Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

NREL Energy Analysts Dig into Feed-In Tariffs

By Joseph B. Verrengia, NREL
June 26, 2009   |   13 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
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.
13 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 13
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
2 of 13
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
3 of 13
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
4 of 13
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
5 of 13
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 13
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 13
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).
No image available
Comment
8 of 13
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
9 of 13
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
10 of 13
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
11 of 13
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 13
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
No image available
Comment
13 of 13
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!
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

Advertise With Us

SolSolution Quick Mount PV HelioSage Rotork plc Fairtrade-Messe Admirals Bank Rich Hessler Solar Business Development
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters