Sign up for our

Weekly newsletter

free by email

US adoption of solar feed-in tariffs ‘long overdue’

Solar feed-in tariffs have been extremely effective in Europe at promoting the use of solar power

Solar industry groups from 13 states have said it is high time for the entire country to make use of feed-in tariffs to encourage homes and businesses to generate their own solar power.

Meeting last week at the Intersolar North America event in San Francisco, the industry associations heard that feed-in tariff programs have proved “wildly successful” in Europe.

They issued a statement today suggesting that it was now “long overdue” for the US to make the most of such initiatives.

Feed-in tariffs are now in use in 64 jurisdictions around the world, and have been particularly credited with boosting take-up of renewable energy in Germany and Italy.

Essentially, they involve a long-term guaranteed level of income for electricity produced by small-scale renewable energy systems, usually above market prices for electricity, in order to make it financially attractive for homes and businesses to invest in solar panels or other renewable energy technology.

In some programs, companies are allowed to take on the feed-in tariff income rights from homes and businesses in return for providing renewable energy equipment for low or zero upfront costs.

State-level

In the US, there has been interest in feed-in tariffs in a handful of states including California and Oregon.

As hopes for a nationwide renewable electricity standard flounder in the US Senate this week, the solar industry groups believe state and local-level adoption of feed-in tariffs can spur on the growth in American solar power.

Gary Gerber, President of the California Solar Energy Industries Association (CalSEIA), said: “States can take action now. States can grow local renewable industry businesses and create local jobs. Feed-in Tariffs are simple, easy to use, stable, and effectively drive the costs of renewables down quickly.”

Officials in the European Commission have said experience over there suggests feed-in tariffs are “generally the most efficient and effective support schemes for promoting renewable electricity” .

Lower risk

While property tax-based PACE incentive programs have been criticized by certain sections of the investment sector (see this BrighterEnergy.org story), investors have suggested a properly developed feed-in tariff scheme could reduce risks for renewable energy projects.

Mark Fulton, Managing Director, Global Head of Climate Change Investment Research for Deutsche Bank Climate Change Advisors, said: “There is strong evidence that Advanced Feed-in Tariff (FiT) programs that exhibit Transparency, Longevity and Certainty (TLC) can clearly reduce project risk, allow renewable energy developers to obtain a lower cost of capital, and create new jobs.”

The solar groups said implementing a feed-in tariff system would also prove more effective than a credit trading system, such as a Renewable Energy Certificate program. Lessons from Europe have suggested a feed-in tariff would cut the costs of technology compared to alternatives.

Lyle Rawlings, President of the Mid-Atlantic Solar Energy Industries Association, which represents solar companies in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware, said: “In New Jersey, the second-largest solar market in the U.S., a tradable market commodity system of incentives was adopted that has driven up the cost of solar power to more than double the cost that a Feed-in Tariff would produce, while falling about 50% short of the legislated goals for solar.”

However, the groups noted that feed-in tariffs could work well in addition to existing programs like net-metering.

California adopted legislation last summer to allow a statewide feed-in tariff to support projects less than three megawatts in scale, with funds for up to 750MW total. Oregon launched its version of a pilot feed-in tariff program on July 1.

States represented by the solar groups calling for feed-in tariffs included Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland-DC, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas and Virginia.

  • http://heuristicstudio.com/demo/cms/charlotte/use-solar-energy-to-reduce-pressure-on-national-grid-dr-atiur-the-new-nation Use solar energy to reduce pressure on national grid: Dr Atiur – The New Nation « Charlotte Insurance

    [...] grid and …Solar Energy's 33 Percent Annual Growth will Accel…Cleantech Blog (blog)US adoption of solar feed-in tariffs 'long overdue'BrighterEnergy.orgSolar Panels – New Market Report PublishedOfficialWire (press [...]

  • http://adoption.freeoda.com/?p=520 US adoption of solar feed-in tariffs 'long overdue … · Golden Retriever Puppies Adoption Information Tips

    [...] Visit link: US adoption of solar feed-in tariffs 'long overdue … [...]

  • http://lightontheearth.blogspot.com/ Jonathan Cole

    Feed in tariffs (FIT) are best used in places with with high rates of solar insolation. Why? Because we need to encourage the installation of solar where it will yield the greatest fossil fuel reductions. Northern latitudes like Germany would tend to put out much less energy per peak watt installed than say, Spain.

    PACE programs like that demonstrated in Berkeley, California are a much better way to go, because they don't distort the markets so much, nor do they force non-beneficiaries from having to foot the bill.

    Solar is already cost-effective when combined with efficient equipment and a non-wasteful energy-use strategy. We have to quit this idea that government mandates can solve problems without introducing new ones. Unfortunately FITs may create more problems than they solve.

    For more info see my web log http://lightontheearth.blogspot.com/

  • http://www.srectrade.com SRECTrade

    A feed-in tariff model would certainly make things easier for solar developers, but the reality is that most of the major solar states have created laws in favor of a Renewable Energy Certificate scheme. These include most of the Mid-Atlantic states, Massachusetts, California and Texas, with legislation being considered in Connecticut and New York (http://www.srectrade.com/background.php). The whole point of a Solar Renewable Energy Certificate (SREC) program is to develop a market based incentive for solar. Solar credit values will vary based on the ability of the industry to keep up with state supply levels. In the case of New Jersey, the program is actually working as intended. SREC prices are trading high because the state is well behind the solar targets set forth in the state renewable portfolio standard. In a functional market, a short supply leads to higher prices and a larger incentive to close the gap. As the industry grows to meet the demand, the prices will drop. At some point the price will settle at an equilibrium that enables the state to meet its goals at the lowest cost possible – in the meantime, the state will profit from the collection of fines from electricity suppliers. The appeal of the solar credit program over alternatives like a feed-in tariff is this market-based mechanism. The solar industry in Spain is currently dealing with concerns that the government may try to reduce the subsidy rates in existing contracts in order to bring electricity prices down. A long-term fixed subsidy may be easier for project developers seeking financing, but it does not account for changes over time that drive the economics of solar and the electricity markets in general. A market-based mechanism keeps pace with a dynamic industry. As a result, the subsidy (and its affect on electricity prices) stays in touch with current trends in material costs and substitute technologies. This is what ultimately leads to stability in the solar industry. It certainly trumps the boom and bust cycles experienced in states like Connecticut and Massachusetts in recent years when the money for rebates and other subsidies ran out. The Renewable Energy Certificate programs may experience growing pains, but ultimately, a solar economy based on subsidies that track with the rapid changes in this dynamic industry will ensure that society is not over-burdened. In turn, the subsidy will remain relevant and the industry will see some real stability. -Brad Bowery, CEO, SRECTrade

  • Longwatcher

    As I understand them Feed-in Tariffs are essentially a tax that will continue forever because it is set up like a tax. While SRECs are an incentive that will eventually fade as solar power reaches a certain level. thus I prefer SRECs. But then maybe I don't understand the FiT system.

blog comments powered by Disqus