Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Energy Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol
H I G H L I G H T S
art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Diverse solar PV business models and nancing options exist in the international landscape, helping
Received 29 August 2015 expand and accelerate the adoption of rooftop solar PV systems. The conditions for their emergence are
Received in revised form context specic, depending on the policies, regulations, incentives, and market conditions of each
13 January 2016
country. After a review of the international landscape, this paper compiles and analyzes business models
Accepted 19 January 2016
and nancing options for rooftop solar PV investment in Thailand that have emerged during the period
between 2013 and 2015. Despite policy discontinuity for the support of rooftop solar systems, diverse
Keywords: business models and nancing options are driving market expansion and expanding solar access to more
Business models Thai consumers. Drawing on our policy and regulatory analyses and in-depth interviews with business
Solar PV
representatives, we identify four types of business models and one nancing option. The business models
Thai PV market
include Roof Rental, Solar PPA, Solar Leasing, and Community Solar, and the nancing option is the solar
Solar nancing
loan. We analyze the drivers for their emergence, barriers to their success, and the risks from the
business owners' and consumers' viewpoints. Our policy recommendation is focused on crafting a net-
metering regulation with evidence-based studies on the potential costs and benets to different stake-
holders.
& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.01.023
0301-4215/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Tongsopit, S., et al., Business models and nancing options for a rapid scale-up of rooftop solar power systems
in Thailand. Energy Policy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.01.023i
2 S. Tongsopit et al. / Energy Policy ()
foundation by identifying diverse and emerging business models In 2007, power producers using solar energy received power
in the Thai rooftop solar market during the period between 2013 purchase agreements (PPA) from Thailand's electric utilities at an
and 2015 and describing the conditions that have enabled their adder rate of 8 THB per kWh. The PPAs have a contract term of 10
emergence. years. Two years after the implementation, Thailand announced its
This paper is structured as follows. After the introduction of rst 15-Year Renewable Energy Development Plan (REDP 2008
Thailand's solar power policy in Section 2, this paper discusses 2022). The target for solar energy was 500 MW of installed capa-
insights from a literature review on solar business models in city to be achieved by 2022 (NEPC, 2009). Shortly after the an-
Section 3. Section 4 discusses the methodologies for our inter- nouncement of the REDP, in 2009, a large number of requests were
views. Research results are discussed in Section 5, followed by a made by investors for PPAs for solar energy. In conjunction with
discussion and policy recommendations in Sections 6 and 7, falling market prices of solar PV systems, the situation led to a
respectively. dramatic change of rates and regulations in 2010. The rate was
reduced to 6.5 THB per kWh, and strict regulations were im-
plemented. By 2011, a large number of PPAs were given to in-
2. Solar power policy in Thailand vestors, amounting to a total solar capacity of approximately
2000 MW. Interestingly, by the end of 2011, the REDP was replaced
Thailand's policy to support solar photovoltaic (solar PV) ap- by the Alternative Energy Development Plan (AEDP 20122021)
plications has evolved over time with the aim to increase solar (NEPC, 2011), which aimed to increase solar capacity to 2000 MW
capacity through long-term renewable energy plans. Table 1 by 2021 (DEDE, 2012); this target was recently updated to
shows the target for installed solar capacity in each of the various 6000 MW by 2036.
plans since 2008, which has been increasing. According to the Because of concerns regarding the impacts to ratepayers, the
current Alternative Energy Development Plan, Thailand aims to adder scheme was discontinued in 2010 and replaced by the feed-
achieve 6 gigawatts of solar power (installed capacity) by 2036. in-tariff (FiT) scheme. The FiT scheme changed the structure of the
The major mechanism implemented to drive the growth of incentives from a premium FiT' to a xed-price FiT'. The rst solar
solar power in Thailand has been the feed-in tariff (FiT) measure. FiT scheme was launched in 2013 to specically support rooftop
The Thai government implemented FiT in 2007 and has since solar installations with a quota of 200 MW of PPA available. Within
modied the scheme and the FiT rate for solar power to adjust to the 200 MW quota, 100 MW was allocated to residential roofs
changing market conditions. As shown in Fig. 1, the rst incentive (r10 kWp), and the remaining 100 MW was allocated to com-
to support the growth of solar power was called the adder mercial roofs (10 kWp to 1 MWp). The 100 MW quota for com-
scheme', which was implemented in 20071. The adder scheme mercial roofs was completely lled within minutes of the appli-
provides incentives to power producers that sell electricity pro- cation process commencement in 2013. The pace of subscription to
duced by RE at a certain tariff for a specied period of time the 100 MW residential quota lagged behind. The residential
(Tongsopit and Greacen, 2013). For every kWh of electricity pro- subscription to the feed-in tariff quota reached approximately
duced, the power producer received an adder rate on top of the 30 MW during the rst round of the application process and was
utility electricity price; this is also termed as premium-price feed- completely lled to 100 MW after the government launched a
in-tariff (FiT) (Cory et al., 2009). second round of applications in 2015. With all the quotas fully
lled, the government has not expressed any further support for
Table 1 rooftop solar PV as of August 2015, which is approximately two
Target of solar installed capacity in various plans. years after the rst feed-in tariff support was launched.
Despite the lack of FiT support in the near future, there exists
Solar targets REDP AEDP 2012 AEDP 2012 AEDP
20082022 2021 2021 (updated) 2015 on the horizon a policy framework yet to be implemented. In
2036 January 2015, the National Reform Council (NRC) approved A
Please cite this article as: Tongsopit, S., et al., Business models and nancing options for a rapid scale-up of rooftop solar power systems
in Thailand. Energy Policy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.01.023i
S. Tongsopit et al. / Energy Policy () 3
Project to Support a Free Market for Solar Roof, otherwise known solar system investment, as shown in Fig. 2. The structuring of
as the solar Quick Win project. The main idea of the proposal business models includes solar service models and others. Finan-
was to eliminate solar rooftop quotas and establish a new support cing options include conventional self-nancing, localized muni-
scheme, net-metering. With net-metering, the electricity must cipal nancing, utility nancing, a more complex structure such as
rst be consumed by the building, and then excess electricity will third-party nancing, and a new and innovative nancing me-
be exported to the grid. The approved proposal focuses only on chanism called crowdfunding. The section below summarizes the
rooftop solar power for households (o10 kWp systems) and concepts of these business models and nancing options.
commercial buildings ( o500 kWp systems). As an initial step,
involved government agencies are tasked with dening a pilot 3.2.1. Business models
area for initial installations. Currently, there is still no common
perception among government agencies and private companies on 1) Solar service models
the meaning and detailed design of the net-metering regulation. In solar service models, solar power is offered as a service by a
solar service rm that builds, owns, and maintains solar panels
on the premises of end-customers (Overholm, 2015). Custo-
3. Literature review mers receive values from the service in the form of cheaper
electricity (compared to electricity purchased from power
3.1. Denitions of business model utilities), guaranteed performance, and O&M service. Solar
service models have been a major driving force for rooftop
Since the mid-1990s, the concept of the business model has solar market expansion in the U.S. The electricity generated
gained increasing interest among business practitioners and aca- from the PV system is either used by the customer (Solar
demics (Zott et al., 2010; Huijben and Verbong, 2013). Business Leasing model) or sold to the customer (Solar PPA model) (Bo-
models serve many functions, including bringing new technolo- linger, 2009). The structuring of the solar service model in the U.
gies such as renewables to the market (Huijben and Verbong, S. also enables developers or investors to reap the benets of tax
2013) and serving as management tools to design, implement, incentives.
operate, change, and control a business (Johnson (2010) and Wirtz 2) Other models
et al. (2010), cited in Richter (2013)). Innovative business models There are various other business models offered by both private
help spread solar technology swiftly by reducing or removing and public enterprises. The Sacramento Municipal Utility Dis-
adoption barriersfor example, for new demographics to adopt PV trict (SMUD)'s SolarShares Program enables its customers to pay
(Drury et al. (2012, p. 69) cited by Overholm (2015)). a monthly xed fee for shares in a local solar farm in exchange
There is no common denition of the business model' concept for credits that can be used to offset their electricity bills
(Burkhart et al., 2011; Klang et al., 2010; all cited by Huijben and (Coughlin and Cory, 2009). Private companies have also started
Verbong (2013)). However, numerous studies on solar business offering a similar business model under the term community-
models are coalescing around the denition of the business model shared solar. Roof rental is also a popular model in countries
provided by Osterwalder and Pigneur (2009) (e.g., Richter, 2013; with FiT incentives. The developer company rents a roof to
Huijben and Verbong, 2013; IIED, 2013; GVEP International, 2013). install and operate a solar system and sells the electricity for the
Their business model canvas concept has been widely used by FiT. The roof owner will receive benets through either prot
many authors in the literature on renewable energy and energy sharing or roof rental payments.
efciency (e.g., Okkonen and Suhonen, 2010, cited by Richter
(2013) and Paiho (2015)). The need for a canvas-like framework 3.2.2. Financing options
arose because it is simple, high level and easy to construct' for
people with little prior business knowledge (Leschke, 2013). The
business model canvas framework denes a business model in 1) Self-nancing
terms of the nine building blocks as listed in Table 2. Self-nancing is used all over the world as the conventional
This study uses the business model canvas to decompose the nancing method, in which purchasers acquires an asset with
elements of the emerging rooftop solar PV business in Thailand their own money. Homeowners or building owners take full
and design the interview questions. liability of the cost of installing and maintaining the solar PV
systems, resulting in high upfront costs that have prohibited
3.2. PV business models and nancing options that exist widespread adoption of PV rooftop installations, especially in
internationally developing countries.
2) Utility and public nancing
A review of the international landscape revealed 2 categories of Local governments and municipalities have played a key role in
business models and 4 categories of nancing options for rooftop accelerating the adoption of distributed solar power. Several
Table 2
The nine business model building blocks.Source: Osterwalder and Pignuer (2009) cited in Leschke (2013).
Value propositions The goods and services offered and their distinguishing advantage
Key activities The most important activities in executing the value proposition
Key resources The resources necessary to create value for the customer
Partner network Relationships considered essential to accomplishing the value proposition
Customer segments The specic target market(s) intended to be served
Channels The proposed channels of distribution
Customer relationship The type of relationship the rm wants with its customers
Cost structure Characteristics of the cost and expense structure
Revenue streams The way the rm will make money, how it is paid, and pricing
Please cite this article as: Tongsopit, S., et al., Business models and nancing options for a rapid scale-up of rooftop solar power systems
in Thailand. Energy Policy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.01.023i
4 S. Tongsopit et al. / Energy Policy ()
Fig. 2. Categorization of business models and nancing options for rooftop solar
power development; blue color indicates business models; pink color indicates the
3.3. Solar business models in the literature
types of nancing. (For interpretation of the references to color in this gure le-
gend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Much of the literature on solar PV business models has been
focused in the United States, perhaps because it is one of the lar-
municipalities have initiated programs to increase the afford- gest solar PV markets in the world (REN 21, 2015). Frantzis et al.
ability of rooftop solar projects through the provision of - (2008) conceptualize three generations of PV business models in
nancial incentives such as low-interest loans, rebates, and the U.S. They argue that PV business models are moving away from
subsidies. To make such programs possible, municipalities may the Zero Generation, in which the customer nances, owns, and
need to initially raise capital through the issuance of bonds or manages the system, to the First Generation, in which third parties
matching funds. The low-cost capital is then passed either di- develop, install, and own the PV systems on behalf of the custo-
rectly to the customer or to a developer to install systems on the mer. The role of the utility in these two models evolves from being
customer's roof. An example of a successful municipal nancing passive to being facilitative. In the Second Generation PV Business
is the Property-Assessed Clean Energy Program (PACE) in the U. Models, there will be more variations in terms of ownership, op-
S. However, these options are subject to the policies initiated by eration, and control of the PV systems as utilities become active
the local government. players in the market. Indeed, recent literature on solar business
In addition to local governments, power utilities have begun to models in industrialized countries has drawn attention to the
offer their customers options for owning solar power systems. solar service models, also termed third-party nancing (NREL,
In this model, utilities would nd a source of nancing on behalf 2010) and third-party ownership (Frantzis et al., 2008). Solar
of its customers. The nancing will be used either to install a service rms are believed to have been originated in the U.S. circa
large-scale solar farm in which customers can have a share or to 2005 (Drury et al. (2012), cited in Overholm (2015)) and have since
lend directly to customers. This source of nancing has several grown to serve new geographical locations and customer groups
advantages including low-cost capital access by the utility, (Cather (2010) and Woody (2010), cited in Overholm (2015)). Two
lower transaction costs of billing because the payments can be examples of solar service models include solar leasing and solar
included in customers' monthly bills (on-bill nancing), and PPAs.
guaranteed grid integration because utilities are able to assess Solar service models or third-party ownership account for
good grid integration locations for solar power. This nancial more than seventy percent of all residential installations in three
scheme is offered in the U.S. by Southern California Edison, San major U.S. solar markets: California, Arizona, and Colorado (GTM
Diego Gas & Electric, SoCalGas, and Hawaiian Electric Co. research, 2014). However, because of declining system costs and
3) Third-party nancing increasing availability of solar loans, a recent market study expects
The third-party nancing or third-party ownership model has a declining share of the third-party ownership model in U.S.
been responsible for the rapid scale-up of the residential solar market (GTM research, 2014).
market in the U.S. since 2008. In this model, a third-party In addition to solar leasing and solar PPAs, another model that
company installs, owns, and operates the solar PV system on the is emerging in the U.S. is community solar. A Community-Owned
customer's site and either leases the PV system or sells the PV Solar System is dened by Asmus (2008) as a business model with
electricity to the building (Drury et al., 2012). Third-party the ability of multiple usersoften lacking the proper on-site
Ownership (TPO) includes solar leasing and solar PPA (SEIA, solar resources or scal capacity or building ownership rightsto
2015). According to Litvak (2014), TPO represents 66% of the U.S. purchase a portion of their electricity from a solar facility located
residential solar market and a considerable portion of the off-site (Asmus, 2008, p. 63). It leverages volume purchasing by
commercial market (Litvak, 2014, cited in Feldman and Low- collective participation of locals and internalizes the market seg-
der, 2014: 11). ments, such as tenants or vacant community space, which used to
The solar leasing model in the U.S. is nanced by private or be excluded from the commercialized activities (Huijben and
equity funds. Existing tax incentives in the U.S. incentivized this Verbong, 2013).
type of nancing by allowing the transfer of tax benets from a In the context of developing countries, the majority of research
portfolio of projects to the investors. Large players such as on solar business models and nancing options has been focused
Google, CitiBank, and Bank of America are nancing rooftop on off-grid applications for the low-income market. The literature
solar through solar leasing and solar PPA companies. focuses on the design elements of off-grid models, such as the
Whereas solar leasing may be considered as a form of nancing, requirement of a down payment and after-sale service. Friebe et al.
it can also be considered as a business model. In the U.S. (2013) conducted quantitative research on Solar Home System
Please cite this article as: Tongsopit, S., et al., Business models and nancing options for a rapid scale-up of rooftop solar power systems
in Thailand. Energy Policy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.01.023i
S. Tongsopit et al. / Energy Policy () 5
Please cite this article as: Tongsopit, S., et al., Business models and nancing options for a rapid scale-up of rooftop solar power systems
in Thailand. Energy Policy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.01.023i
6 S. Tongsopit et al. / Energy Policy ()
Fig. 4. The structure of roof rental business model. Fig. 5. The structure of solar PPA Model.
In this model, the roof owner does not have a liability in the 5.2. Solar Shared saving or solar PPA business model
rooftop solar system; therefore, all costs, including the investment
cost, insurance cost and O&M cost, are born by the developer. This 5.2.1. Components and structure
is benecial to roof owners who want a solar system on their roof Because of policy uncertainties regarding the continuation of
but do not want to take liability for the system. Another benet of FiT and a lack of clear regulation on selling electricity to the end
this model is that the roof owners do not consider solar PV part of user by the third party, some Thai developers have devised an
their core business and therefore would not like to invest in it. innovative business model that ts the current investment cli-
mate. The shared-saving model (Solar Shared-saving model) is
The developer company looks for the following criteria:
proposed for energy-intensive buildings and factories to reduce
electricity costs. Based on time-of-use (TOU) electricity rate, these
1. A credible roof owner that will be able rent out the roof for 25
years. consumers pay for peak/off peak electricity rates and a demand
charge every month, which constitutes a substantial share of their
2. Large roof area: an installation capacity of 1 MW requires ap-
proximately 8000 m2. yearly expenses. As a result, the Solar Shared-saving business
model is expected to provide a winwin solution for developers
3. Strong roof structure that can withstand the additional load
from the solar panels. and energy-intensive consumers. The structure of this model is
shown in Fig. 5.
5.1.2. Drivers The main players in this model consist of the customer (roof
owner), the developer, and the utility company. The roof owner,
In Thailand, rooftops that meet the criteria are mostly com-
who wants to reduce electricity costs, agrees on a shared-saving
mercial rooftops including warehouse roofs, industrial/factory
contract with the developer. The contract typically lasts 2025
roofs, and shopping mall roofs. The roof owners benet from the
years. The developer installs, owns, and operates the commercial-
rental fee and the reduction of heat absorption to the roof, thereby
scale solar PV system on the site. PV electricity units are then sold
reducing power consumption.
at a discount, typically 510% lower than the grid electricity tariffs.
In more recent developments, the Roof Rental model emerged
In this sense, it appeared as if the roof owner could lower his
in the residential sector after the government announced the
consumption by 5 to 10%, which is the reason for the term shared
second round of the application process for FiTs. Two housing
saving.
developers took this opportunity to earn the FiT income while
The Solar Shared-saving model can be interpreted as a variation
increasing the value of the houses for their customers. The de-
of the Solar PPA model, which is now common in the U.S. Under
velopers invest in the solar system and install and own the sys-
the Solar PPA model, the developer also installs, owns, and oper-
tems on the houses in new housing projects and earn FiT income
ates the solar system on the customer's site. The difference lies in
from the utility. Part of the FiT income is paid to the households. the contract. Under the Solar PPA model, the customer agrees to
The installation of the solar PV systems on the rooftop not only purchase electricity from the developer at a certain tariff (THB/
provides additional income for the housing developers but can kWh) for a specied number of years. In Thailand, there are two
potentially increase the sale of new houses. forms of tariff structures. The rst type of tariff offers a discount of
510% of the retail tariff rate. Another tariff structure xes the
5.1.3. Barriers tariff rate with built-in escalation over the contract term. The latter
The main barrier limiting the widespread use of this model is tariff structure is similar to the PPA model in the U.S., in which the
the quota of PPA given. Developer companies have suggested that PPA tariff is set by the developer with a built-in escalation rate. For
even with a reduction of FiT rates from 6.16 THB/kWh to 6.01 THB/ example, in the case of SolarCity's residential solar PPA contract (as
kWh, roof rental will still be attractive. of June 2015), the price per kWh increases by 2.9% per year after
the rst year's rate of 0.15 USD per kWh (SolarCity, 2015).
5.1.4. Risks Another difference lies in the legal precedent of the Solar PPA
From the developer's perspective, risks are associated with the model. Because the developer owns the solar system and sells
use of the building, including cases in which the buildings are power to the customers, it essentially acts as a retail utility. Be-
taken over, retrotted for other purposes, or demolished. These cause Thailand's electric power industry structure remains par-
anticipated risks are covered in the contract between the devel- tially deregulated, the retail utilities (PEA and MEA) have con-
oper and the roof owner. From the roof owner's perspective, they ventionally been the only parties that sell power in their service
are concerned about the risk of roof damage that may affect assets territories. Though not stated in the law that no party other than
under the roofe.g., roof leaks, building structural damage, or roof the utilities can sell power to customers, the legality of a model in
collapse. These risks are covered by the developer company which a third party provides power to customers in competition
through all-risk insurance, which insures against all damages re- with utilities remains unclear to many developers. This lack of
sulting from installing the solar system. clarity was conrmed by our conversation with two developers
Please cite this article as: Tongsopit, S., et al., Business models and nancing options for a rapid scale-up of rooftop solar power systems
in Thailand. Energy Policy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.01.023i
S. Tongsopit et al. / Energy Policy () 7
Please cite this article as: Tongsopit, S., et al., Business models and nancing options for a rapid scale-up of rooftop solar power systems
in Thailand. Energy Policy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.01.023i
8 S. Tongsopit et al. / Energy Policy ()
Please cite this article as: Tongsopit, S., et al., Business models and nancing options for a rapid scale-up of rooftop solar power systems
in Thailand. Energy Policy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.01.023i
S. Tongsopit et al. / Energy Policy () 9
Table 3
Existing solar loans in Thailand (as of September 30, 2015).
5.5. Solar loans must be shared between the developer and its customers.
Please cite this article as: Tongsopit, S., et al., Business models and nancing options for a rapid scale-up of rooftop solar power systems
in Thailand. Energy Policy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.01.023i
10 S. Tongsopit et al. / Energy Policy ()
Table 4
Features of solar PV business models and nancing options in Thailand.Sources: SPR (2015) and K-Bank (2014).
Features Buying Roof rental PPA Leasing Community solar Solar loan
Please cite this article as: Tongsopit, S., et al., Business models and nancing options for a rapid scale-up of rooftop solar power systems
in Thailand. Energy Policy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.01.023i
S. Tongsopit et al. / Energy Policy () 11
Deployment. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/44853.pdf (accessed National Energy Policy Committee, 2011. National Energy Policy Committee Re-
11.02.15). solutions. http://www.eppo.go.th/nepc/kpc/kpc-139.htm#2 (accessed
Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efciency, 2012. The Renew- 06.03.15).
able and Alternative Energy Development Plan for 25 Percent in 10 Years (AEDP NREL, 2010. Solar PV Project Financing: Regulatory and Legislative Challenges for
2012-2021). http://www.dede.go.th/dede/images/stories/dede_aedp_2012_ Third-Party PPA System Owners. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/46723.
2021.pdf (accessed 11.02.15). pdf (accessed 06.03.15).
Drury, E., et al., 2012. The transformation of southern California's residential pho- NSO National Statistical Ofce, 2015. Summary of Important Results from the
tovoltaics market through third-party ownership. Energy Policy 42, 681690. National Household Economic and Social Survey 2014 (Table 8). http://service.
Eid, C., Guilln, J.R., Marn, P.F., Hakvoort, R., 2014. The economic effect of electricity nso.go.th/nso/nsopublish/themes/les/socioSum56-1.pdf (accessed December
net-metering with solar. Energy Policy 75, 244254. 2014).
Feldman, D., Lowder, T., 2014. Banking on Solar: An Analysis of Banking Opportu- Okkonen, L., Suhonen, N., 2010. Business models of heat entrepreneurship in Fin-
nities in the U.S Distributed Photovoltaic Market. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/ land. Energy Policy 38, 34433452.
fy15osti/62605.pdf (accessed 06.03.15). Overholm, H., 2015. Collectively created opportunities in emerging ecosystems: the
Frantzis, L., Graham, S., Katofsky, R., Sawyer, H., 2008. Photovoltaics Business case of solar service ventures. Technovation 3940, 1425.
Models, http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/42304.pdf (accessed 06.03.15). Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., 2009. Business model generation. A Handbook for
Friebe, C.A., et al., 2013. Exploring the link between products and services in low- Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challenger, Hoboken. Wiley, NJ.
income marketsevidence from solar home systems. Energy Policy 52, Paiho, S., 2015. An analysis of different business models for energy efcient re-
760769. novation of residential districts in Russian cold regions. J. Sustain. Cities Soc. 14,
Global Village Energy Partnership-GVEP international, 2013. Analysis of the solar 3142.
phone charging value chain in Tanzania and recommendations to foster phone Pode, R., 2013. Financing LED solar home systems in developing countries. Renew.
charging entrepreneurship in remote areas. http://www.enea-consulting.com/ Sustain. Energy Rev. 25, 596629.
wp-content/uploads/At-the-bottom-of-the-phone-charging-value-chain-by- REN21, 2015. Global Status Report. http://www.ren21.net/wp-content/uploads/
ENEA-Consulting-GVEP-International-Sept135.pdf (accessed 06.03.15). 2015/07/REN12-GSR2015_Onlinebook_low1.pdf (accessed 22.08.15).
Greacen, Chris, 2015. Personal Communication. Richter, M., 2013. Business model innovation for sustainable energy: German uti-
GTM Research, 2014. U.S. Residential Solar Financing 20142018. http://www. lities and renewable energy. Energy Policy 62, 12261237.
greentechmedia.com/research/report/u.s.-residential-solar-nancing-2014- Sano, A., Tongsopit, S., 2014. Roof Rental is Solar Power for All Bangkok Post.
2018 (accessed 06.03.15). Opinion, 15 September 2014. http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/
Huijben, J.C.C.M., Verbong, G.P.J., 2013. Breakthrough without subsidies? PV busi- 432272/roof-rental-is-solar-power-for-all (accessed 22.06.15).
ness model experiments in the Netherlands. Energy Policy 56, 362370. SEIA Solar Energy Industries Association, 2015. Third-Party Solar Finan-
International Institute for Environment and Development -IIED, 2013. An Approach cing. http://www.seia.org/policy/nance-tax/third-party-nancing (accessed
to Designing Energy Delivery Models that Work for People Living in Pov- 29.06.15).
erty. http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/16551IIED.pdf (accessed 06.03.15). SolarCity, 2015. Sample Residential PPA Lease. http://www.solarcity.com/sites/de
Johnson, M.W., 2010. Seizing the white space. Business model innovation for fault/les/solarcity-contract-resi-ppa-example.pdf (accessed 08.07.15).
transformative growth and renewal. Harvard Business School Publishing, Bos- SPR, 2015. SPCG-KTMs 100 million Baht Collaboration on Residential Solar Lending.
ton, MA. http://www.spcg.co.th/index.php/th/news/detail/232 (accessed 01.04.15).
Klang D.J.H., Wallnver M., Hacklin F., 2010. The anatomy of the business model: Thansetakit, 2014. Community Solar Faces Financing Hurdles from the Govern-
asyntactical review and research agenda, Conference Paper, Opening Up ment Savings Bank, Thansetakit News. http://goo.gl/7bbz19 (accessed
Innovation: Strategy, Organization and Technology, London, United Kingdom, 23.04.14).
(June). Tongsopit, S., Greacen, C., 2013. An assessment of Thailands feed-in tariff program.
Leschke, J., 2013. Business model mapping: a new tool to encourage en- Renew. Energy 60, 439445.
trepreneurial activity and accelerate new venture creation. J. Mark. Dev. Com- Woody, T., 2010. A $100 Million Pool for Solar Financing. The New York Times, USA
pet. 7 (1), 1826. (June 21).
K-Bank, 2014. K-Energy Saving. http://www.kasikornbank.com/EN/WhatHot/Pa Wirtz, B.W., Schilke, O, Ullrich, S., 2010. Strategic development of business models:
ges/SOLAR_ROOFTOP.aspx (accessed 06.03.15). implications of the Web 2.0 for creating value on the internet. Long Range
Litvak N., 2014. U.S. Residential Solar Financing: 2014-2018. Boston, MA: GTM Planning 43, 272290.
Research. Zott C., Amit R., Massa L., 2010. The Business Model: Theoretical Roots, Recent
National Energy Policy Committee, 2009. National Energy Policy Committee Re- Developments and Future Reach. Working Paper. http://www.iese.edu/re
solutions. http://www.eppo.go.th/nepc/kpc/kpc-123.htm (accessed 06.03.15). search/pdfs/di-0862-e.pdf (accessed 11.02.15).
Please cite this article as: Tongsopit, S., et al., Business models and nancing options for a rapid scale-up of rooftop solar power systems
in Thailand. Energy Policy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.01.023i