“Chronically underperforming” seems a bit overly dramatic when degradation is 0.5% worse than expected.
While tracking field performance is important, that doesn’t really change the equation of solar being cheap energy.
Well, you can look at it that way, or you can say that the degradation appears to be 100% worse than expected. They modeled 0.5% and it seems real world numbers are more like 1% , at least for the installations they observed.
It is a very significant difference in terms of investor returns which are already very low in the base case of p50 and very sensitive to changes in output