Showing posts with label Paul Gipe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Paul Gipe. Show all posts

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Proposed Indiana (Midwest) Feed-in Tariffs 2009

November 25, 2009

By Paul Gipe

This is a brief explanation of the proposed feed-in tariffs provided to the Indiana Renewable Energy Association and Representative Matt Pierce.

The tariffs suggested are applicable throughout the Midwest and not solely to Indiana.

The tariffs, or prices paid for renewable generation per kilowatt-hour, are based on my professional judgment of current best practice worldwide and best practice specifically in North America.

In large part the tariffs are based on those implemented October 1, 2009 in Ontario, Canada. The Ontario Power Authority derived a system of tariffs for renewable energy following the most rigorous and, equally as important, the most transparent price-setting process yet conducted in North America. The Ontario tariffs were converted to US dollars.

Because of lucrative federal subsidies in the US, there are two tariff tracks: one without federal subsidies, and one with the subsidies.





Two Tracks (with & without Federal Tax Credits)
There are two tracks because not every potential generator can fully use the federal tax credits. If the program is to be equitable, that is, if the program is to provide equal opportunity to all Indiana citizens, it must not be limited to only those with substantial federal taxes. Thus, even those who do not have substantial federal tax liability can take advantage of the program by using the tariffs.

While it would be technically more correct to run a full financial model taking into account the discounted effects of the federal subsidies, this was determined to be unnecessary. Instead, the proposed Indiana tariffs derived from Ontario's current rates were simply reduced 30 percent, representing the equivalent benefit of the federal tax credits.

Wind Energy
Wind energy is a special case and was treated separately and in much more detail. There are four classes of wind energy tariffs: two tariff classes for small wind turbines, an offshore class, and a tariff class for onshore, commercial-scale wind turbines.



Small Turbines
Tariffs for small wind turbines are divided by the area swept by the wind turbine's rotor. This measure allows inclusion of both conventional horizontal-axis wind turbines as well as novel vertical-axis wind turbines.

The smallest class is representative of household-size wind turbines. These are currently more expensive and less productive than commercial-scale turbines and, consequently, the tariff needed is much greater. The tariff proposed for household-size wind turbines is comparable to that in several European countries and to that proposed in Great Britain.

The second small turbine class is for wind turbines considered suitable for small businesses. With the federal tax credit, the tariff proposed is similar to that proposed by Indianapolis Power & Light in its filing with the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) for wind turbines less than 100 kW in capacity.


Commercial-Scale Turbines Onshore
The price necessary for profitable operation of commercial-scale wind turbines is highly dependent upon the wind resource and the resulting productivity of the wind turbine. To spread economic opportunity to a greater percentage of Hoosier farmers, rural landowners, and small businesses it is necessary to offer a range of tariffs to reflect the different wind resources available.

When a single wind energy tariff is used for commercial-scale wind turbines, some generators will be overpaid and others underpaid. Both to avoid overpayment at windier sites and to enable profitable wind development at less windy sites it's necessary to calculate a range of tariffs.

There are two techniques currently in use to accomplish this task: the German system, and the French system. Both systems use a trial period of five to ten years. All turbines are paid the same price during the trial period. After the trial period, the tariff payment changes, reflecting the site's productivity. The German system (it is also used in Switzerland) is more unwieldy than the French system and less adaptable to North America.

The French system bases the post-trial tariff on a measure of the wind turbine's productivity.

The proposed Indiana tariffs are similar to those proposed in Ontario by the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association. They have been specifically adapted to the North American wind resource and costs.


The proposed Indiana tariffs are derived from the Profitability Index Method developed by Bernard Chabot for the French equivalent of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

This method incorporates average installed costs, annual expenses, inflation, the cost of capital, and so on. Most importantly, this method enables simple recalculation of the tariff needed as the wind resource and turbine productivity vary.

The two most important parameters are the installed cost relative to the area swept by the wind turbine rotor. In this case, the installed cost is approximately $2,400/kW for a 2 MW wind turbine with a 90 meter diameter rotor.

The base productivity is set at a minimum average annual specific yield of 650 kWh/m2/yr. This yield is equivalent to a wind resource of 5.5 m/s (12.3 mph) at hub height. The calculation results in a tariff of $0.14/kWh without tax credits and $0.098/kWh with the federal tax credits.

The base tariff is paid for the first five years to all turbines installed under the program. Turbines with a productivity of 650 kWh/m2/yr or less will be paid the base tariff for the full 20 years.

At the end of the first five years, the yield for each year is determined. The year with highest yield and the year with the lowest yield are discarded. The productivity of the turbine is calculated from the yield of the remaining three years.

The profitability index is limited to 0.55 at an annual yield of 1,200 kWh/m2/yr. This eliminates overpayment for development at windy sites where the wind resource is equivalent to 7.4 m/s (16.6 mph) at hub height. The calculation results in a tariff for years 6 through 20 of $0.084/kWh without tax credit, and $0.059/kWh with federal tax credits.

Note that because there are two tariffs (for years 1-5, and for years 6-20), the average or equivalent tariff is somewhat more than the second period tariff. Thus, at a site with an average yield of 1,200 kWh/m2/yr, the average or equivalent 20-year tariff is $0.104/kWh without tax credits and $0.073/kWh with federal tax credits. The latter equivalent tariff is nearly identical with that proposed by Indianapolis Power & Light to the IURC for wind turbines larger than 1 MW of $0.075/kWh.
This article brought to you by the Indiana Renewable Energy Association. For more information, please visit www.indianarenew.org.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Britain to Launch Innovative Feed-in Tariff Program in 2010; Proposes World's Highest Tariffs for Small Wind Turbines


Pictured from left to right: InREA Board Member Gary Washington, Paul Gipe and InREA Treasuer Leon Bontrager. Photo taken during Wind 101 Workshop, Sept. 12, 2008 in Ft. Wayne, Indiana.







July 23, 2009
By Paul Gipe



They said it couldn't be done, but Britain has risen to the challenge. Britain's Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Ed Miliband has released long-awaited details on the Labour Government's feed-in tariff policy.


Miliband, an up-and-coming politician in the cabinet of besieged Prime Minister Gordon Brown, has done what was once unthinkable, put a British stamp of approval on feed-in tariffs as a policy mechanism for developing renewable energy.


The move has potentially far reaching ramifications in the English speaking world where there has been reluctance to use full-fledged systems of feed-in tariffs, sometimes on ideological grounds. Now that Britain, Ontario, and South Africa, two of Britain's former colonies, have definitively moved toward implementing sophisticated feed-in tariff programs, there may be less reticence to do so elsewhere in the Anglophone world.


Of course, like politicians everywhere, Miliband had to rebrand feed-in tariffs to something more to his liking. His "clean energy cash back" creates yet another term for what everyone else calls, sometimes grudgingly, feed-in tariffs.


Nevertheless, the program's designers took their task seriously and didn't opt for a system of faux or false feed-in tariffs, what North American campaigners have begun derisively calling FITINOs, feed-in tariffs in name only.


The British proposal has also contributed several innovative new twists on feed-in tariff design that will mark the program as "made in the United Kingdom".


One new feature is the inclusion of tariffs for Combined Heat & Power (CHP). While not a first, it is one of the few programs to do so. Another feature of the proposed program is a distinct tariff for small solar PV systems on new homes, and a separate tariff for existing homes.


Most significantly, program designers have included a mechanism to encourage homeowners and small businesses to reduce their electricity consumption. For example, a solar PV generator will be paid for all their generation. However, they will receive a bonus, currently at £0.05/kWh ($0.08 USD/kWh, $0.09 CAD/kWh), for electricity delivered to the grid over and above their domestic consumption. Thus, if a homeowner is able to cut their domestic consumption, and sell more electricity to the grid as a result, they are paid the bonus on top of the posted feed-in tariff.


The proposed program, like the successful programs it was modeled after, was designed to "set tariffs at a level to encourage investment in small scale low carbon generation." This is in contrast to faux feed-in tariffs that set the tariffs on the "value" of renewable energy to the system as in the California Public Utility Commission's largely ineffective program.


British designers were instructed to calculate tariffs not on ideology or economic theory but on the tariffs needed so "that a reasonable return can be expected for appropriately sited technologies" to meet the country's renewable energy and carbon mitigation targets.


Unfortunately, the program's targets are timid at best, two percent of Britain's electricity consumption by 2020, and the tariffs are limited by law to projects less than 5 MW to protect the country's stumbling Renewable Obligation, the preferred mechanism for developing larger projects.


The two percent target requires the generation of only 8 billion kWh (TWh) per year. For comparison, Germany generated 40 TWh in 2008 from wind energy and more than 4 TWh from solar PV. France, Britain's longtime cross-channel rival, generated nearly 6 TWh from wind energy in 2008 from its system of feed-in tariffs.


Some of the proposed tariffs are not competitive with those on the continent, or those in Ontario. "For community-scale or larger on-site projects," says David Timms, a senior campaigner with Friends of the Earth (UK), "the rates [tariffs] are inadequate."


The tariff proposed for large wind turbines is low by international standards. Britain has some of the best winds in Europe. Nevertheless, many of the smaller projects that may be built under the feed-in tariff program may not be as advantageously sited as commercial projects under the Renewable Obligation. Consequently, the proposed tariff for wind projects from 500 kW to 5 MW may be insufficient to drive development.


Timms also adds that the "degression for solar PV is quite aggressive" at 7 percent per year and that the bonus payment of £0.05/kWh for export to the grid may not be bankable. Because the bonus payment will fluctuate with the "market price" it won't necessarily have a fixed value and, consequently, it will be discounted by banks providing debt for projects financed under the feed-in tariff.


If implemented as proposed, though, the British program will offer some of the highest tariffs for small wind energy in the world. The tariffs will rival those in Italy, Israel, Switzerland, and Vermont, possibly reflecting the British government's belief that it can encourage development of a domestic small wind turbine industry. For example, the tariff proposed for small wind turbines from 1.5 kW to 15 kW is £0.23/kWh ($0.38 USD/kWh, $0.42 CAD/kWh) about that paid in Italy and Israel.


The proposed program also includes a number of anti-gaming provisions to avoid breaking up bigger projects into several small ones to fit within the 5 MW project size cap. These will prevent companies from moving big wind projects from the Renewable Obligation to the feed-in tariff program.


Britain's feed-in tariff program is expected to begin in early April, 2010 after an extensive consultation. Below is a summary of the program's key elements.




  • Program Cap: 2% of Supply, 8 TWh in 2020


  • Project Cap: 5 MW Generator can be green field (doesn't have to be a metered customer)


  • Contract Term: 20 years


  • Program Review: 2013 Costs for the program will be borne by all British ratepayers proportionally


While limited in scope, Britain's proposed feed-in tariff program is as sophisticated, if not more so, as any proposed in the United States, and will put the country on the world map of innovative renewable energy policy.














This news update is partially supported by the Jan & David Blittersdorf Foundation in cooperation with the Institute for Local Self Reliance. The views expressed are those of Paul Gipe and are not necessarily those of the sponsors.





Paul Gipe



661 325 9590, 661 472 1657 mobile



Saturday, January 17, 2009

Rep. Matt Pierce Introduces Feed Law

Indiana Representative Pierce Introduces Feed Law Bill

January 16, 2009

By Paul Gipe , pgipe@igc.org

Representative Matt Pierce (D-Bloomington) has introduced HB 1622, the Advanced Renewable Energy Tariffs Act, into the Indiana General Assembly. The bill received first reading January 16, 2009 and was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Energy, Technology and Utilities. Representative Pierce is Vice Chair of the committee.

The Midwest has become a hot bed of activity around feed-in tariffs since the introduction of HB 5218, the Michigan Renewable Energy Sources Act, in the fall of 2007 by Representative Kathleen Law.

Following a presentation by Representative Law to the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators in early 2008, bills were introduced into the Illinois and the Minnesota state assemblies. Representative David Bly has announced that he plans to reintroduce his bill into Minnesota's new legislative session. Illinois representatives have been preoccupied with the impeachment of Governor Blagojevich and it is uncertain whether the Illinois bill will be reintroduced.

Representative Pierce announced on September 10, 2008 at DePauw University that he intended to introduce a bill calling for a full system of Advanced Renewable Tariffs like those in Germany, France, and Spain into the next legislative session. Since that time Pierce was named Vice Chair of the relevant committee.

Indiana has effectively no renewable energy policy and only a fledgling renewable energy industry. Nevertheless, there is some wind energy development in the north of the state, all for export, and an Italian manufacturer of gearboxes for wind turbines plans to open a factory near Muncie, Indiana.

HB 1622 is patterned after the Michigan bill and like the Michigan bill is intended to spur job creation in a state suffering from the collapse of the auto industry, long a major employer.

Paul Gipe is an author and reknowned expert on wind energy. His biography and resume can be found at http://www.wind-works.org/bio.html.

Additional information on Feed Laws including Tables of Feed-In Tariffs Worldwide can be found at http://www.wind-works.org/articles/feed_laws.html

Contact Information: Paul Gipe, 208 South Green Street, #5, Tehachapi, CA 93561-1741, USA Phone: +1 661 325 9590 pgipe@igc.org