Mauritius Closes Expanded Feed-in Tariff Program after Reaching Target

Paul Gipe, Contributor
August 28, 2012 | 13 Comments

While Palo Alto, Calif. bumbles badly with a poorly designed feed-in tariff, the Indian ocean archipelago of Mauritius 900 km (550 miles) east of Madagascar has closed its recently expanded program because of its success at attracting domestic investors.

Mauritius' modest program was expanded from 2 MW late last year with an additional one megawatt, which was quickly subscribed earlier this year.

Palo Alto, on the other hand, offered a feed-in tariff for solar only that was "too cheap to meter" and no one bothered to sign up.

The island nation of 1.3 million inhabitants was formerly a French then, subsequently, a British colony. Since independence the country has been consistently ranked as having one of the best managed and most transparent governments on-or near in this case — the African continent.

In contrast to many so-called developed countries where data on energy is guarded as if a state secret, data on Mauritius renewable energy program and energy consumption in general is easily accessible and can be downloaded in spreadsheet format.

The Mauritian government launched a policy in 2010 to reduce its energy imports by developing the country's renewable resources. While further expansion of the nation's hydro resources are limited, the country has abundant solar and wind resources.

Mauritius generates nearly one-fifth of its electricity from biomass, specifically bagasse, from sugar cane.

Total generating capacity on the island is 367 MW of which 59 MW is from large hydro. Total electricity consumption was 2.7 TWh in 2011.

Imported oil and coal account for 80% of electricity generation. The price of coal to the island has more than doubled since 2002. The economic hemorrhage resulting from fossil fuel imports led the government to act in late 2010.

The initial program was timid even by U.S. standards and limited to 2 MW total. Individual projects were limited to microgenerators of 50 kW or less.

Nevertheless, the success of the initial program led quickly to a 50% expansion for a total of 3 MW, still a mere 1% of installed generating capacity.

This program was also oversubscribed by January 2012 and has since been closed.

Unlike successful feed-in tariff programs elsewhere, the tariffs in Mauritius are paid only on surplus generation fed to the grid. Thus, the program is limited to existing accounts and does not permit "green field" projects as in Germany, Ontario, or other locales.

If "exports" to the grid exceed three times consumption, the tariffs are reduced 15% from the posted prices.

There is no information on whether the program will be expanded further.

Development of Feed-in Tariffs for Small Scale Distributed Generators in Mauritius

Mauritius: Feed-in tariffs

13 Comments

Maury Markowitz
August 30, 2012

That's not really true... generally energy use is seasonal so there will be times when the customer is exporting and times when they are importing. As the payout is much larger than the base rate, even small exports can offset a whole lot of

My house is a good example. I have 12 panels on my garage in Toronto. During the summer I produce about 3 times as much power as I use, while during the winter I use about 10 times as much as I make. Given those numbers I would be be slightly owing over a year-long period given the numbers in the article.

Now of course Mauritius is a lot closer to the equator, and I'm not sure their seasons are what I'd call seasons, but the possibility is still there that this could be financially flat even if there's no year-net energy surplus.

Gerry Wootton
August 30, 2012

maury .. you missed it. First the customer must achieve energy independence which means they no longer purchase electricity from the utility. If you look at commercial rates, the base rate is moderate but the demand charge schedule is onerous. Heavy users can save a lot by producing their own power even before the FiT kicks in. If one wants to unburden the system of some users, those users must be more than self sufficient on average so that their demand seldom exceeds their capacity. Since bean counters rarely comprehend statistical behaviour and fear novelty, the incentive must be high at least initially.

Maury Markowitz
August 30, 2012

Yeah Gerald, that's just it. The program isn't really FIT, you're only getting paid for excess. I suspect the yearly bill for the average user, even with an 80 cent carrot, is likely going to be just about flat.

Gerry Wootton
August 30, 2012

When you consider that the average Paolo Alto residential customer is paying $0.149 per kWh after tax, $0.140 isn't much of a carrot.
Mauritius is trying to blunt a 5% annual growth in demand and a 2% annual loss in energy independence (particularly 7.6% in the commercial sector). Since the FiT doesn't start until a customer meets their own needs, the primary effect is to incent customers to become energy independent using renewable energy. Given the scale of the problem, big carrots are likely needed. Relative to the cost of expanding the electrical utility by 5% per year, the premium paid for excess distributed generation is a low cost solution (note: while users reap the reward they also bear all of the cost of expanding the system).

Ronald STEENBLIK
August 30, 2012

Typical on Renewable Energy World: silence from the person posting. REW should make it a requirement that anybody who posts an article makes at least a good faith effort to respond to comments.

Jon Foster
August 30, 2012

I agree with James Stack. Paul, why are you even comparing a feed-in-tariff in Palo Alto, CA with a feed-in-tariff on a small island on the other side of the world? And what makes you think Palo Alto "bumbled badly" or that its program was poorly designed?! I think neither is the case. In fact, I think the Palo Alto program was very well designed to keep ratepayers costs to an absolute minimum. If that price turns out to be too low to attract solar developers and building owners, the world won't end. The sun will still be shining and the program can be adjusted, if it seems appropriate to do so, to make the economics more appealing to solar developers/building owners. By the way, the Palo Alto program offers 14 cents per kWh. My guess is that Palo Alto ratepayers are very happy that Palo Alto is not trying to duplicate Mauritius' "success" in offering a program that buys solar PV at prices that stretch up to almost six times that amount!

James Stack
August 29, 2012

Pardon me, Mr. Gipe, but I would much rather "bumble badly" than have a program that's a "success" in offering customers 83 cents/kWh for the power they generate. It's pretty easy to be a success at wasting money.

Ronald STEENBLIK
August 29, 2012

Thanks Maury. It sounds, also, as if they wanted (for a reason I don't understand) to encourage only retrofitting of PV on rooftops. Could that be because they assumed that people building new homes or shops would find it profitable to incorporate PV into those new structures?

Maury Markowitz
August 29, 2012

Yes, that's it exactly.

You need an existing account because they're going to read your use/generation off of an existing meter. I guess they've structured the program so you can't open a new account just for a solar system... which automatically eliminates greenfields because fields don't normally have a meter :-)

Given the numbers above, I suspect the basic rate of power is already pretty high there. Coal generates power for around 6 to 10 cents here, and although I don't see numbers, I would suspect that it's in the 8 to 15 cent range there due to shipping. Oil is likely around 35 cents a kWh.

Given their location, I would guestimate that PV power would cost about 20 cents there, so the basic rate is already near or under grid parity? But what they've done is added an additional incentive... if you do manage to produce a surplus, they're paying you 80 cents for it.

william cormeny
August 29, 2012

This is a very good start.
It's a shame the shipping company providing the coal and oil dominates the local political landscape.
The ratepayers should demand this company be paid off over the next ten years.
This fight is quite similar to the struggle on Martha's Vineyand and Nantucket which started by following the lead of the shippers,the oil fired generators,and the wealthy oceanside landowners who only lived on these islands for three months.
The ratepayers are agitated and misinformed by these agents of the status quo.
Investments in renewable resources can be amortized over thirty or fifty years and need not be paid off in one to five years.

Ronald STEENBLIK
August 29, 2012

Thanks Maury Markowitz. So, to riterate: the Mauritius program paid only for net, "surplus" generation. And it did not subsidize panels being established on open land.

Sorry to come back again, but what does "limited to existing accounts" refer to?

Maury Markowitz
August 29, 2012

Ron, renewables programs generally fall into two classes, net metered and FIT. The later pays you for every kWh you generate, and often requires a separate meter. The former pays you only for net exports, the "surplus" generation you didn't use up yourself. There are also hybrid systems, like NJ's.

Green-field means large sets of panels in fields, as opposed to rooftops or other smaller settings.

Ronald STEENBLIK
August 29, 2012

Paul,

Could you please explain what you mean by the following, especially by "surplus" and "green-field projects":

"Unlike successful feed-in tariff programs elsewhere, the tariffs in Mauritius are paid only on surplus generation fed to the grid. Thus, the program is limited to existing accounts and does not permit "green field" projects as in Germany, Ontario, or other locales."

Thanks, Ron

Add Your Comments

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

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...