Wednesday, May 22, 2013
May 28, 2010
|
2 Comments
The World Future Council has issued a report grading North American feed-in tariffs for renewable energy. Only Ontario and Vermont make a passing grade. All other programs in the U.S. and Canada failed to pass.
The report, Grading North American Feed-in Tariffs by renewable energy industry analyst Paul Gipe, compares North American programs to successful policies in Europe.
Gipe evaluated the programs using ten criteria that have been found critical in creating successful renewable energy policy. He then devised a weighting system to reflect the relative importance of each criterion. Most criteria received 10 points, some less. Tariff differentiation by size or application, a hallmark of successful programs, received 20 points.
Subsequently, Gipe compared the programs found in Germany, France, and Spain. Worldwide, the policies in these countries are considered the gold standard of feed-in tariff design. These programs are top in their class and are known to work well.
In Gipe's arbitrary grading system, France and Germany each earned 90 points and were both awarded an "A". Spain's program earned slightly less, 80 points, and was awarded an "A-".
For the report, Gipe then graded the feed-in tariff programs in various U.S. states and Canadian provinces and ranked them. He did not grade municipal programs like that in Gainesville, Florida.
In the American system of grading "A" is excellent; "B" and "C" are good; "D" is poor, but passing; and "F" is for failing, or unacceptable performance.
Ontario, which has a sophisticated program modeled after those in Europe, ranked the highest with a total score of 84 points for a grade of "A-". Oregon ranked the lowest with a score of 16 winning it a very solid "F".
Vermont was the only program in the U.S. to pass. Gipe gave Vermont with a score of 54 a "D" for effort and noted that Ontario's first attempt at a feed-in tariff policy, the Standard Offer Contract Program, also qualified for a "D". Most jurisdictions take several attempts to get their programs working right and Vermont is no exception.
Onetime trendsetter California pulls up the rear with only 28 points. At last count the Golden State's feed-in tariff resulted in the installation of only 14 MW.
The report also examined proposed legislation in Indiana and California using the same criteria. Indiana's AB 1190 introduced by Representative Matt Pierce qualified for an "A-" with 82 points. California's AB 1106 introduced by Representatives Felipe Fuentes and Ira Ruskin earned only 54 points giving the proposal a "D" grade.
Click here for more information on the report, World Future Council: Grading North American Feed-in Tariffs.
The World Future Council is an EnNGO based in Hamburg, Germany with offices in Washington, DC and San Francisco, California.
Gipe is an independent analyst and renewable energy advocate in Bakersfield, California.
To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.
June 3, 2010
After looking at the report and spreadsheet I have some comments / disagreements from an Ontario perspective.
Mr. Gipe gives Ontario 8 for technologies included without explanation. Ontario DOES have more than 5 technologies: Wind, Solar, Hydro, Biomass, Biogas & Landfill Gas. Although no CSP - which should not be restricted in any jurisdiction that has a Solar rate, but Gipe only quoted Solar PV. Ontario should get a 10 here.
He gave Ontario an 8 / 10 for Project size caps without comment. He refers to the SOP but in his report acknowledges that Ontario has no regulatory cap - this should be a 10.
He gives Ontario 0 for Wind Intensity diversification. It should be something higher (5?) because there is some diversification i.e. onshore and offshore. I agree with this is good policy as it reflects costs based analysis. I fundamentally disagree with going any further. I think it is a good thing to concentrate in windier areas - more efficient. Also there is no differentiation by solar intensity or bio mass energy density anywhere. That is the beauty of a FIT - you get paid for what you produce - encourages market efficiency.
Tallying up the differences for what Ontario should have:
No Cap: +2
# of technologies: +2
Wind diversification: +5 (?)
Total of 9 more points.
Even if you give the wind diversification issue 3 Ontario is still at 7 and overtakes Germany and France with a 91.
There is no mention nor value for the dispatchable bonus for Ontario Bio projects which I think is innovative and appropriate for a properly managed system.
I could quibble about relative weighting (i.e. giving the wind diversification issue a 10 the same as many other more fundamental and unequivocal issues) but I will debate that directly with Mr. Gipe. Thank you for including the references to the PDF and spreadsheet.
Denis Van Decker