Talk:First Solar

Not the most environmentally friendly

I removed the offending sentence after glancing at the reference it points to. The reference clearly relates the environmental impact of these cells with NiCd batteries and coal emissions, not other solar technologies. On another matter, this article reads like something the company wrote, and should probably be tagged an advertisement.

ad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.136.66 (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Seeking outside input regarding improvement of article

To whoever may find this: my name is Alan Bernheimer and I am a spokesperson for First Solar. I recently edited this article in an attempt to update it and rewrite it in a more neutral tone, with a view to removing the warning tag on the page. I thought the edits would mean that the current warning ("This article is written like an advertisement") could be removed. Once I removed the tag, however, it was replaced by another editor. In their edit summary, I see that they've suggested waiting for other editors. I think this is a good idea, but other editors have not been active. I would like to ask for editorial guidance on this topic. It is not my intention to control this article but to make the article better and more useful to the site's readers.

Therefore, I am hoping to find an experienced Wikipedia editor who would be willing to explain what needs to be improved in order for the article to meet Wikipedia's standards, and I would like to help with this process in any way I can. I can provide information for other editors to use as sources, and can offer help with any questions they might have. Any suggestions about where to begin would be more than welcome. I will watch this account and try to respond in a timely manner. Thank you for your consideration. --Abernheimer (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I had put the tag back on. When I have a better opportunity, I'll try to assist here. It's difficult to explain the tone issue in a concise manner, but the in English idiom I would say the article has the company "tooting it's own horn" and does not read like an encyclopedia article but more like a press release. In fact, you should not be writing in this article at all, since it is a conflict of interest and against the rules, but I will assume you had good intent and not revert well-intentioned entries. MartinezMD (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your note, MartinezMD. The link to the policy on conflict of interest is helpful. It was not my intent to work against guidelines, and I do not want my continuing involvement in editing this page to cause further problems. Therefore, we are looking for an experienced Wikipedia editor who can discuss this page as an intermediary for First Solar and make suggestions in my place. This seems like a reasonable course of action, and appears to comply with Wikipedia guidelines. I have great respect for the editorial process and for Wikipedia's guidelines, but also feel a strong need to ensure the factual accuracy of information about First Solar on the Wikipedia page. That is my fundamental interest. --Abernheimer (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Note

I've been asked by Alan Bernheimer at First Solar to discuss this page on First Solar's behalf, and have just posted a note to MartinezMD to see if I can open that discussion. I'd also like to invite anyone else who may have this page watchlisted to offer any thoughts. Thanks, WWB Too (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The first thing that got my attention when I read this article was the general tone. It comes across as somewhat grandiose from the very start "world’s leading manufacturers" instead of something more like "large" or even "major". The second paragraph continues to sounds like an advertisement for why a consumer should buy their panels instead of a suitable description for the lead.

In the installations section, how many "largest" or "biggest" mentions are there? The Sarnia plant is mentioned twice in the article as being largest. Is the reader so forgetful he needs to be reminded? Also, how about article balance? A company this size with many sites/plants have any criticism? How does the company compare with it's competitors?

The impression I have is from a simple initial read. None of the other top-10 panel manufacturer articles read like this. With regard to the tag, if there are no factual errors in the article, it concerns me that the company continues to have it's spokesperson involved in these discussions.MartinezMD (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the reply, and certainly some useful suggestions here. I'll start doing research offline and prepare some improvements to share here, and I'll be back to discuss soon. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

YW. I hope I'm not coming across as difficult. I'd like to see a well-written article and will be happy to help here and there. Factually it may be correct, but stylistically I think it needs a lot of revision. I just don't have time at the moment to do a good job at the whole article.MartinezMD (talk) 02:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

Hi again, MartinezMD—it's taken me a little while to do some research and start working on the article, but I've pulled together what I think is a pretty good replacement for the introduction. I've posted it up in my user space (both as display text and a nowiki version). As you'll see, it retains information about what makes First Solar's business unique and interesting, doing so in a straightforward, matter-of-fact manner. The fact is their getting below $1-per-watt was very remarkable, as coverage at the time shows. Meanwhile I've streamlined the company's founding and history info, and was a little more selective on awards to list. Importantly, knowing that the lead section should reflect the contents of the article to follow, it primarily addresses material that's in the article later. A few details may not be present later in the current article, but should probably be added soon. Let me know if you agree this is an improvement. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi - I think there are a few sections that may need a bit of a re-write, where I've added in the citation needed tag. I also updated the tech section with an article I found. Additionally, take a look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources for reliable sources ie no company websites. --MrsEcoGreen (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, MrsEcoGreen. If you see the link in my note above, I've written a revised version of the introductory section that is a replacement for the introduction. Because I've gotten involved at First Solar's behest, one of my goals here is to talk about substantial changes before actually implementing them. As you can see a bit further above, I've been talking with another editor about fixing this page such that it no longer reads like an advertisement. If you'd like to help, I'd appreciate it greatly. Let me know what you think about the new intro when you have a moment. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Just got my internet service back after a week. I like the changes you've proposed on your page and I just made the swap.MartinezMD (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think between the revised intro and the changes MrsEcoGreen made we can removed the banner tag. If anyone thinks otherwise we can revert and continue the discussion. I still believe the installations section needs some revision but not enough to warrant a tag.MartinezMD (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree -- think there are a few places where more refs are needed, but agree with removing the the flag. --MrsEcoGreen (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thank you both for taking the initiative here. And I agree the article still needs more work; I'll see what I can do about improvements to installations and additional citations. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Famous lawsuit

There's a well known lawsuit including the merger of Solar Cell and True North that should at least be mentioned. (Solar Cells, Inc. v. True North Partners, LLC). It's discussed in law textbooks to emphasize the duty of good faith in a LLC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.192.6.73 (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

2012-2013 Class Lawsuit - Smilovits v.. First Solar, Inc.

Another lawsuit is active now: Smilovitz v. First Solar. Copy of the lawsuit is given at: https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/10773619/mark-smilovits-et-al-v-first-solar-inc-securities-class-action- The notice sent to prospective class members is given at: http://www.gilardi.com/FIRSTSLR/pdf/v2_FIRSTSLR_Notice_121613_FINAL.pdf

The complaint allege that First Solar made false and misleading statements during the class period 4/30/2008 - 2/28/2012 damaging all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded common shares of First Solar, Inc. The claims include:

"During the Class Period, defendants engaged in a plan, scheme, conspiracy and course of conduct, pursuant to which they knowingly or recklessly engaged in acts, transactions, practices and courses of business which operated as a fraud and deceit upon Plaintiff and the other members of the Class; made various untrue statements of material facts and omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and employed devices, schemes and artifices to defraud in connection with the purchase and sale of securities. Such scheme was intended to, and, throughout the Class Period, did: (i) 2 deceive the investing public, including Plaintiff and other Class members, as alleged 3 herein; (ii) artificially inflate and maintain the market price of First Solar securities; and 4 (iii) cause Plaintiff and other members of the Class to purchase First Solar securities and 5 options at artificially inflated prices. In furtherance of this unlawful scheme, plan and 6 course of conduct, defendants, and each of them, took the actions set forth herein." The lawsuit goes on to lay out in detail each of the related claims. Danleywolfe (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Why does the page make no mention of this lawsuit? The parties settled for $350 million dollars, for which there are official court documents. Thus, there are reliable sources that detail the settlement. Given that the case is settled, especially for such a large amount, the page should mention it. Why doesn't the page mention it? ...I hope there are no biased editors intent on painting the company and renewable energies in an artificially positive light...TenaciousTenet (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Undermining Solar Power?

This section appears to be partial with no valid references. Certain statements about donations from the Waltons to anti-environment politicians are not based on facts and are contrary to public records of the Waltons financial donations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.214.77 (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Note the spelling error.

I wish to formally challenge the impartiality of this section.

I note that citation of three sources that are very biased is not acceptable for references.

The section is also vague and does not go into detail.

Some of the information appears to be simply wrong. This often happens in the Green echo chamber as the story is passed from on site to another by people with no first hand knowledge of the subject.

I think that part of this is talking about Net Metering but vague and indirect references to it are not acceptable style.

I also note that this section was inserted in the middle of another section titled: Installations

I would suggest removal of this section until it can be completely reworked.

Tyrerj (talk) 07:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I removed the section. It might have a place in an article about resistance to solar power or similar, but not in one about one solar power company. I add the text below and hope that somebody can find a home for it.

Allegations of undermining rooftop solar A new study by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR) finds that the Walton family is funding nearly two dozen anti-solar groups — such as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and Americans for Prosperity, which are waging state and national fights to roll back clean energy policies — while a Walton-owned energy company is pushing for regulations that hinder the growth of rooftop solar power. Rooftop solar has been cited as a tremendous opportunity to accelerate the transition to renewable power, save money for homeowners, and create tens of thousands of new jobs, but, as the report details, the Waltons’ interventions and spending are a very real threat to this future.

Last year, ILSR found that since Walmart launched its environmental campaign in 2005, the company’s self-reported greenhouse gas emissions have grown by 14 percent. Instead of investing in efforts to reduce carbon pollution, Walmart continues to support lawmakers who deny global warming. ILSR’s 2013 report finds that both Walmart’s and the Walton family’s political donations heavily favor lawmakers who voted to keep subsidies for oil companies and prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

FirstSolar's John Hughes argued in a 2013 Arizona Republic opinion piece that rooftop solar should not automatically be able to sell electricity back to the grid without paying equitably for the grid infrastructure. Three months later FirstSolar filed comments with the Arizona Corporation Commission similarly arguing that utility-scale solar was being treated unfairly, partly due to subsidies being given asymmetrically to roof-top solar. ACC then planned a new fee for rooftop PV owners who participate in net metering, as proposed by utility Arizona Public Service (APS). The new proposal would have raised rooftop solar installations fees from $5 to $21 per month, saving other APS customers $0.23 per month instead of costing them more. APS claims the real cost of rooftop solar to the grid infrastructure is $68 per month. The proposal has been placed on hold by an ACC judge.

Sjö (talk) 12:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on First Solar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090623031813/http://social.thinfilmtoday.com:80/news/thin-film-solar-park-trier-connected-grid to http://social.thinfilmtoday.com/news/thin-film-solar-park-trier-connected-grid

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on First Solar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110509034928/http://solarfeeds.com:80/ecoseed/16743-first-solar-profit-drops-on-european-uncertainty-fslr- to http://www.solarfeeds.com/ecoseed/16743-first-solar-profit-drops-on-european-uncertainty-fslr-

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on First Solar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120513131117/http://investor.firstsolar.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=670294 to http://investor.firstsolar.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=670294
• Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160516040556/http://sunpluggers.com/news/first-solar-planning-new-us-plant-would-add-600-manufacturing-jobs-01025 to http://sunpluggers.com/news/first-solar-planning-new-us-plant-would-add-600-manufacturing-jobs-01025

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on First Solar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120404195231/http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/4556530 to http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/4556530
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130411213303/http://www.solarserver.com/solar-magazine/solar-news/current/2013/kw09/first-solar-reports-record-sales-in-4q-2012-unveils-187-efficient-solar-pv-cell.html to http://www.solarserver.com/solar-magazine/solar-news/current/2013/kw09/first-solar-reports-record-sales-in-4q-2012-unveils-187-efficient-solar-pv-cell.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120225051815/http://www.solarserver.de/news/news-11387.html to http://www.solarserver.de/news/news-11387.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

USA market

There were some news (and ample stock exchange swings) in the last few days:

• https://www.reuters.com/article/first-solar-investment/first-solar-to-build-new-us-panel-factory-in-win-for-trump-idUSL1N1S32MN
• https://renewablesnow.com/news/first-solar-lifts-q1-net-profit-series-6-demand-is-strong-610731/

Once the situation gets stable, some of this could be incorporated in the article. It would be also an occasion to update certain numbers from 2015 to 2017, although I'm not sure how important it is, for instance, to keep a table of production capacity over time. --Nemo 09:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Solar leasing

I'm surprised there is no mention of solar leasing in the article. Some consider FirstSolar to have taken up the torch from SolarCity after the latter reduced its door to door sales of solar leasing products. Some research is needed. The first search results date back to 2013. --Nemo 09:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Article should mention whether First Solar's workforce is unionized

Article should mention whether First Solar's workforce is unionized

Form 10-K 2022

Here's the latest Form 10-K on file at the SEC.

https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1274494/000127449423000002/fslr-20221231.htm

Nbauman (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

P.S. According to the Consolidated Financial Statements, under "Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules," they had a loss of $44 million in 2022, which isn't unusual for a venture technology company. Nbauman (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

New York Times story

Here's the NYT story, which has some independent comments on the company. As they say, it's a competitive business with lots of risks, but they are expanding their sales and the US government is committed to supporting domestic manufacture.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/26/business/energy-environment/first-solar-panels-biden-ira.html

Can the U.S. Make Solar Panels? This Company Thinks So.

First Solar kept producing them in Ohio after most of the industry moved to China. President Biden wants many more domestic manufacturers.

By Ivan Penn

New York Times

Sept. 26, 2023

Nbauman (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)