Course on Regulation and Sustainable Energy in Developing Countries - Session 4


Published on

The session 4 gives an in-depth view on the concrete implementation of feed-in tariff laws, with the presentation of case studies of successful and less effective feed-in tariff laws and also an overview of on-going implementation of feed-in tariff laws, presenting notably the examples of Germany, Spain, France, the UK, Malaysia, Kenya, Mauritius, Ecuador, Ontario (Canada), Vermont (US), etc.

Published in: Technology, Economy & Finance
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Course on Regulation and Sustainable Energy in Developing Countries - Session 4

  1. 1. Feed-in tariffs – Design options and case studies for developing countries Leonardo Webinar 26 January 2012 Dr. des. David Jacobs Director Renewable Energy, IFOK GmbHCourse on Regulation and Sustainable Energy in Developing Countries – Session countries
  2. 2. AgendaFIT design and case studies: Feed-in tariff calculation FIT financing Capacity caps Local content rules
  3. 3. FIT Countries 2010 Countries with state FIT policy Countries with national FIT policy Source: REN21, Renewables 2010 Global Status Report 3
  4. 4. Basic feed-in tariff design• Purchase obligation • “Independent” from power demand• Fixed tariff payment based on the actual power generation costs • Price setting will be discussed in session 4• Long duration of tariff payment
  5. 5. Tariff calculation
  6. 6. Tariff calculation methodology Early FITs (1970-1990s): Avoided costs Benchmark: cost for conventionally produced electricity Tariff level is only “right” coincidentally (under- or over-compensation) • E.g. Nicaragua, Tanzania
  7. 7. Tariff calculation methodology • Tariff calculation based on technology specific generation costs + “reasonable” rates of return • Don’t use “avoided costs” as point of reference • Cost factors: • Investment costs (material and capital costs); Grid- related and administrative costs (including grid connection, costs for licensing procedure; Operation and maintenance costs; Fuels costs (biomass and biogas)
  8. 8. Rate setting process Different jurisdictions use different methodologies for setting FIT rates. Recent research reviewed several models for rate setting, results indicate: • Most jurisdictions use similar approaches (even if inputs and assumptions vary):  Discounted Cash Flow (DCF), after-tax analysis – Discounts to present value the estimated annual cash flows to equity investors
  9. 9. Building a feed-in tariff rate calculator Goal is to reach an appropriate rate that is high enough to spur renewable energy development while at the same time not so high as to provide windfall profits to project owners. Tradeoffs exist: • Ease of use vs. complexity • High-level representation vs. detailed analysis • Granularity vs. time investment
  10. 10. Tariff calculation methodology • Targeted IRR (Internal rate of return) • In the EU, feed-in tariffs target at an internal rate of return of 5-9 percent (certain jurisdictions use return on equity) • In developing countries, the targeted IRR usually needs to be higher (10-20 percent) • Public investment (monopolist, often without profit interest); or private IPPs (profitability important)? • Similar profitability for renewable energy projects needed as for convention energy market
  11. 11. Figure 4: Equity IRR expectation in developing countries: Equity IRR expectation in developing countries25%20%15%10% 5% 0% Infrastructure Technology Political risk Reg. Risk, soft Counterparty Currency Infrastructure investment risk (missing political risk, risk safety cushion investment (developed track record) transparency, (developing world) legal world) framework Source. Fulton et al. 2011
  12. 12. Tariff calculation methodology• Assumed capital structure • Ratio of debt and equity (80 to 20 in Netherlands; 70 to 30 in Ontario (Canada)) • Germany; different debt-equity ratio depending on each technology (reflecting their risk profile) • South Africa: 70:30 • Higher equity share in other developing countries? • Interest rate for the debt? (international and national analysis needed) • Generally, debt term (duration) equals duration of feed-in tariff payment (average of 20 years)
  13. 13. Tariff calculation methodology• Tax treatment • Pre-tax calculation (taking advantages and disadvantages from national taxation scheme into account)  Post-tax: Germany, because not significant available tax benefits, and because tax liabilities vary across ownership and investor types and are difficult to generalize – also used in Malaysia  Accelerated depreciation factored in (e.g. India)
  14. 14. Tariff calculation methodology• Treatment of inflation (indexation) • Necessary because of long-term tariff payment (especially in developing countries with high inflation rates) • Usually applied to the investment share that is related to O&M costs
  15. 15. Tariff calculation – South Africa (2009 vs. 2011)
  16. 16. Tariff calculation assumptions – Malaysia (2010) Source: Kettha 2010
  17. 17. Tariff calculation in Germany: Input data for wind energy• Medium transparency in Germany Provision of Equity share: 25% Return on equity (100% -location): 12% capital Share of debt: 75 % Interest on debt: 5 % , or 5,5 % Time period in question 20 years Inflation rate 2% p.a. Specific investment costs 60 and 80 % - location: 1.756 €/kW 100 % location: 1,463 €/kW 120% aand 150 % - location: 1, 336 €/kW Annual costs of operation Year 1-10: 2.19 ct/kWh Year 11-20: 2.49 ct/kWh Source: BMU 2011
  18. 18. Tools for tariff calculation RET Screen CREST model from NREL Adoptation to national context is required (e.g. tax burdens and investment incentives)
  19. 19. Tools for tariff calculation – CREST from NREL (inputs)
  20. 20. Tools for tariff calculation – CREST from NREL (cash flow)
  21. 21. FIT financing
  22. 22. Financing mechanism - Germany Financing mechanism in liberalized electricity markets Financing trough “burden sharing” between all electricity consumers
  23. 23. Differences in emerging economies and developing countries• low electricity costs• little acceptance of electricity price increases Artificially low Subsidies No interna- electricity for lization of prices = high conventional negative cost difference power external costs with renewables
  24. 24. Combined financing – Taiwan• Add additional financing to the national FIT fund (levy on producers from conventional electricity)• Increase the retail electricity price by a certain share (after general elections next year) Conventional Money electricity producers Payment for producers Renewable Energy Fund under the feed-in tariff Money (FIT Fund) scheme Retail price increase Money Source: David Jacobs
  25. 25. FIT financing in Malaysia – limited electricity priceincrease Source: Kettha 2010
  26. 26. FIT Fund in Malaysia
  27. 27. FIT financing cost in Germany (additional costs per kWh)Source: BMU 2011
  28. 28. International FIT financing?– The future of international climate talks? G TF fin c gflo s E IT an in w S u e: D C A "G TF ", A 2010 o rc B C , E IT pril
  29. 29. Capacity caps
  30. 30. Capacity cap • Capacity cap might be necessary to control costs (limited number of project) • To control installed capacity (in line with central planning in monopolized electricity markets) • E.g. tariff payment for first 400 MW wind energy, first 100 MW geothermal, and first 50 MW solar PV • In this case: Project size should also be limited • Application process needs to be regulated (“first-come, first- served”) • Online application to avoid fraude? – MalaysiaSource: Mendonca et al. 2009
  31. 31. Capped feed-in tariff in Kenya (2009) • Tariff payment for 15 years • Rate setting based on generation costs • Support of least cost RES technologies Mainland Price Technology Capacity cap ($/kWh) Wind $0.09 150 MW Biomass (firm and non- $0.045- 200 MW firm) 0.07 Hydro (firm and non $0.06- 150 MW firm) 0.1231
  32. 32. Capped feed-in tariff in Ecuador • Tariff payment for 12 years • Rate setting based on generation costs • Cap: 2% of installed capacity Technology Mainland Price ($/kWh) Wind $0.09 Photovoltaic $0.52 Biomass and biogas $0.10 Geothermal $0.09 Small-hydro up to 5 MW $0.06 Small-hydro 5 MW-10 MW $0.0532
  33. 33. Annual Quota on RE Capacity in Malaysia (MW) Total per Year Biomass Biogas Mini-Hydro Solar PV Solid Waste Annum 2011 110 20 60 9 20 219 2012 40 15 50 11 30 146 2013 50 15 60 13 40 178 2014 60 25 60 15 50 210 2015 70 25 60 17 60 232 2016 80 25 60 19 40 224 2017 90 30 50 21 40 231 2018 100 30 40 24 30 224 2019 100 30 30 28 30 218 2020 100 25 20 33 20 198 : : : : 2030 280 2 282 : : : : 2040 850 2 852 : : : : 2050 1,350 2 1,352Source: MBIPV 2010
  34. 34. Annual Quota on RE Capacity in Malaysia (MW) Source: MBIPV 2010
  35. 35. Capacity cap• Disadvantages: • “Stop-and-go” investment cycles – difficulty to establish a national industry (similar to tender) • Unsustainable market development
  36. 36. Local content requirement
  37. 37. Local content requirement • Several countries have introduced local content requirements in national support mechanisms, i.e. obligations to produce a certain share of renewable energy equipment locally/nationally (e.g. Spain, China, India, Argentina - Chubut, Ontario - Canada, Malaysia, Italy) • These requirements can be implemented in national feed-in tariff mechanisms • Establish a national renewable energy industry • Take advantage of positive macro-economic effectsSource: Mendonca et al. 2009
  38. 38. Local content requirement Chubut• Province in Argentina:• Wind energy law 2005, Article 4, states:• „... to enjoy this benefit, the wind mills installed have to comply with a timeline detailedfurther below of including components made or assembled in the Province of Chubut:a) As from 1 January 1999: 10%b) As from 1 January 2001: 30%c) As from 1 January 2003: 60%d) As from 1 January 2005: 80%e) As from 1 January 2007: 100%“• Outcome: low incentive and rigid timeline impended wind powerdevelopment in Argentina
  39. 39. Local content requirement Ontario• Local content wind: 25%; 50% in 2012• Local content solar: 40-50%; 60% in 2011
  40. 40. Local content requirement Ontario • Complex definitions needed (Ontario): Solar PVDesignated Activity Qualifying PercentageSilicon that has been used as input to solar 10%photovoltaic cells manufactured in an Ontariorefinery.Silicon ingots and wafer, where silicon ingots 12%have been cast in Ontario and wafers have beencut from the casting by a saw in Ontario.The crystalline silicon solar photovoltaic cells, 10%where there active photovoltaic layer(s) havebeen formed in Ontario.
  41. 41. Local content requirement Ontario Solar photovoltaic modules (i.e. Panels), where 13% the electrical connections between the solar cells have been made in Ontario and the solar photovoltaic module materials have been encapsulated in Ontario. Inverter, where the assembly, final wiring and 9% testing has been done in Ontario. Mounting systems, where the structural 9% components of the fixed or moving mounting systems have been entirely machined or formed or cast in Ontario. …. Wiring and electrical hardware that is not part 10% of other Designated Activities (i.e. items 1, 2, 3 and 5 of this table) sourced from an Ontario Supplier. All on-site and off-site labour and services. For 27% greater certainty, this Designated Activity shall apply in respect of all Contract Facilities. Total 100%
  42. 42. Local content requirement• Problem: potential confliction with international trade rules (WTO)• Malaysia: Adder for nationally produced equipment:
  43. 43. Malaysian tariff structure for solar PV Source: Kettha 2010
  44. 44. International “worst” practice
  45. 45. International “worst” practise • Low tariff = no tariff (e.g. Argentina: Premium tariff payment of 0.37 €cent/kWh for wind energy) • Assessment report can help to correct tariff level • Unnecessary high tariffs • PV in Spain; PV in Czech Republic • High rates of return; attracts speculation; unsustainable market growth • Short payment durations (annual changes) • Germany until 1999; Spain until 2004, some Indian provinces •Size specific tariffs (huge differences in tariff levels) • Spain
  46. 46. Books on FIT design The Evolution of FITs in Germany, Spain and France ge=637&title_id=11456&edition_id=1496 0&calcTitle=1 The feed-in tariff handbook d=92822
  47. 47. Online policy advice: How to design good feed-in tariffs? Online policy advice: Make your own FIT law
  48. 48. Thank you for your attention!!!Dr. des. David Jacobs I Director Renewable EnergyIFOK GmbHReinhardtstraße 5810117 BerlinTel.: +49 30 536077-27E-Mail:© 2010, IFOK GmbHIFOK behält sich alle Urheber-, Marken-, Leistungsschutz- sowie sonstigen Rechte an den Inhalten der Präsentation vor. Ohne schriftlicheEinwilligung durch IFOK dürfen diese Inhalte oder Teile davon weder bearbeitet oder verwertet noch Dritten zugänglich gemacht werden.TitelSeite 48