The IEA's Implementing Agreement on PV Power Systems (IEA  PVPS) was initiated in 1993, largely as a result of the efforts of Roberto Vigotti. In June 1998, Dr Vigotti retires from his position of PVPS Executive Committee Chairman. PV Power takes this opportunity to look back with him over the first five years of PVPS activity.

Dr. Vigotti, five years have passed since PVPS kicked off. Looking back, do you think the Implementing Agreement has been valuable?
You would expect me to say yes and I'm not about to disappoint you; one of the prime objectives of PVPS from the outset was to promote information exchange about the national programmes of the participating countries so that the members could share and lean from each other's experiences. I am certain that this pooling of knowledge is promoting a much more focused approach to the technical development of PV worldwide. For me, the real added value of the co-operation has been the informal co-ordination and initiation of new activities like the analysis of the operation and performance of numerous PV systems already installed worldwide. We are consolidating the lessons learned from these to avoid replication of mistakes, and to facilitate appropriate design improvements, which can help move the technology forward.
The Implementing Agreement has provided the framework for co-ordination or initiation of a number of task-shared activities: we have set up a database for the collection and analysis of system operation performances; identified candidate projects for stand-alone, large-scale and built environment PV in order to share design expertise for future projects; we are leading the way in recommending best practices for safe and reliable installation and operation of both stand-alone and grid-connected systems and we are now addressing technology transfer to those regions, which could benefit from our expertise through the Developing Country team network. I don't think many of these would have come about without PVPS, certainly not in such a short time frame, so the value is clear.

Has the Programme achieved everything you had hoped?
No, not everything. We have had our share of problems - particularly early on as the tasks were still being identified. On occasion the direction of Task activities might have been clearer, and the resources better managed. I have to say that some signatory countries have not met the expectations required by task-share activities; occasionally the entities contacted by the IEA are either unable to properly motivate the real actors - by which I mean utilities, manufacturers, system integrators, universities and so on - that could actually add real value to the shared effort.

This must be a bit exasperating?
Unfortunately we have to accept that the IEA and therefore PVPS is not always highest priority for these national co-ordinators, and of course PVPS doesn't have any powers to force participation. This can result in a limited commitment and consequently either slower progress on shared tasks or an uneven distribution of work on to those participants that demonstrate a willingness to move activities forward.
I am convinced that industry participation is critical to the efficacy of the Programme. We do have leading PV manufacturers and utilities participating n certain task activities, but this could and, ideally, should be further increased. I sense there is a hesitance on the part of some manufacturers to feed their own information into the PVPS Programme, because they feel this is the best way to protect their market share. Similarly, I know several utilities do not see the collaboration within IEA as a priority, partially because of the bureaucracy involved and the need to be linked to their governmental bodies, and partially because they do not see enough value in the continuous process of collaboration.

Doesn't it demonstrate that PVPS is not the best vehicle for moving PV technology forward?
No, I disagree. I can to some extent understand the viewpoints of industry wishing to safeguard their intellectual property rights, but I strongly believe that the long-term global benefits of collaboration - by which I mean a significantly increased market for PV worldwide, and hence a significantly greater market in absolute terms for those organization at the forefront of developing the technology - must outweigh the short-term benefits of self-protectionism. PVPS has a number of notable strengths, in that it is truly international, the organization is credible, independent and accessible - by which I mean we are able to take on board new ideas to move PV technology and market development forward.
The PVPS programme constitutes a very active network by itself and as such offers clear benefits for the participating organizations, on the international level through its links with the World Bank, IEC, EU of UPVG (Utility Photovoltaic Group) as well as between the different actors on a bilateral or national level. I do not think it is easily within the scope of one single organization to maintain such a network of contacts and pool of expertise.
I think evidence of the value of PVPS, is the high level of attendance at or targeted workshops and seminars. The Sun Valley Conference, Strategic Photovoltaic Business Opportunities for Utilities, was a prime indicator that PVPS does have a role - to get key actors talking with a coherent voice.

Where does PVPS go next?
Well, most important, we have two tasks in the pipeline. These concern very different areas from each other, but are equally exciting: the first will study the feasibility of establishing Very Large Scale Photovoltaic Power Generation Systems in remote areas such as deserts, to assess the potential for future installations of global-scale photovoltaic power generation systems. This should progress toward the creation of models of VLS-PV and case studies to evaluate the potential benefits to the regions where VLS-PV systems would be constructed as well as the effect on the PV industry and on the wider environment.
The second task should integrate the various competencies of PVPS in relation to developing countries - building on the work of the DC Team and incorporating relevant results from other tasks such as the task on Stand-alone and island systems. The main objective here is to expand international collaboration so as to increase the overall rate of deployment of PV in developing countries, by overcoming technical and non-technical barriers, through co-operation between IEA members and non-member countries.
In addition, there are a number of other important issues likely to receive strong emphasis in the near future, including hybrid systems (PV-diesel, PV-wind), feedstock material, modelling of network integration, PV in conjunction with power electronics and long-distance transmission and storage, market development, distributed generation, the role of PV in the zero emission cities of the future, urban PV concepts. So PVPS will not be 'resting on its laurels'.

And what about your own plans for the future?
I plan to remain in the Executive Committee as Italian member to make my experience available to the new Chairman at least until our third Executive Conference. Within my company I have the challenge to make PV power systems a business opportunity taking into account the new programme under definition for 10 000 roof-tops (size 1-50 kW) as one of the major post-Kyoto actions. I'll also try to implement a project of co-operation with a North African utility for decentralised electrification using PV stand-alone and hybrid systems. I really enjoyed sitting in my Chair, and feel it is appropriate to let someone else have the same fun - while sharing the same passion.

[ Top ] [ Previous issue of PV Power ] [ Next article in PV Power ]