100 likes | 234 Views
The Story of Vermont’s Feed-in Tariff – Lessons Learned. 2010 Renewable Energy Vermont Distributed Generation Northeast Conference Wilson Rickerson May 19 th , 2010. To Feed-in or not to Feed-in?. Feed-in Tariffs around the World. 75% of global PV and 45% of global wind by 2008.
E N D
The Story of Vermont’s Feed-in Tariff – Lessons Learned 2010 Renewable Energy Vermont Distributed Generation Northeast Conference Wilson Rickerson May 19th, 2010
Feed-in Tariffs around the World 75% of global PV and 45% of global wind by 2008
Feed-in Tariffs in the US 2007-2010 Consumers Sacramento IP&L Los Angeles Palm Desert Santa Monica 4 States and 5 utilitieswith feed-in tariffs 16 States and 3 cities with legislation Gainesville San Antonio 9 states with regulatory initiatives
US Projections ~270 MW of PV by 2016 Southern California Edison Standard Offer Contract: 140 MW of 20 MW PV plants Time-of-delivery rate (TOD), at ~$0.15/kWh SMUD (est. 100 MW) 100 MW of PV for building in 2012 @ ~$0.16/kWh (TOD rate) Recurrent, SunPower, Belectric, Globall Connect, McClellan Park are the winners Gainesville – PV only (est. 24 MW): $0.32/kWh for 20 years 3 MW in the ground by December 2009 Queue full through 2016 Consumers Energy (est. 2 MW) 2 MW program cap subscribed Green power programs: Wisconsin utilities buy-back programs 2.98 MW Tennessee Valley Authority – 300 kW to date
Vermont in the Lead! • First state to pass feed-in tariff legislation based on generation cost • First detailed attempt to set feed-in tariff rates at the state using a public model • Hundreds of pages of useful data about distributed renewable energy project development and pricing • Policy targets technologies beyond PV
Success? It depends on what you set out to do… • Create investor certainty? • Rapidly expand renewable energy capacity? • Make it easier for Vermonters to invest in renewables? • Support local industry? • Diversify the portfolio? • Minimize ratepayer impact?
Is there a next time? • Support legislative language that reflects your objectives • Size differentiation • Interaction with grants and tax credits • Rapid growth vs. ratepayer impact • In-state manufacturing • Include evaluation metrics beyond ratepayer impact • Do all technologies need caps?
Wilson Rickerson (617) 934-1676 wilson.rickerson@mc-group.com www.mc-group.com