pv manufacturing in the united states - green technology

GTM RESEARCH SEPTEMBER 2009

COPYRIGHT 2009, GREENTECH MEDIA INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

SHYAM MEHTA | GTM RESEARCH

PV MANUFACTURING IN THE UNITED STATES:MARKET OUTLOOK, INCENTIVES AND SUPPLY CHAIN OPPORTUNITIES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


U.S. PV MANUFACTURING – MARKET OUTLOOK AND BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES 2 COPYRIGHT 2009, GREENTECH MEDIA INC ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 71.1 The Case for a U.S. PV Manufacturing Build-Out 7

1.2 Report Objective and Scope 11

1.3 Executive Summary 11

1.4 Report Structure 15

2 PV VALUE CHAIN AND TECHNOLOGIES 162.1 The PV Value Chain 16

2.2 PV Technologies 16

2.2.1 Multicrystalline Silicon 17

2.2.2 Monocrystalline Silicon 17

2.2.3 “Super” Monocrystalline Silicon 18

2.2.4 Ribbon Silicon 18

2.2.5 Amorphous Silicon (a-Si) 19

2.2.6 Cadmium Telluride (CdTe) 21

2.2.7 Copper Indium (Gallium) DiSelenide (CIS/CIGS) 21

2.2.8 Emerging Materials 22

3 U.S. PV MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY IN 2008–2009 243.1 2008 Production: Strong Growth, but a Pale Shadow of the Global Ramp 24

3.2 Thin-Film Continues to Dominate U.S. Landscape 25

3.3 Top Producers: First Solar and United Solar Stand Alone 27

3.4 Regional Trends: Ohio and Michigan Lead, but California and Oregon Poised to Ramp 28

3.5 VC Investment in U.S. PV Manufacturing: A Return to Reality? 32

3.6 New Plants on the Horizon 36

4 MANUFACTURING CAPACITY AND PRODUCTION 384.1 Capacity vs. Production 38

4.2 Projected Capacity 38

4.2.1 Cell and Module Capacity 39

4.2.2 Wafer Capacity 40

4.2.3 A Note on CIGS Projections and Derates 40

4.3 Actual vs. Producible Supply 42

4.4 Supply Estimates 43

4.5 Supply by Technology 44

4.6 Supply by Location 50

4.7 What Will Actually Be Produced? 55

5 U.S. PV MANUFACTURING INCENTIVES AND POLICY INITIATIVES 585.1 Federal Manufacturing Incentives 58

5.1.1 The Advanced Energy Tax Credit 58

5.1.2 The Federal Loan Guarantee Program 59

5.1.3 Solar Technologies Program – Photovoltaic Technology Development 59

5.2 State-Level Manufacturing Incentives 61

5.2.1 Company-Specifi c Incentives 68

5.3 Demand-Side Incentives 70

5.4 Future Manufacturing Policy Initiatives 71

5.4.1 State Energy Program Grants 71

5.4.2 The “Buy American” Provision 72

5.4.3 The Clean Energy Bank 74



6 MATERIAL NEEDS AND BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES 766.1 Crystalline Silicon Feedstocks 76

6.2 Thin-Film Feedstocks 79

6.2.1 CdTe and CIGS Feedstocks 79

6.2.2 Silane 80

6.3 Glass 81

6.4 Encapsulants 83

6.5 Manufacturing Equipment 85

6.6 The U.S. PV Export Market 87

7 KNOWN UNKNOWNS: FUTURE PLANTS 897.1 Plants in the Pipeline 90

7.2 Where Will Future Facilities Be Located? 91

7.3 Competition From Asian Manufacturing 99

8 CONCLUDING THOUGHTS: LOOKING AHEAD 103

9 MANUFACTURER PROFILES 104



LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1: Market Clearing Module ASPs and Annual PV Demand, 1993–2012 7

Figure 1-2: NREL Scenario Analysis of U.S. PV – Grid Cost Spread, 2015 (Assuming ITC and 1 Percent Annualized Increase in Retail Electricity Rates) 8

Figure 1-3: Germany and Japan: PV Cell Production vs. Demand, 2001–2008 9

Figure 1-4: U.S. PV Cell Production, 2001–2008 10

Figure 2-1: The PV Value Chain 16

Figure 2-2: Production of Multicrystalline Silicon Ingot 17

Figure 2-3: Czochralski Process for Production of Monocrystalline Silicon Ingots 18

Figure 2-4: Sanyo HIT Cell Structure 18

Figure 2-5: Thin-Film Manufacturing Process 19

Figure 2-6: Multi-Junction Amorphous Silicon (a-Si) Cell Structure 20

Figure 2-7: CdTe Cell and Module 21

Figure 2-8: CIGS Cell Structure 22

Figure 3-1: Global Cell and Module Production by Region, 2007–2008 24

Figure 3-2: Global Module Production by Region, 2008 25

Figure 3-3: 2008 U.S. Cell Production by Technology 26

Figure 3-4: U.S. PV Manufacturing Facilities by Technology, 2009 27

Figure 3-5: Top U.S. Cell Producers, 2008 28

Figure 3-6: 2008 Cell ProductioN by State (MW-dc) 29

Figure 3-7: U.S. PV Manufacturing Facilities by State 30

Figure 3-8: Map of U.S. PV Manufacturing Facilities 31

Figure 3-9: Aggregate VC Investment in U.S. PV Manufacturing, Q1 2008–Q2 2009 32

Figure 3-10: Quarterly VC Investment in U.S. PV Manufacturing, Q1 2008–Q2 2009 33

Figure 3-11: Quarterly VC Investment in U.S. PV Manufacturing, Q3 2008–Q2 2009 34

Figure 3-12: Newly Announced/Constructed PV Manufacturing Facilities in the U.S. 36

Figure 4-1: Historical and Projected U.S. PV Manufacturing Capacity (Wafers, Cells, and Modules) 39

Figure 4-2: Effective Capacity Derate by Technology and Year (Final Capacity as a Percentage of Company-Provided Data) 41

Figure 4-3: Global Demand, Production and Producible Supply (MW-dc) 42

Figure 4-4: Historical and Producible U.S. PV Supply (MW-dc) 44

Figure 4-5: U.S. Producible Cell Output by Technology (MW-dc) 45

Figure 4-6: U.S. Producible Module Output by Technology 46

Figure 4-7: Active U.S. PV Manufacturing Facilities by Technology and Value Participation, 2012 47

Figure 4-8: Top U.S. Crystalline Silicon-based PV Producers, 2012 48

Figure 4-9: U.S. Thin-Film Share of Producible Cell Supply 49

Figure 4-10: U.S. Producible Cells by Technology, 2012 50

Figure 4-11: U.S. PV Manufacturing Facility Map, 2012 51

Figure 4-12: 2012 Producible Cell Output by State (MW-dc) 52

Figure 4-13: Announced and Active U.S. PV Manufacturing Facilities by State, 2012 53

Figure 4-14: Number of U.S. Facilities With > 50 MW Producible Cell Output 55

Figure 4-15: U.S. Demand vs. Module Production, 2005–2008 56

Figure 4-16: Estimates for Actual U.S. Module Production 57



Figure 5-1: PV Supply Chain and Cross-Cutting Technologies Projects 60

Figure 5-2: Federal PV Manufacturing Incentives 61

Figure 5-3: Map of State-Level PV Manufacturing Incentives 62

Figure 5-4: State-Level PV Manufacturing Incentives 64

Figure 5-5: State-Level PV Manufacturing Incentives (cont’d) 66

Figure 5-6: Company-Specifi c PV Manufacturing Incentives 69

Figure 5-7: State Energy Program Grants With Solar Manufacturing Provisions 72

Figure 5-8: Estimated Impact of Clean Energy Bank on U.S. PV Manufacturing Build-Out 75

Figure 6-1: U.S. Crystalline Silicon PV Polysilicon Consumption 76

Figure 6-2: U.S. Crystalline Silicon Wafer Consumption 77

Figure 6-3: U.S. PV-based Polysilicon Consumption vs. Producible U.S. Polysilicon Supply 78

Figure 6-4: U.S. Polysilicon Capacity, 2005–2012E 78

Figure 6-5: U.S. Polysilicon Capacity by Producer, 2007–2012E 79

Figure 6-6: U.S. CdTe, CIGS Feedstock Consumption 80

Figure 6-7: U.S. Amorphous Silicon PV-based Silane Consumption 81

Figure 6-8: U.S. PV Float Glass Consumption 82

Figure 6-9: U.S. PV Low-Iron Glass Consumption 83

Figure 6-10: U.S. PV Encapsulant Consumption 84

Figure 6-11: U.S. PV-based Material Consumption (Historical and Producible Supply) 84

Figure 6-12: U.S. Manufacturing Equipment Market Forecast 86

Figure 6-13: U.S. PV Manufacturing Equipment Market Forecast 87

Figure 6-14: U.S. Polysilicon and Module Export Market Forecast 88

Figure 7-1: NREL Scenario Analysis of PV – Grid Price Cost Spread, 2015 89

Figure 7-2: U.S. PV Demand, 2006–2012E 90

Figure 7-3: Newly Announced PV Manufacturing Facilities in the U.S. 91

Figure 7-4: U.S. 2009 Industrial Electricity Prices by State 92

Figure 7-5: U.S. 2009 Industrial Electricity Prices by State 93

Figure 7-6: Figure 79: 2008 PV-related Employment and Wages by State 94

Figure 7-7: 2008 Corporate and Property Tax Burden by State 96

Figure 7-8: Assessment of Overall Viability for PV Manufacturing by State 98

Figure 7-9: Comparison of Fully Loaded Wafer-to-Module Conversion Costs, U.S. vs. Asian Manufacturing Facility 100

Figure 7-10: Comparison of Fully Loaded Conversion Costs, Subsidy-included U.S. vs. Asian Manufacturing Facility 101



ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Shyam Mehta

Shyam Mehta is a Senior Analyst at GTM Research, focusing on global solar markets.

Before joining GTM Research, Shyam was a Financial Analyst at Goldman Sachs Global

Investment Research where he covered equities in the alternative energy sector, primarily

solar companies. Prior to Goldman, Shyam was a Research Analyst at The Brattle Group,

an economic consulting fi rm, where his work focused on problems within the electricity

industry. Shyam received his Bachelor’s in Mathematics from U.C. Berkeley. Shyam is

also a participant in the U.S. Department of Energy’s PV Expert Group.



1 INTRODUCTION

The solar PV industry is in considerable fl ux. Overbuilt manufacturing capacity, stagnant

inventory and weak global macroeconomic conditions have signifi cantly altered long-

held industry fundamentals. Polysilicon, in scarce supply over the last four years, is now

readily available. Inventories have become bloated, and prices have fallen sharply across

every step of the value chain. Players with sub-optimal cost structures are being tightly

squeezed, forcing some to outsource production through contract manufacturers. The

balance of power has shifted from module producers to project developers, leading to a

scramble towards downstream integration by many upstream companies. Consolidation

is beginning to rear its head with news of acquisitions and mergers, and insolvencies

may not be too far away.

FIGURE 1: MARKET CLEARING MODULE ASPS AND ANNUAL PV DEMAND, 1993–2012

Source: GTM Research and The Prometheus Institute

1.1 The Case for a U.S. PV Manufacturing Build-Out

Amid such turmoil, a spate of developments has placed the United States at the

cusp of this brave new solar reality. Unlike governments in other leading markets

such as Spain and Germany, whose attitude towards solar has visibly soured, policy

momentum over the last eight months has been growing ever stronger, both at

the federal and state levels. The passing of the landmark American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act (ARRA) in early 2009 released billions of dollars in funding for



PV generation projects through State Energy Program grants. Steep module price

declines, along with the ability to avail of the investment tax credit, have prompted

a surge of interest from U.S. utilities (SCE, PG&E, Duke, PSEG) in deploying large-

scale PV, and an expected restoration of the long-term trend of falling module and

system prices is also likely to accelerate the onset of grid convergence, certainly on

a subsidized basis (see Figure 1). Although the lack of available capital still poses

challenges for project development (a phenomenon that is global and sector-

agnostic), there is more reason than ever before to believe that the U.S. is poised to

become a leading solar market over the next half-decade.

FIGURE 2: NREL SCENARIO ANALYSIS OF U.S. PV - GRID COST SPREAD, 2015 (ASSUMING ITC AND 1 PERCENT

ANNUALIZED INCREASE IN RETAIL RATES)

Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)

Thus far, much of the discussion between policy makers, market participants and

industry observers has focused on the growth of end-markets, while precious little

space has been devoted to the other side of the coin – i.e., domestic production.

Historically, production has tended to make its home where end-demand has been

located, as Germany and Japan can attest to (see Figure 2). In both these countries,



attractive subsidy programs generated strong domestic markets, whose development

led to a corresponding increase in domestic production capacity. This raises the

question as to how the emergence of the U.S. as a major end-market could impact

the domestic manufacturing landscape.

FIGURE 3: GERMANY AND JAPAN: PV CELL PRODUCTION VS. DEMAND, 2001–2008

Source: GTM Research and The Prometheus Institute

The scant attention paid to U.S. manufacturing can be partly explained by the generally

less-than-impressive results thus far. Historically, production growth in the U.S. has been

steady rather than spectacular, at an annualized rate of 22 percent from 2001 (100 MW) to

2008 (407 MW), as Figure 3 indicates, and its production share has fallen from 27 percent

of global supply to only 6 percent during this period. Only a small handful of crystalline

silicon-based facilities were producing at levels resembling commercial production in the

early half of the decade, and though the ramp of thin-fi lm in the U.S. in recent years has

lent the domestic manufacturing scene higher visibility, it has been a pale shadow of the

expansive build-out of capacity witnessed in Germany, China, and Taiwan.



FIGURE 4: U.S. PV CELL PRODUCTION, 2001–2008

Source: Greentech Media Research and The Prometheus Institute

Recent evidence, however, has indicated that this may be about to change. The

prospects of the U.S. market and the threat of “Buy American” provisions in the

ARRA have prompted a steady fl ow of announcements from foreign crystalline

silicon manufacturers about setting up production facilities in the U.S. beginning

in the last quarter of 2008. Indeed, the question on every manufacturer’s lips at

this year’s Intersolar (the PV industry’s largest global trade fair held in Germany

and San Francisco) was: “What is the U.S. market going to do and how can we

take advantage of it?” Adding further momentum to this have been the numerous

manufacturing incentives passed into law by U.S. states within the past year, and

the generous packages afforded by solar companies that have chosen to base

manufacturing domestically, not to mention the introduction of a manufacturing tax

incentive at the state level. At the same time, venture-funded thin-fi lm companies

with large cash cushions have been largely undeterred by existing market conditions

and have made steady progress in bringing their products to market. All this comes

together to indicate that an infl ection point for U.S. PV manufacturing is in the offi ng.

Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

US Cell Production (MW) 100 121 103 139 153 178 296 407



1.2 Report Objective and Scope

At a high level, this report attempts to answer the following questions:

1. What is the current status of the U.S. PV manufacturing industry?

2. How and to what degree will the domestic PV manufacturing industry grow

through 2012?

3. What are the prominent technology and value chain concentration trends

and regional variations?

4. What state and federal-level incentives are presently available to U.S. PV

manufacturers? What role could these incentives play in boosting the

manufacturing industry?

5. To what extent could provisions and programs laid out through the

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act impact solar manufacturing in

the U.S.?

6. What business opportunities will a ramp of domestic capacity and

production create for materials suppliers, equipment providers, and other

supply chain participants?

7. Where will future manufacturing facilities be sited? Alternatively, what states

are the most viable locations for establishing PV manufacturing facilities?

What are the relevant factors at play?

8. To what extent could a build-out of U.S. PV manufacturing be stymied by

the recent trend of outsourcing manufacturing to contractors in developing

nations such as Mexico and China?

1.3 Executive Summary

The key fi ndings of this report are the following:

1. U.S. cell and module capacity are estimated to grow at an annualized rate

of 50 percent and 45 percent respectively from 2008 to 2012. Thin fi lm will

continue to occupy a majority of production share in the U.S., constituting

2.69 GW, or 67 percent, of cell capacity by 2012. Production share in thin-

fi lm technologies will be shared relatively evenly between CdTe (18 percent),

amorphous silicon (24 percent), and CIGS (22 percent). A standout trend

over the next half-decade will be the expected ramp of CIGS capacity and

production. U.S. CIGS potential or producible supply will grow from 132 MW

in 2009 to 626 MW in 2012, although actual production will depend on market

conditions and buyers’ appetite for perceived technology risk. At the same

time, the build-out of crystalline silicon PV will also proceed at a strong pace

over the next few years: crystalline silicon will still comprise the majority share

for any one technology, at 35 percent of cell and module capacity by 2012.



FIGURE 5: HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED U.S. PV MANUFACTURING CAPACITY (WAFERS, CELLS, AND MODULES)


FIGURE 6: U.S. PRODUCIBLE CELL OUTPUT BY TECHNOLOGY (MW-DC)




2. More plants were announced in the fi rst half of 2009 than in the previous

three years combined, which serves as evidence of the gathering

momentum for increasing PV plant construction in the U.S. and points

to recent political and policy-related developments as a catalyst. A

number of these will be owned by companies based in Europe and Asia,

indicating growing interest from foreign manufacturers in entering the U.S.

manufacturing market.

3. In terms of value chain participation, there is a marked preference for

building module assembly plants compared to wafer and cell facilities,

which refl ects the U.S.’s status as an anticipated leading end-market as

opposed to a low-cost production location.

4. The U.S. will contain a total of 38 PV manufacturing facilities by 2012, compared

to 27 at the beginning of 2009. 20 states will have some form of manufacturing

presence in PV by 2012, nine (Oregon, California, Arizona, New Mexico,

Colorado, Michigan, Ohio, Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania) of

which are expected to have producible output in excess of 100 MW by 2012,

compared to only three (Ohio, Michigan, Oregon) in 2009. This is exactly the

case for module production as well, meaning that production will no longer be

concentrated in a few states as is the case at present.


U.S. PV MANUFACTURING – MARKET OUTLOOK AND BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES 14

FIGU

RE

7: U

.S. P

V M

AN

UFA

CTU

RIN

G FA

CILITY

MA

P, 20

12

So

urc

e: G

reente

ch M

ed

ia R

esearc

h a

nd

The P

rom

eth

eus In

stitu

te



5. The West Coast states of Oregon and California will emerge as major

manufacturing centers over the next few years, together comprising 28

percent of producible supply by 2012; 59 percent of the U.S.’s producible

wafers in 2012 will come from Oregon. By contrast, California’s presence

hinges critically on a ramp-up of CIGS, with most CIGS-based fi rms having

based their facilities there.

6. The Southwest is also likely to play a large role in driving U.S. production,

with facilities in Arizona (Solon, Global Solar), New Mexico (Schott, Signet

Solar, Solar Array Ventures) and Texas (Heliovolt). A primary driver here is the

highly supportive stance of state governments, which has driven generous

manufacturing incentives.

7. The passage of the ARRA has introduced signifi cant incentives for PV

manufacturers at the federal-level by way of the Advanced Energy Tax

Credit, which is a 30 percent tax credit on the capital cost of equipment

and that is set to be converted to a direct cash payment. The importance of

the MTC, aside from reducing up-front capital costs will be its role in driving

competitive domestic manufacturing economics by helping to lower cost

spreads between U.S.-based manufacturers and manufacturers in “low-

cost” locations such as China, Taiwan and Malaysia that do not have to deal

with labor rate fl oors and enjoy highly subsidized utility costs. In addition to

this, the Obama administration’s demonstrated urgency in mobilizing funds

from the federal loan guarantee program will also benefi t manufacturers.

8. At present, 18 U.S. states offer some form of incentive for PV manufacturing.

Three major forms of incentives dominate: grants, loans, and tax credits

or exemptions, although levels very signifi cantly by state. There is a high

degree of overlap between those states that offer PV manufacturing

incentives and those that currently house or will be housing production

facilities, although California - which has no explicit incentives for PV but

will be the home of eight plants by 2012 - is a notable exception. The

heftiest incentives are awarded in the form of tax credits, exemptions, and

abatements, which require suffi cient tax equity to be monetized. Overall,

Oregon, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania stand out as having the best

incentive packages.


16

FIGU

RE

8: M

AP

OF S

TATE-LE

VE

L PV

MA

NU

FAC

TUR

ING

INC

EN

TIVE

S

So

urc

e: G

reente

ch M

ed

ia R

esearc

h a

nd

The P

rom

eth

eus In

stitu

te



9. Over and above the manufacturing incentives that have been passed into

law and can be availed of by any fi rm, almost every PV facility in the U.S.

has been able to cut one-off deals with state and local governments for

packages that extend well beyond the bare minimum. This has especially

been the case over the past twelve months. These “sweeteners” include tax

breaks, low-interest loans, low-cost land leases, infrastructure upgrades,

and workforce training agreements that have run into the hundreds of

millions of dollars.

10. The impact of “Buy American” provisions in the ARRA on solar

manufacturing will depend on its exact interpretation. A softer interpretation

requiring a fi xed percentage of the cost of the module to come from

U.S. raw materials and labor should not be a problem for U.S. thin-fi lm

manufacturers given their low feedstock costs and integrated manufacturing

processes. In the case of crystalline silicon which has a larger value chain,

it could be circumvented by using U.S. polysilicon and assembling modules

domestically, spurring further investment in domestic module manufacturing

by Asian and European fi rms. The ramifi cations of a more protectionist

interpretation of the clause where all components and feedstocks would

be required to be domestically produced could be severe given the globally

interconnectivity of the PV supply chain, but such an extreme version is

unlikely to be adopted.

11. The growth in domestic PV production should provide meaningful

opportunities for their many suppliers by fueling sizeable growth in material

requirements, including feedstocks, glass, and encapsulants, as well as

in manufacturing equipment. By 2012, the domestic PV industry could

consume as much as 40 million m2 of glass, while the annual U.S. PV

equipment market will stand at $952 million at this time.

12. The U.S.’s status as a historical net exporter of polysilicon and modules is

likely to be become even more prominent in the future, with net exports of

these two products topping $5.4 billion by 2012.

13. A number of factors will infl uence the location of future manufacturing

facilities. These include state incentives, power prices, the cost and

availability of skilled labor, proximity to end-demand, and tax burdens.

Oregon, Michigan, Arizona, Texas, Washington, and Ohio emerge as having

the best overall collection of characteristics, and there is a high correlation

between a state’s overall performance on the above metrics and its existing

manufacturing presence.

14. At the same time that the U.S. is attracting new PV manufacturing, a strong

recent trend observed in the case of a number of established American

and European fi rms has been to shift production to Asia, through in-house

manufacturing, tolling arrangements, or contract manufacturing fi rms. A

given fi rm’s decision as to where to site new capacity will depend critically



on its current manufacturing economics. For Asia-based producers with

highly competitive cost structures but little or no access to the U.S. market,

module assembly facilities in the U.S. make the most sense, while European

and U.S. players with highly sub-optimal cost structures are likely to shift

wafer and cell production to low-cost locations. For fi rms between these

two extremes, incentive packages will play a critical role in evening the

equation, and only states offering deals that can meaningfully close the cost

gap between U.S. and Asian production will come into contention.



OWNERSHIP RIGHTS All Reports are owned by Greentech Media protected by United States Copyright and international copyright/intellectual property laws under applicable treaties and/or conventions. User agrees not to export any Report into a country that does not have copyright/intellectual property laws that will protect Greentech Media’s rights therein. GRANT OF LICENSE RIGHTS Greentech Media hereby grants User a personal, non-exclusive, non-refundable, non-transferable license to use the Report for research purposes only pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Greentech Media retains exclusive and sole ownership of each Report disseminated under this Agreement. User agrees not to permit any unauthorized use, reproduction, distribution, publication or electronic transmission of any Report or the information/forecasts therein without the express written permission of Greentech Media. Users purchasing this report may make a Report available to other persons from their organization at the specifi c physical site covered by the agreement, but are prohibited from distributing the report to people outside the organization, or to other sites within the organization. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY AND LIABILITY Greentech Media has used its best efforts in collecting and preparing each Report. GREENTECH MEDIA, ITS EMPLOYEES, AFFILIATES, AGENTS, AND LICENSORS DO NOT WARRANT THE ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS, CURRENTNESS, NONIN-FRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF ANY REPORTS COVERED BY THIS AGREEMENT. GREENTECH MEDIA, ITS EMPLOYEES, AFFILIATES, AGENTS, OR LICENSORS SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO USER OR ANY THIRD PARTY FOR LOSSES OR INJURY CAUSED IN WHOLE OR PART BY OUR NEGLIGENCE OR CONTINGENCIES BEYOND GREENTECH MEDIA’S CONTROL IN COMPILING, PREPARING OR DISSEMINATING ANY REPORT OR FOR ANY DECISION MADE OR ACTION TAKEN BY USER OR ANY THIRD PARTY IN RELIANCE ON SUCH INFORMATION OR FOR ANY CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR SIMILAR DAMAGES, EVEN IF GREENTECH MEDIA WAS ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF THE SAME. USER AGREES THAT THE LIABILITY OF GREENTECH MEDIA, ITS EMPLOYEES, AFFILIATES, AGENTS AND LICENSORS, IF ANY, ARISING OUT OF ANY KIND OF LEGAL CLAIM (WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE) IN CONNECTION WITH ITS GOODS/SERVICES UNDER THIS AGREEMENT SHALL NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT YOU PAID TO GREEN-TECH MEDIA FOR USE OF THE REPORT IN QUESTION.

pv manufacturing in the united states - green technology

Documents