special qualities of their products and 

services that helped them compete in foreign markets. The answers were high quality, reliability 

of quality and supply, custom-designed products offered at a competitive price and with quick 

turnaround, low transportation cost, and lower life cycle costs.

Question 39. Firms were asked how they kept up-to-date about economic, technological and 

political changes in the foreign markets in which they compete. The fourteen firms indicated that 

they read trade journals, online news, networked with industry colleagues, attended conferences, 

university courses, customer visits, stayed in touch with their overseas distributors, and relied on 

their R&D department. 

Question 40. Firms were asked what they did in foreign markets to protect their intellectual 

property or ideas (i.e., patents, copyright protection, etc.) Of the eight firms that answered, four 

firms relied on patents, but five relied on non-disclosure agreements, trade secrets, and careful 

selection of partners. Three firms did not answer this question.

Questions 41. This question asked about partnerships or alliances that domestic companies 

formed with foreign companies. Eight of the fourteen companies indicated some form of 

relationship with or partial ownership of foreign companies, including contracting for 

manufacturing and distribution, joint venture, and co-marketing. One company had attempted to 

develop a more formal relationship with a German company, but the cultures of the two firms 

were incompatible and the venture failed. 
77 

Part 3. Review of the Policy Landscape in the Appalachian Region

The energy policy landscape in the United States is dynamic and ever-changing. Since renewable 

energy emits no greenhouse gases, has minimal social and environmental costs, and reduces 

dependence on foreign oil, its development is encouraged at nearly every level of government. 

The state of financial markets in the United States and around the world has severely restricted 

the availability of credit for renewable energy projects. A February 2009 New York Times article 

suggests that the number of large banks and financial institutions providing credit to the wind 

and solar industries has fallen by more than 78% since the onset of the crisis189. Given the 

uncertain national policy landscape and the daunting financial climate, renewable energy will 

need to be incentivized by states in the near term in order to become cost-competitive with 

conventional energy sources, until it approaches grid parity with conventional sources. 

The federal government offers tax credits, loans, and subsidies to both residential and 

commercial consumers. The recent economic stimulus package––known formally as the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009––endeavors to remedy financial constraints 

as well as stimulate demand and job creation, with the inclusion of billions of dollars of 

investment in the energy sector in the form of tax credits, grants, loans, and other incentives. 

State and local governments also encourage installation of renewable energy systems through 

various programs aimed at every level of the supply chain. 

Demand-stimulating policies, such as tax credits and incentive programs, eventually lead to an 

increase in production that spurs job creation and industry growth. Programs that conform to 

these assumptions will be examined within the context of the ARC-defined region. We also 

review supply side incentives and present information on the benefits of both supply and demand 

side policy strategies. 

 

189 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/business/04windsolar.html?_r=2&ref=business 
78 

Demand Side Incentives 

Renewable Portfolio Standards. The policy situation in Appalachia varies. As Table 19 shows, 7 

Appalachian states have Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS). 

Table 19. Renewable Portfolio Standards in Appalachian States190

State RPS 

Target Year Wind/Solar Priority Administering Organization 

Maryland 9.5% 2022 2% solar, 110% wind 

credit 

MS Public Service Commission

New York 24% 2014 None NY Public Service Commission

North 

Carolina

12.5% 2025 0.2% solar North Carolina Utilities Commission

Ohio191 12.5% 2025 0.5% solar Public Utilities Commission of Ohio

Pennsylvania 18% 2020 0.5% solar Pennsylvania Public Utility 

Commission

Virginia192 12% 2022 wind/solar credit VA Dept. of Mines, Minerals, & 

Energy 

West 

Virginia193

25% 2025 2X credit for 

electricity generated 

or purchased from a 

RE facility, 3X if the 

facility is located at a 

reclaimed surface 

mine 

West Virginia Division of Energy 

Statewide Tax Incentives. In the U.S., tax programs are the most widely utilized economic 

development tool used to stimulate demand for renewable energy194. From federal credits to local 

incentives, these programs are often the cornerstones of state energy incentive policy. To reap 

benefits, a tax liability is essential for installers and system owners. In general, tax credits are 

most appealing to businesses and relatively high income households that can afford to invest in 

renewable energy technologies. Many states have taken to attaching a conditional energy 

production requirement that dictates the amount of the incentive195. The February 2009 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) includes provisions for cash rebates in lieu 

 

190 RPS enacted by June 2007 available at: 

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/maps/renewable_portfolio_states.cfm#chart 

191 Ohio passed RPS legislation in April 2008 

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2008/04/ohio-senate-passes-rps-legislation-52294 

192 Virginia has set a voluntary renewable portfolio goal, rather than a mandated standard. More information at: 

http://www.pewclimate.org/node/4683 

193 West Virginia’s standard includes “alternative energy resources”, e.g., natural gas, coal liquefaction and 

gasification. The standard does not require a minimum contribution from renewable energy so could be met by 

alternative energy resources only. See http:/ /www.dsireusa.org/incentives/ 

194 See Phase I Report, Wind, p. 9. 

195 NREL, pp. 8–9. 
79 

of the solar investment tax credit. This allows investors to take advantage of the incentive, 

despite a lack of tax liability196. 

States in the ARC region, with the exception of Alabama and Mississippi, have applicable tax 

incentives for renewable energy installation. Most programs come in the form of rebates or 

assessment revisions that can apply to personal, corporate, sales, or property tax liability. Table 

20 details the statewide tax incentives that apply to wind and solar energy installation. Note that 

incentives can also come from local taxing authorities (e.g., municipalities, counties, etc.). 

Several states offer varying levels of property tax incentives for wind and solar energy. One 

noted example is Maryland, which offers a 100% state and local property tax exemption for 

installed solar PV equipment. In another case, New York offers a 15-year exemption for any 

increase in assessed value resulting from the installation of a renewable energy system 

(applicable to both wind and solar)198. In other cases, the assessed value of a system is forgone in 

favor of the value of a similar conventional energy installation. Kentucky has a sales tax 

exemption for large-scale projects, which includes a wage assessment of up to 4% for employees 

in companies with facilities that utilize renewables199. 

Grants and Loans. The major goal of renewable energy grant and loan programs is to provide 

subsidized funding to companies, private consumers, and local institutions to help allay the 

upfront costs of installing a wind or solar system. Many state governments, non-profit 

organizations, and utility companies offer such incentives across the Appalachian region. Table 

 

196 Hering, G.,”Obama signs solar stimulus, PHOTON International, March 2009, pp. 26-28. 

197 Adapted from data available at: 

http://www.dsireusa.org/summarytables/financial.cfm?&CurrentPageID=7&EE=1&RE=1 

198 http://www.orps.state.ny.us/assessor/manuals/vol4/part1/section4.01/sec487.htm 

199 More information at: 

http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/incentive2.cfm?Incentive_Code=KY26F&state=KY&CurrentPageID=1&R

E=1&EE=0 

Table 20. Tax Incentives that Apply to Solar (S) and/or Wind (W) Installation, by State197

ARC State Personal Tax Corporate Tax Sales Tax Property Tax 

Alabama - - - - 

Georgia W/S W/S - - 

Kentucky W/S W/S W/S - 

Maryland W/S W/S S W/S 

Mississippi - - - - 

New York S S S W/S 

North Carolina W/S W/S - S 

Ohio - W/S W/S W/S 

Pennsylvania - - - W 

South Carolina S S - - 

Tennessee - - - W 

Virginia - - - S 

West Virginia - W - W 
80 

21 details these programs in the region (note that this table refers to grant and loan programs 

offered by state governments only). 

In the case of loans, many are offered as little or no interest alternatives to conventional bank 

lending. Loan programs are considered advantageous because they have the potential to become 

self-sustaining through revolving funds200. Loan guarantees usually reimburse lenders from 75-

100% of the loan in case of default by the borrower. Therefore lenders will extend loans to more 

commercial or residential users. 

In contrast, grants––a form of “buy down”––are usually contingent upon legislative 

appropriations. Grant programs can, however, help offset a wide variety of costs associated with 

installation and maintenance of renewable and/or energy-efficient systems without the added 

burden of payback. 

 

One such example of an established grant program is one administered by Pennsylvania’s 

Energy Development Authority (PEDA) that is annually dependent on state appropriations. 

During its 2008 call for applications, the program was funded at $11 million for projects, 

“involving the expansion or purchase of alternative energy manufacturing, production or 

research facilities.”203 Although PEDA does not contribute the entire cost of a project, 

consideration is given to redeveloped sites and projects with an aim of environmental 

stewardship. 

 

200 One major example is Iowa’s Alternative Energy Revolving Loan Program (AERLP) 201 Adapted from data available at: 

http://www.dsireusa.org/summarytables/financial.cfm?&CurrentPageID=7&EE=1&RE=1 

202 A statewide grant program for Maryland is currently pending approval. 203 PEDA, 2008 Financial Assistance Guidelines, 

http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/enintech/cwp/view.asp?a=1415&Q=504241&enintechNav=|37114| 

Table 21. ARC State Grant and Loan Programs 

Applicable to Solar (S) and/or Wind (W)201

ARC State Grants Loans 

Alabama - W/S 

Georgia - S 

Kentucky - - 

Maryland Pending202 W/S 

Mississippi - S 

New York W/S W/S 

North Carolina W/S W/S 

Ohio W/S - 

Pennsylvania W/S W/S 

South Carolina - W/S 

Tennessee W/S W/S 

Virginia - - 

West Virginia - - 
81 

In an alternative example, Alabama operates the Local Government Energy Loan Program 

(LGELP), which offers funding to local governments and school systems throughout the state to 

help retrofit buildings and energy efficiency projects. In addition to the benefits gained from 

lower utility bills, funding up to $350,000 for governments and $500,000 for school systems is 

available at a 0% interest rate for a term of up to ten years. 

In most cases these programs do not provide direct incentives to producers of renewable energy 

equipment; however, they have the potential to spur demand and thus increase manufacturing 

activity as well as the need for installers204 205. 

Rebate Programs. Rebate programs are another incentive to help defray the costs of renewable 

energy systems. In contrast to loans and grants, these payments are typically issued subsequent to 

the installation of the system206. In the Appalachian region, these programs are generally 

administered by utility companies and apply to owners of grid-connected renewable energy 

systems. Many investor-owned utilities and electric cooperatives alike offer rebates to 

commercial and residential consumers to encourage the use of renewables and, in some cases, 

help them meet alternative energy targets set forth in legislation. Fixed rebate programs are often 

coupled with net metering and other progressive incentives to form a more cohesive package.

Georgia utilizes rebates in a unique way. Rather than basing rebates on a “progressive” system, 

the state offers a flat payment of $450 per kW of installed DC in the form of solar PV equipment. 

This program is administered by Jackson Electric Membership Corporation (an electric 

cooperative) and all systems must be grid-connected to qualify for the Right Choice Solar Rebate 

Program for Homes207. 

Model Ordinances. Since the widespread inception of wind and solar energy systems, many 

local communities on the cutting edge have encountered problems relating to the installation and 

procedural standardization of renewable energy systems. Specifically with wind turbines, many 

municipalities lack regulations pertaining to permits, site selection, construction, and device 

monitoring. Recently, two Appalachian states––Pennsylvania and North Carolina––have, with 

the cooperation of regional institutions and working groups, adopted model ordinances for use by 

their municipalities. New York, in conjunction with NYSERDA, has also published model 

ordinance guidelines208. 

Local governments are encouraged to draw from these documents and create customized 

versions for their individual communities. The documents offer important insight into the 

process of installing turbines in a community. Additionally, the eventual adoption of an 

 

204 Despite this, there are drawbacks to the use of both loans and grants as stand-alone tools. As a National 

Renewable Energy Lab evaluation suggests, these incentive programs must be included in a comprehensive portfolio 

that ensures installation capacity, institutional and private sector cooperation, and education about potential benefits. 205 NREL, 2002, pp. 17–.32. 206 NREL, 2002, p. 11 207 http://www.jacksonemc.com/sunpower 208 NYSERDA guidelines available online, see: 

http://www.powernaturally.org/Programs/Wind/toolkit/2_windenergymodel.pdf 
82 

ordinance by a community can streamline the development process by creating established 

channels of approval for installers and developers209. 

Supply-Side Incentives 

Industry Recruitment and Support Programs. Of particular interest for supply chain 

development in the Appalachian region are programs that help attract manufacturing firms to 

locate within the regional borders. Three ARC states––New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia––

have designated funding available for this task, while many other states use non-targeted 

economic development resources to attract firms. These programs can be a major influence for 

both upstart domestic and established foreign industry players in selecting a site for their 

business. The three states that offer targeted programs have been successful in attracting wind 

and solar manufacturing firms within their borders. 

The Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED) and the 

Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) jointly administer a $25 million grant and loan 

program that includes a provision for wind energy technology. Applicable funding is granted to 

qualifying entities to help offset the costs associated with manufacturing wind turbines or other 

system components. Eligible costs include land and building acquisition, land clearing, new 

facility construction, equipment purchases, feasibility studies, permitting, and/or administrative 

fees. Maximum loans ($35,000/job created) and grants ($5,000/job created) are based on the 

number of jobs created within three years of approval. Additional conditions apply for various 

facilities, proposals, and loan guarantees210. This program does not apply to solar energy 

facilities. 

The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) maintains a 

budget of $10 million for the expansion of “manufacturing of renewable, clean, and energyefficient products in New York.” Companies wishing to develop or expand a facility to 

manufacture products with a focus on renewable energy and/or energy-efficient technologies 

may be eligible for funding. This program aids in the planning, site development, and 

construction phases of a project, with compartmentalized funding available in subsequent 

corresponding units211. It is unclear whether this program has been utilized since its inception, 

but it has the potential to aid in regional manufacturing development in both target sectors. 

Virginia’s program focuses on solar photovoltaic systems and provides up to $4.5 million per 

year to stimulate PV manufacturing within the commonwealth. The Solar Manufacturing 

Incentive Grant pays up to $0.75 per watt of panel capacity, with a maximum of 6 MW in one 

calendar year. Incentive payments are tiered and decrease over time212. 

 

209 Model ordinances for other ARC states can be found at the following links: 

Pennsylvania: www.depweb.state.pa.us/energy/cwp/view.asp?a=1370&Q=485761, North Carolina: 

www.ncsc.ncsu.edu/Documentation/Files/NC%20Model%20Wind%20Ordinance_June%202008_FINAL.pdf

210 http://www.newpa.com/find-and-apply-for-funding/funding-and-program-finder/fundingdetail/index.aspx?progId=191 

211 From NYSERDA Program Opportunity Notice No. 1176; available online: 

http://www.nyserda.org/funding/1176summary.pdf 212 http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=VA08F&re=1&ee=0
83 

Novel Policy Strategies 

While states in the Appalachian region have taken initiatives to promote renewable sources of 

energy, many states outside the region, non-profit organizations, and foreign countries have 

created policies that allow renewable energy to thrive within their borders. These 

locales/strategies can serve as a model for ARC states looking to touch up their policy 

landscapes to reflect a changing marketplace and to manage a potential infusion of capital from 

federal stimulus programs. It is important for regional policy makers and officials to 

continuously look to leading-edge renewable energy policy around the world to ensure that all 

options are being explored in the United States. The trial-and-error period has concluded for 

these technologies and the region runs the intense risk of falling into deeper economic decline 

without a sustainable energy supply brought about through smart policy. 

Non-Regional Examples. Several states that fall outside ARC borders have promoted the growth 

of both wind and solar energy systems and the respective manufacturing entities. While these 

states are not within the scope of the firm research conducted for this report, the policies 

endorsed by them have proved to be wholly effective and can help ARC states and communities 

explore policy options. As Phase I research indicates, both California and New Jersey accounted 

for 69% of grid-tied solar PV installations in the United States in 2008. With such geographic 

concentrations of development, it is important to examine the policy environments in these 

locations to glean insight into their success. 

California’s reason for widespread success in renewable energy may be associated with the sheer 

size and population of the state, rising costs of energy for consumers, and rolling blackouts 

throughout the past decade. However, these factors have helped launch the state into the status as 

one of the most fertile areas for the installation of wind and solar equipment. It has built one of 

the most comprehensive public energy policy portfolios in the nation––a major requirement in 

encouraging installation. One of the most unique strategies is a statewide feed-in tariff, designed 

to help utilities meet ambitious RPS goals. The tariff allows eligible owners of small, gridconnected systems to enter into long-term agreements with a utility in exchange for an increased 

cost paid per unit of energy generated. Solar energy is emphasized as a premium is paid for 

energy generated by solar equipment during peak hours213. In addition to the various incentive 

programs for solar energy put in place by California’s various major population centers and 

utility companies, the state sponsors a rebate program known as the California Solar Initiative. 

The program, which is funded at $3.2 billion over 10 years, offers producers at every level the 

opportunity to receive buy-downs based on the expected performance of the equipment installed, 

or monthly payments based on the amount of energy produced for five years. These programs are 

just two examples of California’s commitment to solar energy and its effectiveness in stimulating 

the marketplace214. 

New Jersey has also been a leader in solar installations in the United States. In part, this is due to 

its Solar Renewable Energy Certificate (SREC) program, which is regulated by the state Board 

 

213 http://dsireusa.org/library/includes/incentive2.cfm?Incentive_Code=CA167F&state=CA&CurrentPageID= 

1&RE=1&EE=1 

214 Gainesville, Florida recently introduced a feed-in tariff that is more generous that California’s. It guarantees to 

pay .32/kWH for solar energy for twenty years. See “A first feed-in tariff hits America”, Photon International, 

March 2009, pp 3-34.
84 

of Public Utilities (BPU) and administered by Clean Power Markets, Inc. The SREC program 

allows utilities to buy and sell one Megawatt “bundles” of energy generated through solar PV 

equipment. These credits allow companies that may not have the solar-generating capacity 

necessary to meet the requirements set forth in the state RPS, to purchase the SREC from another 

utility that may have exceeded capacity. In addition, investors looking to support renewable 

energy can participate in the program. This market, which essentially trades solar energy as a 

commodity, is the first of its kind in the nation215. In addition, New Jersey offers a 

comprehensive tax rebate strategy, net metering standards, and other incentives. 

In the case of wind energy, both Iowa and Texas have served as different but equally critical 

examples of policy success in terms of attracting renewable energy development. In addition to 

having some of the most lucrative geography in terms of wind resource potential, Iowa has taken 

the lead in attracting turbine manufacturers in an effort to become, as Governor Chester J. Culver 

says, the “Silicon Valley of the Midwest.” Under the governor’s leadership, the state has 

attracted at least six firms that produce wind turbines or component parts to the state. Through 

the Iowa Department of Economic Development, incentive programs in the form of loans, 

infrastructure assistance, and job creation credits have helped bring more than 1,500 green jobs 

to Iowa216. While its location in the center of a wind-rich region has certainly been an attractive 

lure for relocating and expanding firms, Iowa’s commitment to industrial development through 

incentives cannot be ignored. 

According to the American Wind Energy Association, Texas has the largest amount of installed 

wind capacity in the United States, with 7,118 MW after adding 2,761 MW in 2008217. In order 

to attract manufacturing facilities, Texas offers a complete exemption of state franchise tax––a 

significant incentive for both solar and wind producers. A property tax exemption, a corporate 

tax deduction, and a revolving loan program also offer potential consumers the enticement to 

install wind systems in the state218. In addition to the direct support offered by the state, the 

Office of Rural Community Affairs assists agricultural communities in identifying their 

resources and allocates Block Grant funding to help eligible communities install renewable 

energy systems219. This type of proactive collaboration is certainly a potential option for many 

rural communities in Appalachia. Additionally, Texas has received a great deal of philanthropic 

support for its renewable energy development. 

Quasi-Public and Non-Profit Incentives. While statewide government incentives are often the 

most widely available and publicized, non-profit organizations and private investing enterprises 

serve to fill gaps in funding programs. Such programs exist across the country and take varying 

forms––from community assistance to academic support to financial awards. 

 

215 http://www.njcleanenergy.com/renewable-energy/programs/solar-renewable-energy-certificates-srec/new-jerseysolar-renewable-energy 

216 Patullo, M. H. (2008). “The Silicon Valley of the Midwest: A Case Study of Wind Energy in Iowa” Report for 

the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative. 

217 Lammers, D., “Texas is still wind king, but Iowa breezes past California”, USA Today, April 13, 2009. See also 

American Wind Energy Association Annual Wind Industry Report, Year Ending 2008, April, 2009

218 http://dsireusa.org/library/includes/map2.cfm?CurrentPageID=1&State=TX&RE=1&EE=1 

219 http://www.orca.state.tx.us/index.php/Community+Development/Renewable+Energy 
85 

The Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (MTC)––a quasi-public organization that develops 

partnerships between the public and private sectors––administers the Business Expansion 

Initiative (BEI). The BEI offers loans to Massachusetts-based companies for capital expenses 

associated with the design and manufacturing of renewable energy products. The program 

requires an increase in the eligible firm’s workforce by at least 10% and applies to both wind and 

solar technologies, among others. This program is designed as a stopgap for companies unable to 

secure private funding sources and an incentive for those who consider relocating based on lower 

operating costs220. This type of program has potential in Appalachian states as many companies 

are looking to expand their facilities and transition into the renewable energy market, but lack the 

capital and knowledge to do so. 

Utah Clean Energy is a not-for-profit organization aimed at promoting environmental 

stewardship through the reduction of carbon-based emissions. Working with rural landowners 

and farmers, the group helps to secure funding and educate individuals on the benefits of 

installing renewable energy systems on their land. The organization has also developed 

institutional partnerships with state universities and has secured funding from the U.S. 

Department of Energy and NREL to help in educating and working with local stakeholders221. 

Feed-In Tariffs. In addition, some foreign countries have increased their wind and solar 

installation and manufacturing activity through novel policy strategies. Feed-in tariffs, the 

preferred incentives for renewable energy in Europe, have made forays into the U.S. portfolio 

and have the potential to be used in the near future. More information on feed-in tariff programs 

is included in the Phase I section of this report222. 

Major Findings and Observations 

Potential vs. Actual Industry Participation

Our study suggests that the number of firms currently involved in the solar and wind industries 

may be less than the number estimated in many projections, such as the REPP model223. These 

estimates assume a national policy for a given renewable energy goal (e.g., 20% wind energy by 

2030), from which potential job creation in various states is determined. We found that many 

well-known databases included firms that were reported to be involved in the solar or wind 

industry, while our research indicated they currently are not. When firms were involved in these 

industries, many did not manufacture or provide services in the Appalachian region, despite 

listings that indicated that they did. The gap is especially evident in Pennsylvania, which has the 

largest number of firms identified and thus the highest potential employment in the region. In 

Centre County alone, we identified 18 firms as possible participants, but only two firms proved 

to be involved. Similar gaps were found in counties within the state and across the Appalachian 

region. The low number of firms in our study is not surprising, therefore, given the emergent 

 

220 http://www.masstech.org/renewableenergy/BEI/index.html 221 http://utahcleanenergy.org/our_work/utah_wind_power_campaign 222 Phase I Report, Part 1, p. 8, Part 2, p. 28. 223 The gap is even more dramatic when we removed the distributors and installers from the potential and actual 

involvement samples so that, like the REPP studies, only manufacturers were considered. Two hundred sixty seven 

(267) manufacturers were potentially involved and only 21 were actually involved or 7.87% of the larger sample. 
86 

nature of these industries and the lack of a consistent national policy to support renewable energy 

production. 

Additionally, many well-known databases varied in the NAICS codes they assigned to the same 

company, especially for large firms that had a presence in different industries and manufactured 

as well as distributed their own products. Some plants of firms that were listed as producing 

components for the solar or wind industries did not do so. Sales and engineering were performed 

at these plants, but not manufacturing. Also, firms in these emerging industries are dynamic; 

many of those that we attempted to contact were out of business when we tried to contact them. 

Finally, as the following section makes clear, the processes used to make solar and wind 

components are often used to make components for other industries. Thus, until there is a 

classification update that clearly identifies solar and wind industries as separate classes, 

misidentification will continue to plague this type of research. Overall, further research is 

required to determine the differential between potential and actual participation in the 

Appalachian region and the impact of such projections on capital infusion and long-term job 

creation forecasts. 

Types of Firms Involved in the Industries

The companies identified as industry participants generally fall into two major groups based on 

their type of firm and year of entry into the solar or wind industry. The first group consists of 

established manufacturing firms that already possess the capability to produce products for these 

industries and have transitioned to do so. They generally come from traditional industries (e.g., 

plastic extrusion, foundries, fabrication) and use their existing advantages to serve the solar and 

wind industry. By contrast, the second group consists of emergent service firms explicitly 

created to serve the renewable energy sector. These firms are mainly installers and distributors. 

The barriers to market entry are lower for them than for their manufacturing counterparts. For 

example, installers and distributors need relatively low capital, and in-house training often 

suffices to prepare their workers for entry into the solar or wind industry. 

Table 22 shows profiles of selected firms from the established and emergent groups. Not every 

firm in the sample fits exactly into one of the two profiles, but most of them do. Firms that 

manufacture flat glass, plastics, and electric switchgear equipment make up most of the 

established firms. These firms originally provided products to other industries, but decided to 

adapt their firms to the solar and/or wind industry for various reasons. Workers are trained in 

specific skills, e.g., welding, blueprint reading, electrical and mechanical knowledge, that 

generally are transferable to production of solar and wind products. Emergent firms require less 

significant investment in workforce and infrastructure to begin producing products and services. 

These firms tend to sell only in the domestic market, in contrast to established manufacturing 

firms that often sell in foreign markets. 

 
87 

The established firms were not originally created to produce or provide solar or wind products. 

The processes used to make solar and wind components are often readily transferable for use in 

making other types of components. We found that many existing plants hired few if any new 

workers to make and sell solar and wind components. These firms shifted workers between the 

manufacture of these components and traditional components with a moderate amount of 

training. Additionally, solar or wind components frequently made up only 1-5% of these firms’ 

total sales. 

In general, the wind industry is more challenging for established manufacturers to enter than is 

the solar industry because of the sheer size of some wind components. In fact, two firms in the 

original “potential” database indicated their desire to be involved in wind production, but were 

kept out because they lacked size-related capabilities. In addition, the extremely tight tolerances 

required in turbine manufacturing make the need for a trainable and competent workforce even 

more important. 

 

Table 22. Profile of Typical Established and Emergent Firms 

* % of total company sales that are in the renewable energy sector 

ESTABLISHED 

Founding 

Date Product/Service %* Sales Training Requirements Foreign Sales 

1905 Brakes, clutches 1% 

Specific skill training, e.g., 

welding, blueprint readings, 

electrical and mechanical 

knowledge 

Yes 

1927 Flat glass for solar 

panels 1% 

1929 Pultrusion of fiberglass 1% 

1954 Vacuum products for 

solar panels 1% 

1983 Plastics used in PV 

equipment 1% 

EMERGENT

Founding 

Date 

Product/Service %* 

Sales Training Requirements Foreign Sales 

1988 Solar electric system 

installer 100% 

On-the-job training, general ability, 

good math and verbal skills 

No 

2003 Solar heating 

contractor 100% 

2005 Wind towers 100% 

2006 Wind tower safety and 

service equipment 100% 

2007 Solar heating 

contractor 80% 
88 

Prospects for Development of the Domestic Wind and Solar Industry 

In Phase I, we presented a strategic analysis of the supply chain structures of the wind and solar 

energy industries. This analysis identified the competitive context for firms in these industries 

and discussed the challenges facing domestic firms as new competitors arise. European 

companies have dominated the industry in part because of national policies designed to 

encourage the development of the renewable energy industry. Chinese competitors are on the rise 

and, like the Europeans, develop scale capacity in response to national policies that encourage 

and incentivize industrial development. The growth trajectory of these industries suggests 

progressive consolidation in response to the efficiency gains realized through economies of scale 

and new product technologies. 

Globally, the renewable energy industry has developed in response to markets, and markets have 

been created in other countries through consistent and aggressive policies described elsewhere in 

this report. The highly decentralized policy environment that is characteristic of the U.S. has 

impeded growth of the industry. States have myriad policies that are varied and subject to 

change. Appalachia, more than other regions of the nation, is unlikely to emerge as a leader in 

the global renewable energy industry due to insufficient incentives and the general lack of a 

supportive policy framework that would encourage industry development. However, the 

presence of so many firms that could contribute to the wind and solar industry supply chain in 

Appalachia means that there is a great deal of potential for development of the industry, given 

the right mix of policies and incentives. 

The growth challenges facing manufacturers of wind and solar components vary considerably. 

Manufacturers of glass, plastics, and/or steel, won’t be challenged dramatically to adapt their 

manufacturing processes and workforce skills to produce solar and wind-related products, 

assuming they choose to target these industries for sales growth. The challenge will steepen for 

selling in international markets. Unless the U.S. can attract foreign and domestic cell and module 

manufacturers to locate in the U.S., let alone Appalachia, these component suppliers will have to 

learn to sell more of their products in international markets. The evidence suggests that few cell 

and module manufacturers are locating or will remain in the U.S. over the next decade. 

Economic development policies will need to be designed with this prospect in mind224. 

Manufacturers of wind turbine nacelles, blades, and towers have an advantage over their foreign 

counterparts because these components are large and expensive to transport. Manufacturers of 

these components won’t be greatly challenged to adapt their existing processes and workforce 

skills to produce them. However, the manufacturers of gearboxes, bearings, and generators will 

face significant challenges because tolerances for these components are very tight. Their 

European counterparts have made these components for decades and use proprietary processes 

that they protect carefully. Blade and tower manufacturers should be very supportive of policies 

that encourage domestic or foreign turbine manufacturers or wind farm developers to locate in 

the U.S, whether in Appalachia or elsewhere. This is their emerging customer base. 

 

224 See footnote 60 regarding BP Solar’s plans to transfer module manufacturing from Frederick, MD to India and 

China. 
89 

The Need for Multiple and Mutually Reinforcing Policies

Although nationwide policies that would promote wind and solar industry development have 

been proposed, nothing has developed thus far. States that do have rapid growth in solar or wind 

installations and/or manufacturing have introduced a set of mutually reinforcing policies that 

lower the initial capital outlay for solar or wind installations (e.g., feed-in tariffs, rebates, low 

interest loans, sales or property tax abatement), have a renewable portfolio standard (usually with 

a solar or wind set-aside), and/or have energy costs above the national average, thus shortening 

the payback period for these investments. 

In contrast, six of the fifteen states without an RPS are in the southeast (South Carolina, 

Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi). These states are also below the 

national average retail price for electricity and have fewer policies to encourage solar and wind 

development. Kentucky and Tennessee have rates that are about 40% below the national 

average225. 

These observations suggest that states need an aggressive and mutually reinforcing set of policies 

to promote investment in alternative energy. Evidence suggests that investments to promote wind 

installations in a region stimulate nearby collateral manufacturing more than investments in solar 

installations, mainly because wind components are large and require expensive transportation. 

The absence of these factors in solar component manufacturing makes them more vulnerable to 

outsourcing. 

 

Installers and distributors of solar and small wind systems face only modest challenges in the 

near term. Entry into this business is relatively easy due to low capital requirements. Distributors 

can sell their products both domestically and internationally. Installation cannot be outsourced 

and tends to be a highly local business. However, sales are tied to state-based renewable 

portfolio standards and other incentives, and training is critical since many states with incentive 

programs require that installers be certified. 

Northeastern and mid-Atlantic states have much higher energy costs than do the Southern states, 

and typically have shorter payback periods for investment in solar or wind systems. In some 

states, wind energy is already at grid parity with conventional energy sources. In other states 

with lower energy costs, aggressive incentives and policies are critical to attracting and retaining 

manufacturers of wind and solar components. Policies that have proven to be most effective 

include: 

• Tax Incentives. Every state in the ARC region, with the exception of Alabama and 

Mississippi, has applicable tax incentives for renewable energy installation (see Table 20). 

Most programs involve rebates or assessment revisions that can apply to personal, corporate, 

sales, or property tax liability. 

 

225 Energy Information Administration. “Average Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers by End-Use 

Sector, by State”, Electric Power Monthly, May 2009 
90 

• Feed-in Tariffs with favorable treatment for local manufacturer. Offers above-market rates 

to businesses and households that supply renewable energy to the grid, and is widely credited 

to be the major factor supporting wind and solar industry development in Europe (and 

promises to play a similar role in the U.S. in California, Michigan, Minnesota, Indiana, and 

Washington). 

• Grant and Loan Programs. The major goal of renewable energy grant and loan programs is 

to provide subsidized funding to companies, private consumers, and local institutions to help 

allay the upfront costs of installing a wind or solar energy system (see Table 21). 

• Rebate Programs. Rebate programs are another incentive to help defray the costs of 

renewable energy systems. In contrast to loans and grants, these payments are typically 

issued subsequent to the installation of the solar or wind system. In the Appalachian region, 

these programs are generally administered by utility companies and apply to owners of gridconnected renewable energy systems. 

• Model Ordinances. Many municipalities lack regulations pertaining to permits, site selection, 

construction, and device monitoring. Recently, two Appalachian states –– Pennsylvania and 

North Carolina––have, with the cooperation of regional institutions and working groups, 

adopted model ordinances for use by their municipalities. New York, in conjunction with 

NYSERDA, has also published model ordinance guidelines 

• Industry Recruitment and Support Programs. As regards supply-side incentives, there are 

programs in the Appalachian region that encourage manufacturing firms to locate within its 

regional borders. These programs can be major influencing factors for both upstart domestic 

and established foreign industry players in selecting a site for their business, as evidenced by 

the fact that New York and Pennsylvania have encouraged wind and solar energy 

manufacturing firms to locate within their borders. 
Industry Structure and Company Strategies of Major Domestic and Foreign Wind and Solar Energy Manufacturers: 

Opportunities for Supply Chain Development in Appalachia 

91 

Bibliography 

Algoso, & Rusch. (2004). Renewables work: Job growth from renewable energy development in the mid Atlantic. 

NJPIRG: Law and Policy Center. 

Alliance to Save Energy. (2009, February 25). Comparison of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Retrieved 

from ase.org: http://ase.org/content/article/detail/5347 

American Wind Energy Association. (2008a). 2007 Market Report. 

American Wind Energy Association. (2008c). 3rd Quarter 2008 Market Report. 

American Wind Energy Association. (2009). Annual Wind Industry Report Year Ending 2008. 

American Wind Energy Association. (2008d, October 7). AWEA Wind Power Finance and Investment Workshop. 

Panel Discussion on Turbine Supply Issues. New York. 

American Wind Energy Association. (2000). Fair transmission access for wind: A brief discussion of priority issues. 

American Wind Energy Association. (2009). Industry Rankings Factsheet 2008. 

American Wind Energy Association. (2009). Small Wind Turbine Global Market Study, Year Ending 2008. 

Anonymous. (2007, January/February). Supply chain: The race to meet demand. Wind Directions , pp. 27-34. 

Appalachian Regional Commission. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.arc.gov/index.do?nodeID=27 

Ayres, R. U., (Ed.) & Weaver, P. (Asst. Ed.) (1998). Eco-restructuring: Implications for sustainable development.

New York: The United Nations University. 

Bradford, T., Grama, S., Wesoff, E., & Bhargava, A. (2007, August). The future of thin film solar. Greentech Media 

and Prometheus Institute , 1 (1). 

Bradsher, K., (2009a, July 13). China Builds High Wall to Guard Energy Industry. New York Times. 

Bradsher, K., (2009b, August 14). China Racing Ahead of U.S. in the Drive to Go Solar. New York Times. 

British Wind Energy Association. (2000). Noise from wind turbines: The facts. 

BTM Consult. (2008). International Wind Energy Development, World Market Update 2007, Forecast 2008-2012.

BTM Consult. (2005). Ten year review of the international wind power industry, 1995-2004. 

BTM Consult. (2009). World Market Update 2008. 

Central Pennsylvania Workforce Development Corporation. (2007, September). Alternative energy report: Central 

Pennsylvania workforce investment area (Research Report). Lewisburg, PA: Central Pennsylvania Workforce 

Investment Board. 

Cheyney, T. (2009, April 1). Headline blues: BP Solar puts ‘cost reduction’ spin on job cuts as ‘third-party’ deal 

looms. Retreived from http://www.PV-Tech.Org.
Industry Structure and Company Strategies of Major Domestic and Foreign Wind and Solar Energy Manufacturers: 

Opportunities for Supply Chain Development in Appalachia 

92 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (2007, August 30). Governor Rendell says largest solar power facility in eastern 

U.S. will be built in Bucks County. Retrieved from http://www.state.pa.us 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Department of Environmental Protection (n.d.). Pennsylvania Energy 

Development Authority (PEDA). Retrieved from www.depweb.state.pa.us: 

http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/enintech/cwp/view.asp?a=1415&Q=504241&enintechNav=|37114| 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Energy & Technology 

Deployment. (n.d.). Wind Energy: A Cost-Effective, Fuel-Free Resource, Model Wind Ordinance for Local 

Governments. Retrieved from http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/energy/cwp/view.asp?a=1370&Q=485761. 

Daniels, K. (2005, October). Wind energy model ordinance options. Albany, NY: NYS Energy Research and 

Development Authority. Retrieved from Datatbase of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (DSIRE): 

http://www.powernaturally.org/Programs/Wind/toolkit/2_windenergymodel.pdf 

Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (DSIRE). (n.d.). 

http://dsireusa.org/library/includes/incentive2.cfm?Incentive_Code=CA167F&state=CA&CurrentPageID=1&RE=1

&EE=1 

Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (DSIRE). (n.d.). 

http://www.dsireusa.org/summarytables/financial.cfm?&CurrentPageID=7&EE=1&RE=1 

Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (DSIRE). (n.d.). 

http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/incentive2.cfm?Incentive_Code=KY26F&state=KY&CurrentPageID=1&R

E=1&EE=0 

Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (DSIRE). (n.d.). 

http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=VA08F&re=1&ee=0 

Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (DSIRE). (n.d) 

http://dsireusa.org/library/includes/map2.cfm?CurrentPageID=1&State=TX&RE=1&EE=1 

Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (DSIRE). (n.d.). Retrieved August 25, 2008, from 

http://www.dsireusa.org 

Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (DSIRE). (n.d.). Retrieved July 24, 2009, from 

http://www.dsireusa.org 

deVries, E. (2008). The challenge of growth: Supply chain and wind turbine upscaling challenges. Renewable 

Energy World Magazine, 11 (3). 

Energy Source Guides (n.d.) www.energy.sourceguides.com 

Energy Information Agency. (2008). Average retail price of electricity to ultimate customers by end-use sector, by 

state. Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.6.A. 

Energy Information Administration. Average Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers by End-Use Sector, 

by State. Retrieved September 16, 2009, from http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html. 

Energy Information Administation. (n.d.). Annual photovoltaic module/cell manufacturers survey, Form EIA-63B. 

European Wind Energy Association. (2009). Sea of Change: Offshore Wind Energy Report. 

European Wind Energy Technology Platform. (2008). Strategic Research Agenda Market Deployment Strategy, 

From 2008 to 2030. SYNOPSIS. 
Industry Structure and Company Strategies of Major Domestic and Foreign Wind and Solar Energy Manufacturers: 

Opportunities for Supply Chain Development in Appalachia 

93 

Farrell, J. (2008). Minnesota feed-in tariff could lower cost, boost renewables and expand local ownership. New 

Rules Project. 

Galbraith, K. (2009, February 3). Dark Days for Green Energy. The New York Times, p. B1. Retrieved from 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/business/04windsolar.html?_r=2&ref=business 

Glasmeier, A. K., Feingold, R., Guers, A., Hay, G., Lawler, T., Meyer, A., et al. (2007, September). Energizing 

Appalachia: Global challenges and the prospect of a renewable future (Research Report). Washington, D.C.: 

Appalachian Regional Commission. Retrieved from http://www.arc.gov/images/reports/2008/energy/ARC_EnerApp_Final_full. 

Global Wind Energy Council. (2009). Global Wind Report 2008. 

Hering, G. (2009, March). Obama signs solar stimulus. PHOTON International, pp. 26-28. 

Hering, G. (2008, April). Whispers of a new direction: First national feed-in legislation introduced in US Congress. 

PHOTON International, pp. 44-46. 

Industry Canada. (2004). Supply-Chain Capabilities in the Canadian Wind Power Industry. 

Jackson Electric Membership Corporation. (n.d.) Solar rebate program for homes. Retrieved from 

www.jacksonemc.com/sunpower 

Junfeng, L., Hu, G., Pengfei, S., Jingli, S., Lingjuan, M., Haiyan, Q., et al. (2007). China wind power report -- 2007.

Beijing: China Environmental Science Press. 

Kammen, D., Kapadia, K., & Fripp, M. (2004). Putting Renewables to Work: How many jobs can the clean energy 

industry generate? Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory report, University of California, Berkeley. 

Retrieved from http://rael.berkeley.edu/old-site/renewables.jobs.2006.pdf 

Kho, J. (2007, November). Ausra to build 177-megawatt solar-thermal plant. Greentech Media. 

Knee, R. (2007). West Coast ports made of steel and wind: Pacific Coast ports find growth in non-container 

business. Pacific Shipper. 

Lammers, D. (2009, April 13). Texas is still wind king, but Iowa breezes past California. USA Today. 

LaPedas, M. (2009, March 24). U.S. lags in top 10 solar markets. EE Times. 

Lewis, J. I. (2007). A comparison of wind power industry development strategies in Spain, India and China. Studies 

in Comparative International Development, 43 (3-4), pp. 208-232. 

Li, Y. (2009, June 20). Solar Power Experiences Strongest Year of Growth Yet. Worldwatch Institute. 

Loi, L. L., & Chan, T. F. (2007). Distributed Generation: Induction and Permanent Magnet Generators. New York: 

John Wiley and Sons. 

Markusen, A. R., Hall, P. & Glassmeier, A. (1986). High-Tech America: The What, How, Where and Why of the 

Sunrise Industries. London: Allen and Unwin. 

Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (n.d.). Business expansion initiative. Retrieved from 

http://www.masstech.org/renewableenergy/BEI/index.html 

Maycock, P., & Bradford, T. (2007). PV Technology,Pperformance and Cost-2007 Update. PV Energy Systems and 

Prometheus Institute. 
Industry Structure and Company Strategies of Major Domestic and Foreign Wind and Solar Energy Manufacturers: 

Opportunities for Supply Chain Development in Appalachia 

94 

Merrill Lynch. (2007). Wind turbine manufacturers; Here comes pricing power. 

Metaefficient: The Optimal Green Guide. (2007, December 28). North America's largest solar-electric plant 

switched on. Retreived from http://www.metaefficient.com. 

Milborrow, D. (2003). Offshore wind rises to the challenge. Wind Power Monthly. 

Milner, A. (2006, April). International Advanced Photovoltaic Manufacturing Technology Conference. Munich, 

Germany. 

Musial, W., Butterfield, S., & McNiff, B. (2007). Improving wind turbine gearbox reliability. Preprint from National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory. 

NASA Atmospheric Science Data Center. (2009). NASA surface meteorology and solar energy data set. Retrieved 

from http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/sse/sse.cgi?+s01#s01 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2002), pp. 17-32 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2002), p. 11 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2008a). Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States. Retrieved from 

http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/ 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2008b). Wind Deployment Systems (WinDS) Model. Retrieved from 

http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/winds/intermittency.html 

New Jersey Office of Clean Energy. (n.d.). New Jersey solar renewable energy certificate program. Retrieved from 

http://www.njccleanenergy.com/renewable-energy/programs/solar-renewable-energy-certificates-srec/new-jerseysolar-renewable-energy 

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. (n.d.). Renewable, clean energy, and energy 

efficiency product manufacturing incentive program (PON No. 1176). Retrieved from 

http://www.nyserda.org/funding/1176summary.pdf 

New York State. Office of Real Property Services. (n.d.). Exemption administration manual – Part 1 (RPTL Section 

487). Retrieved from http://www.orps.state.ny.us/assessor/manuals/vol14/part1/section4.01/sec487.htm 

North Carolina State University, North Carolina Wind Working Group. (2008, July). Model Wind Ordinance for 

Wind Energy Facilities in North Carolina. Retrieved from 

http://www.ncsc.ncsu.edu/Documentation/Files/NC%20Model%20Wind%20Ordinance_June%202008_FINAL.pdf 

Office of Management and Budget. Executive Office of the President. (2009, January 7). 2007 North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) -- Updates for 2012. Federal Register, 74 (4), pp. 764-768. 

Open Energy Technology Bulletin. (2004, June). International Energy Agency, Special Issue IEA Photovoltaic 

Power Systems Programme, No 19-23. 

Patullo, M. H. (2008, October). The silicon valley of the Midwest: A case study of wind energy in Iowa. Boston, MA: 

Report for the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative. 

Pedden, M. (2006, January). Analysis: Economic impacts of wind applications in rural communities. NREL 

Technical Monitor, Subcontract Report, NREL/SR-500-39099. Retrieved from 

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/39099.pdf 
Industry Structure and Company Strategies of Major Domestic and Foreign Wind and Solar Energy Manufacturers: 

Opportunities for Supply Chain Development in Appalachia 

95 

Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development. (n.d.). Renewable energy program – 

Geothermal and wind projects. Retrieved from http://www.newpa.com/find-and-apply-for-funding/funding-andprogram-finder/funding-detail/index.aspx?progId=191 

Pew Center on Global Climate Change. (2007, April 11). Virginia RPS. Retrieved from 

http://www.pewclimate.org/node/4683 

PHOTON International. (2006, January). China’s rapid ascent, p. 60. 

PHOTON International. (2007, June). China’s Rapid Ascent II: Catching Europe, p. 136. 

PHOTON International. (2009, March). A first feed-in tariff hits America. PHOTON International, pp. 3-34. 

PHOTON International. (2009, March). From pipe dream to pipeline. PHOTON International, pp. 14-21. 

PHOTON International. (2009, March). Little smiles on long faces. PHOTON International, p. 170. 

PHOTON International. (2008c, March). The Q factor, Sharp and the market. PHOTON International, p. 140. 

PHOTON International. (2008b, February). The United States of solar energy. PHOTON International, p. 42. 

PHOTON International. (2008, April). A brighter future under the sun, p. 48. 

Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy. New York: The Free Press. 

PV News. (2007, May). Polysilicon Update -- Careening Ahead... PV News , 26 (5). 

PV Society. (2009, July 6). Waiting for Better Solar Alignment. Retreived from http://www.PVSociety.com 

PV TECH. (2007, November 27). Sanyo and Sharp boost solar cell production in 2008. PV TECH. 

Renewable Energy Policy Project. (2004). Wind Turbine Development: Location of Manufacturing Activity. 

Renewable Energy World. (2007, July 25). AMSC Receives $70M Order from China’s Sinovel Wind. Retrieved from 

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=49428 

Renewable Energy World. (2008, April 25). Ohio senate passes RPS legislation. Retrieved from 

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2008/04/ohio-senate-passes-rps-legislation-52294 

RenewableEnergyWorld.com. (2008, September 29). Spain Makes Changes to Solar Tariff. Retrieved from 

RenewableEnergyWorld.com. 

Rickerson, W., Bennhold, F., & Bradbury, J. (2008). Feed-in Tariffs and Renewable Energy in the USA -- A Policy 

Update. 

Rives, S. (2008). Economic stimulus package allows bonus depreciation for projects completed in 2008. Portland, 

OR. Retrieved on August 25, 2008 from 

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/partner/story?id=51515&src=rss 

Rogers, A. L., & Manwell, J. F. (2002). Wind turbine noise issues. University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 

Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering. A white paper prepared by the 

Renewable Energy Research Laboratory, Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Unpublished 

manuscript. 
Industry Structure and Company Strategies of Major Domestic and Foreign Wind and Solar Energy Manufacturers: 

Opportunities for Supply Chain Development in Appalachia 

96 

Saint Francis University. (n.d.). Pennsylvania Renewable Energy Directory. Retrieved from Saint Francis University 

Renewable Energy Center Website: http://www.francis.edu/renewableenergy4pa.htm 

SCHOTT North America, Inc. (2008, March 3). SCHOTT Solar Breaks Ground on Manufacturing Facility in 

Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), (2009, March). US Solar Industry Year in Review, 2008. 

Solarbuzz.com. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://solarbuzz.com/solarindex.expo.htm 

Solarbuzz.com. (2008). MarketbuzzTM 2008: Annual world solar photovoltaic industry report. Retrieved from 

http://www.solarbuzz.com/Marketbuzz2008-intro.htm 

Solarbuzz.com. (n.d.). Solar cell manufacturing plants. Retrieved from http://www.solarbuzz.com/Plants.htm 

Solarbuzz.com. (n.d.). Solar cell technologies. Retrieved from http://www.solarbuzz.com/Technologies.htm 

Solarbuzz.com. (n.d.). United States Solar Organizations. Retrieved from 

http://www.solarbuzz.com/companylistings/unitedstates.htm 

South Dakota New Web. (2006). Knight & Carver breaks ground in Howard: Governor Rounds welcomes 

California wind blade manufacturer to South Dakota. South Dakota New Web. 

Sterzinger, G., & Svrcek, M. (2005). Component Manufacturing: Ohio’s Future in the Renewable Energy Industry. 

Renewable Energy Policy Project. 

Sterzinger, G., & Svrcek, M. (2005, January). Solar PV development: Location of economic activity (Technical 

Report). Renewable Energy Policy Project. 

Sterzinger, G., & Svrcek, M. (2004, September). Wind turbine development: Location of manufacturing activity 

(Technical Report). Renewable Energy Policy Project. 

Sun Edison News Press Release. (2007, December 17). SunEdison activates largest U.S. photovoltaic power plant 

for Xcel Energy. 

Tennessee Valley Authority. (n.d.). Green Power Switch Generation Partners. Retrieved from 

http://www.tva.gov/greenpowerswitch/partners/index.htm 

Texas Office of Rural Community Affairs. (n.d.). Renewable Energy. Retrieved from 

http://www.orca.state.tx.us/index.php/Community+Development/Renewable+Energy 

Think Energy Management. (n.d.). Electricity Costs. Retrieved from http://www.thinkenergy.net/electricitycosts.htm 

Think Energy Management. (n.d.). Electricity Costs. Retrieved from http://www.thinkenergy.net/electricitycosts.htm 

U.S. Department of Energy. (2008). 20% Wind Energy by 2030: Increasing Wind Energy's Contribution to U.S. 

Electricity Supply, DOE/GO-102008-2567. Available on-line from http://www.osti.gov/bridge. 

U.S. Department of Energy. (2007, June). Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. States with renewable energy 

portfolio standards. Retrieved from http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/maps/renewable_portfolio_states.cfm#chart 

U.S. Internal Revenue Code, Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter S, Part I, §1361(b)(1)(A). (n.d.). S 

corporation defined. Retrieved from www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/1361(b)(1)(A).html 
Industry Structure and Company Strategies of Major Domestic and Foreign Wind and Solar Energy Manufacturers: 

Opportunities for Supply Chain Development in Appalachia 

97 

Utah Clean Energy. (n.d.) Utah wind power campaign. Retrieved from 

http://utahcleanenergy.org/our_work/utah_wind_power_campaign 

Werner, T. (2006). Letter to Stockholders, SunPower Annual Report. 

Wied, M. (2007). Windy prospects: An Approach to Strategic Foresight in the Global Wind Turbine Industry.

Unpublished master's thesis, Roskilde University, Denmark, Department of Technology and Socioeconomic 

Planning. 

Wikipedia. (2008, June 1). Solar cell. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar-cell 

Windblatt. (2008). ENERCON's future markets. 3, 6-7. 

Winegarner, R. M. (2007). A comprehensive report on the use of silicon wafers, silicon ingot, and polysilicon in the 

semiconductor industry on a fab by fab basis. Healdsburg, CA: Sage Concepts. 

Wiser, & Bolinger. (2008). Annual report on U.S. wind power installation, cost, and performance trends: 2007. U.S. 

Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

Worldwatch Institute. (2007). Green jobs: Towards sustainable work in a low-carbon world. Preliminary Report.

Green Jobs Initiative, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), International Labour Organization (ILO), 

International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC). 

Zayas, J. R., & Thatcher, R. (2008). Wind energy manufacturing and supply chain development proposal. NREL 

and Sandia National Laboratories. 

 
Industry Structure and Company Strategies of Major Domestic and Foreign Wind and Solar Energy Manufacturers: 

Opportunities for Supply Chain Development in Appalachia 

98 

APPENDICES 
Industry Structure and Company Strategies of Major Domestic and Foreign Wind and Solar Energy Manufacturers: 

Opportunities for Supply Chain Development in Appalachia 

99 

APPENDIX I. 

Profiles of Solar Energy Industry Companies 

By Strategic Group

Strategic Group #1 

Companies 

 

Product Line Backward Acquisitions, 

Long-Term Agreements 

and/or Partnerships 

Forward Acquisitions, Long-term 

Agreements and/or Partnerships 

Distribution Method 

#/Material Watts 

Strategic Group #1

BP Solar 39 modules 

(6 mono33 multi-) 

5W - 

200W 

 OCR Solar & Roofing 

(turnkey solar installer for 

production homebuilders); 

Home Depot® Stores 

(complete solar electric home 

power systems); BP 

Representatives handle small 

commercial solar energy 

systems 

Kyocera 20 modules 

(20 multi-) 

5W - 

210W 

Collaborated with OutBack (inverters) 

to integrate and distribute power 

systems and components 

Authorized Dealers 

Sharp 12 modules 

(1 mono11 multi-) 

62W - 

216W 

Agreement with REC 

ScanWafer to supply 

multicrystalline silicon 

wafers to Sharp through 

Sumitomo Corporation 

Certified Installers; 

agreements with 

homebuilders (Clarum 

Homes and William Lyon 

Homes) to supply solar 

energy systems; agreement 

with CitiMortgage Home 

Equity Program to offer 

financing for home solar 

energy systems 

SolarWorld 12 modules 

(6 mono6 multi) 

160W225W Joint Venture with 

Degussa: Joint Solar Silicon 

GmbH & Co. (silicon 

recovery from silane); Joint 

Venture with Scheuten 

Solarholding B.V.: 

Scheuten SolarWorld 

Solicium GmbH (solar 

silicon manufacturing) 

Long-term agreements to supply 

silicon wafers to globally operating 

cell and module manufacturers; longterm agreement to supply Canadian 

Solar Inc. (module manufacturer) with 

solar silicon wafers; long-term 

agreement to supply Scheuten Solar 

with solar silicon wafers; agreement 

with Recurrent Energy (E16 

developer) for the supply of solar 

modules to Recurrent Energy; 

Sell to distributors and 

wholesalers. 80%+ of US 

customers were inherited 

from acquisition of Shell 

Solar in 2006 
Industry Structure and Company Strategies of Major Domestic and Foreign Wind and Solar Energy Manufacturers: 

Opportunities for Supply Chain Development in Appalachia 

100 

Strategic Group #2 

Companies Product Line Backward Acquisitions, 

Long-Term Agreements 

and/or Partnerships 

Forward Acquisitions, 

Long-term Agreements 

and/or Partnerships 

Distribution Method 

 #/Material Watts 

Strategic Group #2

Isofoton 12 modules 

(12 mono-) 

75W – 

200W 

Isofoton agreed to purchase 

cells and modules from 

Perfectenergy Shanghai in 

2008. 

Agreed to supply panels for 

a number of specific 

projects with Endesa.

Sells to national and international 

distributors, and also installs its 

own systems. 

Mitsubishi 23 modules 

(23 multi-) 

110W - 

190W 

Website lists 14 system installers 

that can assist in the design and 

installation of a system 

Sanyo 11 modules 

(11 mono-) 

180W - 

200W 

Seven year agreement with 

Hoku Scientific to supply 

polysilicon to Sanyo 

Conergy (developer); SunWize 

(developer); Solera Sustainable 

Energies Company (developer) 
Industry Structure and Company Strategies of Major Domestic and Foreign Wind and Solar Energy Manufacturers: 

Opportunities for Supply Chain Development in Appalachia 

101 

 Strategic Group #3 

 Companies 

 

Product Line Backward Acquisitions, LongTerm Agreements and/or 

Partnerships 

Forward Acquisitions, Long-term 

Agreements and/or Partnerships 

Distribution 

Method 

#/Material Watts 

Strategic Group #3

JA Solar 13 cells 

(13 mono-) 

2.32 W 

- 

2.61W 

Long-term agreement with JingLong 

Group for the supply of polysilicon; 

Long-term agreements with 

ReneSola for the supply of silicon 

wafers; Long-term agreement with 

M.SETEK for the supply of silicon 

wafers; Long-term agreement with 

GCL Silicon Technology for the 

supply of 6000MW of silicon 

wafers; Long-term agreement with 

Shunda for the supply of up to 

1.2GW of silicon wafers. 

Long-term sales agreement with 

Crown Renewable Energy for the 

supply of 45MW of solar cells; 

Agreement with Canadian Solar Inc. 

(CSI) for the supply of solar cells for 

use in CSI’s solar modules; Sales 

agreement with Solaria to supply up 

to 60MW of solar cells; 

Sells PV cells to 

solar module 

manufacturers who 

assemble and 

integrate cells into 

modules and 

systems 

Motech 171 cells 

(119 mono52 multi-) 

1.88W4.22W Long-term agreement with Swiss 

Wafer AG for the supply of wafers 

to Motech; long-term agreement 

with Nitol Solar to supply 

polysilicon to Motech; long-term 

agreement with Swiss Wafer AG for 

the provision of OEM wafer 

manufacturing services with raw 

materials consigned by Motech (via 

agreement with Nitol); long-term 

agreement with DC Chemical for the 

supply of polysilicon to Motech; 

agreement with Wacker Chemie AG 

for supply of silicon; agreement with 

Renesola for the supply of wafers to 

Motech; long-term agreement with 

REC ScanWafer for the supply of 

wafers; long-term agreement with 

AE Polysilicon for supply of 

polysilicon; Motech made direct 

equity investment in AE Polysilicon 

Agreement with Solar Power 

Inc.(integrated developer) to provide 

11 MW of multicrystalline cells; 

agreement with Open Energy Corp. 

(developer) to provide 

multicrystalline cells. 

Signs long-term 

purchase agreements 

with customers. 

Q-Cells 44 cells 

(5 mono39 multi) 

3.78W6.97W Joint Venture with Evergreen: EverQ 

(string ribbon manufacturing 

process); Agreement with Trina 

Solar for the supply of 

monorystalline wafers to Q-cells; 

long-term agreement with Elkem 

Solar for the supply of metallurgical 

silicon; Invested in REC (polysilicon 

and silicon wafers); long-term 

agreement with LDK for the supply 

of silicon wafers to Q-cells 

Agreement with Solarsquare AG 

(subsidiary of Centrosolar AG - 

developer) for Q-cells to supply solar 

cells; Agreement with Solaria 

(research) for Q-cells to supply solar 

cells; long-term agreement with 

SOLON for Q-cells to supply solar 

cells; long-term agreement between 

CSG Solar AG (subsidiary of Q-cells) 

and IBC SOLAR AG (developer) for 

CSG Solar to supply solar modules; 

long-term agreement between CSG 

Solar AG (subsidiary of Q-cells) and 

Blitzstrom GmbH (developer) for 

CSG Solar to supply solar modules; 

long-term agreement with PowerLight (developer acquired by SunPower) for Q-cells to supply solar 

cells; 

As an independent 

manufacturer of 

solar cells, Q-Cells 

builds close 

partnerships with 

module 

manufacturers in 

Germany and 

abroad. Export ratio 

is about 40% 
Industry Structure and Company Strategies of Major Domestic and Foreign Wind and Solar Energy Manufacturers: 

Opportunities for Supply Chain Development in Appalachia 

102 

Strategic Group #4 

 Product Line Backward Acquisitions, Long-Term 

Agreements and/or Partnerships 

Forward Acquisitions, Long-term 

Agreements and/or Partnerships 

Distribution 

Method 

 Size/Material Watts 

Strategic Group #4

First Solar 5 modules 

(5 CdTe) 

65W - 

75W 

Acquired Turner Renewable Energy 

dba DT Solar (developer); long-term 

agreements for the manufacture and 

sale of solar modules to developers: 

EDF Energies Nouvelles, SchilienneSidec, Juwi Group, RIO Energie 

GmbH &Co. KG and SunEdison; 

Sells modules to 

project developers, 

system integrators, 

and operators of 

projects under long 

term supply 

contracts for 

commercial, gridconnected solar 

power plant 

applications. 

SunPower 6 modules (6 

mono-) 

210W315W Long-term agreement with M.Setek 

Co, Ltd. (monocrystalline silicon 

supplier) for the supply of silicon to 

SunPower; long-term agreement with 

DC Chemical (chemical company 

dealing with silicon) for the supply of 

polysilicon to SunPower; Joint venture 

with Woongjin Conway (equipment 

manufacturer): Woongjin Energy Corp 

to manufacture monocrystalline silicon 

ingots (polysilicon will be supplied by 

DC Chemical); agreement between 

PowerLight (subsidiary of SunPower) 

and JingAo Solar (solar cell 

manufacturer) for the supply of silicon 

solar cells to PowerLight; long-term 

agreement with Hemlock 

Semiconductor (silicon supplier) for 

silicon to be supplied by Hemlock; 

long-term agreement with NorSun 

(supplier of monocrystalline silicon) 

for the supply of silicon in ingot and 

wafer form; long-term agreement with 

Jiawei SolarChina Co. for the supply 

of monocrystalline silicon ingots and 

wafers to SunPower; long-term 

agreement with Jupiter Corp., Ltd. 

(sales office of Qingdao DTK 

Industries Co., Ltd.) for the supply of 

polysilicon to SunPower; 

Acquired PowerLight (a developer); 

Acquired Solar Solutions (a developer 

-- renamed SunPower Italia); longterm agreement with SOLON 

(developer) for the supply of 

SunPower solar cells; long-term 

agreement with NorSun (supplier of 

monocrystalline silicon) for the 

purchase of polysilicon from 

SunPower; long-term agreement with 

SMA Technologie AG (inverter 

manufacturer) for the incorporation of 

SMA inverters into SunPower solar 

applications; 

Sells products 

through its own 

direct sales force. 

Also partners in a 

limited number of 

case to value-added 

resellers (VARS) in 

the U.S. and Europe 

Baoding 

Tianwei 

Yingli (the 

operating 

subsidiary of 

Yingli Green 

Energy 

Holding 

Company) 

44 modules (44 

multi-) 

5W – 

240W 

Long-term agreements with Wacker 

Chemie AG for the supply of 

polysilicon to Yingli; Long-term 

agreement with Xinguang Silicon 

Science and Technology Co., Ltd. for 

the supply of polysilicon to Yingli; 

Yingli signed $27 million contract for 

polysilicon from DC Chemical in 2008 

and $188 million from 2009 to 2013. 

Short-term agreement to supply 

1.3MW of modules to Korea Electric 

Power Industrial Development 

Corporation (KEPID) and 2.0MW of 

modules to Kaycom; Project 

agreement to supply 11.56MW of 

modules to Iberdola (developer); 

Agreement to supply ATERSA 

(developer, parent company: Elecnor) 

with 16.5MW of modules; 

Agreement to supply EDF Energies 

Nouvelles with 7MW of modules; 

Agreement with Recurrent Energy 

(developer) for purchase of Yingli’s 

modules. 

Installs its own 

systems in China. 

Partners with major 

systems integrators 

in Europe and the 

U.S. Sells Yingli 

brand name 

modules to system 

integrators and 

distributors in 

various markets 

including Germany, 

Spain, Italy, China 

and the U.S. 
Industry Structure and Company Strategies of Major Domestic and Foreign Wind and Solar Energy Manufacturers: 

Opportunities for Supply Chain Development in Appalachia 

103 

Profile of Ningbo Solar 

Product Line Backward 

Acquisitions, LongTerm Agreements 

and/or Partnerships

Forward 

Acquisitions, Longterm Agreements 

and/or Partnerships

Distribution Method #/Material Watts 

Ningbo 

Solar

27 cells; 58 

modules (28 

mono- 30 

multi-)

Cells: 1.45W – 

2.58W; 

Modules: 

150W – 240W

Long-term agreement 

with ReneSola for the 

supply of 105MW of 

solar wafers;

Ningbo Solar establishes NB Solar 

Systems as exclusive North America 

distributor for its UL approved panels. 

Still works with some independent 

distributors, e.g., ACA Technology (U.S.) 

and Calmonte (U.S.)..

Profile of Suntech Power 

Product Line Backward Acquisitions, LongTerm Agreements and/or 

Partnerships

Forward Acquisitions, Long-term 

Agreements and/or Partnerships Distribution Method 

#/Material Watts 

Suntech 56 modules 

(29 mono27 mutli-)

110W260WShort and long-term agreements 

with a major Korean 

conglomerate for the supply of 

silicon wafers to Suntech; longterm agreement with Nitol Solar 

Ltd. (silicon producer) for the 

supply of polysilicon to 

Suntech; long-term agreement 

with Asia Silicon (silicon 

producer) for the supply of high 

purity polysilicon to Suntech; 

agreement with ReneSola Ltd. 

(wafer producer) for the supply 

of silicon wafers to Suntech; 

long-term agreement with Hoku 

Materials (subsidiary of Hoku 

Scientific) for supply of 

polysilicon to Suntech; longterm agreement with Sunlight 

Group to supply silicon wafers 

to Suntech; long-term 

agreement with a US-owned, 

China-based company for the 

supply of silicon wafers to 

Suntech; agreement with REC 

(silicon wafer supplier) to 

supply silicon wafers to Suntech 

through Sumitomo Corporation; 

long-term agreement with 

MEMC to supply silicon wafers 

to Suntech

Agreement with Akeena Solar 

(designer/integrator) for Suntech to 

manufacture Akeena's Andalay solar 

panels; licensing agreement with Akeena 

Solar for Suntech to distribute Andalay 

solar panels; Acquired MSK Corporation 

(module manufacturer); manufacturing 

alliance between Suntech America (the 

US division of Suntech) and Lumeta 

(subsidiary of DRI Companies) for 

Suntech to manufacture Lumeta's roof 

integrated cells and modules; agreement 

with Open Energy 

(designer/manufacturer) for Suntech to 

manufacture Open Energy's BIPV 

products -- the companies will market 

each other's broad portfolio of BIPV 

products in the North American market; 

long-term agreement with SunEdison 

(developer) for Suntech to supply 

SunEdison with solar modules; 

Agreement with Recurrent Energy 

(developer) for the supply of solar 

modules to Recurrent Energy;

Sales agreement with 

Conergy AG (developer) 

for Suntech to supply 

modules; Distribution 

agreement between MSK 

Corporation (subsidiary of 

Suntech) and ARISE 

Technologies Corporation 

for the distribution of 

MSK BIPV products in 

the Canadian Market. 

Suntech expanded into the 

Europe, Middle East and 

Africa markets through 

Suntech Europe Ltd. 
Industry Structure and Company Strategies of Major Domestic and Foreign Wind and Solar Energy Manufacturers: 

Opportunities for Supply Chain Development in Appalachia 

104 

APPENDIX II. 

Acquisitions, Partnerships, and Framework Agreements 

between Turbine Manufacturers, Suppliers and Buyers 

Company 

Suppliers 

Backward Acquisitions, 

Framework Agreements and/or 

Partnerships 

Buyers 

Forward Acquisitions, Framework Agreements and/or 

Partnerships 

Vestas Multi-year preferential manufacturing 

contract with Tower Tech Inc. (a 

subsidiary of Broadwind Energy Inc.) 

for towers; 

(07/2004) Framework agreement with Terna Energy for 

58MW (29 – V80-2.0MW turbines) for delivery in 2004-

2005; 

(11/2006) Framework agreement with EDF Energies 

Nouvelles (a developer) for 200MW of turbines (V52-850kw, 

V80-2.0MW, V90-2.0MW and V90-3.0MW) for delivery in 

2008 and 2009 and the option for an additional 123MW was 

also taken; 

(04/2007) Framework agreement with We Energies for 

145MW of turbines (88 V82 1.65MW turbines) for delivery 

in 2007 and 2008; 

(01/2008) Framework agreement with China’s Guandong 

Nuclear Wind Power for 197.2 MW of turbines (52 850 KW 

wind turbines) for delivery beginning in mid-2008 and ending 

at the end of 2009; 

(03/2008) Framework agreement with the North American 

Division of E. ON Climate & Renewables for 180 MW of 

turbines (109 units of the V82-1.65 MW turbine) for delivery 

at the end of 2008 through the first quarter of 2009; 

(05/2008) Framework agreement with IVPC (an Italian wind 

energy operator) to supply 46 MW of turbines (26 V90-

1.8MW, five V90-3MW, and 20 V90-2MW). Separate 

framework agreement with TransAlta (a Canadian energy 

operator) for 66 MW of turbine capacity (V90 3MW 

turbines); 

(06/2008) Master supply agreement with Alliant Energy 

Corporate Services for 500MW of turbines (V82-1.65MW); 

(10/2008) Framework agreement with EDP Renováveis for 

99MW of turbines (18 V90-3.0MW and 18 V90-1.8MW 

turbines).

GE Wind Long term agreement with TPI 

Composites for turbine blades; 

 (10/2007) Framework agreement with EDP for 500MW of 

(80 - 2.5MW and 201- 1.5MW turbines) for projects in 2008 

and 2009; 

(05/2008) Framework agreement with Iberdrola Renewables 

for 300MW of turbines (200 GE 1.5MW turbines) for 

delivery in 2010. 
Industry Structure and Company Strategies of Major Domestic and Foreign Wind and Solar Energy Manufacturers: 

Opportunities for Supply Chain Development in Appalachia 

105 

Company 

Suppliers 

Backward Acquisitions, 

Framework Agreements and/or 

Partnerships 

Buyers 

Forward Acquisitions, Framework Agreements and/or 

Partnerships 

Gamesa (04/2008) Framework agreement 

with Tower Tech Systems Inc. ( 

subsidiary of Broadwind Energy Inc.) 

for G87 78 meter towers; 

(04/2005) Framework agreement with HidroCantabrico for 

340MW (9 – G52-850kw, 68 – G58-850kw and 4 – G80-

2.0MW turbines); 

 (09/2005) Framework agreement with Ibereloica for 

214MW of turbines to be delivered in 2008; 

(11/2005) Framework agreement with Horizon Wind (a 

developer) for 400MW and the option of another 200MW 

(G80-2.0MW, G83-2.0MW, G87-2.0MW and G90-2.0MW 

turbines) for delivery in 2006-2007; 

(10/2007) Framework agreement with Babcock & Brown for 

up to 490MW of wind energy projects scheduled to be 

available in 2007-2009; 

(06/2008) Strategic agreement with Iberdrola Renewables for 

4,500 MW of turbines for delivery between 2010 and 2012; 

(10/2008) Framework agreement with China Longyuan 

Electric Power Group Corporation for 344MW of turbines 

(405 Gamesa G5X-850kW turbines) for delivery throughout 

2009; 

Enercon (01/2008) Turbine supply agreement with EarthFirst Canada, 

Inc. (a developer) for 30MW of turbines (15 E82 2MW 

turbines) for delivery in 2009; 

(04/2008) Purchase agreement with Shear Wind Inc. (a 

developer) for 60MW (30 E-82 2MW turbines) for delivery in 

2008 and 2009; 

(06/2008) Framework agreement with Wallenstam AB (a 

developer) for 29 wind turbines during 2011; 
Industry Structure and Company Strategies of Major Domestic and Foreign Wind and Solar Energy Manufacturers: 

Opportunities for Supply Chain Development in Appalachia 

106 

Company 

Suppliers 

Backward Acquisitions, 

Framework Agreements and/or 

Partnerships 

Buyers 

Forward Acquisitions, Framework Agreements and/or 

Partnerships 

Suzlon Acquired Hansen (a gearbox 

manufacturer) in 2006; 

(02/2006) Master supply agreement with John Deere Credit (a 

developer) for 238MW of turbines (S88-2.1MW and S64-

1.25MW models) for delivery in 2006; 

(04/2007) Framework agreement with Tierra Energy for 

88MW of turbines (42 S88-2.1MW turbines) for delivery in 

2008; 

(06/2007) Framework agreement with Edison Mission Group 

for 630MW (300 – S88-2.1MW turbines) in 2008 and 2009; 

(06/2007) Framework agreement with PPM Energy (a 

developer) for 700MW of turbines (334 S88-2.1MW turbines) 

for delivery in 2008 and 2009;

(11/2007) Framework agreements with Renewable Power 

Ventures and AGL Energy for 200MW of turbines (63 S88-

2.1MW turbines) for delivery in 2009; 

(12/2007) Framework agreement with the Oil and Natural 

Gas Corporatoin (India) for 51MW of turbines (34 S82-

1.5MW turbines) for delivery in 2008;

(01/2008) Framework agreement with Eiola Renovables SRC 

and Inciativas for 42.5MW of turbines (22 units of S88-

2.1MW turbines) for delivery in 2008;

(01/2008) Framework agreement with the Jingneng Group for 

100MW of turbines (33 S82-1.5MW turbines and 40 S64-

1.25MW turbines) for delivery in 2008; 

(04/2008) Purchase agreement with Ao Lu Jia New Energy 

Development (a developer) and Beifang Longyuan (a 

developer) for 148.5MW and 50MW in turbines (99 units of 

S-82 1.5MW and 40 units of S-64 1.5MW turbines) for 

delivery in 2008 to 2010; 

(04/2008) Framework agreement with Horizon Wind Energy 

(a developer) for 600MW in wind capacity (286 S88-2.1MW 

turbines) for delivery in 2008 and 2009.

(11/2008) Framework agreement with ENDESA 

COGENERACIÓN Y RENOVABLES for 190MW of 

turbines (9 G5X-850KW and 91 G87-2.0MW turbines) for 

delivery between 2008 and 2010. 
Industry Structure and Company Strategies of Major Domestic and Foreign Wind and Solar Energy Manufacturers: 

Opportunities for Supply Chain Development in Appalachia 

107 

Company 

Suppliers 

Backward Acquisitions, 

Framework Agreements and/or 

Partnerships 

Buyers 

Forward Acquisitions, Framework Agreements and/or 

Partnerships 

Siemens Acquired Winergy (a gearbox 

manufacturer) in 2005; 

(01/2007) Master supply agreement with Lakeview Light & 

Power 

(03/2008) Framework agreement with Vattenfall (a 

developer) for 170MW of turbines to be delivered in 2009 

and 2010; 

(04/2008) Framework agreement with Cascade Wind 

Acquisition LLC (a developer) for 300MW of turbines (130 

SWT-2.3-93 turbines) for delivery in 2008 and 2009; 

(04/2008) Framework agreement with Portland General 

Electric (a utility) for 325MW of turbines (141 SWT-2.3-93 

turbines) for delivery in 2009 and 2010; 

(05/2008) Framework agreement with Greater Gabbard 

Offshore Winds, Ltd. (a developer) for 504MW of turbines to 

be delivered in 2009 and 2010; 

 (09/2008) Framework agreement with E.ON for 1150MW of 

turbines (500 2.3MW turbines) to be delivered in 2010 and 

2011; 

Acciona Acquired 1300 MW worth of wind 

projects from EcoEnergy LLC 

 (01/2008) Completed 100% 

acquisition of Eolica Cesa for 77 

million euros. In January 2006, 

Acciona acquired 93.13% of Eolica 

Cesa for 973 million euros; 

(04/2007) Construction of a wind turbine production plant in 

Iowa with scheduled production of 200 turbines in 2008 and 

future production of 400 turbines per year; 

(05/2007) Framework agreement with Naturener for 300MW 

of turbines for delivery in 2008; 

(01/2008) Power purchase agreement with New Brunswick 

Power for 49.5MW of turbines (33 Acciona 1.5MW turbines); 

(05/2008) Framework agreement with EDP Renovaveis (an 

EDP Group Company) for 382.5MW of turbines in 2009-

2011 with the option for an additional 400MW; 

(05/2008) Framework agreement with Nova Scotia Power for 

30MW of turbines; 

(10/2008) Sole investor and owner of 223.5MW of turbines at 

two wind farms in Illinois and Oklahoma (67 AW-1500 

turbines in Illinois and 82 AW-1500 turbines in Oklahoma). 

The project is scheduled for completion in 2008. 
Industry Structure and Company Strategies of Major Domestic and Foreign Wind and Solar Energy Manufacturers: 

Opportunities for Supply Chain Development in Appalachia 

108 

Company 

Suppliers 

Backward Acquisitions, 

Framework Agreements and/or 

Partnerships 

Buyers 

Forward Acquisitions, Framework Agreements and/or 

Partnerships 

Goldwind (02/2007) Strategic Cooperation 

Agreement with LM Glasfiber for 6 

years for the supply of blades to 

begin in 2007; 

(06/2008) Memorandum of understanding agreement with 

Planet Energy Limited Pakistan for 50MW of turbines, with 

an expansion capacity of 150MW.

(02/2008) Agreed to acquire a 70 percent stake in German 

wind-turbine maker Vensys Energy AG for 41.24 million 

euros; 

Nordex (10/2006) Framework agreement with the German 

development subsidiary of a large European wind energy 

group for approximately 70MW (N90-2.3MW or 2.5MW 

turbines); 

(04/2007) Framework agreement with Babcock & Brown for 

up to 640MW for delivery in 2008-2011; 

(11/2007) Framework agreement with Greentech Energy 

Systems for 515MW (224 turbines from the S77-1.5MW, 

N90-2.3MW and N100-2.5MW series); 

(11/2007) Framework agreement with BP Alternative Energy 

North America Inc. for 150MW of turbines (N90/2.5MW 

turbines) for delivery in 2009; 

(01/2008) Framework agreement with Beijing Energy for 

150MW (99 – S70/1500kw turbines) for delivery in 2009; 

(01/2008) Framework agreement with Everpower Renewables 

for 62.5MW of turbines (25 N90/2.5MW turbines) for 

delivery 2008; 

(02/2008) Framework agreement with Eolia Renovables for 

up to 215MW (86 - N90 and N100 2.5MW turbines); 

(11/2008) Framework agreement with Beijing Energy for 

150MW of turbines (33 S70/1.5MW turbines) for delivery in 

2009. 

Sinovel American Superconductor’s subsidiary 

Windtec will develop complete electrical 

systems for Sinovel wind turbines, e.g., 

control, pitch and variable-speed power 

electrical systems. 
Industry Structure and Company Strategies of Major Domestic and Foreign Wind and Solar Energy Manufacturers: 

Opportunities for Supply Chain Development in Appalachia 

109 

APPENDIX III 

NAICS Codes (Adapted from Renewable Energy Policy Project Location of Manufacturing Activity Studies) 

Manufacturing Firms with Technical Potential to Enter Solar PV Market

Manufacturing Firms with Technical Potential to Enter Wind Turbine Market
Industry Structure and Company Strategies of Major Domestic and Foreign Wind and Solar Energy Manufacturers: 

Opportunities for Supply Chain Development in Appalachia 

110 

APPENDIX IV* 

Summary State Potential Employment and Establishment Data by Renewable Resource** 

(**Dominant manufacturing component is in parentheses) 

ALABAMA Wind Solar 

Employment 2,180 1,408 

Establishments 29 34 

County with Greatest 

Employment Concentration 

Madison: 627 Jobs, 8 Facilities, 3 

Components 

Morgan: 444 Jobs, 2 Facilities, 2 

Components 

Employment in 

At-Risk Counties 424 (Ball and Roller Bearings) 73 (Current Carrying Wiring Devices) 

GEORGIA Wind Solar 

Employment 7,113 2,587 

Establishments 126 77 

County with Greatest 

Employment Concentration 

Gwinnett: 1,894 Jobs, 36 Facilities, 7 

Components 

Gwinnett: 336 Jobs, 18 Facilities, 7 

Components 

KENTUCKY Wind Solar 

Employment 4,499 1,545 

Establishments 38 14 

County with Greatest 

Employment Concentration 

Jackson: 1,051 Jobs, 5 Facilities, 3 

Components 

Madison: 749 Jobs, 2 Facilities, 2 

Components 

Employment in 

At-Risk Counties 

1,360 (Plastics 

Products) 357 (Sheetmetal) 

MARYLAND Wind Solar 

Employment 851 465 

Establishments 16 12 

County with Greatest 

Employment Concentration 

Washington: 676 Jobs, 13 Facilities, 7 

Components 

Washington: 391 Jobs, 10 Facilities, 4 

Components 

MISSISSIPPI Wind Solar 

Employment 3,517 1,042 

Establishments 24 16 

County with Greatest 

Employment Concentration 

Lowndes: 535 Jobs, 5 Facilities, 3 

Components Alcorn: 401 Jobs, 1 Facility, 1 Components 

Employment in 

At-Risk Counties 

944 (Motors and 

Generators) 

723 (Plastics Film & Sheet, Plastics 

Material & Resin) 

NEW YORK Wind Solar 

Employment 5,544 1,613 

Establishments 71 31 

County with Greatest 

Employment Concentration 

Broome: 1,889 Jobs, 18 Facilities, 8 

Components 

Steuben: 546 Jobs, 3 Facilities, 1 

Component 

NORTH CAROLINA Wind Solar 

Employment 4,619 4,350 

Establishments 74 44 

County with Greatest 

Employment Concentration 

Watauga: 1,483 Jobs, 29 Facilities, 7 

Components 

Watauga: 1,923 Jobs, 31 Facilities, 6 

Components 

Employment in 

At-Risk Counties 1,685 (Plastics Products) 40 (Sheetmetal) 

OHIO Wind Solar 

Employment 5,480 2,641 

Establishments 94 44 

County with Greatest 

Employment Concentration 

Columbiana: 837 Jobs, 13 Facilities, 4 

Components 

Washington: 803, 6 Facilities, 2 

Components 

Employment in 

At-Risk Counties 648 (Iron Foundries) 122 (Plastics Material and Resin) 
Industry Structure and Company Strategies of Major Domestic and Foreign Wind and Solar Energy Manufacturers: 

Opportunities for Supply Chain Development in Appalachia 

111 

PENNSYLVANIA Wind Solar 

Employment 23,649 10,789 

Establishments 396 205 

County with Greatest 

Employment Concentration 

Erie: 5,374 Jobs, 66 Facilities, 8 

Components 

Allegheny: 2,612 Jobs, 40 Facilities, 8 

Components 

Employment in 

At-Risk Counties 314 (Power Transmissions) 211 (Unlaminated Plastics Film and Sheet) 

SOUTH CAROLINA Wind Solar 

Employment 10,036 4,096 

Establishments 92 41 

County with Greatest 

Employment Concentration 

Greenville: 4,595 Jobs, 23 Facilities, 8 

Components 

Greenville: 1,485 Jobs, 15 Facilities, 5 

Components 

Employment in 

At-Risk Counties 1,219 (Ball and Roller Bearings) 40 (Plastics Material and Resin) 

TENNESSEE Wind Solar 

Employment 13,590 3,707 

Establishments 192 64 

County with Greatest 

Employment Concentration 

Knox: 1,570 Jobs, 36 Facilities, 8 

Components 

Hawkins: 723 Jobs, 2 Facilities, 2 

Components 

Employment in 

At-Risk Counties 389 (Plastics Products) 184 (Plastics Material and Resin) 

VIRGINIA Wind Solar 

Employment 3,453 793 

Establishments 29 14 

County with Greatest 

Employment Concentration 

Russell: 736 Jobs, 1 Facility, 1 

Component 

Bristol City: 295 Jobs, 2 Facilities, 1 

Component 

Employment in 

At-Risk Counties 986 (Plastics Products) 81 (Semiconductors and Related Devices) 

WEST VIRGINIA Wind Solar 

Employment 3,688 4,414 

Establishments 75 40 

County with Greatest 

Employment Concentration 

Ritchie: 1,177 Jobs, 3 Facilities, 1 

Component 

Wood: 2,710 Jobs, 3 Facilities, 2 

Components 

Employment in 

At-Risk Counties 649 (Plastics Products) 123 (Plastics Material and Resin) 

*Adapted from Energizing Appalachia: Global Challenges and the Prospect of a Renewable Future, Table 9, pp 47-

48. 
Industry Structure and Company Strategies of Major Domestic and Foreign Wind and Solar Energy Manufacturers: 

Opportunities for Supply Chain Development in Appalachia 

112 

 

APPENDIX V

Survey Instrument 

Interviewee Name and Contact Information

Name: Position: 

Email: Phone: 

Part I. Company/Organization Information

Company Name: 

Company 

Address: 

Year 

Established: 

 NAICS 

Code: 

# of 

Employees: 

 # of 

Locations: 

11. Legal Structure (check one): 

 S-Corporation 

 Partnership 

 Sole Proprietorship 

 Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) 

 Corporation (Inc.) 

 Branch Plant 

 Other, please describe: 

12. What is the primary function of your business? What types of products or services do you 

provide? 

13. To whom do you provide your products (i.e. which sectors make up your major client base)? 

14. Are you an OEM, first tier, second tier, or third tier supplier? (Check all that apply) 

 

OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) - producer of the finished product, last 

manufacturer in the supply chain before the end-user. 

First Tier - direct vendor of OEMs usually providing assembled parts or major components 

in the value chain of a product. 

 Second Tier - sub-supplier or vendor to the 1st Tier suppliers in the value chain of a product. 

 Third Tier - sub-supplier or vendor to the 2nd Tier suppliers in the value chain of a product. 

 Unsure - Please Describe 
Industry Structure and Company Strategies of Major Domestic and Foreign Wind and Solar Energy Manufacturers: 

Opportunities for Supply Chain Development in Appalachia 

113 

Part II. Questions about your experience in the solar or wind industry 

15. What products/services do you supply specifically to the wind and/or solar industries? 

(Please list all that apply.) 

16. Was your business originally created to serve the renewable energy industry? 

 YES 

 NO 

17. If your business was not originally created to provide renewable energy products, what 

prompted you to do start doing so? In what year did you begin to sell products to the wind and 

solar industries? 

18. What challenges, if any, did you face in starting to sell solar or wind-related products in this 

business (e.g. finding/training workforce; gaining technical knowledge; competing in the market; 

etc.)? 

19. Approximately what percentage of your overall yearly profit comes from your sales in the 

wind/solar sector? 

20. Do you provide services (i.e. product design solutions, customer support, etc.) to your 

domestic customers? How essential are these services in selling your products and competing in 

the marketplace? 

21. Have the overall sales in the renewable energy portion of your business grown over time? 

Have you entered any new renewable energy markets lately? 

22. If your domestic renewable energy business has grown over time, what factors have 

contributed to this growth? (e.g., new product development, improvement of existing products, 

increase in efficiency, etc.) 

Part III. Questions about your workforce 

23. In the last twelve months, has providing products and/or services for the wind/solar industries 

required that you hire new people to work in your business? (Check one) 

 YES 

 NO 
Industry Structure and Company Strategies of Major Domestic and Foreign Wind and Solar Energy Manufacturers: 

Opportunities for Supply Chain Development in Appalachia 

114 

24. If your workforce increased due to growth in the wind/solar sector, how did you identify new 

employees? 

25. Do you face difficulty in finding/hiring sufficient numbers of workers for your business? 

(Check one) 

 YES 

 NO 

26. Did you use state-sponsored programs to locate new employees, train them, or locate your 

business? 

 YES 

 NO 

27. In general, does production for the wind/solar industry require that your workers have a 

different set of skills as compared to other products that you produce? 

 YES 

 NO 

28. What types of skills are you looking for your employees to obtain, or have your employees 

already obtained in order to produce products for the wind/solar industries? 

29. How well is your existing workforce prepared to produce products for the solar/wind 

industries? 

5=Extremely Prepared 1=Not Prepared (Check one) 

 5 – Extremely Prepared 

 4 – Well Prepared 

 3 – Somewhat Prepared 

 2 – Insufficiently Prepared 

 1 – Not Prepared 

30. If they are/were not prepared, is/was retraining or skill upgrading required? 

 YES 

 NO 

31. If new skills were required, how were workers able to obtain them? If you anticipate a need 

for skill upgrading in the future, what sources/organizations/institutions will you consider to help 

you train your staff? 
Industry Structure and Company Strategies of Major Domestic and Foreign Wind and Solar Energy Manufacturers: 

Opportunities for Supply Chain Development in Appalachia 

115 

32. Has production for the wind/solar industries required you to update, expand, or relocate any 

of your business facilities? 

 YES 

 NO 

33. Looking to the next five years, if your market for solar and wind products grows, do you 

anticipate a need to hire more workers? 

 YES 

 NO 

Part IV. Questions regarding foreign markets. 

34. Do you and your company work internationally and do you sell your product or services to 

companies in the wind or solar industries in other countries? 

 YES 

 NO 

IF ‘NO’ DISREGARD QUESTIONS 35-41 

35. In five years, what percentage of your overall sales do you anticipate will come from foreign 

transactions? 

36. What do you attribute your estimate of foreign sales (Question 33) to? Is it a result of the 

development of new products, the improvement or sale of existing products, an increase in 

efficiency, or some other combination of factors? (Please describe). 

37. Do you provide your foreign customers with services (i.e. product design solutions, customer 

support, etc.) as well as products? If so, what services and how essential are these services to 

selling your products in foreign markets?

38. What qualities of your products and services help you compete in foreign markets?

39. How do you keep up-to-date about economic, technological, and political changes in the 

foreign markets in which you compete? (i.e. reading trade publications, attending conferences, 

university courses, etc.)

40. What do you do in foreign markets to protect your intellectual property or ideas (i.e. patents, 

copyright protection, etc.)?
Industry Structure and Company Strategies of Major Domestic and Foreign Wind and Solar Energy Manufacturers: 

Opportunities for Supply Chain Development in Appalachia 

116 

41. Have you formed partnerships or alliances with any foreign companies? (Please list anything 

longer than a single transaction.) 

42. Other notes or comments: 

 
Industry Structure and Company Strategies of Major Domestic and Foreign Wind and Solar Energy Manufacturers: 

Opportunities for Supply Chain Development in Appalachia 

APPENDIX VI 

Database of Potential Participants in Solar or Wind Industry 

Employer City State Zip Code County NAICS Invo

ALABAMA AG Scientific Glass Co Inc Decatur AL 35603-1113 Morgan 327211 Not InvAGI Corporation Huntsville AL 35806-3901 Madison 326199 Unable Alphabet, Inc Decatur AL 35601-7911 Morgan 325211 Unable Batteries of North Alabama, Inc. Huntsville AL 35806-1790 Madison 335911 Not InvCB Fabrication, LLC Trinity AL 35673-4251 Morgan 332312 Not InvConstruction Services Inc Decatur AL 35603-1435 Morgan 332312 Not InvD & K Technical LLC Somerville AL 35670-3410 Morgan 335313 Not InvDaikin America, Inc Decatur AL 35601-8810 Morgan 325211 Not InvEdwards Design & Fabrication Inc. Meridianville AL 35759-2038 Madison 332312 Not InvFalcon Fabrication, Inc Laceys Spring AL 35754-3817 Morgan 332322 Not InvGreenWorks Design/Build Blountsville AL 35031 Blount CurrentInterstate Steel Company Decatur AL 35601 Morgan 332312 Not InvJones Batteries Clanton AL 35045 Chilton Not InvPanel Craft, Inc Hartselle AL 35640-6049 Morgan 326199 Not InvR F Thermoform Products Inc. Huntsville AL 35801-5908 Madison 326199 Not InvSiemens Energy & Automation, Inc Decatur AL 35603-5640 Morgan 335313 InvolveSolar Enterprises Enterprise AL 36331-0480 Marshall Not InvSolutia Inc. Decatur AL 35601 Morgan 325211 Not InvSue Jac, Inc Decatur AL 35603-1450 Morgan 332312 Not InvSymmetry Resources Inc Arab AL 35016-1362 Marshall 811219 Not InvTara Manufacturing, Inc. Owens Cross Roads AL 35763-9359 Madison 326199 Not InvUltra Manufacturing (USA), Inc. Huntsville AL 35811-9658 Madison 326199 Unable GEORGIA Advanced Energy Systems Inc Snellville GA 30078 Gwinnett CurrentCAB Inc Oakwood GA 30566-3518 Hall 423510 InvolveDigital Communications Systems Dallas GA 30157-6554 Paulding 811211 Not InvOne World Sustainable Energy Corp. Colbert GA 30628 Madison CurrentPowerQwest Inc. Duluth GA 30096 Gwinnett 334413 Not InvSolairgen Inc. Dahlonega GA 30533-4750 Lumpkin 238220 Current
Industry Structure and Company Strategies of Major Domestic and Foreign Wind and Solar Energy Manufacturers: 

Opportunities for Supply Chain Development in Appalachia Southeast Solar Co. Duluth GA 30096 Gwinnett 238220 CurrentStationary Power Services Norcross GA 30093 Gwinnett Defunct Supreme Battery Waleska GA 30183-5004 Cherokee 423840 Unable SureOn Power Systems Acworth GA 30102-2590 Cherokee Unable TEC Restorations Canton GA 30115 Cherokee CurrentKENTUCKY Ashland Fabricating and Welding Company Ashland KY 41101-2040 Boyd 332312 Unable B & H Tower Service, LLC Argillite KY 41121-8613 Greenup 332312 Not InvGanote Enterprises Inc. Cattlesburg KY 41129-9679 Boyd 332312 Not InvGenesis Development of Kentucky, LLC Elkhorn City KY 41522 Pike 221119 CurrentGlobal Defenses Ashland KY 41101-7555 Boyd 335312 Unable Joseph M Jenkins Flatwoods KY 41139-1958 Greenup 332312 Not InvKentucky Solar Living, LLC Richmond KY 40475 Madison Unable Prince Electronics Inc Russel KY 41169-1046 Greenup 335999 Not InvSteel Technologies Inc Wurtland KY 41144-7681 Greenup 332312 Not InvSuperior Battery Manufacturing Company Russell Springs KY 42642-8854 Russell 335911 Not InvTangent Technologies Inc Ashland KY 41102-9657 Boyd 326199 Unable MARYLAND A M M Corporation Cumberland MD 21502-8640 Allegany 332322 Not InvArtmor Plastics Corporation Cumberland MD 21502 Allegany 326199 Not InvBig D Electric Inc. Cumberland MD 21502 Allegany 238210 CurrentEnergy Elements LLC Hagerstown MD 21740 Washington CurrentMISSISSIPPI Advanced Plastics Inc Tupelo MS 38804 Lee 326199 Defunct City Electric Supply Branch 537 Tupelo MS 33801-6520 Lee 335999 Not InvEllis Steel Company Inc West Point MS 39773-2311 Clay 332312 Not InvFlexible Foam Products, Inc Tupelo MS 38804-5825 Lee 325211 Not InvL & J Product & Sales Tupelo MS 38804-6907 Lee 325211 Not InvMiscellaneous Steel Supply LLC West Point MS 39773 Clay 332312 Not InvPrecision Machine & Metal Fabrication, Inc. Tupelo MS 38801-4946 Lee 332322 Unable Ultra Drying Technology West Point MS 39773-8517 Clay 333412 Not Inv
Industry Structure and Company Strategies of Major Domestic and Foreign Wind and Solar Energy Manufacturers: 

Opportunities for Supply Chain Development in Appalachia NEW YORK Alternative Traxx New Berlin NY 13411-0063 Chenango Unable AY Solar Vestal NY 13850 Broome 561990 CurrentCreative Energy Technologies Summit NY 12175 Schoharie CurrentDavid Austin South New Berlin NY 13843-2233 Chenango CurrentETM Solar Works Endicott NY 13760 Broome 238220 CurrentFour Winds Renewable Energy Arkport NY 14807 Steuben 238220 CurrentGay Canough Endicott NY 13760-4915 Broome CurrentGreat Brook Renewable Energy South New Berlin NY 13843-2233 Chenango 444190 CurrentMarsland Renewable Energy Greene NY 13778 Chenango CurrentPeerless-Winsmith Inc Springfield NY 14141-1165 Otsego 333612 InvolveRenovus Energy Inc. Ithaca NY 14850-5004 Tompkins 238290 CurrentSilicon Solar Sidney NY 13838-1128 Delaware 444190 CurrentSKF USA Inc. Falconer NY 14733-9705 Chautauqua 332991 InvolveSKF USA Inc. Jamestown NY 14701-3802 Chautauqua 332991 InvolveThe Hilliard Corporation Elmira NY 14902-1504 Chemung 333411 CurrentNORTH CAROLINA Advanced Thermal Solutions Hendersonville NC 28792-6827 Henderson 238220 CurrentAppalachian Energy Services Brasstown NC 28902 Clay CurrentAppropriate Building Solutions Inc. Boone NC 28803 Watauga CurrentAtronic Plastic Inc. Fletcher NC 28732-8655 Henderson 326199 Not InvBromley Plastics Corporation Fletcher NC 28732 Henderson 325211 Not InvCommand Mobility Franklin NC 28734-9275 Forsyth 446199 Not InvDouglas Battery Manufacturing Company Winston-Salem NC 27107 Forsyth 335911 CurrentElkamet, Inc. East Flat Rock NC 28726-2116 Henderson 326199 Not InvFriedman & Sun Access Store Dillsboro NC 28725-0657 Jackson CurrentKaydon Corporation Mocksville NC 27028-9304 Davie 332991 InvolveKing Service Group Inc. Black Mountain NC 28711-6009 Buncombe 335999 Not InvLiberty Plastics, Inc. Etowah NC 28729 Henderson 326199 Defunct Moventas Winston-Salem NC 27104 Forsyth InvolveNypro Asheville Inc. Arden NC 28704-9457 Buncombe 326199 Not InvProgressive Technologies Inc Pilot Mountain NC 27041-7572 Surry 334419 Not InvR & D Plastics, Inc. Arden NC 28704-8514 Buncombe 326199 Not InvRock Castle Solar Inc Asheville NC 28803 Buncombe Current
Industry Structure and Company Strategies of Major Domestic and Foreign Wind and Solar Energy Manufacturers: 

Opportunities for Supply Chain Development in Appalachia Saft America Inc Valdese NC 28690-9635 Burke 335912 InvolveSun Stuff of Asheville Asheville NC 28803 Buncombe 453998 Not invSundance Power Systems Mars NC 28787-9346 Madison 238220 CurrentSurry Solar Services Mounty Airy NC 27030-9192 Surry 423830 Not InvSusten.com Building Energy Solutions Asheville NC 28806 Yancey 541611 CurrentThermacraft Energy Services Asheville NC 28804 Buncombe 541990 CurrentTri-State Life Safety & Electric Systems Inc. Murphy NC 28906-4121 Cherokee 453998 Not InvT-Square Builders Inc Banner Elk NC 28604-5500 Avery 236115 CurrentOHIO Alpha Welding & Fabricating Inc. South Point OH 45680-7465 Lawrence 332312 Not InvAmericas Styrenics LLC Hanging Rock OH 45638-8687 Lawrence 325211 Not InvDovetail Solar and Wind Athens OH 45701 Athens 238210 CurrentEndot Industries Inc South Point OH 45680-8881 Lawrence 325211 Not InvJ & M Maynard Enterprises Inc Ironton OH 45638-1349 Lawrence 332312 Not InvJetstream Power International Holmesville OH 44633 Holmes Defunct Modular Security Systems Inc Ironton OH 45638-1130 Lawrence 335999 Not InvSHS Generators Proctorville OH 45669-8829 Lawrence 335312 Defunct Solar Creations Perrysville OH 44864 Holmes Defunct Third Sun Solar and Wind Power Athens OH 45701-1565 Athens 238220 CurrentPENNSYLVANIA A M Sheet Metal Inc Williamsport PA 17702-7233 Lycoming 238390 Not InvA.C. Moore Inc Pittsburgh PA 15205-1404 Allegheny Not InvAcurlite Structural Skylights Berwick PA 18603-0005 Columbia 327211 CurrentAdvanced Cast Products Meadville PA 16335 Mercer 331511 Not InvAdvanced Drainage Systems Inc Muncy PA 17756-0404 Lycoming 326122 Unable Advanced Metal Systems of PA Selinsgrove PA 17870-0117 Snyder 332322 Defunct Affordable Alternative Energy Wellsboro PA 16901 Tioga CurrentAlcan Corp Williamsport PA 17701-4171 Lycoming 331421 Not InvAlumax Inc Bloomsburg PA 17815-2415 Columbia 331315 Not InvAmerican Superconductor West Mifflin PA 15122 Allegheny 335313 CurrentArcos Industries LLC Mount Carmel PA 17851-2504 Northumberland 335999 Unable Arris (formerly C-Cor Inc) State College PA 16801-7530 Centre 334220 Not InvASET Solar Bloomsburg PA 17815 Columbia Current
Industry Structure and Company Strategies of Major Domestic and Foreign Wind and Solar Energy Manufacturers: 

Opportunities for Supply Chain Development in Appalachia ASP Services Inc Selinsgrove PA 17870-8889 Snyder 332312 Not InvAuto Weld Chassis & Components Danville PA 17821-9300 Montour 811310 Not InvAxion Power International New Castle PA 16105 Lawrence Unable Battery Systems Inc Washington PA 15301 Washington Not InvBenton Foundry Inc Benton PA 17814-7641 Columbia 331511 CurrentBerry Plastics Corp Berwick PA 18603-1127 Columbia 326160 Defunct Berwick Offray LLC Berwick PA 18603-0428 Columbia 326199 Not InvBlatek Inc State College PA 16801-7548 Centre 334419 Not InvBoyer Machine Northumberland PA 17857-1825 Northumberland 326199 Not InvBuckell Plastic Co Inc Lewistown PA 17044-0272 Mifflin 326199 Not InvC & C Welding & Fabricating Clarence PA 16829-0245 Centre 811310 Not InvC M C Steel Fabricators Inc New Columbia PA 17856-9375 Union 332312 Not InvCentrex Precision Plastics Inc. (Avail) Bellefonte PA 16823-8420 Centre 326199 Not InvCharles Smith Machine Northumberland PA 17857-8748 Northumberland 326199 Not InvCherryridge Cabin Rentals (DBA Bergey Milesburg PA 16853 Centre 238220 CurrentClinton Controls Inc Lock Haven PA 17745-1727 Clinton 335313 Defunct Coil Specialty Co Inc State College PA 16801-7543 Centre 334416 Not InvCommercial Stainless Inc Bloomsburg PA 17815-2927 Columbia 332322 Not InvControl Alt Energy Inc Auburn PA 17922 Schuylkill CurrentCooper US Inc Shamokin PA 17872-0543 Northumberland 335931 Unable Crystal Air Olyphant PA 18447 Lackawanna 238220 CurrentD E Associates Inc Shamokin PA 17872-0394 Northumberland 335312 Not InvDelta Mechanical Inc Berwick PA 18603-4232 Columbia 332312 Not InvDg Power Systems LLC Lewistown PA 17044-7883 Mifflin 335312 Not InvDonsco Inc Belleville PA 17004-0957 Mifflin 331511 Not InvDri Rod Co Inc Benton PA 17814-0518 Columbia 335999 Unable Drohan Brick & Supply Inc Mount Joy PA 17552-0277 Lancaster 444190 Unable Durametal Corp Muncy PA 17756-1202 Lycoming 336340 Not InvDynamic Surface Applications Muncy PA 17756-7869 Lycoming 332312 Not InvEconopane Insulating Glass Co Burnham PA 17009-0248 Mifflin 327215 Not InvEickhoff Corporation Pittsburgh PA 15275-1002 Allegheny 423810 InvolveEIT Corp Phoenix Sunbury PA 17801-0744 Northumberland 335999 Unable Ellwood City Forge Ellwood City PA 16117 Lawrence 331511 CurrentEk's Vinyl Structures Loganton PA 17747-9211 Clinton 326199 Not InvEMA Inc. of PA/Motors & Controls Hazleton PA 18201-7365 Luzerne 333515 Not Inv
Industry Structure and Company Strategies of Major Domestic and Foreign Wind and Solar Energy Manufacturers: 

Opportunities for Supply Chain Development in Appalachia Emerson Process Management Pittsburgh PA 15238-2918 Allegheny 334513 CurrentEnvinity, Inc. State College PA 16801 Centre 236116 CurrentFiberblade LLC (Gamesa) Ebensburg PA 15931-4122 Cambria 335312 CurrentFitch Consulting Berwick PA 18603-5417 Columbia/Luzer 238220 CurrentFreedom Components Inc Lewistown PA 17044-7846 Mifflin 332710 Not InvGE Inspection Technologies, LP Lewistown PA 17044-9312 Mifflin 334517 CurrentGE Transportation (GE Infrastructure) Erie PA 16531-0001 Erie 333612 CurrentGeorge A Brockmann Berwick PA 18603-5802 Columbia 811219 Not InvGorilla Solar Company East Stroudsburg PA 18301 Monroe Defunct Heath F Hofmann State College PA 16801 Centre 335999 Unable High Industries Inc Williamsport PA 17701-4106 Lycoming 332312 Not InvHodge Foundry Inc. Greenville PA 16125-9724 Mercer 331511 CurrentHVS Technologies Inc State College PA 16801-7555 Centre 334515 Unable Hypernex Inc State College PA 16801 Centre 334413 Defunct I & Y Construction New Enterprise PA 16664 Bedford 236115 Not InvIndustrial Fabrications Inc Williamsport PA 17701-0094 Lycoming 332116 Not InvIntuitive Control Systems LLC State College PA 16801-4756 Centre 335313 Not InvJarden Corp Reedsville PA 17084-8634 Mifflin 326199 Not InvJasper Steel Fabrication Inc Williamsport PA 17701-0605 Lycoming 332312 Not InvJaybird Manufacturing Inc State College PA 16801-7554 Centre 333412 Not InvJeff Hills Williamsport PA 17701-8846 Lycoming 332312 Unable Joes Welding Repairs Milton PA 17847-8953 Northumberland 811310 Not InvK.C. Larson Williamsport PA 17701-3807 Lycoming 238220 CurrentKeller Cft, Inc State College PA 16801-8600 Centre 332312 Defunct Kleerdex Co Bloomsburg PA 17815-8613 Columbia 325211 Not InvKurt J. Lesker Clairton PA 15025 Allegheny 333295 CurrentKvaerner Willfab Inc Williamsport PA 17701-4119 Lycoming 332410 Defunct LECO Corp Bellefonte PA 16823-0390 Centre 337127 Not InvLeep Inc Montoursville PA 17754-0365 Lycoming 326199 Not InvLogue Industries Inc Montoursville PA 17754-2304 Lycoming 332710 Not InvM & M Sheet Metal Inc Williamsport PA 17701-1422 Lycoming 332322 Not InvMetimex Corp Reedsville PA 17084-8607 Mifflin 332312 Unable Mr Spouting Port Matilda PA 16870-0492 Centre 326199 Not InvNew Castle Battery Manufacturing New Castle PA 16105 Lawrence Defunct Newspring Industrial Corp Mount Carmel PA 17851-1876 Northumberland 326199 Not Inv
Industry Structure and Company Strategies of Major Domestic and Foreign Wind and Solar Energy Manufacturers: 

Opportunities for Supply Chain Development in Appalachia North Coast Energy Systems Erie PA 16504 Erie 444110 CurrentOtt Packagings Inc Selinsgrove PA 17870-1211 Snyder 322212 Not InvPenn Forge & Fabricating Co State College PA 16804-0707 Centre 332312 Not InvPenn-American Inc Muncy PA 17756-0240 Lycoming 332312 Not InvPennsylvania Aluminum Berwick PA 18603-4113 Columbia 332322 Not InvPhoenix Associated Services Muncy PA 17756-1014 Lycoming 332312 Not InvPlextronics, Inc. Pittsburgh PA 15238 Allegheny 325211 CurrentPolymics (Polymer Instrumentation State College PA 16803-1731 Centre 326199 Not InvPoorman's Welding & Fabrication Aaronsburg PA 16820-9303 Centre 332312 Not InvPPG Industries Harmarville PA 15238 Allegheny 325510 CurrentPPG Industries Cheswick PA 15024 Allegheny 325510 Not InvPPG Industries Creighton PA 15030 Allegheny 325510 Not InvPPG Industries Allison Park PA 15101 Allegheny 325510 Not InvPPG Industries Springdale PA 15144 Allegheny 325510 Not InvPPG Industries Meadville PA 16335 Crawford 325510 Not InvPPG Industries Tipton PA 16684 Blair 325510 Not InvPrecise Technology Inc State College PA 16801-2751 Centre 326199 Not InvPremier Automotive Mifflinburg PA 17844-7959 Union 335313 Not InvPrimus (formerly Abb Inc) Williamsport PA 17701-5578 Lycoming 334513 Not InvR P's Machinery Sales Inc Jersey Shore PA 17740-0507 Lycoming 332312 Not InvRadiant Steel Products Co Williamsport PA 17701-6017 Lycoming 332322 Not InvRado Enterprises Inc Bloomsburg PA 17815-8760 Columbia 238220 CurrentRaytheon Co. State College PA 16803-2214 Centre 334511 Not InvRC Watt North Huntingdon PA 15642 Westmoreland CurrentRegency Plus Inc Mount Carmel PA 17851-1876 Northumberland 326199 Not InvReynolds Iron Works Inc Williamsport PA 17701-8518 Lycoming 332312 Not InvRick Bowmaster Construction Bellefonte PA 16823 Centre Not InvRTD Embedded Technologies Inc. State College PA 16804-0906 Centre 334513 Not InvScaffs Enterprises Loganton PA 17747-0066 Clinton 114210 Not InvSeeger & Hosband Assembly Svcs State College PA 16803-2214 Centre 334418 Unable Selmax Corp Selinsgrove PA 17870-0149 Snyder 326199 Not InvSol TEC Innovations State College PA 16801-2612 Centre 326199 Not invSolair Energy Ralston PA 17763 Lycoming 561110 CurrentSolar Power Industries Inc. Belle Vernon PA 15012-2958 Fayette 334413 CurrentSomerset Consolidated (Somerset and Somerset PA 15501 Somerset 331511 Not Inv
Industry Structure and Company Strategies of Major Domestic and Foreign Wind and Solar Energy Manufacturers: 

Opportunities for Supply Chain Development in Appalachia Southern New Jersey Steel Inc. Bloomsburg PA 17815-1565 Columbia 332312 Not InvSpeerco LLC (DBA Batteries Plus) Pittsburgh PA 15234 Allegheny 453998 CurrentSpringouse Energy Systems Inc Washington PA 15301 Washington Defunct Structure Manufacturing Work Danville PA 17821-1540 Montour 332312 Not InvSunspot Solar & Heating Delaware Water Gap PA 18327 Monroe 238220 CurrentSuntara Energy Pittsburgh PA 15229 Allegheny Defunct Tech Group Inc Montgomery PA 17752-9046 Lycoming 326199 Not InvTech Group Inc Williamsport PA 17701-0977 Lycoming 326199 Not InvThe Heat Shed, Inc. Revere PA 18953 Somerset 423620 CurrentThe Right Way Solar Williamsburg PA 16693 Blair Defunct Thermal Product Solutions White Deer PA 17887-0150 Union 333994 Unable U S Development Corp New Berlin PA 17855-0507 Union 326199 Not InvUnipar Inc Reedsville PA 17084-9798 Mifflin 326199 Not InvValley Technologies Inc. State College PA 16801-7555 Centre 335999 Not InvVictor Yordy Dewart PA 17730 Northumberland 332322 Not InvVox Energy Solutions, LLC Allison Park PA 15101 Allegheny 517919 CurrentW T Storey Inc Renovo PA 17764-1000 Clinton 335313 Unable Walltalkers Muncy PA 17756-0182 Lycoming 326113 Not InvWest Pharmaceutical Services Jersey Shore PA 17740-1923 Lycoming 326199 Not InvWhistler Enterprise Inc Watsontown PA 17777-9402 Northumberland 332322 Defunct William J. Koshinskie Milton PA 17847-1710 Northumberland 332322 Not InvWilliamsport Foundry Co Inc Williamsport PA 17701-5809 Lycoming 331511 Not InvYeager Wire Works Inc Berwick PA 18603-1418 Columbia 332322 Not InvWall Yodock Co Inc Bloomsburg PA 17815-2922 Columbia 332322 Defunct SOUTH CAROLINA Compact Solutions Greenville SC 29601-1914 Greenville 561499 Defunct GE Transportation-Aircraft Engines Greenville SC 39615-4614 Greenville 336412 CurrentMaier Design Works Westminster SC 29693-3333 Oconee 541330 CurrentMoventas Greenville SC 29615 Greenville 332710 InvolveRadford Enterprises Marietta SC 29661 Greenville Unable Renk AG Duncan SC 29334 Spartanburg 336350 Not InvSolar Heating Specialists Blacksburg SC 29702-8366 Cherokee 444190 CurrentSunstore Energy Solutions Greer SC 29650 Greenville Current
Industry Structure and Company Strategies of Major Domestic and Foreign Wind and Solar Energy Manufacturers: 

Opportunities for Supply Chain Development in Appalachia TENNESSEE Accutech, LLC Clinton TN 37716-2510 Anderson 326199 Not InvAdvanced Drainage System Knoxville TN 37932-3207 Knox 326199 Not InvAerisyn, LLC Chattanooga TN 37408-1016 Hamilton 332312 CurrentAGC Flat Glass North America, inc. Kingsport TN 37662 Sullivan 327211 CurrentAlturdyne Bristol TN 37620-0928 Sullivan 333611 Not InvB & B Fabricators Bristol TN 37620-9445 Sullivan 332312 Not InvBarnhart Cranes and Rigging Oak Ridge TN 37830 Anderson CurrentBeverly Steel Inc. Knoxville TN 37918 Knox 332312 Not InvBig Frog Mountain Chattanooga TN 37415-3522 Hamilton 423610 CurrentC & A Control Systems inc. Knoxville TN 37918-5817 Knox 335999 Not InvChristian Metals, Inc. (DBA as Pierce Metals, Bristol TN 37620-4416 Sullivan 332322 Unable DDM Plastics Knoxville TN 37917-7145 Knox 326199 Unable Diversified Power International Piney Flats TN 37686-4468 Sullivan 335999 CurrentEarthlog Equity Group Talbott TN 37877-0685 Hamblin Defunct Eastman Chemical Kingsport TN 37660-5147 Sullivan 325211 Not InvEdwards RW & Company Bluff City TN 37618-3267 Sullivan 326199 Not InvElectro Motor, LLC Piney Flats TN 37686-4468 Sullivan 335312 Not InvEnergy Systems Knoxville TN 37914-6509 Knox 325211 Not InvEnernex Corporation Knoxville TN 37922 Knox CurrentFabricraft, Inc Bristol TN 37620-2365 Sullivan 332312 Not InvFibergrate Composite Structures Inc Piney Flats TN 37686-4416 Sullivan 326199 Defunct Fi-Shock, Inc. Knoxville TN 37914-6629 Knox 335999 Unable Flash Technologies Franklin TN 37067 Franklin CurrentGKM Acquisitions, Inc Surgoinsville TN 37873-5130 Hawkins 327211 Not InvGlobal Signal Kingsport TN 37660-3799 Sullivan 332312 Unable Green Earth Services Knoxville TN 37950-0005 Knox CurrentGreenleaf industries Lenoir City TN 37771-3069 Loudon 326199 Not InvHenard Metal Fabricators, Inc. Kingsport TN 37660-1183 Sullivan 332312 Not InvInnovative Research Bristol TN 37620-4770 Sullivan 334515 Defunct Integra-Seal Industries, LLC Kingsport TN 37663-3226 Sullivan 326199 Not InvInvenergy, LLC-Buffalo Mtn Energy Ctr Oliver Springs TN 37840 Anderson 335312 CurrentJamieson Manufacturing Co Bluff City TN 37618-2637 Sullivan 326199 Not InvKaiser Panel Systems Piney Flats TN 37686-4422 Sullivan 326199 Not InvKinkead, Inc Bristol TN 37620-5431 Sullivan 332312 Not Inv
Industry Structure and Company Strategies of Major Domestic and Foreign Wind and Solar Energy Manufacturers: 

Opportunities for Supply Chain Development in Appalachia MG Electric Kingsport TN 37660-7455 Sullivan 335999 Unable National Solar Supply Tellico Plains TN 37385 Monroe CurrentOmega Plastics Corporation Clinton TN 37716-4129 Anderson 326199 Not InvPip's Iron Works Knoxville TN 37923-6201 Knox 332312 Not InvPrimester (see Eastman Chemical) Kingsport TN 37660-5555 Sullivan 325211 Not InvProstead Plastics, Inc. Knoxville TN 37931-3214 Knox 326199 Unable Protokraft, LLC Kingsport TN 37660-1098 Sullivan 334413 Not InvQuality Machine and Welding Co, Inc. Knoxville TN 37917-5929 Knox 332312 Unable Quality Plastic Products, LLC Church Hill TN 37642-4506 Hawkins 326199 Not InvRotocast Plastic Products of TN, Inc. Knoxville TN 37914-6515 Knox 326199 Not InvSignal Wind Energy Chattanooga TN 37421 Hamilton 236220 CurrentSuperior Steel of TN, Inc. Knoxville TN 37914-6514 Knox 332312 Not InvTechmer Pm, LLC Clinton TN 37716-4019 Anderson 325211 CurrentTennessee Valley Aluminum Co Bristol TN 37620-8410 Sullivan 332322 Not InvTennessee Valley Infrastructure Group Chattanooga TN 37405 Hamilton 335312 CurrentTowe Iron Works, Inc. Knoxville TN 37921-6038 Knox 332312 Not InvTower Services Inc. Knoxville TN 37932-3306 Knox 332312 Unable USI, Inc. Rockford TN 37853-3045 Blount 326199 Not InvWB Service & Machine Kingsport TN 37660-4408 Sullivan 332322 Unable Xtreme Tower Products Maryville TN 37801-3702 Blount 332312 Not InvVIRGINIA Abingdon Steel, Inc Abingdon VA 24210-7609 Washington 332312 CurrentAdaptive I/O Technologies, Inc Blacksburg VA 24060-6702 Montgomery 334515 Unable Aspen Motion Technologies Inc Radford VA 24141-3362 Independent 335312 Unable Carolina Steel Corporation Bristol VA 24202-3709 Washington 332312 Not InvDe'cor Lighting & Electrical Co Pulaski VA 24301-3624 Pulaski 335999 Not InvElectric Jet LLC Blacksburg VA 24060-6373 Montgomery 335999 Not InvGreen Brilliance Sterling VA 20165-3115 Loudoun 221119 InvolveHubbell Incorporated Christiansburg VA 24073-2502 Montgomery 335931 Not InvIdentification International, Inc. Blacksburg VA 24060-6644 Montgomery 335999 Not InvImpact Plastics Incorporated Abingdon VA 24210 Washington 326199 Unable Intermet New River Foundry Radford VA 24141-1684 Independent 331511 Not InvJDS Uniphase Corporation Blacksburg VA 24060-5400 Montgomery 334313 InvolveKollmorgen Corporation (Danaher) Radford VA 24141-4026 Independent 335312 Unable 
Industry Structure and Company Strategies of Major Domestic and Foreign Wind and Solar Energy Manufacturers: 

Opportunities for Supply Chain Development in Appalachia LMT Inc Glade Spring VA 24340-4845 Washington 332312 Unable Luna Energy LLC - changed names Blacksburg VA 24060-6377 Montgomery 334413 Not InvLyon Roofing, Inc Radford VA 24141-8656 Independent 332322 Not InvMar-Bal, Inc. Dublin VA 24084-3509 Pulaski 326199 Unable Mark Productions Blacksburg VA 24060-2538 Montgomery 325211 Not InvMoog Inc. Blacksburg VA 24060-6620 Montgomery 334413 CurrentNew River Radon Service Radford VA 24141-6940 Independent 334519 Not InvNippon Pulse America Radford VA 24141-5100 Independent 335312 Not InvNuvotronics Corporation Blacksburg VA 24060-6604 Montgomery 334413 Unable Pixell Inc. Blacksburg VA 24060-9241 Montgomery 334413 Defunct Solar Connexion Blacksburg VA 24062-0095 Montgomery 221119 CurrentStrongwell Company Bristol VA 24201-3820 Washington 326199 CurrentTaylored Information Technologies, LLC Nickelsville VA 24271-3102 Scott 334413 Unable Transecurity, LLC Blacksburg VA 24060-6164 Montgomery 334413 Not InvWolverine Advanced Materials, LLC Blacksburg VA 24060-6605 Montgomery 326199 Unable WEST VIRGINIA Accurate Plastics Inc. Weirton WV 26062-5025 Hancock 325211 Not InvAdell Polymers Inc. Petersburg WV 26847-1735 Grant 325991 Not InvAmerican Babbitt Bearing Inc. Huntington WV 25702 Wayne 332710 Not InvAnnette Riehle Lavalette WV 25535 Wayne 327211 Unable Bayer Material Science LLC New Martinsville WV 26155 Wetzel 325188 Defunct Blenko Glass Company Inc Milton WV 25541 Cabell 327211 Not InvCabell Sheet Metal & Roofing, Inc Ceredo WV 25507 Wayne 332322 Not InvCJ Products Inc Weston WV 26452-9580 Lewis 326199 Not InvConcepts West Corporation Parkersburg WV 26104-9790 Wood 561910 Unable Crouse Hinds Co Milton WV 25541-1270 Cabell 335999 Unable Cytec Industries Inc Willow Island WV 26134-9732 Pleasants 325998 Unable E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Co. Martinsburg WV 25404-6550 Berkeley 325211 Not InvEngines Inc Milton WV 25541-1167 Cabell 332322 Not InvExide Technologies Charleston WV 25302-3531 Kanawha 335911 Not InvFairmont Specialty Services Inc. Fairmont WV 26554-9787 Marion 325211 Not InvGEF Inc. Winfield WV 25213-9513 Putnam 326199 Not InvHD Supply Waterworks Ltd Alum Creek WV 25003-9712 Kanawha 332996 Not InvHuntington Steel Huntington WV 25714-1178 Wayne 423510 Current
Industry Structure and Company Strategies of Major Domestic and Foreign Wind and Solar Energy Manufacturers: 

Opportunities for Supply Chain Development in Appalachia M & G Polymers USA, LLC Apple Grove WV 25502 Mason 325211 Defunct Maniar's Plastics Industry Inc Glen Dale WV 26038-1128 Marshall 325211 Not InvMartin Steel Inc Huntington WV 25704-2342 Wayne 332312 Not InvOccidental Chemical Corp. Belle WV 25015 Kanawha 325181 Not InvPetrochemicals Holding US Inc Washington WV 26181 Wood 325211 Defunct Poke Inc Huntington WV 25701-9766 Wayne 332312 Unable Polyplex, LLC South Charleston WV 25303 Kanawha 325211 Unable Precision, LLC Sistersville WV 26175 Tyler 335999 Not InvPWP Industries Mineral Wells WV 26150-8216 Wood 325211 Not InvRandall Mers Huntington WV 25705-3725 Wayne 334515 Defunct Ravenswood Specialty Services, Inc. Ravenswood WV 26164 Jackson 326199 Unable Sabic Innovative Plastics US LLC Washington WV 26181 Wood 325211 Not InvSeverstal Wheeling, Inc. Wheeling WV 26003 Ohio 331111 Not InvShare Steel Inc Huntington WV 25704-9304 Wayne 332312 Not InvSMC Electrical Products Inc Barboursville WV 25504 Cabell 335931 CurrentSoles Electric of Huntington Company, Inc. Huntington WV 25703-1137 Wayne 335312 Unable Specialized Power Systems Inc. Huntington WV 25701 Cabell Not InvStockmeier Urethanes USA Inc Clarksburg WV 26301-9606 Harrison 325211 Not InvSun Selector Parkersburg WV 26101 Wood Defunct Sunoco Chemical Kenova WV 25530-1891 Wayne 325211 Unable The Dow Chemical Company South Charleston WV 25303-1230 Kanawha 325211 InvolveThe Dow Chemical Company Hurricane WV 25526-1126 Putnam 325211 Unable The Dow Chemical Company (Bayer Crop Institute WV 25112 Kanawha 325211 Not InvTower Logistics, LLC Huntington WV 25720-2086 Wayne 488999 CurrentUrethane Specialty & Supply Inc Beaver WV 25813 Raleigh 325211 Not InvNote: Companies added to the study that were not part of the original group of 363 firms are indicated in boldface type.