S.A. may pick two battery storage projects as it outlines new energy policy

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

South Australia to unveil new energy policy on Tuesday, amid speculation it may support two major battery storage projects.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The South Australian government may decide to pick two new battery storage projects as it responds to the extraordinary twitter negotiations between two high profile billionaires and as it prepares to unveil its new energy policy on Tuesday.

Premier Jay Weatherill and energy minister Tom Koutsantonis on Tuesday morning will unveil the new energy policy – promised after the most recent rolling stoppages when the state’s most modern gas plant sat, mothballed, as 90,000 customers lost power.

The new policy is expected to include what the government promised would be a significant intervention into the market, and will represent its frustrations at watching high prices and outages that it believes could have been avoided.

One option being considered is “buying back” part of the grid – and the Pelican Point gas plant, or at least its mothballed unit – is the subject of most speculation.

This, in theory, could allow the government to produce power when it wanted to – to moderate prices or guarantee supply – although the flow on consequences (on other ageing gas generators) would need to be impacted.

The occasion could also be an opportunity for the government to announce what it intends to do with battery storage, particularly after the twitter exchange between Tesla founder Elon Musk and Atlasssian co-founder Mike Cannon-Brookes so galvanised the country around “competitive” battery storage.

Weatherill has had at least one long telephone conversation with Musk, which he described as very productive, but if the government was to support a Tesla initiative, it would upset several local players who have been making exactly the same claims as Tesla for many months.

That has raised the prospect that South Australia will commission not one, but two, major battery storage projects, and could even do this through a reverse auction process – although hopefully one quicker than the current tender for its own government supply contract.

Local supplier Zen Energy, chaired by Professor Ross Garnaut and partnered by Californian firm Greensmith, is seen as a favourite, and has previously outlined its own proposals for a “big battery” project in the state.

But also pitching are Lyon Soar, partnered with Mitsubishi and US firm AES, and with at least one and possibly three solar-storage projects in the pipeline, and Perth-based Carnegie, which said on Monday that it was in talks through its Energy Made Clean subsidiary. Others might also be in the wings.

The local tender and government support – it could be a combination of state and federal funding, including from the likes of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation – is needed because while battery storage is competitive with fossil fuels, it needs to be able to extract all its value streams.

Right now, the rules don’t allow that. For instance, a battery storage of the type being discussed by Tesla, Lyon, Zen and Carnegie would want to be able to run “merchant” and meet peak demand for electricity, but also deliver services such as grid stability (frequency and voltage control) and network constraints.

As the industry is noting, if those values were unlocked, along with the “ring fencing” rules that restrict the ability of networks to use battery storage as both a demand response, and to offset cost of grid upgrades, then it would be “game on”. In fact, they mean that battery storage would be unstoppable.

Of course, waiting in the wings are two other technologies – pumped hydro and solar tower and molten salt storage, both of which say they can offer storage at much cheaper cost than batteries.


SolarReserve, for instance, is offering 880MWh of storage as part of its 110MW solar tower facility proposed for Port Augusta, and has just unveiled plans for a project four times that size in Chile. EnergyAustralia is looking at a 100MW pumped hydro proposal further south on the Eyre Peninsula.

So, here’s a nice idea for a South Australia energy policy update:

Number 1: Sign contracts with two battery storage developers, with government assistance, to show what they can do at scale, and then push mightily for the change of rules that have been stalled with the AEMC.

It won’t actually cost that much. Tesla’s proposal for $US250/kWh for a 100MW battery storage plant translates into a base cost of $US50 million or $US100 million, depending on whether two hours or four hours of storage is called for. And, Musk tells us, it can be built in 100 days. Or, it’s free!

Number 2: Reach a deal – lease, off take or even purchase – with Pelican Point to maintain supply, moderate prices and give the incumbent private players some more competition in the market.

Number 3: Use the confidence gained from the Pelican Point deal – which does not need to be long term – to then contract SolarReserve to build that 110MW solar tower power plant – offering the vision, leadership and confidence that the state represents in a new energy vision.

Number 4: Accelerate plans for pumped hydro, and for micro-grids, both discrete and connected with a “thin wire” for remote and regional communities and towns.

That way, South Australia, which already sources nearly 50 per cent of its demand from wind and solar, can continue to lead the world. And it won’t feel so much like an experiment.



Print Friendly, PDF & Email

  1. Keith 3 years ago

    Hi Giles,

    OK probably asking for too much, but why not look west at wave power with Carnegie Clean Energy too. http://seekingalpha.com/article/4048980-carnegie-clean-energy-gwave-wave-power-getting-scale-commercialization-coming. The new WA Government is getting behind this technology with a $19.5 million boost.

    I think the big problem for the Federal Government is that (with Tony Abbott in the wings) South Australia was the beginnings of a winning strategy for the next election around 50% renewable energy disaster and electricity prices…. how else are the LNP going to win the next election? If South Australia gets sorted, there goes the election strategy…..

    • juxx0r 3 years ago

      Carnegie and EMC only exist to farm subsidies not energy. If they had changed tack and got serious, the job would be nearly done by now.

      • Keith 3 years ago

        Hi juxx0r,

        Care to elaborate? Who is better positioned in wave power?

        • FeFiFoFum 3 years ago

          No one.
          The point is that the cost of their process is higher than anything comparative for clean energy.
          So its not competitive.
          Nice idea ( use free wave power to generate power) but its not viable on commercial grounds.

          Some amazing spin going on there for them to get so much traction, and as said previously a disgrace that the Labour Govt is committing $20mil. to a project of questionable value to WA.

          This will come back to haunt Labour in the not too distant future.

          • Keith 3 years ago

            Hi FeFiFoFum,

            How does Carnegie with its wave technology compare with solar PV in its early days?

            I acknowledge that currently Carnegie’s technology looks expensive but it isn’t clear to me that they are a long way from being competitive.

            I agree that there is a race between developing a technology and being wiped out by technologies that are further down the commercialisation path. However, the wave stuff does look appealing especially for island communities, where the competition has been diesel.

            Disclosure, I’ve invested in Carnegie because they seem to me to be ahead of the wave pack and have been doing this stuff for a long time.

          • FeFiFoFum 3 years ago

            I don’t think thats the correct comparison 🙂

            Whats the cost (LCOE) for wave energy compared to solar or wind right now ?

            Its not up to the debt ridden state govt to prop up a Carnegie project with more govt money while they run a trial 1MW generator before scaling it up to 20MW.
            What is the total cost for 20MW btw ? Not.$19.5MIL I don’t think.

            The big island in Hawaii is pretty much 100% renewable with no wave energy connected.
            Its not a windy place being near the equator so not much wind generation either.

            There is the issue of existing wind farms already connected to the network in the area ( as mentioned by Andrew).
            Anyone who has approached Western Power to connect to the network with a renewable project ( or any generation project for that matter) will find out how constrained the network is, and how difficult it is to get approval.
            The wind farm has priority to generate into the network as they already have their connection in place so any other applicants may be rejected or maybe face curtailment to their generation.

            At a time when the new govt has acknowledged they are facing serious issues with ballooning debt, and trying to figure out how to reduce it and pay it off,, throwing out $19.5 MIL seems like a hugely irresponsible decision.

          • juxx0r 3 years ago

            The Albany network problem is not technical or constrained, it’s all about the contracts written for the fossil fuel generators that supply to that market. i.e. It’s all about dollars.

          • JonathanMaddox 3 years ago

            The WA government owns almost all the generators, and all the transmission infrastructure. The contracts are written between different government-owned businesses. Room can be made.

          • JonathanMaddox 3 years ago

            Don’t hassle WA about being debt-ridden. They’ve invested in some excellent infrastructure and they have taxation powers and sovereign ownership of not only most of the state’s road, rail, shipping and electricity infrastructure but also vast mineral resources, including not just the big existing gas, oil and iron ore deposits but Greenbushes (Lithium, Columbium, Tantalum), Laverton (rare earths), Pike Hill (Cobalt). Whatever raw materials are needed for “clean tech”, WA has them in spades. Don’t worry about the state debt.

            As for government debt in general. No government that sells bonds or borrows from banks denominated in a currency which it alone may issue, is ever going bankrupt. Pity poor Greece, but laugh and rage at the greedy liars in Canberra and Washington who pretend their nations can run out of money, only as an excuse to run off with the lion’s share themselves.

          • Andrew Woodroffe 3 years ago

            And it is not just the money. With Gramere and Albany Windfarms already up and spinning, just how much room is there for wave on the grid there?

        • juxx0r 3 years ago

          Anyone with a solar panel and a battery.

      • jrdbull 3 years ago

        You are absolutely correct juxx0r. Both Carnegie and EMC exist because they target government clients utilising the Australian Taxpayer. The Carnegie technology is a long way of being commercial, hence why they had to diversify and acquire a ”vanilla” renewable energy business to survive. Carnegie cannot stand up on it’s own two feet as is evidenced by their financials, and the acquisition of EMC will further rought their balance sheet due to the ”loss leader” approach of EMC and now the Labour government wants to invest 19.5m in a technology that is a long way off just to prop them up. It’s a disgrace. Like all other funding before it, that will just find it’s way into executive managements pockets.

      • JonathanMaddox 3 years ago

        Harsh. If wave power is a worthwhile thing to do at all, ever, the R&D has to be funded somehow, and government subsidy isn’t a stupid way to fund it.

        On the other hand, given the cost reductions already achieved and clearly achievable in the short term in wind, solar and storage, wave power might not be a worthwhile thing to do at all.

        On the other other hand, nobody could have been so confident about solar and storage when the Carnegie story started 18 years ago. They’ve been working on it, and they’ve worked out how hard it is, and they’ve done ok considering.

  2. solarguy 3 years ago

    Hello Giles,
    I agree with what your saying here, as to what the SA government should do and that echo’s with what I said in a previous post.
    Now I would like to confirm something as to Solar Reserves proposal. If a CST plant is rated at 110 MW (instantaneous power) then that output x say 6PSH = 660MWh. Now because these plants have heliostats that track the sun in 3 axis, you could add perhaps another 30% to the daily total output to 858MWh.
    So my question is this, how can such a plant have 1,100GWh of storage unless some of it’s daily output is set aside to achieve that amount of storage over time. Could you clarify this for me please?
    If ZEN can come close to meeting or better still beat Tesla’s offer, then for Aussie jobs sake, they should be awarded the contract, don’t you agree?
    How can leasing or buying Pelican Point moderate electricity prices when gas prices are so high, unless the government subsidizes the cost?
    It would be great if you could provide some answers.

    • Giles 3 years ago

      So,two thing, i’v e adjusted the storage to 880MWh – cos port augusta would likely be 8 hours storage, although its other projects have 10 hours.
      So, that relates to capacity. i think the answer is that it could fill that in the day, but as you not, most output would be going to storage to achieve that – for night time deliver say. but it can be configured to do that, run at full pelt during day and limited storage later or half and half.

      • solarguy 3 years ago

        Ok, got any answers to the other questions?

      • Eb 3 years ago

        The steam turbine size gives the stated 110MWe. Due to the economics and seasonal nature of the resource, the solar collector field will be sized much larger than this. Crescent Dunes has ~1.2 million m2 of heliostat mirrors, so the solar collector field MWth is around an order of magnitude above the MWe of the steam turbine. So it is not straightforward to estimate how much solar energy is collected and stored (or even curtailed) on an ‘average’ day. Care also needs to be taken on distinguishing between MWh electrical and MWh thermal when discussing Concentrating Solar Power. Great article though 🙂

    • barrie harrop 3 years ago

      Zen is mainly imported technologies from Greensmith USA a small battery SW outfit–to beat the pricing of the Tesla Giga factory a small Adelaide based Zen against the Tesla Giga factory is dreaming .

      • solarguy 3 years ago

        Point taken Barrie, but if ZEN reckon they can pull it off, perhaps we should listen. After all it’s not that OZ has to much industry!

    • Peter F 3 years ago

      1. The amount of storage is limited by the economics. a few more tanks of storage adds very little to the costs but adding the extra heliostats or reducing the size of the generator can be done is expensive. It is quite possible to have 2 weeks of storage but then for a given tower and heliostat field peak output may only be 10-20 MW and for most of the year you would be wasting the sunlight so at the moment 8-10 hours is about the optimum. Things will change over time but on large grid more than 10-12 hours is unlikely to be economic

      One plant in Chile is pairing the CST with solar PV so the solar PV provides power during the day and the CST during the night using the same power infrastructure reducing capital costs per MWhr by a claimed 20%

      • solarguy 3 years ago

        Thanks Peter. Here is some food for thought, if a slightly bigger field is employed and say every good day 20MWh of excess energy was added to a separate tank that was a little bigger, we could have 280MWh of emergency storage after 14 days, for those few rainy days. The fact that according to Solar Reserve, the tanks will loose only 1 deg F per day, without any heat input, may make this a goer.
        P.S. I like what Chile is doing, brilliant!

        • Peter F 3 years ago

          All possible but a bigger field means a bigger absorber or defocussed heliostats at peak solar. It is a tricky optimisation question and depends on how often and for much you can sell those extra MWhrs. Having a number of plants as widely spaced as practical throughout the grid is probably a better idea.

        • Ian 3 years ago

          There would be the following elements to the solar thermal and storage facility. 1 the heliostats/mirrors 2. The heating or focal point “reactor” 3. salt as a heat storage medium, 4. Heat exchanger between salt and water to produce steam 5. Steam turbine/generator set. 6. Heat exchanger between exhaust steam and atmosphere. To get continuous power output in the day and then for 8 hours into the night, the heliostats/mirror field would have to capture enough of the sun’s heat energy into the salt medium to achieve this output. Next the salt heat storage must be large enough to generate enough of the right temperature and pressure steam to sustain the desired plant output.

          This system could be viewed as a large self-charging battery. It would have a maximum rated energy output for a particular ideal solar charge cycle, and a maximum power output governed by the turbine/generator size.

          We don’t really have enough information for the solar reserve proposal . Except to say the gen-set is probably 110MW, and at normal operating conditions the plant can run for 8 hrs into the night. The very best you could expect from this level of information detail is 110MW x (12 +8) = 2200 MWH over an optimal solar day. This is unlikely to be the maximum energy output of this system it’s probably something considerably less . Taking a stab in the dark I would say 880MW for the night and perhaps an average of 6 x 110MW in the day,( accounting for the sun’s bell curve irradiance intensity) Maybe 1500MWH. Solar reserve should really tell us this 24hr cycle energy capacity instead of us trying to work it out – very annoying.

          I guess for people that cannot tell the difference between a MW and a MWH it does not really matter.

    • Gary Rowbottom 3 years ago

      Hi, re the Solar Reserve proposal, the way the storage works as far as I understand it, during a day that receives the design level of direct normal irradiance (DNI) the plant can run at the design capacity of 110MW. The heat energy directed by the heliostats to the tower receiver heats a fluid (molten salt) that is stored in a large hot tank, and then drawn off from that through a steam generator heat exchanger. At design DNI, the amount of hot salt drawn off through the steam generator is less than that heated up by the sun via heliostats /receiver, so that level in the hot salt tank is building up during the day, whilst still producing 110 MW. When the sun goes down and no further heat is able to be added to the salt, there is enough volume in the hot salt tank to keep drawing it off through the steam generator to enable a further 8 hours (in the specific Solar Reserve proposal for Port Augusta) operation at the full load of 110 MW. Hence 8 x 110 MW = 880 MWh. The 8 hours can be longer at lesser output, but still 880 MWh). On days where there is less than design DNI, less output, and within parameters the operators can decide how much of the available heat is directed to make how much power, and if any is stored.
      A good analogy is like a bathtub, with a tap to fill it and an outlet tap. The inlet tap lets water in faster than it can be let out, so the bath starts empty and a supply is being drawn off all the time (unless outlet tap is turned off), but because water comes in faster from the inlet tab the level in the bathtub still rises, so when the hot inlet water runs out the inlet tap is turned off, but the water will still run out of the outlet tap. Of course in a more accurate analogy both inlet and outlet taps are controllable and the operator decides how / when he wants to use the total available hot water.

      • solarguy 3 years ago

        Ah, thanks Garry, I was hoping it would work that way, as what reading I’ve done on the subject was pointing to that, but just didn’t spell it out.
        Your explanation was excellent. Cheers.

    • barrie harrop 3 years ago

      But the Zen system is American .
      A small SW outfit.

    • Jon 3 years ago

      Price for SolarReserve plant is c. $650m. They’re out of the money compared to PV & battery and probably even gas peakers

  3. trackdaze 3 years ago

    If SA play their cards right they might fill the vehicle manufacring void with a 21st century vehicle assembly line and or a gigafactory!

    • barrie harrop 3 years ago

      If the cards are played well.
      Now the Sth Aust Premier and PM of Australia is dealing one to one with Musk, it’s a Thomas Playford moment for the Premier, “think big”—let’s say the State sets up Sustainable Energy Bond to fund 250,000 households with Tesla solar /battery over the next 3-5 years on favourable pricing and terms.
      In return Musk sets up his National HQ in Sth Aust for this venture and promises 10,000 new jobs in this period.
      Such a plan would be the single largest deployment of solar/battery in the world—in a State blessed with one of the best solar penetrations in the World.
      Such a plan would give Sth Aust world leadership in sustainable energy production and a secure grid.

    • solarguy 3 years ago

      Don’t get me excited! Tantalizing isn’t!

    • Rod 3 years ago

      In a perfect world we would be utilising the defunct Toyota and Holden factories in SA to retrofit ICE vehicles into EVs

      • Ian Mclaughlin 3 years ago

        Just been sitting on the front veranda saying I wonder how long it will be before I can buy an EV retrofit kit for my Ford Territory!

        • Ian 3 years ago

          So many nice threads on this article, the basic chassis of an electric vehicle like the Tesla’s models contains most of the ‘guts’ the wheel/suspension/brake assemblies, the battery pack and the electric motor. The fancy shape, cabin and electronic dash just sits on top of this. In the future for a given chassis, there may be a number of ‘skins’ that can be fitted. Sporty convertible, chunky SUV, family station wagon, just go to the skin exchange and take your pick. Australia may even build their own Chassis assemblies and buy in the designer skins. For a car package you might buy three skins and two chassis. Or if the batteries get tired you might just swap out the chassis and keep your favourite skin.

          • Ian Mclaughlin 3 years ago

            The possibilities are fascinating.

        • Rod 3 years ago

          If it’s one of the early petrol ones with as bad as 17L/100 km, I’ll bet you are keen to electrify.
          No, if the retrofitting of ICE vehicles is to take off, someone will need to provide a kit to suit a mass produced, smallish car like the Ford Fiesta.
          Resale value in Oz now is awful and most of these are worthless after a couple of years.

          • Ian Mclaughlin 3 years ago

            No it’s a 2015 petrol one which uses less than 10ltr/100km and less than 15ltr/100km towing a 1500kg caravan. It’s my 3rd Territory my 1st in 2004 only used anywhere near 17ltr/100km when towing a caravan. People don’t know how to drive the Territory for economy it has an adaptive gearbox so if you drive for economy it changes the shift pattern drastically. However I can see retro-fitting being a job creator for all the unemployed mechanics when almost no maintenance EV’s take over!

          • Rod 3 years ago

            Yep, seems to be missed in all the hype that a major benefit of EVs is little maintenance.
            My XR5 gets 10ltr/100 these days so you are doing well.

          • Ian Mclaughlin 3 years ago

            I have to admit that I live in a near country area to Adelaide so don’t do much CBD driving but consumption only goes up to 11-12 when I do stay in Adelaide.

  4. Gary Rowbottom 3 years ago

    I like the way you are thinking Giles! It should be a multi-part answer (not sure that tomorrow’s announcement will cover more then the more immediate actions, but we will soon find out.

  5. David McKay 3 years ago

    I would think Number 3 would need some form of competitive bid, reverse auction, etc. My experience with CSP is you would over build the Heliostat fields so you produce power during the day & “bank” storage as well for use after dark. Same with PV & batteries. You may require a 200Mw Heliostat field to accommodate direct gen & storage.

    • solarguy 3 years ago

      Yeah that makes sense and it was what I thought was a possibility. Just would like to confirm that.

  6. Grace McCaughey 3 years ago

    Let us never forget that the power shortages being experienced in eastern Australia have been chiefly caused by John Howard’s 25 year deal with China for gas at a price less than half what we are paying now.
    My best wishes to South Australia in their decision making this week.It could put SA on the world map. Increased investment, tourism and manufacturing will set this stage up for the next 50 years.
    Just Do It.

    • barrie harrop 3 years ago

      Lets see.

  7. joono 3 years ago

    An Oceania Gigafactory could well be on the cards. Musk is rumoured to have substantial stake in a large cobalt deposit in the NT as well as several lithium juniors.
    It would make sense to build a Gigafactory here in Australia where the raw inputs are available, including aluminium if you already own the mines.
    My guess is that an Australian Gigafactory would focus on building PowerPack (not PowerWall) systems for the Asian and Pacific markets.
    Obviously the glut of ex car factories in SA must have a significance to Musk as well.
    Elon Musk is no fool, and has shown his propensity to streamline production to every nth part of the supply chain. To have a global Gigafactory right near his in-house mining operations would be the sort of efficiency Musk would aim for.
    A strategic set of public investments, apart from his secretive private investments in mining operations would make a lot of sense.
    BTW, to drop $25 million for a 100MWh battery system would be a minor investment for Tesla and probably be called a ‘marketing expenses’ in the annual report.

    • Jon 3 years ago

      Real price closer to $50m but either way you’re right!

      • Ian 3 years ago

        The Nevada gigafactory was designed to produce enough batteries for 1/2 million cars. Australia registers 1 million new cars a year ,therefore there is a market for 2 gigafactories in this country alone. A battery factory requires floor space and battery making machines and that is pretty much it on the capital equipment side. From what I can see, the apparent delay in ramping up battery production at the Navada plant has been the time required for the actual construction of the building. The actual lithium cells they produce are similar to a large torch battery. One product and one product only, just packaged into different ‘battery packs’. Tesla doesn’t actually make these cells, Panasonic does. Like you say, we have plenty disused vehicle factory space, these could easily house the machinery required to make lithium cells. Why wait to build a massive gigafactory with its vast floor space when existing factory space could be used for a more modest Megafactory or kilofactory! In fact Swedish NorthVolt and others in Europe are doing exactly this.

        • Ian 3 years ago

          The goal of introducing EV is primarily to electrify transportation is it not? Well the market for batteries is predominantly the market for oil. The extent of this market is summed up in this one phrase 1 cubic mile of oil. This is roughly the amount of oil consumed each year in the world – mostly by transportation. Even if Tesla built 10 gigafactories a year it would take 20 years before the market for batteries would be saturated. The opportunities are as high as the Saudi’s kingdom tower or the Burj Khalifa ! There is more money to be made than was spent building Astana in Kazakhstan. Flying to Mars might be a worthwhile dream, but an EV at every home has got to be far harder and far more beneficial to humanity.

          That’s the big we have got to think.

        • JonathanMaddox 3 years ago

          Tesla is definitely making its own cells now, at the Nevada facility.

  8. Jon 3 years ago

    Giles, the Tesla price is for the battery only and doesn’t include the complete solution. If you include the balance of plant costs then you’ll find it costs a lot more than you assumed figures. The hundred days guarantee really has no value, all Elon is offering is to sell someone else his batteries with no risk to him. Ultimately consumers pay for his offer whether it’s funded by govt or private enterprise, and someone has to operate it. As you point out the economics are difficult so if Elon wants to prove he can save SA he should offer to pay for it himself. That would be a solution!
    It’s an insult to those with real solutions who have been assessing this market for a long time to have these tech guys assume that we’re too dumb down here in oz to come up with a solution on our own.

    • Ian 3 years ago

      No-one is dumb down here in Oz, just hidden- or not so hidden agenda driven. Poor Giles has painstakingly tried to point this out for months. ‘Coal is good for humanity”, “renewables are expensive”, “Windmills are ugly”, “baseload electricity generation is essential”,”global warming is a conspiracy”,”Carbon capture and Storage ” We know this is BS, the coalition know its BS, the population know its BS, the media know it too. If anything this little jostle between billionaires is just calling out the BS.

      SA uses About 1GW of power 24/7 if you really want to fix the intermittency problem with batteries alone you would probably need at the least 8hrs of storage that is 1GW x 8 = 8GWH . Musk ain’t gonna fix nothin with this challenge, but it’s a nice gesture, and it could demonstrate the rapidity at which he and others like him could build out battery storage.

      If this adventure calls out the FF BS, changes a few protectionist electricity rules, and changes the mindset of those controlling our electricity supply. Then that’s a huge achievement.

  9. George Darroch 3 years ago

    It seems that EnergyAustralia should increase the size of their proposed project, and bring forward the timeline.

  10. Greenradagast 3 years ago

    I have one issue. Yopu keep mentioning Zen Energy by name, and not any other company. Can you please declare if you have any vested or conflict of interest here.

Comments are closed.

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.