[solardev]

I hope this doesn't sound rude, but I'm trying to understand the model here.

Does this mean that instead of incentivizing new utility-scale buildouts, you've now created a credits marketplace where no new solar is added but existing small rooftop installations are suddenly eligible, flooding the market with an artificially increased supply?

So companies can buy RECs that don't actually increase the installed solar base, claim that it offsets their pollution, but in reality it's just some accounting trickery that's newly counting solar that's already built?

That's what it sounds like at first glance, but maybe I'm misunderstanding?

Maybe in the long run, if the automation itself drives further adoption and increases solar uptake, it's a net positive..?

[tdaltonc]

I think it's unlikely that much of the total capacity registered by Jasmine will be pre-2025 builds. So I think your last line is the most likely outcome. More access to the program means more efficient use of the incentive, means (hopefully) more aggressive RPS timelines.

Why do I think that we're unlikely to see a lot of pre-2025 builds?

1) Solar is on an exponential deployment curve, so by definition there's much more capacity in front of us than there is behind us.

2) As a practical matter, the go-to-market motion of on-boarding newly built systems is much easier than the go-to-market motion of on-boarding legacy systems. Channel parters (solar installers, solar point-of-sale systems, solar financiers) all deal with new systems, and new systems are top of mind for recent buyers. Getting our product in front of old system owners is just much harder.

[solardev]

That's a very fair response and analysis. Thank you!

[adamsch]

Indeed, RECs are known to have very little additionality and there is a ton of research questioning their role in decarbonization.

"A number of studies have zeroed in on the influence of voluntary RECs—those purchased by private customers—on renewable energy production and have gathered significant evidence to suggest that these certificates have had little to no impact. One of these studies, led by researchers at Princeton, Harvard, and UCLA, for example, found that if the power market for voluntary RECs did not exist, “the amount of electricity generated by wind power in the United States would be little different than what we actually see today.”

A paper published in 2022 in Nature which received significant attention from the media argued that due to the drop in the prices of RECs in recent years, the revenue associated with these certificates is insufficient to promote an increase in green energy production. The paper concludes that while the group of companies being analyzed reported a combined 30.7% reduction in emissions resulting from their REC purchases, the actual reduction was closer to 9.9%."

https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/commentary/blog/renewable-e...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01379-5

[ncapati]

Thanks for raising this—these studies are important and we’ve read them too.

Our goal isn’t to resolve the long-standing debate around additionality, but to solve a more immediate and pragmatic problem: helping individuals and companies claim their property - in this case RECs.

For most people and businesses, participating in commodity markets (where RECs are bought and sold) is a black box. We’re focused on creating infrastructure and tools usable so they can. Whether you're buying RECs or exploring other environmental commodities, we think the user experience and the clarity around what you own and what you’re buying matter deeply.

[fauigerzigerk]

This criticism seems circular to me. If the certificates are too difficult to claim, then of course they don't have the desired effect of acting as an incentive.

[ncapati]

Totally agree with this take—it highlights a core issue we’ve seen over and over again. It's no surprise RECs struggle to live up to their potential as market signals. We think part of the solution is usability. If more people could actually see what they’re buying, why it matters, and how it fits into the bigger system, the signal could become stronger over time.

[ncapati]

Existing small rooftops have always been eligible for RECs, we didn’t create this incentive - it has always been available to this segment. But, the administrative burden put on resi solar installers and developers to manually register thousands of rooftop systems have made it impossible for these small distributed energy systems to claim them, until Jasmine. REC revenue has been knowingly or unknowingly money left on the table that could help lower system cost upfront or generate monthly passive income.

Non utility has been eligible for RECs since the market was created in the early 2000s and with rooftop solar installation sky rocketing in recent years hitting 5 million solar installs, where more than 90% of those installs are on rooftops - this creates an urgency around solving this problem.

We’re automating REC admin so that residential and commercial, the small scale solar segment including third party owned systems (leases and PPA) have easier access to the market by automating registration and simplifying selling.

I only see rooftop solar segment expanding - there’s a huge push on the state level and at the utilities to support distributed generation because of the additional advantage it has on the environment, we want to incentivize more rooftop solar because rooftops already exist rather than taking up land to build solar farms, here’s a good article on this

https://publicinterestnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07...