Solar Players
The incumbents, insurgents, and community operators reshaping solar energy.
The Transformation
Solar is transitioning from utility-controlled to community-owned. Understanding who wins and loses is critical for positioning.
| Player Type | Current Position | 2027 Position | Threat Level |
|---|---|---|---|
| Utilities | Dominant | Pressured | 🟡 Medium |
| Traditional EPCs | Strong | Commoditized | 🔴 Declining |
| Residential Installers | Growing | Token-enhanced | 🟢 Growing |
| DePIN Protocols | Nascent | Network owners | 🟢 Strong |
| Panel Manufacturers | Stable | Commodity | 🟡 Mixed |
| Battery Players | Growing | Core infrastructure | 🟢 Strong |
Player Profiles
Incumbents
Traditional Players
| Player | Purpose | Business Model | Market Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Solar | Utility-scale panel manufacturing | Sell panels to large projects | $4.1B revenue, strong order backlog |
| Enphase | Microinverter technology | Hardware + monitoring services | Market share dropped 55% → 47% in 2024 |
| SolarEdge | DC-optimized inverter systems | Inverters + cloud monitoring | Goldman upgrade, expanding to storage |
| Sunrun | Residential solar-as-a-service | Leases & PPAs (~70% market share) | Growing share despite market downturn |
| NextEra Energy | Utility-scale renewable generation | Own and operate solar farms | Largest renewable energy producer |
| Tesla Energy | Integrated solar + storage | Powerwall + Solar Roof | Bundled with EV ecosystem |
Utilities
| Aspect | Current State | DePIN-Era |
|---|---|---|
| Function | Own grid, control interconnection | Wholesale from DePIN networks |
| Moat | Grid access, regulatory capture | Weakening |
| Threat | Behind-the-meter, community solar | Revenue erosion |
| Opportunity | Partner with DePIN | Grid services market |
The Bear Case: DePIN solar builds generation without utility involvement. Utilities become dumb pipes for electrons.
The Bull Case: Utilities partner with DePIN for distributed generation, reducing their capex while maintaining grid control.
Insurgents
DePIN Protocols
| Protocol | Focus | Token | Network Size | Revenue |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glow | Industrial solar farms | GLW/GCC | 70 farms (CA to India) | $25M ARR |
| Daylight Energy | Consumer energy rewards | — | 400% MoM user growth | Pre-revenue |
| Starpower | DER coordination network | — | 13,000+ devices | Building |
| Srcful | Grid edge intelligence | SRCFUL | Nordic focus | Early stage |
| React Protocol | Virtual power plants | REACT | North America | Building |
The Glow Model
Glow demonstrates the DePIN solar flywheel:
- Recursive subsidy — 100% of electricity revenue returns to protocol
- Capital amplification — Each $1 invested generates ~$20 of infrastructure
- Additionality focus — Only new construction qualifies for rewards
- Geographic arbitrage — Capital flows to optimal locations (India: 1/5 US cost)
The economics:
Traditional Solar:
Revenue → Shareholders → Reinvestment (15-20%)
Glow Solar:
Revenue → Protocol → 100% Reinvestment
+ Token rewards for operators
+ GCC for carbon buyers
Solar Farm Operators
| Aspect | Current State | DePIN-Era |
|---|---|---|
| Function | Deploy and operate farms | Core infrastructure providers |
| Value Add | Generation capacity | Network effect |
| Returns | PPA revenue + token rewards | Multiple value streams |
| Risk | Token price, interconnection | Evolving |
Human/AI Split
| Function | Current AI % | 2027 AI % | Human Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Site Selection | 40% | 70% | Local knowledge, permitting |
| System Design | 50% | 80% | Customer relationship |
| Installation | 5% | 15% | Physical work |
| Monitoring | 60% | 90% | Edge cases only |
| Dispatch | 30% | 80% | Novel situations |
| Verification | 40% | 85% | Fraud investigation |
The pattern: Intelligence goes to AI. Physical deployment and trust decisions stay human.
Ecosystem Map
┌─────────────────┐
│ REGULATORS │
│ (Utility PUCs, │
│ IRS/IRA) │
└────────┬────────┘
│
┌────────────────────┼────────────────────┐
│ │ │
▼ ▼ ▼
┌───────────────┐ ┌───────────────┐ ┌───────────────┐
│ UTILITIES │ │ DEPIN PROTOS │ │ EQUIPMENT │
│ (Grid ops) │◄─►│ (Glow) │◄─►│ VENDORS │
└───────┬───────┘ └───────┬───────┘ └───────────────┘
│ │
│ │
▼ ▼
┌───────────────┐ ┌───────────────┐
│ EPCs │ │ FARM │
│ (Installers) │ │ OPERATORS │
└───────┬───────┘ └── ─────┬───────┘
│ │
└─────────┬─────────┘
▼
┌───────────────┐
│ USERS │
│ (Consumers, │
│ C&I, Carbon │
│ Buyers) │
└───────────────┘
Competitive Dynamics
Porter's Five Forces (DePIN Solar)
| Force | Traditional | DePIN Era | Implication |
|---|---|---|---|
| Supplier Power | Medium (panels) | Low (commodity) | Hardware commoditizing |
| Buyer Power | Low (utilities) | Medium (protocols) | More options |
| Substitutes | Low | Medium (wind, storage) | Multiple clean options |
| New Entrants | Medium | High | Anyone can operate farms |
| Rivalry | Regional monopolies | Intense | Race for best locations |
Winner-Take-Most Dynamics
DePIN solar exhibits network effects:
- More farms → more verified generation → more GCC buyers → more farms
- First to critical mass in carbon markets likely wins
- Geographic arbitrage concentrates deployment in optimal locations
Investment Thesis by Player Type
| Player | Thesis | Risk |
|---|---|---|
| DePIN Protocols | Own the solar network of the future | Token sustainability |
| Farm Operators | Earn while building infrastructure | Token price, interconnection |
| Carbon Buyers | Access verified additionality | GCC market liquidity |
| Traditional Utilities | Avoid, unless partnering | Disruption |
| Panel Manufacturers | Hold, commoditization | Margin pressure |
Context
- Protocols — What these players execute
- Platform — Technology they use
- DePIN Tokens — Token economics
- Work Charts — Human/AI split methodology