Photo Credit: Ralph Orlowski/Getty Images
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 (15) 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
3 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
June 26, 2009

NREL Energy Analysts Dig into Feed-In Tariffs

by Joseph B. Verrengia, NREL
Colorado, United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com]

Feed-in tariffs (FiTs) are the world's most widely used policy to drive renewable energy development. They have helped transform cloudy Germany into the world leader of installed solar power and photovoltaic manufacturing.

Key Factors to FIT Success

NREL analysts have identified several key factors in a successful FIT policy:

* Stability. Energy projects require several years to develop, so FITs have to be in place five years or longer to encourage certainty with investors and manufacturers.
* Long-term contracts. Contracts in the range of 15-20 years allow investors time to recover their costs.
* Adequate energy prices. FITs must cover project costs, plus a reasonable return to create stability, attract investors, lower risk and keep financing relatively simple.
* Annually decreasing payments. As innovation and growth reduce technology costs, tariffs should be lowered according to a transparent and incremental plan. This encourages rapid deployment and increases competition among manufacturers.
* Differentiate payments according to technology type, project size and resource quality.
* Incorporate FIT into the electricity rate base. Tying FIT payments to ratepayers distributes costs and provides certainty that investors will get paid.
* Reduce bureaucracy. Streamlining approvals reduces barriers and costs. Streamlining procedures especially helps small projects and encourages broader participation.

Now FITs are stimulating green energy investment in North America, too.

Locations as disparate as the city of Gainesville, FL, the province of Ontario, Canada, and the state of Washington recently have adopted measures establishing guaranteed long-term prices for clean electricity. A dozen more states and many more communities are considering similar energy policy proposals.

NREL energy analysts are digging into these complex policies in a series of technical reports designed to inform government policy makers, clean energy investors, utilities and other stakeholders.

Feed-in tariffs guarantee long-term payments at pre-established rates for the electricity generated from renewable sources. The production-based payments are often higher than market rates, but are on the verge of becoming competitive in specific locations for certain technologies such as wind power.

While utilities are obligated to buy the power, the long-term payments help encourage renewable energy development by reducing risks for investors. Any added costs are typically passed along to ratepayers and, for technologies like wind and landfill gas, may provide a hedge against electricity price volatility and large price spikes over the long-term.

According to the NREL studies, experience around the world suggests that FITs can effectively expand renewable energy deployment and remove barriers to renewable energy development, while creating jobs and helping meet renewable energy standards.

Best Programs Tailored to Local Conditions

States — or even local communities — may be tempted to copy the successful German model word for word. But, NREL analysts say that FITs are most effective when the policy design is adapted to local context.

"Every jurisdiction has unique characteristics that will influence the details of the FIT design and affect its success — these local differences are critical to consider," said Karlynn Cory (pictured below), co-author of State Clean Energy Policies Analysis (SCEPA) Project: An Analysis of Renewable Energy Feed-in Tariffs in the United States (PDF 1.1 MB). 

The NREL reports examine a wide range of FIT programs. For example, Gainesville's tariff is limited to photovoltaic projects with a total city-wide cap of 4 megawatts (MW). Under Washington state's FIT policy, solar PV, solar thermal, wind, and anaerobic digesters are offered a payment that differs by technology and that increases if system components are manufactured in-state.

This spring, the Canadian province of Ontario revised its three-year old program to include a 20-year fixed price of as much as US $0.69 for every kilowatt-hour of solar power generated. In response, SunEdison, First Solar, Everbrite Solar and Nanosolar are developing both solar energy farms and manufacturing facilities near Ottawa, Kingston and other cities. (Below, left: NREL energy analysts Claire Kreycik, left, and Karlynn Cory have examined feed-in tariffs in North America and Europe.
Credit: Joe Verrengia)

Photo of two women standing next to the white blade of a wind turbine, smiling at the camera.Timely Topic

With so many tariff options, Cory said it is timely for the Laboratory's Strategic Energy Analysis Center to tackle the topic.

"Understanding the policy design options allows decision makers to formulate more effective policies for their specific circumstances," Cory said. "This was a real opportunity for NREL to evaluate the key lessons learned in Europe and translate them to the U.S. context."

The second NREL study of FITs suggests that the policy can work effectively with renewable portfolio standards (RPS). States use RPS policies to set long-term requirements on how much renewable energy must be developed to meet consumer demand, boost clean energy development and reduce their reliance on fossil fuels.

Cory co-authored that report, Feed-in Tariff Policy: Design, Implementation, and RPS Policy Interactions (PDF 446 KB), with NREL analyst Claire Kreycik (pictured above) and Toby Couture, now of E3 Analytics. 

Photo of a technician wearing a green T-shirt installing several large meter boxes on the walls of a building.

Kreycik recently briefed New York state policymakers on how FITs can drive renewable energy deployment and job creation as they prepare to vote on an FIT proposal.

RPS mandates have been adopted in 29 states and Congress is considering a national standard. However, not all of these policies are designed to address investors' needs for revenue certainty. That's where FIT programs can be complementary. (Image: A technician installs meters at a new solar energy project in Gainesville, Fla. The city has adopted a local feed-in tariff to support the development of up to 4 MW of solar energy. Credit: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

"RPS policies tend to set the requirement and let the market figure out how to get there," Cory said. "FIT policies can help utilities meet their RPS target. It doesn't have to be an either-or choice."

A third NREL report will focus on best practices for feed-in tariff policies. It will be completed later this year.

Joseph B. Verrengia writes for the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado.

This article originally appeared as a National Renewable Energy Laboratory feature article and was reprinted with permission.

Image Gallery (1)
 
Reader Comments (15)
 
No image available
June 26, 2009
Feed-in tariffs may be the answer, but this article is political nonsense. "RPS policies tend to set the requirement and let the market figure out how to get there"??? What market??? The entire electricity industry is monopolized, even states that were deregulated (with advantages for the incumbants). RPS lets the utility monopolies decide how to get there. And they have chosen 97% utility-scale windpower with competitive bidding rigged to favor their own company, affiliates and their co-conspirators in the wind energy industry. FIT policies are not for helping utilities meet their RPS target but rather protect independents from utility manipulation.
Comment 1 of 15
No image available
June 26, 2009
Moreover, you should add that both renewable portfolio standards and feed-in tariffs are needed to prevent utility manipulation. The Ontario experience has shown utilities will try to meet all needs with nuclear power and then force the province to lower feed-in tariff payments (to say only the energy and not the capacity costs) in the guise of preventing overcapacity. The utilities have manipulated PURPA, deregulation and bidding and will have their sneaky lawyers out for feed-in tariffs also.
Comment 2 of 15
No image available
June 26, 2009
I have been Preaching this to my State of Pennsylvania Government leaders for more then a year. I will forward this link to to the particular leaders who know I am following this particular option to push our state into rejuvenating our economy.
Comment 3 of 15
No image available
June 26, 2009
FITs addresses one leg of the issue and provides a guaranteed long term price which is great. I'd like to see these offered across more of the country so that solar can get the scale it needs to compete with fossil based energy. Speaking of that, the first step in putting the true cost of carbon based fuel passed the house today but barely. This is the next step...make sure investors know that if they build a coal powered plant that the cost of the coal will continue to ratchet up during the life of the project. This will truly drive the utilities away from coal which needs to happen. Solar and wind can compete for the peak loads during the day, that's the way it should be. But we have to get coal and NG costs going up to truly make the transition to renewable resources.

So call your senator and make sure they know that you support the Waxman-Markey bill and that no matter what the power companies say, independent voices(CBO) have the cost at less than $.50/day (less for low income users
Comment 4 of 15
No image available
June 27, 2009
Is the clean energy bill really the answer? It seems that it is NOT about unlimited clean energy. I understand the taxing of carbon based fuels but also understand that the money spent on (stupid) conservation could be better spent on automated PV and CPV factories (and storage).

Only then is it possible to promote a fair (and unlimited) FEED IN for solar!

Also of utmost importance is the need to solarfy the deserts (without bulldozing) to the tune of thousands of square miles complete with at least a few days worth of thermal storage (molten salts graphite, etc). If we do not do that (or any other massive large scale renewable), we will have to resort to closed cycle thorium based fission (which is about a thousand times less "as bad" as the PWRs we rely upon today).

And if we don't do either of these, we will continue to pay higher for fuels that many of us are "wanting" to tax. Sure, I want to tax it too (in hopes of promoting clean energy), but if "they" don't give us massive RE, then we are only cutting our own throats. Now is the time to worry about peak oil, conserving it will do no good unless for the building of massive RE (or nuclear?).
Comment 5 of 15
No image available
June 27, 2009
I agree with about 90% of Mike's comments.

I spent the last two years working on FIT legislation. It was interesting seeing the number of utility attorneys and lobbyist that show up for testimony and evidence gathering at state legislative committee meetings. If the public only knew!

The last committee meeting I was part of, obviously had us played (as in screwed) before anyone arrived in the room. Even the chair, a democrat who professed to be a supporter of the legislation, would not allow a vote on the bill. The agenda of speakers was obviously controlled, planned, and cut short to our disadvantage.

I believe there is a solution. It amounts to getting the issue to the voters, the people that can vote these legislators out of office once they see how they are being denied.

Gather a group of like-minded, get some funding from your local solar and wind installers and unions (for starters), and put together a 1-2 hour presentation. Include a simple, clear definition of FITs. Give examples of workouts, include some RetSCREEN results. Focus on small business owners, commercial property owners and managers, multi-family residential property owners, farmers, local bankers, and homeowners; they all will benefit from a FIT. SHOW THEM JUST HOW MUCH! Don't forget to mention that it is their legislators that are holding them back, and that unfortunately those legislators and their parties receive donations from those who don't want DISTRIBUTED ENERGY, such as utilities. Give them the phone numbers of their legislators. Tell them to call. Give them your number so you can debunk the silliness many of them are bound to hear. (I've found most legislators don't even understand FITs themselves, and don't do well when faced with the facts, like "Where's all those energy jobs the utilities AREN'T providing?"

In other words, "Take It to the Streets". The message is a no-brainer once heard.

richard@greenenergycafe.com
Comment 6 of 15
No image available
June 27, 2009
One aspect of selling Feed-in Tariffs to the American people is the quote "Any added costs are typically passed along to ratepayers...". To many this is socialism and for some reason this can instantly squash a good idea that is in the best interest of the people.

My response to the dreaded 'S' word is to ask if their kids go do 'private school' or 'socialism school'. Do they have a contract for fire fighters and security or do they rely on the socialist fire and police departments. Perhaps they are members of the socialist library or used the socialist postal service.

In the end, there are solutions. But, as many have pointed out, we need to be aware of the potential pit-falls that can derail a good idea on the grounds of unreasonable fears or special interest lobby.
Comment 7 of 15
No image available
June 27, 2009
My answers to America:
1 Develop clean techs outside of the country and use the success to embarrass this corrupt country,
2 Start a new political party focused on small business (since both Republicans and Democrats support monopolies).
Comment 8 of 15
No image available
June 27, 2009
I found a summery of the clean energy bill. Earlier, I thought is was just about conserving and trivial clean energy but now realize that this bill could actually set the course for lots of clean energy. The major drawback is the sequestration part as that money would be better spent on automated solar PV development.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2454&tab=summary
Comment 9 of 15
No image available
Anonymous
July 1, 2009
Investor driven strategies to further subsidize the installation of alternative energy generation only increase the energy burden on the poor and working class people. Rates can only go up!

The FIT is designed to the advantage of wealthy homeowners who want to get every financial edge they can to offset the expense of Solar or wind or some other modality.

The people who live in apartment houses, who rent, who live in mobile housing, or who live in older 'wrong-facing' housing are the ones least able to retrofit their living quarters for alt. energy.

I would prefer those people who believe in 'GREEN POWER' to pay more for it, as is done in Vermont by several electric coop's; rather than some socialist imposition on everyone, including those who can least afford the cost of putting in PV,

There are many siting issues in regard to Wind towers that have yet to be sorted out; and the local regulatory picture is clouding fast, i.e. no wind in historic preservation areas, no habitation within 1.25 x tower height, etc.

As far as regional variations, there are other strategies to consider as well, esp. in New England where we have ocean, tidal and other untapped hydro whose power is more reliable and far less expensive than either wind or solar. .....22 days of rain in June!...free .water + free gravity = terrawatts!
Comment 10 of 15
July 1, 2009
Little mention here of the power offset by 'point of use solar thermal'. It is cliche' to use power synonomous with PV, but little known that more efficient local solar thermal power offsets more carbon based energy demand with greater efficiency than PV or wind or CSP. It can be set up on most homes and businesses and institutions and it can be metered for credit with FIT's. The cleanest electricity is the current you don't even need.
In order for FIT's to be effective they must include the energy produced by 'point of use solar thermal' systems. If the true goal is to offset carbon fueling, then localized solar thermal is the best ROI. It just lacks the PAC funding and corporate push, with all that entails.
And, yup, untill someone here makes them economically, I will import them from China.
Comment 11 of 15
July 1, 2009
Little mention here of the power offset by 'point of use solar thermal'. It is cliche' to use power synonomous with PV, but little known that more efficient local solar thermal power offsets more carbon based energy demand with greater efficiency than PV or wind or CSP. It can be set up on most homes and businesses and institutions and it can be metered for credit with FIT's. The cleanest electricity is the current you don't even need.
In order for FIT's to be effective they must include the energy produced by 'point of use solar thermal' systems. If the true goal is to offset carbon fueling, then localized solar thermal is the best ROI. It just lacks the PAC funding and corporate push, with all that entails.
And, yup, untill someone here makes them economically, I will import them .
Comment 12 of 15
July 1, 2009
Little mention here of the power offset by 'point of use solar thermal'. It is cliche' to use power synonomous with PV, but little known that more efficient local solar thermal power offsets more carbon based energy demand with greater efficiency than PV or wind or CSP. It can be set up on most homes and businesses and institutions and it can be metered for credit with FIT's. The cleanest electricity is the current you don't even need.
In order for FIT's to be effective they must include the energy produced by 'point of use solar thermal' systems. If the true goal is to offset carbon fueling, then localized solar thermal is the best ROI. It just lacks the PAC funding and corporate push, with all that entails.
And, yup, untill someone here makes them economically, I will import them .
Comment 13 of 15
No image available
July 1, 2009
Despite its success in stimulating the uptake of solar-electric, the German system of FIT's is highly flawed for the consumer/generator.
http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2008/04/double-metering-its-insidious.html
Comment 14 of 15
No image available
Anonymous
July 1, 2009
Phil...good point...BUT, with the logjam at SRCC, Chinese solar thermal units can't get certified...no certif. no tax deduction, no certif. no solar grant.

Apparently over 30 million Chinese have some form of solar thermal.

Inexpensive...I can buy a complete residential system for $993 with a Stainless double coil exchange tank.

Vac tubes lose 30% on cloudy, rainy days but you still get hot water.

Ground mounts solve the problem of bad siting and roof lines, as well as long piping runs.

So simple, but no we have to have a 1,000 offshore wind turbines first!
Comment 15 of 15
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
ExxonMobil Lubricants & Specialties Europe Leonardo ENERGY SunWize Technologies American Wind Energy Association Renewable Energy World Asia Blue Sky Energy, Inc.
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo