Photo Credit: James White
article tools
Increase Text Size Increase Text Size Decreate Text Size Decrease Text Size
Share Email This Story Share Share This Story Reader comments Reader Comments (14) View image gallery Image Gallery (1) Add to favorites Add to Bookmarks Printer friendly version Printer Friendly Version
Article Tool Sponsor:

Advertise with us

More Jobs
0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
February 2, 2009

European Delegation Touts Feed-in Tariffs in Florida

Florida, United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com]

With a slew of recent grassroots support and state-level legislative activity, Feed-in Tariffs (FITs) -- also called Renewable Energy Payments -- seem to be gaining more traction around the U.S. FIT advocates hope this week's European delegation to Florida will highlight the increasing momentum for support of the policy.

"The momentum [for FITs] is definitely picking up."

-- Mike Antheil, Executive Director, Florida Alliance for Renewable Energy

This week, a group of European solar professionals will be in Florida, sharing best practices about how to implement a FIT in the state and around the country. Companies such as Isofoton, Phoenix Solar, Q-Cells, SMA, SolarWorld and others will be represented.

As states and municipalities consider how to promote solar other than with limited rebate programs, FITs are looking like a more attractive option in certain markets, especially as job creation becomes a more important part of the picture, say U.S. supporters.

FITs are long-term payments to owners of qualified renewable energy systems for every kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity they produce. Instead of relying on tax payers for funding, the payments come from utilities, which spread the cost of the program to all ratepayers.

Over the course of the last year and a half, FITs have taken a more prominent role in the conversation around renewable energy incentives. There are now 14 states considering FITs as a way to rapidly expand deployment of renewables. Last week, RenewableEnergyWorld.com reported that both Indiana and Wisconsin introduced FIT legislation. Leading the pack, the city of Gainesville, Florida has decided to implement a FIT for solar photovoltaics (PV), which has excited supporters of the policy.

“The momentum is definitely picking up,” said Mike Antheil, Executive Director for the Florida Alliance for Renewable Energy. “We have been working very hard to get this on the table, and it's only getting stronger here in Florida.”

Antheil hopes that this week's series of meetings between Europeans and Americans will keep the conversation about the support mechanism strong.

Tuesday's meeting in Tallahassee will bring together a prominent line-up of state and federal government officials, U.S. and European business representatives and a range of advocacy organizations to talk broadly about the policy. Then there will be a meeting in Gainesville on Wednesday to discuss the details of that city's FIT, which is the first such policy to be introduced on the municipal level.

In October of last year, Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU) announced support for a solar FIT that will pay PV-system owners US $0.32 for every kWh of electricity they feed into the grid. The estimated cost to ratepayers will be about $1.30 each month.

Florida's Public Service Commission approved a Renewable Portfolio Standard earlier last month that will require the state's utilities to generate 20 percent of electricity from renewables by 2020. Solar and wind will make up 25 percent of that overall goal. As the legislature considers the nuts and bolts of the $300 million program, FIT advocates are hoping to use this week's conferences as a way to highlight the benefits of the European-refined policy.

The European group — put together by the European Photovoltaic Industry Association (EPIA) — will be joining their American counterparts to talk about how to structure tariff rates, digression schedules and length of contracts. Helping Floridians understand these policy details is crucial to building a sustainable program, said Adel El Gammal, Secretary General of EPIA.

“It's wonderful to see such interest in Feed-in Tariffs in the U.S.,” said El Gammal. “However, there is a lot to the process of designing such a support scheme. Europeans have a lot of experience in refining the different elements, so we hope to share those and make sure that we can do it correctly in in the U.S.”

Indeed, with such a complicated and scattered energy landscape, implementing FITs in the U.S. is likely to be a more difficult task. That is why advocates have focused on the state and city level — areas often seen as simpler targets.

Florida is one of many states considering new options that will get the industry beyond limited rebate programs, which are considered a good way to jump-start a market but not a good way to sustain the market over the long-term. In many cases, funds run out just as the market starts to get going. Last week, the state of Maine announced that it had run through its 2009 budgeted $500,000 solar PV rebate program after just two weeks, adding to the list of states that have exhausted their programs over the last year.

In Florida, as the rule-making process for the RPS moves over to the legislature, there are a number of options on the table for how to spend the US $300 million proposed for wind and solar development.

Three types of support schemes for solar are being considered in Florida. The first is a pure-play solar renewable energy certificate (SREC) market. Under this program, solar-system owners pay back their investment by selling SRECs — which are not physical electricity, but the “environmental value” of one megawatt-hour of solar electricity produced — on an open market. Utilities have to acquire a certain number of SRECs to meet their procurement targets under the RPS. The actual electricity would be purchased through a net-metering program.

The next is a standard offer contract, a hybrid between a FIT and an SREC program. A standard offer contract sets up long-term, fixed price contracts with utilities for the SRECs, ensuring the system owner has a more predictable payback period.

And finally, there's the FIT, which focuses on putting a higher value on the actual electricity fed into the grid by simply paying system owners a premium for the electricity they produce.

As Florida examines this array of options, many businesses are eyeing the state to see what it will choose. The choice could play a role in how other states decide to structure their programs.

“I wouldn't say that everyone is watching us, but people are very curious to see what will happen here,” said FARE's Antheil. “Legislators are considering a number of policies, and it's somewhat open at the moment. This series of conferences will allow us to give a more serious look at [FITs] and determine if they are right for Florida and perhaps for other states.”

Image Gallery (1)
 
Reader Comments (14)
 
No image available
February 3, 2009
America's utilities, their pocket politicians and even renewable and environmental groups are keeping feed in tariffs at bay by making this more complicated than it needs to be and diluting efforts all over scattered areas. Where the heck is Obama on feed in tariffs?
Comment 1 of 14
No image available
this is great. i love that CA keeps boasting about how "green" we are yet we totally FAIL at legitimate programs like loans for solar and feed in tariffs because Schwarzenegger is owned and operated by Big Energy.

i can't wait till he gets kicked to the curb and we finally get someone who cares about the middle class, ratepayers, taxpayers, the planet, our open spaces, our property values and all the other things he is crushing, while greenwashing his scary monopolistic desert slaughter...

Feed In Tariffs on a local, state and national level, along with ratepayer-generator loans, should be the centerpiece of the economic stimulus, not the Orwellian SuperGrid, which will just spew GHGs and trample our beautiful open spaces, while it enables Big Energy to manipulate prices and supplies for our electricity. it is pathetic, since this is the first time in 100 years we could all be self-sufficient and defeat the generation monopolies that are crippling us. why can't utilities be load balancing and storage and distribution services and leave the generation to us?

call your senators and insist that they put a moratorium on killing our public lands for private profits, and move the "grid" money to ratepayer loans and feed in tariff implementation. they are debating it right now...
Comment 2 of 14
No image available
Unfortunately Mike is so correct that environmental groups are also in the way of effective FIT legislation. We are battling them tooth and nail for Germany style policy here in the U.S. (EEG), while instead they have focused all their efforts on failed RPS mandates and expansion of the 19th century centralized energy model. Sierra Club and NRDC staff have done more harm to moving towards these types of FIT policies than Big Energy lobby itself!

Big Enviros are now in bed with Big energy, and the goals are not to produce as much clean, green renewable energy as possible. The goals are to continue ownership for price and supply manipulation, which leads to less truly green renewables like rooftop and building integrated PV.
Comment 3 of 14
No image available
February 4, 2009
Is there an inherent conflict between feed-in trariffs and RPS mandates? Please explain. It would seem that in principle RPS would be neutral with respect to how electricity from a renewable energy source was acquired
Comment 4 of 14
No image available
February 4, 2009
Jan, RPS generally allow utility monopolies to decide how electricity from renewable energy sources is acquired. In Britian and the US, RPS has resulted in renewable energy produced mostly by the utility, their affilaites and friends. In Germany, feed-in trariffs are generally offered to everyone on an equal basis, which is how it should be.
Comment 5 of 14
No image available
February 4, 2009
As an RE enthusiast, I never quite realized the importance of where to draw the line concerning utility scale and distributed. At first, I thought that the desert sands were fair game, but after seeing pictures of the site where the big guys want to "scrape", it is beautiful land and not as "they" portray it to be. A feed in tariff is superior since it allows for far more independent PV systems because the bill would be spread across the rate payers instead of a few dollars devoted from the already torn tax base (I hate failed banks). That would also give us the hope to make money from solar. Eventually, PV prices will drop considerably (I'm putting much faith in the "solar printer", seen it in action on Youtube). I imagine electricity prices to never double (if everyone goes solar) because FITs would promote thousands of solar printers each of which is capable of covering around 3 square miles per year. I imagine such prices to be more than double if the desert solar goes "big" because of all the extra costs, extra charging, extra taxes needed for transmission, etc.
I think it's time for me to contact the congress people...
Comment 6 of 14
No image available
Also, FIT programs are proven to be far better at encouraging conservation than RPS and renewable energy surcharges. When home and business owners are paid for their electron contributions to the grid, they are more likely to engage in practices that reduce consumption.

Germany (pop 80 million) is installing way more PV capacity than here in the U.S (pop 300 million), with 58% of the avg solar resources. This is a complete embarrassment, but that's just fine with U.S. Big Energy and the utilities, who see consumer participation in point of use generation as a threat to their century long stranglehold.
Comment 7 of 14
No image available
February 4, 2009
Can someone really explain the difference between a FIT and net energy billing where you can get paid for the electricity you don't use? We have two ways of net energy billing in Maine 1) banking the energy on a rolling 1 year time frame at the retail value and 2) getting paid wholesale for the energy we produce. You cannot mix and match. Its one or the other.

What the US REALLY needs is real time pricing. If you use electricity off peak you pay less than on peak. So people can choose to run their electrical equipment off peak. This way we do not need to increase generation and we can minimize the amount of transmission upgrades we need. Ask your regulators to allow smart grids and real time metering so you only pay the cost for the time period you use the electicity instead of a flat price. Its kind of like the old phone service. If you used the phone between 9 pm and 6 am you paid maybe 1/3 of the rate that you do between 8 am and 6 pm. There was also a middle tier - after 6 and before 9 where you paid slightly less than daytime rates but not as much as night. Using real time pricing will probably stop the building of 200 or so coal fired plants in the next 20 years. It will also minimize the the amount of transmisson we have to build in the next 20 years.
Comment 8 of 14
No image available
February 4, 2009
AREP, you have to be careful when talking about feed-in tariffs: is it a gross or net FIT? You say that people are more careful about conservation when they are getting paid for the electricity they produce. But this is only the case for a net FIT, where only the electricity that you produce that you don't use is paid for (i.e. if you are at home during the day, this could be minimal). Germany has a gross FIT, so it doesn't matter how much they use themselves, they get paid for it all.

Having said that, the benefits to conservation are obvious for any number of reasons, and if one is truly concerned with reducing the environmental impact of their home (or business), decreasing the electricity demand through efficiency or conservation (the so-called negawatt a la Amory Lovins) should be the first step, even if it doesn't have the sexiness of a PV panel on the roof.
Comment 9 of 14
No image available
February 5, 2009
Jeff, rate structures aside, people are more careful about conservation when they get down to sizing renewable systems for their home. The initial cost of the system depends upon how much power or heat it needs to generate.

The benefit of investment in conservation comes into stark relief along side the cost of an unnecessarily large power or heat system to produce those additional kW or Btu we use due to laziness about conservation.
Comment 10 of 14
No image available
February 6, 2009
What did it here in Gainesville was sending a local representative of our utility company to Germany, using a grant, to see the EEG system for himself. All the words in the world can't compare with a proven, working reality. He went there an energy professional who worked with coal all his life and came back a solar advocate - big time! So get that plane ticket people and show the powers that be how good it really can be!
Comment 11 of 14
No image available
February 7, 2009
Could someone suggest an organization that now exists to help push for Federal F.I.T. legislation. I have been desperate to help get involved ,ever since ,Rep (D) Inslee's Legislation was proposed back in June 2008. Big Energy owns this country. I have begged NPR to do a story on this for months, so maybe they are owned too. Those Boone Pickens adds have made me ill. We the people, must work from the grass roots or we will never have this for ourselves or our children's future.
Comment 12 of 14
No image available
February 7, 2009
Donald, check out http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/, & http://www.allianceforrenewableenergy.org/ for a national organization promoting Renewable Energy Payments. WFC helped create both the national Alliance and Florida Alliance groups last year.
Comment 13 of 14
No image available
February 10, 2009
Ann, I agree that people will think more about conservation if they are hoping to use their renewable energy system to produce power for themselves (i.e. in a RAPS system) or if they have a net FIT. But my point to AREP was that if there is a gross FIT, that the (financial) incentive to conserve energy is removed in the context of that renewable energy system. Now I am certainly not advocating against gross FITs, since I see them as the best way to stimulate the industry; with a gross FIT, however, there would need to be more financial incentives dedicated to energy conservation to get people who aren't in it to be "green" to adopt the measures.
Comment 14 of 14
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
Featured Total Access Partners
Click company logos to learn more
martinHerzfeld Solar Energy International Alpha Technologies SunWize Technologies PetersenDean Roofing and Solar Systems Energy Storage Summit
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo