Article Rating
0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
Article Tools
Email This Story Share This Story Add to Bookmarks Printer Friendly Version 17 Comments
Article Tool Sponsor:

Learn More About Online Advertising with RenewableEnergyWorld.com

Feed-In Tariffs & Long Beach: The English Perspective

Published: October 10, 2007

I was aware that the Solar Power 2007 conference held in Long Beach, California, last month would be big. Up to ten thousand delegates. But what did this mean in the U.S. context? Was last year double the size, or half the size?

This is what I came to find out about. Do people in the U.S. get it yet? As California is such a leader in environmental policy, if they understood the benefits of a [Renewable Energy Feed-in-Tarriff] system...they could accelerate solar power use massively.

The opening session of the conference, rather heartbreakingly, began with a slide saying "Just wait till next year!" The uncomfortable thought, which had begun to take shape the previous day during the tour of solar installations in Los Angeles, arrived in its final form: "After all this time, how is this something to celebrate?!"

The day before the solar tour, I had been taken for a tour of Los Angeles by a friend, and seen not a single solar panel across the city, or indeed anywhere between the city and Long Beach. Not a single wind turbine. In England too: almost nothing. In Germany, solar panels and wind turbines seem to be everywhere.

Happily, the reason that this is so did not appear to be lost on those who really need to know. The CEO panel session at Solar Power 2007 had the heads of four major manufacturers calling for the same policy—a renewable energy feed-in tariff (FIT)—that has allowed Germany to capture a huge chunk of the global renewables market, allowed its citizens, farmers, businesses and community groups to invest in renewables successfully and easily, created towards a quarter of a million jobs, saved millions of tons of CO2 each year—and all at lower cost to the end consumer than European RPS-type systems.

A representative of Google also made clear an interest in the policy, and no wonder. They have an enormous PV installation at their Mountain View, California, headquarters, which would actually make them money, as well as provide them with free electricity, if California had a FIT. Representatives from Ebay, Macy's and Johnson & Johnson also showed keen interest when I spoke to them about FITs, for the same reason.

This is what I came to find out about. Do people in the U.S. get it yet? As California is such a leader in environmental policy, if they understood the benefits of a FIT system—especially in a state drenched in sunshine, which is home to many forward-thinking companies, including those in Silicon Valley who have the most to gain financially—they could accelerate solar power use massively.

If California takes a lead, the rest of America will follow; if America leads, the rest of the world will follow. Why not? FITs allow anyone and everyone to participate, and make money out of renewable energy. Isn't that part of the American cultural landscape-independence, self-reliance, good business and an abiding interest in energy?

The real disappointment with the phrase "Just wait until next year" was the fact that this should be old news by now. Solar should already be such an integrated part of the urban fabric that we simply don't notice it any more. Thin film promises to widen the application of solar to a point where this is likely—but until real policy helps to level the playing field against fossil fuels, the industry will continue to be held back, despite its numerous environmental, economic, social and political benefits.

Carbon pricing was spoken of in this context several times, and briefly as a way of bringing carbon to book for the damage it does to the long-term prospects for life on earth. Ted Turner, founder of CNN (and the Cartoon Network, he was keen to add), now solar entrepreneur, in a very funny and forceful onstage interview, called for a permanent end to building new coal-fired power plants. Of course he has a point.

The sooner decentralized renewable energy can replace fossil fuel power stations, the better our chances of retaining a human civilization which resembles the one existing today—certainly in ‘developed' countries. At the bottom end of the slope may be a future America that resembles present-day Somalia.

This is why Ted's interview, which closed the opening session, was so important-it set the correct context for the conference. Solar power is not just about the miracles of complex technological wizardry, it is about facilitating the capture of free, clean energy, and the avoidance of burning fossil fuels, which may be a significant factor in our survival.

It seems there is a cognitive rejection, even among true believers, of the critical role of renewable energy in this desperate picture. The mind apparently seeks to avoid confronting death, and climate change means just that, for many millions of people.

The renewable energy industry has so far failed to link effectively with green groups, businesses, academics, parliamentarians, religious groups, farmers, community groups and other activists to get the messaging right. Renewable energy and energy efficiency are two sides of a single coin, and this is the currency that we can use to buy our way out of disaster.

My organization takes an interest in renewable energy for this reason, to find and promote solutions to avoid catastrophic climate change. When you come at renewables from this angle, the message is clear, but from the industry, what I hear and see is generally a business-as-usual route to improved programs, and a high level of fragmentation due to the amount of state-to-state variety within and between different policies, e.g. RPS and net metering—as well as the industry being divided by the fact that no rationalized support scheme exists which looks after each technology, thus leaving them to continually fight for their share.

The bottom line is that states will, it seems, continue to drive policy for some time to come. The problematic complexity in policy that this creates is compounded by the fact that many programs are relatively new, and defenders of them call for more time to let them prove themselves.

Again, there is a disjuncture between what is happening on the ground, and what is scientifically necessary. If the cross-sectoral coalitions existed as outlined above, could we not get hold of this policy issue more effectively and demand action on policy now? We hear regularly that climate change is accelerating, and that we have only a handful of years before atmospheric CO2 levels become terminal, and we are locked into a downward spiral of feedback loops.

Why wait then? Why not take a proven instrument, and go for renewable energy in the biggest, fastest way we can? This also means jobs and a major economic boost, lest we forget—there is simply no reason, other than the complaints of the conventional energy industry—to not take this path.

Too late will be too late, and short-term corporate profits from fossil fuels burnt today will be no insulation against the collapse of the global economic system in the future. Any long-term corporate business plan based on business-as-usual is tantamount to an admission of insanity.

The truly crazy part is that many influential people know it, most of all people who should be taking up this, the most important argument of the century, and using it to crowbar a way into the legislative process—and demand a policy that drives fast, technologically-diverse deployment at low cost.

Californians, or any other state that sees the light, can take the FIT model, give it a new coat of terminological paint, and wheel it out for the masses to take advantage of.

Kathleen Law in Michigan has become the first U.S. politician to put on the table a fully-featured FIT (HB 5128), which looks like it would, if not watered down, deliver all the benefits described above. If this bill makes it into law, the state would immediately see benefits for Michigan-based United Solar Ovonic, a leading producer of thin film technology. Imagine multiplying the effects of this in California, for example. It is all possible, with the right policy instruments.

If the control and the opposition from utilities and other vested interests can be controlled and overcome, the renewables industry will fly in the U.S., with export markets throughout the Americas and around the world ready to take their product. It seems reasonable that a major push from U.S. manufacturing would result in better deals for supplying silicon feedstocks, and the end result could be much greater international competition, driving down costs even further.

Germany, Spain and Denmark have proved this is possible with a FIT, and still lead the world. America, however, is, for different reasons, central to the necessary shift in energy production and consumption around the world, and a renewables and efficiency revolution there—especially in view of federal obfuscation in the past—would help spur a massive expansion in the sector that will bring us closer to a low-carbon global economy.

If we can all help to galvanize action on real policy, that opening speech in Long Beach could be spectacularly right—"Just wait till next year!"

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

Previous Article
Next Article
Add Your Comment 17 Reader Comments
No image available
Comment
1 of 17
October 10, 2007
One wonders why American and Californians are so apathetic about keeping the status quo.

I'm not sure I really wonder Tom. When the media is busy covering Brittany and Paris it's hard to find solid reporting on the true state of affairs. I agree entirely with everything you've said except for that initial point. Americans today are busy busy busy and our elected officials are torn between honoring their voter base and their lobbying interests. And all too often the lobbying interests win, and the winners are the lobbyists with deep pockets interested in maintaining the status quo.
No image available
Comment
2 of 17
October 10, 2007
A Solar Feed In Tariff is essential to growing the Renewable Energy Market! One wonders why American and Californians are so apathetic about keeping the status quo. We pass legislation like AB32 that only requires a 33% cut in emissions yet it has been concluded by all the scientists in Europe that you need a 80% cut in GHG emission to stabilize the environment. Meanwhile there is no way California can ever achieve a 33% cut in GHG emission if it does not increase its renewables to at least 33%. Small nations like Denmark are already generating 40% of their power from renewables. Over 450 million people in the world already live happily under a solar FIT. There is no reason that California should not lead the way and have its own Solar FIT. The California Solar Initiative has failed to deliver the residential market. It has been documented that there is 70% less residential solar in 2007 than 2006.
No image available
Comment
3 of 17
October 11, 2007
"One wonders why Americans and Californians are so apathetic about keeping the status quo."

You make many very valid points in your article. Europe and Japan are both great examples for the US to follow. But please be respectful when referring to "Americans". Many Americans and many Californians do "get it" and are working very hard to create a sustainable solar industry in the US.
No image available
Comment
4 of 17
October 11, 2007
I could not agree more with Miguel's article. Feed-in-Tarrifs are the proven fastest way to develop more expensive emerging technologies such as solar. Having just written a master's thesis in law on EU solar polices and the feed-in, I was amazed and thrilled to discover the enormous unexpected economic benefits experienced in those EU countries deploying the policy.

With Feed-in policies, industrial scale deployment of solar thermal power could quickly and cheaply provide large quantites of the precious power.

We must also add Energy Efficiency credits and incentives. Efficiency measures like demand response should be on the same footing as renewable generation. Otherwise, utilities profit from selling power, not from NOT selling power! Hand-in-glove RE&EE technologies exponentially cut back our fossil dependence.
No image available
Comment
5 of 17
October 12, 2007
We have to fight just to get fair net-metering. Thta should be a Federal standard. We also have to fight to keep our REC Renewable Energy Credits.
Our government also gives big incentives to fossil fuel and nuclear. It helps all the wrong choices. People don't see the true cost so they can't make the right choice.
Yet in spite of those facts Americans are adding solar, wind and just as important building and remodeling to be zero energy.
REnewable also work with clean hybrid and plug-in vehicles. It reduces our oil addiction and can store energy off peak for use on peak. It all works together.
Many of us get it, and use it and help educate others. We will become cleaner and better informed as we start with ourself and keep working.
Comment
6 of 17
October 12, 2007
1. Don't the performance based incentives on the customer-side of the meter in California do the same thing as a feed-in tariff? They are lower, because the consumer can offset on-site electricity, which they can't with a FIT - it's on the utility side of the meter. The third-party solar ownership model is strengthened by the customer's involvement in wanting to significantly reduce their bills, not in leasing their roof for a nominal fee.

2. The reason Germany was so successful is because the FIT was set so high - perhaps too high. A high PBI would do the same thing. Germany is forecasting the bill from their FIT and anywhere from $30-100 billion. That's not a lot in the context of the Iraq War, but it is in a lot of other circles. I don't think the boom frenzy happening in Spain because of their generous FIT is good for long-term solar sustainability.
No image available
Comment
7 of 17
October 12, 2007
All in all, a highly intelligent and elegant policy tool in my opinion. BTW, anyone who wants to see just exactly what is actually in the German feed-in tariff should have a look at this english translation at:
http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/inhalt/6465/5982/
No image available
Comment
8 of 17
October 12, 2007
Note that if you follow the German model exactly, the price you get for your kilowatt hours is locked in for 20 years but the level at which it locks in sinks by a predefined percentage every year. This puts PV on a rock-hard schedule for consistent reduction of cost and price. Since electricity prices are rising - not falling - this has the effect that a feed-in tariff automatically makes itself obsolete. When the falling price of PV (spread over all the kilowatt hours the system produces in its 30-year life) dips below the rising cost of retail electricity, then the feed-in tariff can be discontinued (save for the systems already enrolled) and PV system owners will get their return on investment from energy cost savings alone.
No image available
Comment
9 of 17
October 12, 2007
As for what happened with PURPA, that doesn't seem to have occured in Germany. Those who profit from the feed-in tariff are home owners, farmers and businesses who install PV, not (or at least not yet) large utilities. The "losers" (if one insists on seeing them that way) are the consumers of electricity who do indeed pay a bit more (something like $5 more per month) for electricity. But then again: (A) this is no different than using a tax on gasoline to fund highway improvement s - it needs to happen and those whose use the resource are the ones who will benefit from its improvement. And (B) Thanks to the ease of obtaining financing for PV in Germany just about *anyone* can buy a PV system or invest in a fund that finances large PV systems and get the extra money they've paid for their electricity *back again* and even make a profit, usually starting between year 10 and year 15 (for a system with a 30-year life!)
No image available
Comment
10 of 17
October 12, 2007
If you take away this predictability you increase the risk of the investment and dramatically decrease the number of willing investors. That also means less competition for those loans, which leads to higher interest rates and higher interest costs for PV system owners. And of course *that* means fewer potential customers for those banks and less incentive for them to finance PV systems in the first place. This is why predictability (and the level of the tariff itself) really can be called a "tipping point" - get the right combination and the market positively explodes (see Germany); set the levels to timidly and market limps along (see most of the USA, even California when viewed from Germany).
No image available
Comment
11 of 17
October 12, 2007
The German success story flows directly from the static nature of the tariff pricing. Investors know exactly how much they will earn per kilowatt hour produced and can get an acceptably accurate projection of how many kilowatt hours will be produced based on location, tilt, and system efficiency. This predictability makes investment in solar power comparable to investing in bonds. So if you're going to accept a 5-7% return on investment, why not get it from something that also promotes energy independence and promotes global warming? In Germany it has taken a while but now there are LOTS of banks who have figured out this proposition and are happy to finance PV systems in their own country and even across their borders. This is what needs to happen in the USA if you want to see PV really take off.
No image available
Comment
12 of 17
October 12, 2007
Richard,

I see your point but the German experience (as well as that of countries that have tried to implement a version of a Feed-in Tariff along the lines you describe) shows that such a variable tariff will never produce the uptake of PV System in the market that will get the cost of production down to where it should be.
No image available
Comment
13 of 17
October 12, 2007
Of course feed in tariffs would be valuable to renewable developers and would be a strong expression of support from states.
But remember, consumers pay. And that brings us back to the PURPA Qualifying Facilities and the long term fixed price contracts they received in many states based on wildly inaccurate good faith forecasts of fossil fuel prices. Many consumer advocates felt consumers lost under these contracts and they successfully stop repeating that experience.
What we need is some creativity that provides producers with a floor price and some sort of formula that allows the contract price at any given time to follow the market, so the contract can be deemed fair and there are no losers. As carbon risk, etc. is reflected in the power market, these carbon risk solutions could reap the benefits.
No image available
Comment
14 of 17
October 14, 2007
Yes, Miguel, we wait only one more year until we welcome a national FIT in all US states! Michigan can take the lead and rock the boat. The other states will follow. If you need any more arguments that FIT is the right thing to do NOW, take a look at:

http://www.thinksunsmart.com/opinionpoll.htm

Why settle for net metering and RPS, if you can have the real thing?
No image available
Comment
15 of 17
October 14, 2007
Thanks, Miguel, for this thoughtful article. You mention the Google plant and the Google representative, who would prefer a FIT in California which would allow them to earn money from their solar plant. There is one more thing that goes hand in hand with FIT's: and that's performance. The Google plant does not show any particular impressive performance compared to similar megawatt-size plants in Germany. The Google plant was monitored remotely from Germany and the result was a performance ratio of 63% whereas 90% are already quite common in Germany. That's of course not really a surprise: FIT's pay for performance and it's the best incentive for companies to make high-quality products. Without FIT, it's likely that performance problems will arise.

For more info on remote monitoring, please visit:
http://www.thinksunsmart.com/firstcheck.htm

It's the free monitoring service for the solar community!
No image available
Comment
16 of 17
October 16, 2007
Miguel,

You keep placing your finger on the sensitive issues of successful implementation and development of the Renewable Energy industry in U.S. - I admire that!

Keep doing a good job!

In my efforts of pushing the energy efficient - sustainable concept to our customers, business partners I received a lot of receptivity. The business principals that I am in touch with have the same conclusion: the legislation has to change - their hands are tied.

We face the big fight between capitals, where the people behind large funds even though see the need and the potential of the renewable energy they are too confortable in their routines to react as fast as they should.

It's time to speak up, if we want to make sure that our children will live in at least the same environmental conditions that we do.

Let's do this!

Mihai
Comment
17 of 17
June 14, 2010
I just went for a drive down the Oregon coast and into Northern CA and I didn't see hardly any solar and only one wind turbine (a medium sized vertical axis). Disappointed, I was!

Bob "Free As The Wind" Mitchell
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
 
Leybold Optics Standard Solar Inc. Thompson Technology Industries, Inc. (TTI) Canadian Clean Energy Conferences Ambient Technologies, Inc. Applied Materials BP Solar
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters