San Francisco, CA – May 10, 2012 – The Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC) today announced the release of its 2012 Solar Scorecard that ranks manufacturers of solar photovoltaic (PV) modules according to a range of environmental, sustainability, and social justice factors.

“In this competitive solar market, top-tier panel makers are distinguishing themselves from environmental laggards by responding to SVTC’s survey and posting environmental data on their websites,” said Sheila Davis, Executive Director of SVTC.

The highest scores this year went to China’s Trina (94), the USA’s SunPower (93), and Germany’s SolarWorld (91).

The 2012 Solar Scorecard represents 51.1% of the PV market share.

Key findings from the Scorecard include:

• 13 of the 14 companies surveyed said they would publicly support Extended Producer Responsibility (taking back and recycling their products), up from 6 of 14 companies in 2010.

• 100% of the companies that responded reported they do not use prison labor and eight of the companies have written policies forbidding this practice.

Companies were scored in the following categories: Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR); workers’ rights, health, and safety; disclosure of chemical use and emissions; supply chain monitoring; sustainability practices; and use of life cycle analysis.

The 2012 survey took a deeper look at corporate transparency and the type of information being provided to the public.

• 4 companies post hazardous waste reduction targets on their websites or annual/sustainability reports.

• 8 of 14 PV module manufacturers post greenhouse gas emission information on their websites or annual/sustainability reports.

“Photovoltaic manufacturers are increasingly reporting health, safety, and sustainability metrics on their websites and within annual reports. However, too many solar manufacturers are still unwilling to share their emissions information,” said SVTC Research Scientist Dustin Mulvaney, who contributed to the Scorecard survey. “Part of a solar manufacturer’s value proposition to its customers is its environmental credentials. Those who are transparent and make a genuine investment will be rewarded with consumer confidence.”

“Transparency is crucial to all green businesses,” said Ms. Davis, “This year companies that did not respond were scored based on the information on their websites. In SVTC’s third year of releasing the Scorecard, we’ve come to realize that companies that do not respond seem to have little positive news to report.”

The investment companies that support SVTC’s Solar Scorecard include Boston Common Asset Management, PaxWorld Management LLC, and Walden Asset Management.

“Boston Common Asset Management is very pleased to have supported the Solar Scorecard for a third year,” said Steven Heim, Managing Director. “The results show the importance of social and environmental issues and how they are increasingly becoming recognized by the industry. We are encouraged by new companies sharing their practices with the public and investors via SVTC’s Solar Scorecard.”
For more information, go to www.solarscorecard.com.

About Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition

Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition is a non-profit organization engaged in research, advocacy, and grassroots organizing to promote human health and environmental justice in response to the rapid growth of the high-tech industry. For more information, go to www.svtc.org.

Despite economic disruptions and dramatic price drops in solar panels, many solar companies remain committed to the environmental principles outlined by SVTC. SolarWorld, First Solar, Solon, Sovello, and Yingli have responded to the Solar Scorecard since 2010 and we would like to thank them for their leadership.

Although the overall number of companies responding to the Solar Scorecard survey has remained steady at about 14, the total market share of the participating companies has doubled from 26% in 2010 to 51% in 2012.

We think that the increase in participation from larger companies is a good sign for the solar industry. SunPower (4.4% market share), REC (3.3% market share), and Trina (8.1% market share) have responded to the Solar Scorecard survey since 2011. In 2012 we welcomed the participation of Suntech (10.4 % market share). Companies that are actively implementing environmental programs want to differentiate themselves from the laggards who are actively cutting cost by sacrificing environmental protections.
Solar companies are considered “green” businesses and therefore should enthusiastically report their environmental practices.

We have learned that start-ups and smaller companies, typically strapped for time and resources to commit to sustainability programs, do not score as high as the larger companies. We are very encouraged and impressed by Motech, Solon, SoloPower, and Sovello’s willingness to continue to respond to the survey and demonstrate their commitment to environmental issues.

As the industry continues to consolidate, less than 15 companies sell 90% of the PV modules on the market. It would be a travesty for the solar companies with the cheapest modules, yet most egregious environmental practices, to be deemed industry winners.

Any company that refers to itself as a “green” business should make its environmental record available to the public. Thus, SVTC turned to the information publicly available on the websites of companies who did not respond to the Solar Scorecard to score their environmental practices. LDK and Jinko Solar earned zero points. Hanwha SolarOne, Schott, and Canadian Solar earned two points each. In SVTC’s third year of releasing the Scorecard, we’ve come to realize that companies who respond to the Scorecard survey are industry leaders who are driving environmental changes. Conversely, companies that do not respond to our survey and do not post information on their websites probably have very little positive news to report.

We hope customers will use the Solar Scorecard to make purchasing decisions that support companies with the best environmental records.

Here is a summary of the progress we’ve seen among the industry leaders over the last 3 years:

• 92% companies responding to the survey said they would publicly support extended producer responsibility, up from 57% in 2010.

• 100% of the companies reported they do not use prison labor and eight of the companies have written policies forbidden this practice. This is up from the 64 % of the companies that reported they would not use prison labor in 2010.

• 86% of companies that respond to survey have a code of conduct in with their suppliers that is in alignment with Social Accountability International 8000 standard, which ensures that working conditions are free from child or forced labor, provide a safe and healthy living environment, and comply with local laws for collective bargaining, working hours, discrimination, and compensation. In 2010 only 42 percent of the companies required their direct suppliers to follow a worker code of conduct or other set of publicly available standards

We’ve created a visual website to help illustrate some of these potential risks that we are warning about.

When you visit SVTC’s Solar Lifecycle website, you will be guided through each stage of a solar panel’s life and the associated risks – from the mining of materials used to create a solar panel to the eventual disposal of a panel at the end of its life. Today the website illustrates the two most common types of solar panels – polysilicon and cadmium telluride.

The making of a solar panel is pretty complicated. We’ve taken all of the scientific information and drilled down to the essential information to help you understand the impacts on the surrounding environment (soil, air, water) and workers and nearby communities.

For 30 years SVTC has watched the electronics industry stumble from one environmental and health crisis to the next and we’ve successfully advocated for a cleaner and safer industry since the first toxic chemical spills in the early 1980s.  Unfortunately, many of the same technologies and processes are used to make electronics and solar panels – and SVTC certainly does not want to see  solar make some of the same fatal mistakes as the electronics industry.

We are optimistic that we can build a truly clean energy supply that is safe and sustainable for our planet and all of its inhabitants.  But we need to think critically and learn from past mistakes to help today’s vital solar energy industry expand in a sustainable way.

Act today.  Arm yourself with knowledge.  Visit SVTC’s newly launched Solar Lifecycle website.

The complaint filed by seven manufacturers has divided the US solar industry and resulted in another group, calling itself the Coalition for Affordable Solar Energy (CASE), to form in response to CASM’s complaint. CASE claims that cheap Chinese panels make solar energy affordable in the US and creates rooftop installation and sales jobs.

The ITC may find US solar companies are in fact being injured by Chinese violations of free trade agreements. However, free trade isn’t the biggest problem facing solar manufacturing in the US. The biggest problem is that the US government hasn’t made a significant financial commitment to renewable energy or developed a long term strategy to make solar economically and environmentally sustainable.

A forward-thinking US policy committed to the economic and environmental sustainability of the solar industry would find ways to create business opportunities throughout the solar panels’ lifecycle, which would mean creating policies that support safe domestic mining, manufacturing, installation and recycling of solar panels.

The US is projected to be the largest solar market by 2012. It would seem that US policymakers across the political spectrum would get behind building capacity for US-based solar manufacturing. A compelling case can be made to support solar manufacturing for the purpose of addressing climate change, creating jobs, promoting energy independence and growing the economy.

In addition to being the largest solar customer, the US will also likely be one of the largest solar panel waste generators in the world. A commitment to long-term sustainability in the solar industry would include investing in recycling systems to handle the millions of tons of panels and create new jobs in recycling related industries when the panels are decommissioned.

Instead, policymakers are spending time obsessing over Solyndra. It’s important to determine what went wrong (if anything) with the Department of Energy (DOE) loan process – or if there is political favoritism in the DOE program. However, the congressional debate about Solyndra and the subsequent media coverage has supplanted all substantive discussion about the US long-term strategy for solar.

It’s hard to watch the US solar industry take such a beating. However, it’s not just cheap Chinese panels that are creating the problem. Some of the most serious blows to the industry are coming from our federal government.

The five National Sustainability Award semifinalist had the highest scores in the sustainability category and they all had some very cool products. Invelox introduced wind turbines that don’t use blades, Sanergy developed a waste to energy model that attempts to address sanitation issues of the 80% of the people living in Nairobi, Kenyan slums who don’t have toilets and Indow windows (the National Sustainability Award winner) creates low-tech window insulations. Semifinalists Dragonfly and May-Ruben provide products that reduce commercial scale energy use.

Although all of the start- ups are “cleantech” (meaning technologies that are energy efficient), the issue of sustainability felt slightly ghettoized in the overall competition. Eighty percent of the total CTO score was given for the “single bottom line,” which evaluates financial viability and determines whether the business will make money for its investors. Only 20 percent of the score was given for the sustainability category. The sustainability judging criteria includes Environmental Stewardship, Social Responsibility and Metrics and Reporting.

It may sound harsh to say that sustainability was ghettoized, but I want to emphasize that environmental and social sustainability practices have a long way to go before they are fully integrated and considered equally important to a companies’ financial sustainability.

Hopefully, more and more investors and consumers will continue to support companies that are socially and environmentally responsible as part of their bottomline. In the meantime, the CTO National Sustainability Award as well as consumer tools like SVTC Solar Scorecard are here to help drive sustainability issues into the core of the cleantech industry.

I look forward to getting involved with Cleantech Open next year as a judge or one of the many volunteer organizers who are committed to sustainability and finding ways to “front-end” sustainability practices into the earliest phases of business start-ups.

The Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC) has been involved in a process in California called the Green Chemistry Initiative; we have been working on it with other NGOs in the CHANGE Coalition (Californians for A Healthy and Green Economy).

For me, the process has been challenging. Why? Because it seems only logical that corporations should not put toxic chemicals in their products, period. And if they do, they should be fined in order to pay for the damage their products have on the environment (wildlife, waterways, etc.) and people (workers and consumers).

The process of adopting Green Chemistry regulations has also been challenging because a lot of the information is scientific and the regulations can be very confusing. There has also been a revolving door of people at the head of California’s Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC).

The whole process has concerned me, as I feel many people in California are unaware of this process and what it aims to accomplish.

But that ignorance may change soon: This week, the new director of DTSC released a number of videos breaking down the process.

What a breath of fresh air! If you don’t have a lot of time to read the regulations, I encourage you to watch the first video in which the new director, Debbie Raphael, sums up the purpose of the Green Chemistry Initiative in ways that everyone can understand why this initiative is so important. She and DTSC deserve real kudos for making such a complicated, yet important, issue more tangible.