SunCentric Business Perspectives

SunCentric Business Perspectives Can the California Solar Initiative Net Metering Program Meet its Objectives? Glenn Harris, CEO April 29 Executive Summary Our answer: not without immediate and significant changes. Senate Bill 1 (SB1), which birthed the California Solar Initiative (CSI) was signed into law in August of 26 and the program officially began in January 27. The objectives set by SB1 for the CSI are clear: 1. Install 3, megawatts of distributed solar PV capacity in California by the end of 216 2. Establish a self-sufficient solar industry in which solar energy systems are a viable mainstream option in 1 years 3. Place solar energy systems on 5 percent of new homes in 13 years Building on the solar infrastructure created by California s former programs, at the end of year two, the ten year 3,MW program should be well on its way to installing 6MW. In fact, by California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) bookkeeping, the CSI program had installed just 136MW through the end of 28 (green line). While they were active California s former solar programs, led by the California Commission s Emerging Energy (CEC) Renewables Program (ERP) and the CPUC s Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) installed 35MW Chart 1 Source: Data from the CPUC CSI Staff Report, January 29 MW Installed 6 45 3 15 Cumulative MW Installed in California All Former Programs (Now Over) and the CSI All former programs 35MW through 28 CSI program 136MW through 28 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 SunCentric Inc. Page 1

19 17 15 13 11 9 7 5 3 1-1 (blue line). Both former programs stopped taking new applications in 26 and will likely finish a few final MWs in 29. The solar programs created by SB1 are now the only statewide PV programs in California taking new applications for retail customers. Other programs may be developed in the future, but today the success of the distributed, net metered photovoltaic (PV) solar market rests squarely on the shoulders of the California Solar Initiative. Table 1 shows the accomplishments of the CSI s individual programs. There is little activity except for the CPUC s Investor Owned Utilities (IOU) program. Table 1 CPUC Reported CSI MW Installs by Program Component as of Year End 28 CSI MW Objective by YE 216 CPUC CSI MW Installs thru YE 28 CSI Installs Reported by Program Component Source: CPUC CSI Staff Report, January 29 CEC New Solar Home Partnership incl. Affordable Housing 36 1.4 Publically Owned Utilities (POU) 7 1.5 CPUC Low Income Residential 19 No Activity CPUC Investor Owned Utilities (IOU) Step 1 thru 1 1,75 133 Total 3, 135.9 On top of this discouraging performance, the CPUC has created and chosen ways to measure and report activity that inflates their IOU program s accomplishments. They now report the amount of MWs installed by the date they receive a request for an incentive payment, not when the system owner or the solar business has received an incentive payment a month or two or more later. The CPUC may argue that the system is functionally installed, however no Expected Performance Based Buydown (EPBB) incentive payment or Performance Based Incentive (PBI) monthly payment is made until the project completes the CPUC s multi-step incentive payment process. In the first two years this decision results in a 31MW difference when compared to SunCentric s standard of Done installed and incentive paid. Table 2 shows our view of the CSI results through 28. Chart 2 - The CPUC s and SunCentric s MW bookkeeping is very different Different Definitions - Different Results CPUC Created "Installed" Definition We have received your request for an incentive payment 133MW Total 114 89 19 13 CPUC "Installed" 27 28 Solar Industry Completed Definition We'll call it done in a month or two when we receive our incentive payment 12MW Total SunCentric Done SunCentric Inc. Page 2

Table 2 The CPUC s MW Installed compared to SunCentric s MW Done through Year End 28 CSI MW Objective by YE 216 CPUC CSI MW Installs at YE 28 SunCentric CSI MW Done at YE 28 CSI Completions by Program Component Source: SunCentric Study CEC New Solar Home Partnership incl Affordable Housing 36 1.4 1.4 Publically Owned Utilities (POU) 7 1.5 1.5 CPUC Low Income Residential 19 No Activity No Activity CPUC Investor Owned Utilities (IOU) Step 1 thru 1 1,75 133 12.1 Total 3, 135.9 15. Also, the CPUC primarily reports demand based on the number of applications received, not the MWs that receive a confirmed reservation; as show in Charts 8 and 9 later in this report, the two data sets show little correlation. Using the number of systems when system size varies from 1kW to 1MW makes little sense. Of the 4MW applied for through 28 only about 3MW, or 75%, will likely get a confirmed reservation. These CPUC created measures of number of applications and MWs installed make the CSI IOU program appear to have more demand than it does and shows MWs getting completed much more quickly than they do. In mid 27 we published a forecast for the CSI through 28 and this outcome is in line with our projections. For the past two plus years we have openly discussed our concerns about the CSI, in published reports, interviews, webinars and at CSI quarterly forums. We have suggested many modifications that would help the program accelerate. Due to inaction by the CPUC and the CEC, there is no evidence now, nor do we foresee the potential of an upward MW bath tub curve. Given current program conditions we have no reason to think the CSI program could get on track and meet its SB1 objectives. However as shown in Chart 3 we have created a trend line for success based on MWs installed and incentive paid which will serve as our scorecard for the CSI program in coming years. It will be interesting to plot the actual results. Chart 3 SunCentric s Future Scorecard for the CSI MW Installed and Incentive Paid SunCentric's CSI "Trendline for Success" Reach 3, MW Installed and Incentive Paid by Year End 216 3, 2,4 1,8 1,2 6 CPUC reports 136MW installed through 28 SunCentric reports 15MW installed and incentive paid through 28 SunCentric's trendline for 3,MW installed and incentive paid by Year End 216 26 27 28 29 21 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 SunCentric Inc. Page 3

The CPUC s spin is now having an impact around the world. Annual PV demand reports for the United States and the world include the CPUC s inflated demand and installed numbers. From these inflated numbers come projections for California and the United States. Businesses, investors and others who are in the solar industry or are considering entering the industry give considerable weight to these projections. Worldwide MWs of PV Installed in 27 and 28 and CSI MW Completed Rest of World 8,35MW 99% Source: SunCentric CSI 15MW 1% The few MWs contributed by the CSI have had little impact on global PV module or other solar equipment costs. California has benefited from the solar market growth and manufacturing expansion of other countries, principally Germany, Spain, Japan and China. Many other countries (and soon some U.S. States) offer solar system owners better financial returns and manufacturers and installers better profits. The solar PV energy industry has been and will be an industry where countries and states compete to develop their markets, meet their energy requirements and their environmental objectives. In these terms, the CSI program is not competitive. The CSI is not helping the solar industry become self sufficient. Recent layoffs by Akeena, Optisolar, SunPower and others who participate in the California market indicate a decline in industry health and show the fragility of California s developing solar businesses. Many are suffering from lack of access to capital and are starved from lack of profits. We hear the word consolidation frequently which is code for contraction. The CSI s incentive structure and complex program requirements have negatively impacted the industry and stunted its growth. The CPUC s Incentive Step plan resulted in a program where incentives declined very quickly over a relatively few MWs. This caused a solar gold rush that saw applications submitted at a furious rate. MWs through Step 3 and into Step 4 were snapped up in the first nine months of 27. Solar businesses knew that the incentive rates offered in these early Steps were the only ones that made any financial sense for them Chart 4 The CPUC s Incentive Step Plan Incentive Type PBI EPBB $.6 $.45 $.4 $.3 $.25 $.15 $.5 $. $3.5 $3. $2.5 $2. $1.5 $1. $.5 $. 45% 5 Commercial & Residential incentive 7 51MW 1 Goverment & Non-profit incentive 13 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 19 Incentive Step Level 215 25 285 35 MW 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 SunCentric Inc. Page 4

and for their customers based on the expected deployed system costs. The MW fallout from this gold rush continues. Chart 5 shows our estimate of how many MWs will be completed in the first four Steps. The CPUC s decision early on to place MWs from projects that drop out into the current incentive Step further exacerbated the downward pressure on incentives and slowed the market. The policy is couched as a way to stretch the budget, allowing the MWs that dropout to be re-reserved and completed at a lower inventive rate. So far this policy has not had the desired effect; it has simply prevented MWs from being completed because the economics in the later Steps are less satisfactory and the pool of potential solar projects is smaller. The policy also changed the agreement with the rate payers and the solar industry. Both reasonably expected all the MWs in a Step to be completed at the specified incentive level. Chart 5 - SunCentric s estimate of how the first four Steps will ultimately end. Of the 35MW in these Steps we now expect about 246MW, 7%, to actually be completed. 14MW will be moved into Step 5 or greater as projects from the first four Steps drop out. Incentive Type PBI EPBB $.6 $.45 $.4 $.3 $.25 $.15 $.5 $. $3.5 $3. $2.5 $2. $1.5 $1. $.5 $. 5 17 Commercial & Residential incentive 7 59 1 74 13 96 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Original MW in Step Goverment & Non-profit incentive 19 Incentive Step Level 215 25 285 35 MW Projected to be Completed in the Step MW 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 The programmatics of the CSI remain problematic. There is abundant evidence that the complex requirements created and caused by the CSI have added to system cost and the time required to complete projects. With actual on the roof installation times running days for residential systems and weeks for commercial systems, the CSI needs to radically reduce the time it takes to complete projects from the current 6 months for residential projects and the 12 months for nonresidential projects (Charts 11-16). This slow process has been felt by California s solar businesses for years, but CSI project times are now even longer, much to our and our customer s financial detriment. Germany, whose business and customer friendly Feed-in-Tariff program has created a 1,5MW plus annual market and developed a streamlined program that allows projects to be completed in weeks, an example that offers many potential solutions for the CSI. It is entirely possible that the costs and time delays associated with capturing the rapidly decreasing CSI incentive will create the real end point for the program. For solar businesses, high CSI administrative costs and long project cycles are generating discussions about business SunCentric Inc. Page 5

models that avoid the CSI altogether. We are quite sure that this is not the way the legislative parents of SB1 imagined a self-sufficient solar industry would be created. To have any hope of installing 3,MW of distributed solar PV capacity in California by the end of 216 and creating a self-sufficient solar industry where solar is a mainstream option, the CSI needs a new progressive incentive plan designed to create reasonable payback for each retail customer class in each utility territory, using current electricity prices. The incentive levels should be set to recognize real deployed system costs, including the costs associated with long project times and the administrative burdens placed on installers. And to create a self-sufficient and sustainable solar industry, businesses need to make a bottom line profit. Other countries have developed ways to balance customer payback requirements and react to changes in PV module, system cost and solar business profit requirements. All have reduced their incentives at a much slower rate than the CSI, one matched closely to the industry s real changes in cost. Despite this dim outlook, there are a few bright spots. As a real potential positive, but not as a result of California solar policy, we should soon start seeing a meaningful decline in deployed system cost, led by a significant reduction in PV module cost and other commodity costs. World economic conditions and a major policy change in Spain have resulted in a temporary glut of PV modules. This downward system cost change, on the order of 15%, is leading many to consider a solar system for the first time and causing former projects to be revisited; they may now be financially viable. Based on our industry s history of major supply and demand swings, our view it is too early to call this downward price spike a long term trend, however some customers will definitely benefit from the current price conditions. While individuals did not get access to federal grants in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 29 (ARRA) passed in February, residential solar buyers still have a 3% uncapped federal tax credit that could provide over $12, of federal incentive to a 4,5 watt system great for a California consumer that has federal tax liability and cash or access to credit to pay for the system. As we reported in our recent article New Federal Stimulus Boon or Boondoggle for the U.S. Solar Photovoltaic Market, the new federal 3% grant will probably not increase the rate of real deployed MWs in the U.S. or California commercial market near term. Based on the struggles of the banking system, we are still hampered by the lack of readily available project financing and this has stopped many viable projects from going forward. We wonder whether there is the political will or CPUC/CEC interest to correct the CSI. The current activity around Feed-in-Tariffs (FIT) in California may signal recognition of the problems with the CSI and a change in thinking. So far FITs have been the only mechanism shown to SunCentric Inc. Page 6

substantially and consistently grow real MWs in residential and commercial solar markets. As FIT policy is developed we feel strongly that all customer classes should be able to choose a FIT as they can now choose a net metering system. Placing restrictions on potential FIT customers by system size or other criteria that protect existing business models will limit solar growth at a time when we need every kwh possible. One can argue that Spain s wild 2,5MW ride last year demonstrates what happens when an FIT program is too rich, but it also shows the rate that solar can grow, infrastructure can be built and jobs can be created if we really want to tackle energy and climate change issues. Germany s initially rapid and now more controlled growth may be more palatable. In both cases, Spain and Germany accelerated quickly and installed real grid connected MWs because their solar programs delivered solid financial returns to investors that are somewhat better than other investments. California should learn from these countries and from their own experience with the CSI program and make sure solar system owners get financial returns that really motivate them to bring systems on to the grid. Now for some details The remainder of this paper shows the activity for the CPUC s CSI IOU program and some examples of the CPUC s optimistic reporting. This year SB1 requires a formal review of the CSI program and we re hopeful that the following information will provide additional information and a clear picture of the CPUC program results. We ve studied and reported on a number of areas that should be of interest to legislators, policy makers, rate payer advocates and of course the solar industry. The many charts and tables along with our brief comments are worth review. Information on utility activity, project time, the non-residential and residential programs, pricing and system size trends, installers, PV and inverter manufacturers, program forecasts and other data is included. The results for this report come primarily from ProgramData2934.xls and the CPUC s CSI Staff Report, January 29. We have posted both on the SunCentric site for download. The program data file contains project activity though the end of February 29. You will see that we frequently report results through February 29. This is intentional. We have been interested in the truing up of year end 28 activity, the addition of CSI projects that had been included in the SGIP database, systems pricing and demand changes potentially caused by new Federal programs. Looking at the first few months of 29 also gives us some ability to project through year end 29, but with the current industry and economic turmoil our educated guesses are just that. SunCentric Inc. Page 7

As noted in our former CSI reports, there are still significant errors in the CPUC s CSI database. As an example we removed two projects that combined for over $2 million in system price errors. Both projects were pending payment, in other words they are far along in the process. Our simple excel macros and lookups finds errors like these in seconds. We wonder why the Program Administrators or the CPUC don t take the time to develop these tools, and then correct the data regardless of where the error is generated. Of the over 2,7 projects listed in the database we find significant errors and anomalies in about 9 projects. Results of the CPUC s Investor Owned Utilities Program The CPUC Staff s CSI Report from January 29 combines the activity from California s CSI and former solar programs, (pg 3) and claims, The largest solar program in California, the California Solar Initiative (CSI), saw explosive growth in 28 and it installed the majority of solar projects in the state. At best the CSI has tepid growth. It is now the only substantive retail customer solar PV program in California. Both the SGIP and the ERP stopped taking applications in 26. The CPUC Staff statement (pg 5) that their Investor Owned Utility program, remains roughly on target to meet the state s goal of 1,75 MW installed by 217, is a fabrication the program is not now and has not been on target. In our view, the CPUC continues to calculate and report CSI program activity unrealistically. We wish that the CPUC would discontinue the use of the number of applications as a proxy for demand and curtail the liberal use of percentages to describe progress. SB1 sets the objective in MWs, and MWs should be used to measure progress. Our MW measures are simple: 1. Done (or completed) means the MWs are complete and an Expected Performance Based Buydown (EPBB) incentive check can be sent or a Performance Based Incentive (PBI) payment can be made. 2. Won t Get Done means that the MWs were canceled or withdrawn at any time for any reason. 3. In Process means the MWs are still active. MWs in process may get done or may not get done. 4. Confirmed Reservation means the MWs that are approved into the program. All MWs that could possibly reach Done come from this category. 5. Program Requests means that MWs of applications were submitted to the utility administrators for review. The MWs may or may not receive a Confirmed Reservation. SunCentric Inc. Page 8

CEC PTC MW These simple measures make it is easy to see that the CPUC s CSI program is way off track. Using MWs, Chart 6 shows the cumulative activity of the CPUC s 1,75MW, ten year program. There are not enough MWs making program requests (blue line), to overcome the MWs that won t get done (red line). MWs in process (yellow line) should be above the gray dashed trend line. There are not enough confirmed reservations (aqua line). The rate that projects get done (green line) is too slow and is trending away, not toward, the dashed gray trend line. Chart 6 5 45 Cumulative Activity of CPUC CSI Projects in CEC PTC MW September 26 thru February 29 Linear trendline to reach 1,75MW of completed projects by YE 216 4 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 Sep-6 Oct-6 Nov-6 Dec-6 Jan-7 Feb-7 Mar-7 Apr-7 May-7 Jun-7 Jul-7 Aug-7 Sep-7 Oct-7 All Program Requests Confirmed Reservation In Process Done Won't Get Done Note: As a CPUC CSI performance benchmark, in 27 SunCentric established a linear trend line, the gray dashed line, to show the rate required to complete 1,75MW by year end 216. Nov-7 Dec-7 Jan-8 Feb-8 Mar-8 Apr-8 May-8 Jun-8 Jul-8 Aug-8 Sep-8 Oct-8 Nov-8 Dec-8 Jan-9 Feb-9 Mar-9 There are momentary surges and sags in demand that are driven by yearend tax requirements, changes in the CSI incentive level or Federal programs. Since January 28 there are no significant changes in the MW trends. We had been watching and hoping for an upward surge in Confirmed Reservations in late 28 and early in 29, but none is yet evident. The uptick in All Program Requests and In Process in February 29 relates to a number of large projects, some of which have already been cancelled or withdrawn. SunCentric Inc. Page 9

CEC PTC MW Another view of this data clearly shows the impact of projects that won t get done has on the CSI. Historically in California about 5% of non-residential projects and just a few percent of residential projects drop out over time. Now a few years after the start of the CSI, these well known trends are re-emerging. The program will need many more MWs In Process, to overcome the MW that won t get done and meet the program objective. Chart 7 simply shows the total done, total in process and total that won t get done. Drop outs and completions will come from the orange In Process and the trend is for more drop outs, not less. Chart 7 5 45 Cumulative Activity of CSI Projects in CEC PTC MW September 26 thru February 29 Linear trendline to reach 1,75MW of completed projects by YE 216 4 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 Mar-9 Feb-9 Jan-9 Dec-8 Nov-8 Oct-8 Sep-8 Aug-8 Jul-8 Jun-8 May-8 Apr-8 Mar-8 Feb-8 Jan-8 Dec-7 Nov-7 Oct-7 Sep-7 Aug-7 Jul-7 Jun-7 May-7 Apr-7 Mar-7 Feb-7 Jan-7 Dec-6 Nov-6 Oct-6 Sep-6 Done In Process Won't Get Done SunCentric Inc. Page 1

Table 3 shows a big picture view of the CPUC s reported results. We have a fundamental bookkeeping disagreement with the CPUC. The CSI database has a project status category called complete, which means the program administrator can send an incentive check to the system owner or installer, or make a payment to a performance based system. This is certainly a measure that owners and businesses relate to. The CPUC has created an alternative definition called installed. Looking at 28 you can see the impact of this alternative definition. They report the CSI installed 133MW; we report 12MW complete, a difference of 31MW. In our view, the CPUC s definition falsely increases the CSI s accomplishment. Table 3 Comparison of results between January 29 CPUC Staff Report and this SunCentric Report SunCentric Inc. Page 11

The installed definition is particularly troublesome because it typically takes 3 to 7 days for a project to move through the CPUC defined steps of this installed process and reach complete. Table 4 shows Applications by Status through the end of 28 from the CPUC s Staff report. Step 3 projects, which start with Incentive Claim Request Review (ICF Review), a category in the CSI database, are called installed and total 138MW. We have noted on the chart (green rectangle) that 88.3MW are complete and in payment, our definition Done. Table 4 - CPUC CSI Staff Report, Page 11 Typically 3 to 7 days through the Steps of the CPUC installed process SunCentric Inc. Page 12

Chart 8 shows the number of applications per month (top chart) and MWs of applications per month (bottom chart) from the CPUC report. A month to month comparison confirms little relationship between these two measures. Yet page 3 of the Staff report says, The rate of installations is expected to remain strong in 29 because demand for incentives under the California Solar Initiative surged in the fourth quarter of 28, breaking the previous records for most applications in a single quarter and most applications in a single month. Since mid 27 5 to 1,2 residential applications result in 3 to 6 MW per month and 3 to 8 non-residential applications result in 4 to 17MW per month. The huge variety of system sizes, from 1kW to 1MW makes the use of the number of applications to measure demand almost meaningless. Chart 8 Page 4 - CPUC Staff Report # o f A p p l i c a t i o n s Appendix, Figure 1 - CPUC Staff Report M W SunCentric Inc. Page 13

CEC PTC MW CEC PTC MW SunCentric s measure for the intake of MWs is Confirmed Reservations, a category in the CSI database (Chart 9 and 1). All projects that could possibly reach Done come from this category. Neither the residential or non-residential segments show acceleration. The spike in residential activity in December 28 relates to an incentive reduction at PG&E, Step 4, $1.9/W to Step 5, $1.55/W and the Federal change to a 3% uncapped incentive available to individual tax payers. Early 29 results show a reduction in confirmed MWs compared to previous months. Chart 1 25 CEC PTC MW of Confirmed Reservations by Month 2 15 22.7 17. 17.5 1.6 1 5 1.9.8 3. 3.8 2.2 1.6 1.8 1.5 1.8 5.2 3.3 4.2 1.4 4.7 5.2 11. 8.5 4.5 5.3 5.1 3.1 3.1 3. 6.5 6.8 3.3 3.3 13.7 12. 7.1 4. 4.2 2.5 9.5 7.9 8.7 4.9 4.6 4. 8.4 4.6 5.6 3.3 2.8 Mar-9 Feb-9 Jan-9 Dec-8 Nov-8 Oct-8 Sep-8 Aug-8 Jul-8 Jun-8 May-8 Apr-8 Mar-8 Feb-8 Jan-8 Dec-7 Nov-7 Oct-7 Sep-7 Aug-7 Jul-7 Jun-7 May-7 Apr-7 Mar-7 Feb-7 Jan-7 Residential Non-Residential Chart 9 4 35 3 Cumulative CEC PTC MW of Confirmed Reservations Linear trendline to reach 1,75MW of completed projects by YE 216 Linear trendline to reach 577.5MW of completed Residential projects by YE 216 Linear trendline to reach 1,172.5MW of completed Non-Residential projects by YE 216 25 2 15 1 5 Mar-9 Feb-9 Jan-9 Dec-8 Nov-8 Oct-8 Sep-8 Aug-8 Jul-8 Jun-8 May-8 Apr-8 Mar-8 Feb-8 Jan-8 Dec-7 Nov-7 Oct-7 Sep-7 Aug-7 Jul-7 Jun-7 May-7 Apr-7 Mar-7 Feb-7 Jan-7 All Projects Residential Non-Residential SunCentric Inc. Page 14

Days Time to Complete Projects A Nightmare for Solar Businesses The time to complete both Non-Residential and Residential projects has risen alarmingly. Due to factors out of their control the solar industry s time has been increasing. Long permitting processes, fire code issues, solar equipment availability, inspections, interconnections times, finance issues and laundry list of other requirements over burden solar businesses. We sometimes wonder what keeps many of these dedicated teams going. Imagine one in twenty of your potential solar customers say yes. You put in a CSI application, wait a few weeks to a few months for a confirmed reservation, then manage the project for four to eight months, submit your incentive paperwork and wait another month or two or more for the EPBB incentive payment to be sent or the monthly PBI to begin. And the time spent installing the system is measured in days or weeks. It takes 3 to 4 hundred days to complete a Non-Residential project and about 18 days to complete a Residential project. In Chart 11, Non-Residential and Chart 12, Residential the days in the blue, green and violet bars can be allocated primarily to the utility program administrators. The days in the red bars can be allocated primarily to solar businesses. Chart 11 45 Average Total Days in Process for Non-Residential Projects Completed in the Month of... 4 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 11 8 59 25 22 6 26 37 56 37 69 77 9 24 59 48 19 1 11 31 32 4 88 76 65 68 71 83 22 41 76 4 19 39 128 83 14 31 16 114 17 21 27 44 19 26 43 33 152 178 124 13 11 19 12 112 35 34 2 2 221 179 8 91 22 16 23 73 25 27 269 89 22 11 22 13 26 171 7 74 41 31 27 11 Mar-9 Feb-9 Jan-9 Dec-8 Nov-8 Oct-8 Sep-8 Aug-8 Jul-8 Jun-8 May-8 Apr-8 Mar-8 Feb-8 Jan-8 Dec-7 Nov-7 Oct-7 Sep-7 Aug-7 Jul-7 Jun-7 May-7 Reservation Requests Review to Confirmed Reservation Incentive Claim to Pending Payment Date Confirmed Reservation to Incentive Claim Requests Review Pending Payment Date to Complete Date SunCentric Inc. Page 15

Days Chart 12 2 Average Total Days in Process for Residential Projects Completed in the Month of... 18 16 14 12 1 8 6 4 9 27 45 4 37 45 7 33 53 8 25 54 11 24 54 13 11 27 3 6 56 2 15 1 15 16 13 12 22 23 15 12 35 28 31 28 2 22 3 36 31 32 29 66 71 81 9 97 99 18 18 117 12 118 22 18 116 19 21 126 14 11 141 15 1 129 2 16 19 22 32 38 42 47 46 44 39 35 34 34 31 3 23 2 21 18 18 2 19 Mar-9 Feb-9 Jan-9 Dec-8 Nov-8 Oct-8 Sep-8 Aug-8 Jul-8 Jun-8 May-8 Apr-8 Mar-8 Feb-8 Jan-8 Dec-7 Nov-7 Oct-7 Sep-7 Aug-7 Jul-7 Jun-7 May-7 Reservation Requests Review to Confirmed Reservation Incentive Claim to Pending Payment Date Confirmed Reservation to Incentive Claim Requests Review Pending Payment Date to Complete Date The Utility administrators have worked on their process and reduced their number of days, a trend that is particularly evident in Residential. This said their processing times could and should be cut in half. This improvement would reduce cash requirements and improve cash flow for solar businesses. A thorough study and a complete rethinking should be undertaken with the objective of reducing solar industry project days. Solar businesses can easily identify the pain points and root causes for delays. Redesigning the process is a major opportunity for the CPUC, the CSI program administrators and the solar industry. It should be started now. SunCentric Inc. Page 16

Days Days Time to Complete Projects (continued) Chart 13 3 Days in Process by Category for Non-Residential Projects Completed in the Month of... 25 2 15 1 5 Mar-9 Feb-9 Jan-9 Dec-8 Nov-8 Oct-8 Sep-8 Aug-8 Jul-8 Jun-8 May-8 Apr-8 Mar-8 Feb-8 Jan-8 Dec-7 Nov-7 Oct-7 Sep-7 Aug-7 Jul-7 Jun-7 Reservation Requests Review to Confirmed Reservation Incentive Claim to Pending Payment Date Confirmed Reservation to Incentive Claim Requests Review Pending Payment Date to Complete Date Chart 14 16 Days in Process by Category for Residential Projects Completed in the Month of... 14 12 1 8 6 4 2 Mar-9 Feb-9 Jan-9 Dec-8 Nov-8 Oct-8 Sep-8 Aug-8 Jul-8 Jun-8 May-8 Apr-8 Mar-8 Feb-8 Jan-8 Dec-7 Nov-7 Oct-7 Sep-7 Aug-7 Jul-7 Jun-7 May-7 Apr-7 Mar-7 Feb-7 Jan-7 Reservation Requests Review to Confirmed Reservation Incentive Claim to Pending Payment Date Confirmed Reservation to Incentive Claim Requests Review Pending Payment Date to Complete Date SunCentric Inc. Page 17

Number of Projects Number of Projects Time to Complete Projects (continued) Chart 15 Number of Completed Non-Residential Projects in 3 Day Increments 7 Completed Non-Residential Projects Days from Reservation Requests Review Date to Completed Date 6 5 4 3 2 1 Days to Complete the Project Chart 16 Number of Complete Residential Projects in 3 Day Increments 2,5 2,25 2, 1,75 Completed Residential Projects Days from Reservation Requests Review Date to Completed Date 1,5 1,25 1, 75 5 25 Days to Complete the Project SunCentric Inc. Page 18

CEC PTC MW CEC PTC MW Results by Utility Based on MW completed the three Investor Owned Utilities are not making much progress reaching their CSI objectives. Chart 17, 18 and 19 shows their results through February 28. Chart 17 1 9 8 Completed CEC PTC MW by Utility for each Host Customer Type Through February 28, 29 Target 764.8MW 85.MW 18.3MW Completed 65.2MW 46.5MW 1.3MW % so far 8.5% 5.8% 5.7% 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 PGE SCE CCSE Residential 35.7 12.7 4.3 Non-Profit 1.1.3 1. Government 3. 2.2.1 Commercial 25.4 31.3 4.9 Chart 18 2 18 16 Completed CEC PTC MW by Utility vs Linear Forecast to Reach CSI Target through February 29 PGE Linear trendline to reach 764.8MW of completed projects by YE 216 SCE Linear trendline to reach 85.MW of completed projects by YE 216 CCSE Linear trendline to reach 18.3MW of completed projects by YE 216 14 12 1 8 6 4 2 Mar-9 Feb-9 Jan-9 Dec-8 Nov-8 Oct-8 Sep-8 Aug-8 Jul-8 Jun-8 May-8 Apr-8 Mar-8 Feb-8 Jan-8 Dec-7 Nov-7 Oct-7 Sep-7 Aug-7 Jul-7 Jun-7 May-7 Apr-7 Mar-7 Feb-7 Jan-7 PG&E SCE CCSE SunCentric Inc. Page 19

CEC PTC MW Results by Utility (continued) Chart 19 1 CEC PTC MW Completed by Utility by Month through February 29 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Mar-9 Feb-9 Jan-9 Dec-8 Nov-8 Oct-8 Sep-8 Aug-8 Jul-8 Jun-8 May-8 Apr-8 Mar-8 Feb-8 Jan-8 Dec-7 Nov-7 Oct-7 Sep-7 Aug-7 Jul-7 Jun-7 May-7 Apr-7 Mar-7 Feb-7 Jan-7 PG&E SCE CCSE SunCentric Inc. Page 2

Other Results for the Entire CPUC CSI IOU Program through February 29 Table 5 Results and Project Status of the CPUC s IOU Program through February 29 From ProgramData2934.xls Current Incentive Application Status Project Count Total Cost $ Mil Summary of Raw Data Incentive Nameplate Amount Rating $ Mil MW CEC PTC Rating MW CSI Rating MW Calc'ed % of CEC PTC MW Done Completed 12, $663.8 $16.3 85.6 73.2 7.1 16.% PBI - In Payment 38 $395.5 $145.5 57.1 48.7 5.8 1.6% Total of Done 12,38 $1,59.3 $35.8 142.7 121.9 12.9 26.6% Won't Get Done Cancelled 755 $356.8 $146.7 72.1 62.7 58.8 13.7% Withdrawn 29 $225. $84.6 42.2 36.4 35. 7.9% Total of Won't Get Done 1,45 $581.7 $231.3 114.3 99.1 93.8 21.6% In Process Confirmed Reservation 4,783 $64.1 $23.1 13.3 88.5 86.1 19.3% Incentive Claim Request Review 544 $135.1 $35.9 18.1 15.5 14.7 3.4% Online Incentive Claim Request Submitted 277 $33. $8.2 4.5 3.9 3.9.9% Online Proof of Project Milestones Submitted 2 $1.9 $.6.3.2.2.% Online Reservation Request Submitted 2 $.1 $.....% Pending Payment * 776 $258.8 $67.7 33.8 29.1 27.6 6.4% Pending RFP 58 $133.2 $44.2 22.6 19.6 17.6 4.3% Proof of Project Milestones Review 26 $21. $14.7 7.3 6.2 6. 1.4% Reservation Request Review 137 $2.8 $5.3 3.4 3. 2.9.6% Reservation Reserved 115 $233.2 $65.5 35.9 31. 29.8 6.8% RFP Review (Gov't/Non-Profit only) 1 $.4 $.1....% Suspended - Incentive Claim Request Review 4 $157.9 $5.8 23.6 2.5 2.4 4.5% Suspended - Milestone Review 1 $37.4 $11.1 4.9 4.1 4.2.9% Suspended - Reservation Review 224 $71.1 $23.6 15.5 13.4 12.9 2.9% Suspended - RFP Review 2 $15. $2.9 2.1 1.8 1.8.4% System Removed 5 $.2 $.....% Total of In Process 7,362 $1,723.1 $533.7 275.5 236.9 228.2 51.7% Grand Total 2,715 $3,364.1 $1,7.8 532.5 457.9 442.9 1.% * Note: Two PG&E Projects with Total Cost entry errors of $23.6 million have been removed SunCentric Inc. Page 21

CEC PTC MW CEC PTC MW Other Results for the Entire CPUC CSI IOU Program through February 29 (continued) Chart 21 14 CEC PTC MW Completed each Month January 27 through February 29 12 1 8 9.6 9.1 6 4 1.5 4.8 2.5 4.3 3.5 5.8 5.6 3.5 8.2 4.4 3.4 2.2.4.8.2 1.2.9.6 1.7.1 2.1 3..3.8 2.5 2.3 3.3 2.4 3.2 3.8 2. 3.5 3.4 4. 2.7 2.8 2.4 4.2 Mar-9 Feb-9 Jan-9 Dec-8 Nov-8 Oct-8 Sep-8 Aug-8 Jul-8 Jun-8 May-8 Apr-8 Mar-8 Feb-8 Jan-8 Dec-7 Nov-7 Oct-7 Sep-7 Aug-7 Jul-7 Jun-7 May-7 Apr-7 Mar-7 Feb-7 Jan-7 Residential Non-Residential Chart 2 5 45 Status of CSI Projects through February 29 458MW 4 35 3 368MW 237 25 24 2 15 1 5 99 9MW 95 33 4 122 53 69 Residential Non-Residential Total Done Won't Get Done In Process SunCentric Inc. Page 22

Results for the Non-Residential Program through February 29 Table 6 Results and Project Status of the Non-Residential Program through February 29 From ProgramData2934.xls Current Incentive Application Status Project Count Total Cost $ Mil Summary of Raw Data Incentive Nameplate Amount Rating $ Mil MW CEC PTC Rating MW CSI Rating MW Calc'ed % of CEC PTC MW Done Completed 523 $175.1 $49.1 25.1 21.4 21.1 5.8% PBI - In Payment 167 $386.5 $142.4 56. 47.8 49.9 13.% Total of Done 69 $561.6 $191.5 81.1 69.2 7.9 18.8% Won't Get Done Cancelled 244 $34.2 $14.4 69. 59.9 56.2 16.3% Withdrawn 145 $217.4 $82.3 41. 35.4 34. 9.6% Total of Won't Get Done 389 $557.6 $222.6 11. 95.3 9.2 25.9% In Process Confirmed Reservation 368 $388.1 $159.6 76.5 65.5 64.2 17.8% Incentive Claim Request Review 56 $19.5 $3.5 15. 12.8 12.2 3.5% Online Incentive Claim Request Submitted 29 $22.6 $5.9 3.2 2.7 2.8.7% Online Proof of Project Milestones Submitted 2 $1.9 $.6.3.2.2.1% Pending Payment * 127 $23.1 $61.6 3.3 26.1 24.7 7.1% Pending RFP 58 $133.2 $44.2 22.6 19.6 17.6 5.3% Proof of Project Milestones Review 26 $21. $14.7 7.3 6.2 6. 1.7% Reservation Request Review 3 $15.8 $4.3 2.9 2.5 2.4.7% Reservation Reserved 115 $233.2 $65.5 35.9 31. 29.8 8.4% RFP Review (Gov't/Non-Profit only) 1 $.4 $.1....% Suspended - Incentive Claim Request Review 85 $144.1 $47.7 21.9 18.9 19. 5.1% Suspended - Milestone Review 1 $37.4 $11.1 4.9 4.1 4.2 1.1% Suspended - Reservation Review 55 $61.6 $21.6 14.3 12.4 11.9 3.4% Suspended - RFP Review 2 $15. $2.9 2.1 1.8 1.8.5% Total of In Process 964 $1,413.9 $47.2 237.2 23.9 196.7 55.4% Grand Total 2,43 $2,533.2 $884.4 428.3 368.4 357.9 1.% * Note: Two PG&E Projects with Total Cost Entry Errors of $23.6 million have been removed SunCentric Inc. Page 23

CEC PTC MW CEC PTC MW Results for the Non-Residential Program through February 29 (continued) Chart 22 4 35 Cumulative Activity of CPUC Non-Residential Projects in CEC PTC MW September 26 though February 29 Linear trendline to reach 1,172.5MW of completed projects by YE 216 3 25 2 15 1 5 Mar-9 Feb-9 Jan-9 Dec-8 Nov-8 Oct-8 Sep-8 Aug-8 Jul-8 Jun-8 May-8 Apr-8 Mar-8 Feb-8 Jan-8 Dec-7 Nov-7 Oct-7 Sep-7 Aug-7 Jul-7 Jun-7 May-7 Apr-7 Mar-7 Feb-7 Jan-7 Dec-6 Nov-6 Oct-6 Sep-6 All Program Requests Confirmed Reservation In Process Done Won't Get Done Chart 23 4 35 Cumulative Activity of CPUC Non-Residential Projects in CEC PTC MW September 26 through February 29 Linear trendline to reach 1,172.5MW of completed projects by YE 216 3 25 2 15 1 5 Mar-9 Feb-9 Jan-9 Dec-8 Nov-8 Oct-8 Sep-8 Aug-8 Jul-8 Jun-8 May-8 Apr-8 Mar-8 Feb-8 Jan-8 Dec-7 Nov-7 Oct-7 Sep-7 Aug-7 Jul-7 Jun-7 May-7 Apr-7 Mar-7 Feb-7 Jan-7 Dec-6 Nov-6 Oct-6 Sep-6 Done In Process Won't Get Done SunCentric Inc. Page 24

Completed Projects CEC PTC MW Results for the Non-Residential Program through February 29 (continued) Chart 24 12 Non-Residential CEC PTC MW Completed by Month through February 28 1 8 6 4 2 Mar-9 Feb-9 Jan-9 Dec-8 Nov-8 Oct-8 Sep-8 Aug-8 Jul-8 Jun-8 May-8 Apr-8 Mar-8 Feb-8 Jan-8 Dec-7 Nov-7 Oct-7 Sep-7 Aug-7 Jul-7 Jun-7 May-7 Apr-7 Mar-7 Feb-7 Jan-7 EPBB Projects PBI Projects Chart 25 8 Number of Non-Residential Projects Completed by Month through February 29 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Mar-9 Feb-9 Jan-9 Dec-8 Nov-8 Oct-8 Sep-8 Aug-8 Jul-8 Jun-8 May-8 Apr-8 Mar-8 Feb-8 Jan-8 Dec-7 Nov-7 Oct-7 Sep-7 Aug-7 Jul-7 Jun-7 May-7 Apr-7 Mar-7 Feb-7 Jan-7 EPBB Projects PBI Projects SunCentric Inc. Page 25

$ per CEC Watt $ per CEC PTC Watt Results for the Non-Residential Program through February 29 (continued) Chart 27 $12 Completed Non-Residential PBI Project Price Averages Installed Price, Owner Price after CSI Incentive and Incentive per CEC PTC Watt (UsesSunCentric's Corrections to the CSI database) $1 $8 $6 $4 $2 $ Mar-9 Feb-9 Jan-9 Dec-8 Nov-8 Oct-8 Sep-8 Aug-8 Jul-8 Jun-8 May-8 Apr-8 Mar-8 Feb-8 Jan-8 Dec-7 Nov-7 Oct-7 Sep-7 Aug-7 Jul-7 Jun-7 May-7 Apr-7 Mar-7 Feb-7 Jan-7 Installed Price Owner Price after CSI Incentive CSI Incentive Chart 26 $18 $16 Completed Non-Residential EPBB Project Price Averages Installed Price, Owner Price after CSI Incentive and Incentive per CEC PTC Watt (UsesSunCentric's Corrections to the CSI database) $14 $12 $1 $8 $6 $4 $2 $ Mar-9 Feb-9 Jan-9 Dec-8 Nov-8 Oct-8 Sep-8 Aug-8 Jul-8 Jun-8 May-8 Apr-8 Mar-8 Feb-8 Jan-8 Dec-7 Nov-7 Oct-7 Sep-7 Aug-7 Jul-7 Jun-7 May-7 Apr-7 Mar-7 Feb-7 Jan-7 Installed Price Owner Price after CSI Incentive CSI Incentive SunCentric Inc. Page 26

EPBB System CEC PTC kw PBI System CEC PTC kw Results for the Non-Residential Program through February 29 (continued) Chart 28 1 9 8 7 Average Non-Residential EPBB and PBI System Sizes in CEC PTC kw (UsesSunCentric's Corrections to the CSI database) 1, 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 Mar-9 Feb-9 Jan-9 Dec-8 Nov-8 Oct-8 Sep-8 Aug-8 Jul-8 Jun-8 May-8 Apr-8 Mar-8 Feb-8 Jan-8 Dec-7 Nov-7 Oct-7 Sep-7 Aug-7 Jul-7 Jun-7 May-7 Apr-7 Mar-7 Feb-7 Jan-7 Non-Residential EPBB Average System Size Non-Residential PBI Average System Size SunCentric Inc. Page 27

Results for the Residential Program through February 29 Table 7 - Results and Project Status of the Residential Program through February 29 From ProgramData2934.xls Current Incentive Application Status Project Count Total Cost $ Mil Summary of Raw Data Incentive Nameplate Amount Rating $ Mil MW CEC PTC Rating MW CSI Rating MW Calc'ed % of CEC PTC MW Done Completed 11,477 $488.7 $111.2 6.5 51.8 49. 57.9% PBI - In Payment 141 $9. $3.1 1.1.9 1. 1.% Total of Done 11,618 $497.6 $114.3 61.6 52.7 5. 58.9% Won't Get Done Cancelled 511 $16.6 $6.3 3.2 2.8 2.6 3.1% Withdrawn 145 $7.5 $2.4 1.2 1. 1. 1.1% Total of Won't Get Done 656 $24.1 $8.7 4.3 3.8 3.6 4.2% In Process Confirmed Reservation 4,415 $216. $43.6 26.8 23. 21.9 25.7% Incentive Claim Request Review 488 $25.6 $5.3 3.1 2.7 2.5 3.% Online Incentive Claim Request Submitted 248 $1.4 $2.2 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.3% Online Reservation Request Submitted 2 $.1 $.....% Pending Payment 649 $28.7 $6.1 3.5 3.1 2.9 3.4% Reservation Request Review 17 $4.9 $1..6.5.5.6% Suspended - Incentive Claim Request Review 315 $13.8 $3.1 1.8 1.5 1.5 1.7% Suspended - Reservation Review 169 $9.5 $2. 1.2 1. 1. 1.1% System Removed 5 $.2 $.....% Total of In Process 6,398 $39.2 $63.4 38.4 33. 31.4 36.8% Grand Total 18,672 $83.9 $186.4 14.2 89.5 85. 1.% SunCentric Inc. Page 28

CEC PTC MW CEC PTC MW Results for the Residential Program through February 29 (continued) Chart 29 14 13 12 11 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Cumulative Activity of CPUC Residential Projects in CEC PTC MW January 27 through February 29 Linear trendline to reach 577.5MW of completed projects by YE 216 Mar-9 Feb-9 Jan-9 Dec-8 Nov-8 Oct-8 Sep-8 Aug-8 Jul-8 Jun-8 May-8 Apr-8 Mar-8 Feb-8 Jan-8 Dec-7 Nov-7 Oct-7 Sep-7 Aug-7 Jul-7 Jun-7 May-7 Apr-7 Mar-7 Feb-7 Jan-7 All Program Requests In Process Done Won't Get Done Chart 3 14 13 12 11 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Cumulative Activity of CPUC Residential Projects in CEC PTC MW January 27 through February 29 Linear trendline to reach 577.5MW of completed projects by YE 216 Mar-9 Feb-9 Jan-9 Dec-8 Nov-8 Oct-8 Sep-8 Aug-8 Jul-8 Jun-8 May-8 Apr-8 Mar-8 Feb-8 Jan-8 Dec-7 Nov-7 Oct-7 Sep-7 Aug-7 Jul-7 Jun-7 May-7 Apr-7 Mar-7 Feb-7 Jan-7 Done In Process Won't Get Done SunCentric Inc. Page 29

Completed Projects CEC PTC MW Results for the Residential Program through February 29 (continued) Chart 31 4.5 Residential CEC PTC MW Completed by Month through February 29 4. 3.5 3. 2.5 2. 1.5 1..5. Mar-9 Feb-9 Jan-9 Dec-8 Nov-8 Oct-8 Sep-8 Aug-8 Jul-8 Jun-8 May-8 Apr-8 Mar-8 Feb-8 Jan-8 Dec-7 Nov-7 Oct-7 Sep-7 Aug-7 Jul-7 Jun-7 May-7 Apr-7 Mar-7 Feb-7 Jan-7 All Projects Chart 32 1, Number of Residential Projects Completed by Month through February 29 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Mar-9 Feb-9 Jan-9 Dec-8 Nov-8 Oct-8 Sep-8 Aug-8 Jul-8 Jun-8 May-8 Apr-8 Mar-8 Feb-8 Jan-8 Dec-7 Nov-7 Oct-7 Sep-7 Aug-7 Jul-7 Jun-7 May-7 Apr-7 Mar-7 Feb-7 Jan-7 EPBB Projects PBI Projects SunCentric Inc. Page 3

CEC PTC Watts $ / CEC PTC Watt Results for the Residential Program through February 29 (continued) Chart 33 $11 Completed Residential EPBB Project Price Averages Installed Price, Consumer Price after CSI Incentive and Incentive per CEC PTC Watt $1 $9 $8 $7 $6 $5 $4 $3 $2 $1 Mar-9 Feb-9 Jan-9 Dec-8 Nov-8 Oct-8 Sep-8 Aug-8 Jul-8 Jun-8 May-8 Apr-8 Mar-8 Feb-8 Jan-8 Dec-7 Nov-7 Oct-7 Sep-7 Aug-7 Jul-7 Jun-7 May-7 Apr-7 Mar-7 Feb-7 Jan-7 Installed Price Consumer Price after CSI Incentive CSI Incentive Chart 34 5, Average Residential EPBB System Size in CEC PTC Watts (UsesSunCentric's Corrections to the CSI database) 4,75 4,5 4,25 4, 3,75 3,5 Mar-9 Feb-9 Jan-9 Dec-8 Nov-8 Oct-8 Sep-8 Aug-8 Jul-8 Jun-8 May-8 Apr-8 Mar-8 Feb-8 Jan-8 Dec-7 Nov-7 Oct-7 Sep-7 Aug-7 Jul-7 Jun-7 May-7 Apr-7 Mar-7 Feb-7 Jan-7 SunCentric Inc. Page 31

Results for the Residential Program through February 29 (continued) Table 8 Cost Changes to the California Residential Consumer Program Time Period CEC ERP (Now Over) Jan thru Jun 26 CSI EPBB Step 4 October 28 Snapshot CSI EPBB Step 5 29 Projection California Program Incentive $2.8/Watt $1.9/Watt $1.55/Watt Uncapped Capped at Capped at 3% of Federal Incentive Residential Install Size in CEC PTC Watts $2, 4,5 $2, 4,5 System Cost 4,5 Average Installed CEC PTC $/Watt $9.1 $9.22 * $9.6 ** Incentive $/Watt $2.8 $1.9 $1.55 Installed Cost $4,95 $41,49 $43,2 California Program Incentive $12,6 $8,55 $6,975 Installed Cost after CA Incentive $28,35 $32,94 $36,225 Installed $/W after CA Incentive $6.3 $7.32 $8.5 Federal Incentive this System $2, $2, $12,96 Installed Cost after CA and Fed Incentives $26,35 $3,94 $23,265 Installed $/W after CA & Fed Incentives $5.86 $6.88 $5.17 Simple payback in YEARS if the average $/kw starts at $.2 and escalates at 3% per year 14 16 12 * 3 month average July through September '8. Includes SunCentric's CSI data corrections ** 3 month average Dec '8 through February '9. Includes SunCentric's CSI data corrections SunCentric Inc. Page 32

Results by Installer / Seller through February 29 Table 9 Results by Installer / Seller through February 29, Ranked by CEC PTC MW From ProgramData2934.xls All Projects In Process Complete and In Payment Cancelled and Withdrawn Ranked by CEC Proj Total Cost Incentive CEC PTC % of CEC Proj Total Cost Incentive CEC PTC % of CEC Proj Total Cost Incentive CEC PTC % of CEC Proj Total Cost Incentive CEC PTC % of CEC PTC MW Installer / Seller Company Name Count $ Mil $ Mil MW PTC MW Count $ Mil $ Mil MW PTC MW Count $ Mil $ Mil MW PTC MW Count $ Mil $ Mil MW PTC MW 1 SunPower Corporation, Systems 157 $468.5 $164.4 68.3 14.9% 64 $236.8 $77.9 33.4 14.1% 32 $79.8 $28.4 11.1 9.1% 61 $151.9 $58.1 23.9 24.1% 2 Chevron Energy Solutions, Inc. 86 $257.6 $79.1 35.2 7.7% 64 $217.3 $55.9 25.9 1.9% 3 $13.5 $3.8 1.3 1.1% 19 $26.7 $19.4 8. 8.% 3 SunEdison, LLC / Team-Solar, Inc. 16 $322.9 $14.5 48.6 1.6% 45 $97.4 $5.8 19.2 8.1% 72 $151.9 $61.7 18.7 15.3% 43 $73.7 $28. 1.8 1.9% 4 SPG Solar, Inc. 526 $196.2 $59.7 24.2 5.3% 132 $131.2 $38.1 16.4 6.9% 361 $37.7 $12.5 4.4 3.6% 33 $27.3 $9.2 3.4 3.5% 5 None Listed 146 $113.1 $47.8 2.9 4.6% 46 $54.9 $15.5 7.1 3.% 12 $3.6 $1.1.5.4% 88 $54.5 $31.1 13.3 13.4% 6 SolarCity 2,675 $172.5 $37.6 18.1 3.9% 1,46 $96.3 $19.9 1. 4.2% 1,198 $59.9 $12.8 6.1 5.% 71 $16.3 $5. 1.9 1.9% 7 Gaiam - Carlson, IE Sys, Marin, Real Goods, Regrid 1,456 $142.7 $41.1 17.6 3.8% 482 $88. $28.5 11.4 4.8% 939 $49.2 $1.9 5.1 4.2% 35 $5.5 $1.8 1. 1.1% 8 REC Solar, Inc. 1,67 $124.7 $35.6 15.7 3.4% 598 $56.1 $16.2 7.2 3.% 1,32 $62. $17.5 7.4 6.1% 4 $6.6 $2. 1. 1.% 9 Conergy Projects, Inc. 53 $64.7 $22.7 9.8 2.1% 12 $36.3 $12.7 6.2 2.6% 38 $28.2 $9.9 3.5 2.9% 3 $.2 $.1..% 1 Borrego Solar Systems Inc. 659 $94.4 $25.6 9.6 2.1% 172 $57.5 $16.5 5.9 2.5% 47 $33.4 $7.9 3.3 2.7% 17 $3.5 $1.2.4.4% 11 Akeena Solar, Inc. 1,2 $69.4 $16.3 8.5 1.9% 328 $28.7 $6.4 3.4 1.4% 842 $38.2 $8.1 4. 3.3% 3 $2.5 $1.8 1.1 1.1% 12 El Solutions, Inc. 3 $74.5 $24.6 11.1 2.4% 12 $5.5 $14.1 5.8 2.5% 3 $2.6 $.8.3.3% 15 $21.3 $9.6 5. 5.% 13 Pacific Power Management, LLC 15 $49. $19.3 8. 1.7% 6 $1.4 $7.3 3.5 1.5% 5 $13.3 $3.4 1.5 1.2% 4 $25.3 $8.6 3. 3.% 14 Stellar Energy Solutions Inc. 31 $61.7 $13.6 7.5 1.6% 23 $55.9 $1.7 6.1 2.6% 2 $.5 $.1..% 6 $5.3 $2.8 1.4 1.4% 15 BP Solar International, Inc. 14 $47.4 $16.5 5.8 1.3% 4 $2.9 $6.7 2.5 1.1% 8 $23.1 $8.5 2.9 2.4% 2 $3.4 $1.3.4.4% 16 Permacity Construction Corp 48 $35.7 $11.1 5.7 1.2% 25 $17.3 $5.4 2.8 1.2% 22 $14.8 $4.6 2.1 1.7% 1 $3.6 $1..8.8% 17 Self-Install 344 $23.4 $11.6 5.5 1.2% 157 $14.7 $9.3 4.3 1.8% 179 $6.2 $1.7.8.7% 8 $2.5 $.5.4.4% 18 Solar Power, Inc. 82 $24.9 $1. 4.8 1.% 18 $4.7 $4.5 2.1.9% 53 $7.4 $1.9.9.8% 11 $12.7 $3.6 1.7 1.7% 19 WorldWater & Power Corp. 14 $31.4 $13.3 4.3.9% 6 $29.5 $12.8 4.1 1.7% 7 $.7 $.2.1.1% 1 $1.2 $.4.1.1% 2 Sunlight Electric 38 $19.1 $6.8 3.7.8% 16 $11.8 $4.4 2.6 1.1% 14 $4.3 $1.2.5.4% 8 $3. $1.2.6.7% 21 Bleyco Inc 9 $25.8 $7.5 3.7.8% 7 $17.7 $5. 2.6 1.1% 2 $8.1 $2.5 1.1.9% $. $...% 22 Premier Power Renewable Energy Inc. 23 $19.8 $7.6 3.6.8% 88 $8. $4.6 2.1.9% 138 $11.6 $2.6 1.2 1.% 4 $.2 $.5.2.2% 23 Regenesis Power LLC 5 $22.9 $8.4 3.4.7% 1 $4. $1.2.7.3% $. $...% 4 $18.9 $7.2 2.7 2.7% 24 GBS Industries 63 $7.1 $6.2 3.2.7% 19 $.5 $5. 2.6 1.1% 38 $2.8 $.4.2.2% 6 $3.8 $.8.4.4% 25 BASS Electric 6 $13.5 $6. 2.8.6% 6 $13.5 $6. 2.8 1.2% $. $...% $. $...% 26 Renewable Technologies, Inc. 22 $11.3 $6. 2.8.6% 7 $.5 $2.8 1.4.6% 8 $1.3 $.3.1.1% 7 $9.5 $2.9 1.3 1.3% 27 Unlimited Energy, Inc. 158 $19.3 $8. 2.7.6% 36 $2.2 $.7.4.2% 18 $16.9 $7.1 2.2 1.8% 14 $.2 $.2.1.1% 28 Acro Electric, Inc. 318 $18.5 $5.1 2.6.6% 116 $6.9 $1.7.9.4% 157 $1.2 $2.3 1.1.9% 45 $1.3 $1.1.6.6% 29 Chico Electric 16 $18.9 $4.9 2.5.6% 11 $18.2 $4.7 2.4 1.% 4 $.7 $.2.1.1% 1 $. $.1..% 3 Erickson Construction Co. 11 $2.2 $5.2 2.5.6% 6 $12.8 $3. 1.5.6% 5 $7.5 $2.2 1..8% $. $...% 31 MBL and Sons, Inc 11 $1.4 $4.8 2.3.5% 11 $1.4 $4.8 2.3 1.% $. $...% $. $...% 32 Sun Light and Power 222 $18.5 $4.4 2.2.5% 13 $1.6 $2.5 1.3.5% 112 $7. $1.5.7.6% 7 $1. $.4.2.2% 33 Solar Technologies 131 $17. $4.8 2.2.5% 24 $12. $3.7 1.7.7% 13 $4.9 $1.1.5.4% 4 $.1 $...% 34 3rd Rock Systems & Technologies, Inc. 9 $8.6 $4.5 2.1.5% $. $...% 2 $1.5 $.4.2.1% 7 $7.1 $4.1 1.9 2.% 35 AMG Energy, Inc. 2 $7.6 $4.2 2..4% $. $...% $. $...% 2 $7.6 $4.2 2. 2.% 36 Solar Integrated Technologies 4 $13.9 $5.2 1.9.4% $. $...% 4 $13.9 $5.2 1.9 1.5% $. $...% 37 Advanced Solar Electric, Inc 312 $17.2 $4.1 1.8.4% 66 $3.5 $.8.4.1% 22 $11. $2.6 1.2.9% 26 $2.8 $.7.3.3% 38 SolarCraft Services, Inc. 156 $13.6 $3.5 1.8.4% 52 $2.9 $.9.5.2% 13 $6.6 $1.6.8.6% 1 $4.1 $1..5.5% 39 MMA Renewable Ventures 2 $13.9 $3.5 1.6.3% 2 $13.9 $3.5 1.6.7% $. $...% $. $...% 4 SunWize Technologies / GenSelf Corp 178 $13.7 $3.7 1.6.3% 64 $4.3 $.9.4.2% 15 $8.9 $2.7 1.1.9% 9 $.5 $.1.1.1% 41 Southern California Solar DBA Solar Electrical Systems 157 $13.4 $3.3 1.4.3% 43 $3.8 $.8.4.2% 11 $7.4 $1.7.8.6% 4 $2.2 $.7.2.3% 42 Independent Energy Solutions 29 $11.1 $3.9 1.4.3% 15 $7.7 $2.7.9.4% 1 $2.4 $.7.3.2% 4 $.9 $.4.1.1% 43 Mohr Power Solar, Inc. 282 $13.8 $3.2 1.3.3% 63 $3. $.6.3.1% 196 $9.5 $2.3.9.7% 23 $1.3 $.3.1.1% 44 Heliopower, Inc. 179 $11.6 $2.9 1.3.3% 35 $2.1 $.5.3.1% 131 $8. $2..9.7% 13 $1.5 $.3.2.2% 45 NextEnergy Corp. 249 $11.3 $2.5 1.3.3% 65 $2.6 $.4.3.1% 181 $8.7 $2. 1..8% 3 $. $...% 46 Clean Power Systems, Inc. 146 $19. $2.9 1.1.2% 42 $13.7 $1.6.6.2% 93 $4.4 $1..4.4% 11 $1. $.2.1.1% 47 TMAG Industries dba Stellar Solar 16 $8.7 $2.1 1..2% 23 $1. $.2.1.% 7 $3.2 $.8.4.3% 13 $4.4 $1.1.6.6% 48 Fidelity Roof Co 8 $8.3 $1.7 1..2% 2 $.1 $...% 5 $.2 $...% 1 $8. $1.6 1. 1.% 49 Diener's Electric, inc. 1 $9.4 $1.9 1..2% 1 $9.4 $1.9 1..4% $. $...% $. $...% 5 Trane Inc. 1 $7.4 $2.2 1..% 1 $7.4 $2.2 1..% $. $...% $. $...% Total of First 5 12,427 $2,81.3 $931.7 393.9 85.8% 4,525 $1,499.8 $476.7 21.1 88.3% 7,197 $786.8 $24.4 92.6 76.% 75 $523.7 $214.6 91.2 92.% All Others Installers - 51 to 951 8,288 $553.8 $139.1 64. 14.2% 2,837 $223.3 $56.9 26.8 11.7% 5,111 $272.4 $65.4 29.3 24.% 34 $58.1 $16.7 7.9 8.% Grand Total 2,715 $3,364.1 $1,7.8 457.9 1.% 7,362 $1,723.1 $533.7 236.9 1.% 12,38 $1,59.3 $35.8 121.9 1.% 1,45 $581.7 $231.3 99.1 1.% SunCentric Inc. Page 33

Nameplate MW Results by PV Manufacturer through February 29 Table 1 35 3 PV Manufacturer MW Completed by Quarter * Q1 9 Total through February 29 25 2 15 1 5 Q1 7 Q2 7 Q3 7 Q4 7 Q1 8 Q2 8 Q3 8 Q4 8 Q1 9* All Others..1.4.1.17.99.22.71.52 Solar Integ. Tech..... 1.8 1.1.6.. Yingli.....69.1.39..5 Conergy.....27.7 2.49.2. Schott....2 2.96.65.59.9.42 Suntech..1..14.14.28.21.23.1 SolarWorld..4.17.64.66.6.9.58 1.85 Andalay.......22.6.87 Schuco...2.4.4.3.12.75.5 Sanyo..5.45.9.95 1.31 1.58 1.89 3.8 Mitsubishi..1.29.57 1.73 1.71 2.55 2.27 4.16 BP Solar..9.34.96 1.62 3.92 2.19 2.29 2.41 Evergreen..2.17.89 3.63 3.87 3.6 2.78.73 Kyocera..26.2 1.86 2.9 2.3 3.68 3.27 1.44 Sharp.4.12 1.8 1.72 2.38 2.79 2.36 5.64 3.54 SunPower..11.98 2.8 2.84 5.5 6.66 8.97 3.79 SunCentric Inc. Page 34

Results by PV Manufacturer through February 29 (continued) Chart 35 PV Manufacturer Market Shares for Completed Projects Nameplate MW and % through February 29 Yingli 1.1,.8% Suntech 1.1,.8% Solar Integrated Tech. 2.1, 1.5% All Others 2.8, 1.9% Schuco 1.1,.7% Andalay 1.7, 1.2% SunPower 31.2 22% Sharp 19.7 14% Kyocera 15.9 11% Conergy AG 2.8, 2% Schott 4.7, 3.3% SolarWorld 5.5, 3.8% Sanyo 1.2 7% Mitsubishi 13.3 9% BP Solar 13.8 1% Evergreen Solar 15.7 11% Table 11 PV Manufacturer MWs In Process at the end of February 29 - See Note PV Manufacturer Nameplate MW % of MW SunPower 54.1 19.6% Sharp 43.6 15.8% SolarWorld 33.9 12.3% Evergreen Solar 26.5 9.6% Suntech 24.5 8.9% Mitsubishi 2.1 7.3% Kyocera 18. 6.5% Sanyo 1.1 3.7% BP Solar 9.2 3.3% Schott 8.7 3.2% First Solar 5.8 2.1% REC ScanModule AB 3.7 1.4% Conergy 2.7 1.% Solar Semiconductor 2.4.9% Solar Power Inc 2.4.9% Andalay Solar 1.9.7% Canadian Solar 1.9.7% United Solar 1.2.4% Schuco 1.1.4% Yingli 1..4% Kaneka.9.3% GE Energy.5.2% Day4 Energy.3.1% ET Solar.2.1% All Others.8.3% Grand Total 275.5 1.% Note: At the end of February 29 the PV manufacturers had these MWs assigned to the projects that were In Process. In the past PV modules have been changed during the project based on availability and other factors so this snapshot represents only a potential outcome. SunCentric Inc. Page 35

Nameplate MW Results by Inverter Manufacturer through February 29 Table 12 35 Inverter Manufacturer MW Completed by Quarter Residential and Non-Residential Projects * Q1 9 Total through February 29 3 25 2 15 1 5 Q1 7 Q2 7 Q3 7 Q4 7 Q1 8 Q2 8 Q3 8 Q4 8 Q1 9* All Others..1.1.6.14.11.7.9.8 Advanced Energy Ind......31...69 Outback Power....2.3.6.3.1. Schuco..2.7.2.1.2.2.3.1 Solectria Corp.....9.2.19.5 1.17 Kaco....2.2.7.7.7.8 Enphase Energy......1.2.14.13 PV Powered..2.5.27.38.72.41.84.43 Fronius..1.7 1.95 2.5 2.55 2.34 2.39 1.47 SunPower..11.82 1.98 2.11 2.59 2.91 2.91 2.29 SMA America..1 1.4 3.23 4.21 5.32 4.69 5.69 3.95 SatCon Power.4..27 1.25 11.6 8.44 8.65 6.38 6.21 Xantrex..36.77 1.83 1.93 4.37 8.42 11.51 6.5 SunCentric Inc. Page 36

Results by Inverter Manufacturer through February 29 (continued) Chart 36 Inverter Manufacturer Market Shares for Completed Projects Nameplate MW and % through February 29 All Others.56,.4% Outback Power.16,.1% SatCon Power 42.29 29.6% Xantrex 35.69 25.% Enphase Energy.3,.2% Schuco.2,.1% Kaco.33,.2% Advanced Energy Ind.99,.7% Solectria 1.52, 1.1% PV Powered 3.13, 2.2% Fronius 13.56 9.5% SunPower 15.72 11.% SMA America 28.23 19.8% Table 13 Inverter Manufacturer MWs In Process at the end of February 29 - See Note Inverter Manufacturer Nameplate MW % of MW SatCon Power 123.1 44.7% Xantrex 85.9 31.2% SMA America 31.3 11.4% SunPower 1.4 3.8% Solectria 6. 2.2% Fronius 5.9 2.1% Advanced Energy Industries 5.5 2.% PV Powered 5.2 1.9% Enphase Energy 1.3.5% Kaco.3.1% Schuco.2.1% Outback Power.1.% All Others.2.1% Grand Total 275.5 1.% Note: At the end of February 29 the Inverter manufacturers had these MWs assigned to the projects that were In Process. In the past inverters have been changed during the project based on availability and other factors so this snapshot represents only a potential outcome. SunCentric Inc. Page 37

CEC PTC MW CEC PTC MW CPUC CSI IOU Forecasts through Year End 29 These two CPUC IOU forecasts consider the current state and expected rate of new Confirmed Reservations, the rates that projects are completed and other external factors. Our former forecasts have been somewhat optimistic when compared to actual results. Chart 37 14 13 12 11 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Forecast for Completed CEC PTC MW by Utility through Year End 29 Assumes No Significant CPUC Policy Changes 115MW 82MW 2MW Jan-1 Dec-9 Nov-9 Oct-9 Sep-9 Aug-9 Jul-9 Jun-9 May-9 Apr-9 Mar-9 Feb-9 Jan-9 Dec-8 Nov-8 Oct-8 Sep-8 Aug-8 Jul-8 Jun-8 May-8 Apr-8 Mar-8 Feb-8 Jan-8 Dec-7 Nov-7 Oct-7 Sep-7 Aug-7 Jul-7 Jun-7 May-7 Apr-7 Mar-7 Feb-7 Jan-7 PG&E SCE CCSE Chart 38 14 13 12 11 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Forecast for Completed CEC PTC MW by Program Component through Year End 29 Assumes No Significant CPUC Policy Changes 125MW 92MW Jan-1 Dec-9 Nov-9 Oct-9 Sep-9 Aug-9 Jul-9 Jun-9 May-9 Apr-9 Mar-9 Feb-9 Jan-9 Dec-8 Nov-8 Oct-8 Sep-8 Aug-8 Jul-8 Jun-8 May-8 Apr-8 Mar-8 Feb-8 Jan-8 Dec-7 Nov-7 Oct-7 Sep-7 Aug-7 Jul-7 Jun-7 May-7 Apr-7 Mar-7 Feb-7 Jan-7 Non-Residential Done Residential Done SunCentric Inc. Page 38