The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Friday, May 24, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search
Don't Miss The Great Solar Debate: Where Does the Global Solar Industry Stand? Click Here to Register! ×

Unlikely Coalition Joins Forces to Recommend Changes to Ontario's Feed-in Tariff Program

Paul Gipe, Contributor
December 28, 2011  |  7 Comments

Renewable energy advocates and a solar industry trade group filed a joint submission as part of the province of Ontario's scheduled two-year review of its groundbreaking feed-in tariff (FIT) program.

The 100-page report filed on on December 14, 2011 by the Green Energy Act Alliance and Shine Ontario Association to Minister of Energy Chris Bentley urged the government to stay the course and maintain the integrity of the FIT program while proposing significant changes to details of the program.

Ontario launched a comprehensive feed-in tariff program in the fall of 2009. The first of its kind in North America, the program set feed-in tariffs as the mechanism for procuring new renewable generation from wind turbines, solar panels, hydro-electric plants, and biogas generators. Administered by the Ontario Power Authority (OPA), the program included a review after two years.

The Green Energy Act Alliance (GEA) was the major public interest organization advocating for a feed-in tariff program in Ontario. The GEA is a who's who of Canadian environmental groups and renewable energy advocates, including Environmental Defense, the Pembina Institute, World Wildlife Fund, the David Suzuki Foundation, the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association, and the Community Power Fund among others.

Shine Ontario is a new Ontario trade association representing solar photovoltaic (solar PV) manufacturers, project developers, and installers. The association includes the largest solar PV manufacturer in Ontario, Canadian Solar, whose plant near Guelph is capable of 250 MW of modules per year, and SkyPower a major developer of solar power plants.

The joint submission is unusual because the objectives of renewable energy advocates often differ from those of trade associations. However, the disparate groups and businesses agreed on several key recommendations.

  • Raise Ontario's sights — set annual targets of installations by technology
  • Keep integrity of the program: Keep FITs for all technologies, all sizes
  • Cut Solar PV tariffs from 11% to 32%
  • Introduce annual tariff degression targets for Solar PV
  • Introduce new Solar PV "brownfield" tranche
  • Add new technologies to the FIT program including solar hot water, ground-source heat pumps, small wind, and energy efficiency
  • Make price-setting and grid connection more transparent
  • Establish a carve-out for FIT contracts by community and aboriginal groups
  • Reduce wind costs by introducing differentiated wind tariffs
  • Revise future FIT reviews to allow more time for stakeholder engagement

Significantly, the joint submission urged Ontario's Minister of Energy Bentley to set annual installation targets for each technology that would result in more than 15,000 MW of new renewables by 2018, including more than 6,000 MW of solar PV and more than 7,000 MW of wind. Under Ontario conditions, this mix of new resources could generate more than 30 TWh, contributing a modest 23% to the province's supply of electricity.

The report notes that many other jurisdictions have much more aggressive targets for new renewable energy than the proposed program.

As part of the report, proponents commissioned a California consultant, Robert Freehling, to construct a model for estimating the impact of the proposed program on Ontario ratepayers. Freehling calculated that the mid-cost scenario would add about 10% to ratepayers' cost of electricity through 2018, the midpoint of OPA's planning horizon.

Ontario is planning to build two new nuclear power plants within the next decade. Freehling calculated that if the new renewable generation offset the construction of the new nuclear plants, there would be little or no additional cost to Ontario ratepayers for the renewable generation.

The solar industry participants in the joint submission provided data on installed costs, annual operating costs (including substantial lease fees for rooftop installations), and their desired return on equity. This data was used to calculate "indicative" tariffs for the different solar PV tranches in the proposed program.

As part of their call for increased transparency in Ontario's FIT program, the proponents placed their tariff calculations and Freehling's costing model in the public domain. OPA, the Ministry of Energy, and the public have full access to both models.

Previous tariff calculations were made by OPA using a proprietary discounted cash flow model. The model used in the joint submission adapts the Profitability Index Method developed by Bernard Chabot. The latter method uses fewer key variables than required in a discounted cash flow model, allowing for more transparent rate setting.

Chabot had advised the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association in 2005 for its first report to the Ontario Ministry of Energy for what eventually became the Standard Offer Contract program. Chabot has presented workshops on his methodology for tariff setting across Canada and the U.S.

Now that both the model for calculating indicative tariffs and the model for estimating program costs are in the public domain, they can be used by proponents of feed-in tariffs elsewhere in North America.

The joint submission also urged that Ontario expand the feed-in tariff program to include solar hot water, ground-source heat pumps, and energy efficiency as recently pioneered in Great Britain.

The report also recommended that Ontario revise the tariffs for wind energy by moving to differentiated tariffs like those used in Germany, France, and Switzerland. Adopting differentiated wind tariffs would have the effect of cutting wind tariffs at windier sites in the province while keeping the base tariff the same as in 2009.

  • Background: Ontario Feed-In Tariff: 2011 Review
  • Report: Ontario Feed-In Tariff: 2011 Review
  • Proposed revised solar PV feed-in tariffs for Ontario in 2012
  • Ontario Ratepayer Impact of Sustainable FIT Program

Disclosure: Paul Gipe participated in the Green Energy Act Alliance's contribution to the joint submission by the GEAA and Shine Ontario Association.

7 Comments

Register To Comment
Lorne WHITE
Lorne WHITE
January 1, 2012
CORRECTION #2 of last paragraph:
If the Yanks have hydro rates Less than $.10/kWhr,
and Ontario soon has hydro rates More than $.20/kWhr,
how will we keep any employers in Ontario?
(In case you hadn't heard, this happened to Niagara Region after 1975 when Pickering Nuclear station was completed, and they melded Niagara's cheap hydro with the costly nuclear rates to keep Toronto voters happy. [eg. Inco moved 2000+ jobs from Niagara to Thompson MB.])
(Recently, I've heard of a Northern Ontario mining company that ships its ore to Tennessee for smelting because of the high cost of Ontario power.)

What a quandary, eh?
Lorne WHITE
Lorne WHITE
January 1, 2012
CORRECTION of last paragraph:
If the Yanks have $.20/kWhr, how will we keep any employers in Ontario?
(In case you hadn't heard, this happened to Niagara Region after 1975 when Pickering Nuclear station was completed, and they melded Niagara's cheap hydro with the costly nuclear rates to keep Toronto voters happy. [eg. Inco moved 2000+ jobs from Niagara to Thompson MB.])
(Recently, I've heard of a Northern Ontario mining company that ships its ore to Tennessee for smelting because of the high cost of Ontario power.)

What a quandary, eh?!
Lorne WHITE
Lorne WHITE
January 1, 2012
Poor Ontario, we bet on the wrong (Nuclear) horse ~1960 to generate our electricity. And we've suffered for it, with:
- major cost overruns (the 'stranded debt' of Ontario Hydro)
- unknown costs of storing radioactive spent fuel & reactors
for 10,000[!] years ... if we ever find a Safe method.
- true costs hidden by law (the OCAA suggests $.19-.27/kWhr!)
by limiting liability & having our descendants pay for
our 40-50 years of 'cheap' hydro....

OTOH, how can we compete with the USA:
- Ontario pays for Health Care, USA states do Not;
McGuinty is trying to shift the Health cost of Coal smoke
from our taxes to our Hydro bills.
- 50-75% of USA electricity is generated by 'cheap' Coal, and
50% of USA states have warnings about mercury pollution
(Was my mother's Alzheimers caused by Nanticoke's smoke?
I'll never know, but it sure hasn't helped my asthma.)
- the USA and several States, offer ~50% grants to residents
and businesses to buy Renewable Energy equipment to make
even cheaper power. Ontario offers high FIT rates, but
raises hydro rates which puts pressure on employer costs.

If the Yanks have $.20/kWhr, how will we keep any employers in Ontario?
(In case you hadn't heard, this happened to Niagara Region after 1975 when Pickering Nuclear station was completed, and they melded Niagara's cheap hydro with the costly nuclear rates to keep Toronto voters happy. [eg. Inco moved 2000+ jobs from Niagara to Thompson MB.])
(I've heard of a Northern Ontario mining company that already ships its ore to Tennessee for smelting because of the high cost of Ontario power.)

What a quandary, eh?!
ANONYMOUS
December 31, 2011
In comment #2 drbenson asks: "Does anyone know what the capacity factor is for solar in Canada? Less than 20%?"

I don't know what a precise estimate is, but it is easy to tell what values were used in the Ontario Feed-in Tariff Cost Model because they are listed in their excel spread sheet available from one of the links the author gives. This model uses a 13.1% capacity factor for PV. They also use 25.1% and 35.1% capacity factor estimates for onshore and offshore wind, respectively. These values seem reasonable to me and even slightly conservative. New wind capacity additions in the US have capacity factors of about 35% and presumably there are plenty of decent resources in Canada; offshore wind is often quoted as having capacity factors of 40% or more. I've seen rough estimates of the German PV capacity factor of ~10%; if you site PV in the southern portions of Ontario, which is where the population is, you would get significantly higher insolation than in Germany. Thus, 13.1% should easily be achievable.

While it is hard to fault the estimates of the energy the plan would produce, I would say the FIT payments are insanely high--especially for PV. The estimated cost used for new nuclear power is also very high (16 cents/kWh), but Ontario has a very poor track record of keeping nuclear power at reasonable prices. A mix of wind and natural gas generation or even a large hydro project would seem like very reasonable options compared to the huge costs of solar PV (some of the FIT rates are nearly 60 cents/kWh).
Steven
Michael Keller
Michael Keller
December 29, 2011
What a truly stunning waste of money, once again demonstrating the utter lack of common sense that infests the political elite. Solar energy in Ontario is just plain dumb, as a casual inspection of incoming energy from the sun into the region readily demonstrates.

How about "zero" feed-in tariff.
DAVID LIBBY
DAVID LIBBY
December 29, 2011
6000 Mw = 6 nuclear plants size in Ontario, Canada? Does anyone know what the capacity factor is for solar in Canada? Less than 20%? This the most bizarre thing I have ever heard.
Rich Barbarics
Rich Barbarics
December 29, 2011
Rooftop breakpoint at 30KW makes this a very generous offer. At assumed $ 5800 installed cost, there will be bazillions of projects at 28-30KW and profits will be in the windfall class.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Paul Gipe

Paul Gipe

Paul Gipe has written extensively about renewable energy for both the popular and trade press. He has also lectured widely on wind energy and how to minimize its impact on the environment and the communities of which it is a part. For his...
  • About
  • Articles
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • The Future of Solar in Latin America
  • Fighting Blackouts: Japan Residential PV and Energy Storage Market Flourishing
  • The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • Are Run-of-River Hydroelectric Systems Ready to Ride US Currents?
  • Moniz Unanimously Confirmed As New DOE Chief

Most Commented

  • 8
    San Antonio Solar Fans Delay Introduction of SunCredit Program
  • 6
    Renewable Energy Research Initiative Launched in UK
  • 3
    Texas Legislature Passes Commercial and Industrial PACE Bill
  • 3
    French and German Ministers Call for 2030 Renewable Energy Targets

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Parker Hannifin - Precision Cooling Systems
  • Enerquip
  • Affordable Solar Group, LLC
  • Quick Mount PV
  • Brightergy
  • SolarEdge Technologies
  • Borrego Solar Systems, Inc.
  • AEG Power Solutions
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen 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 Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information