Feed-In Frenzy

A simple green tariff has transformed Germany. Why isn’t Canada following suit?
It has also crossed the pond, after a fashion, inspiring Ontario’s pacesetting Standard Offer Program. The Ontario government’s version, however, is watered down, freighted with artificial growth caps, implementation deadlines, and other caveats — a bold leap reconfigured as a series of furtive hops. Nonetheless, it is Canada’s most ambitious renewable energy program. It even looks, from a certain angle, like a fine start.

If, however, the goal is to formulate a new and truly transformative energy policy — if, in other words, the goal is to succeed — then Canada’s most ambitious program needs to be reassessed against the model that inspired it. Which foundation is better suited to supporting a twenty-first-century economy? The one propped up by aging hydro plants, flirting impotently with renewables while dumping money into unproven clean coal tech-nology and environmentally problematic, chronically cost-overrunning nukes? Or the one already on track to generate 30 percent of its power from green sources within a quarter century, buoyed by a massive industrial and infrastructure boom? Wouldn’t the latter be the definition of well positioned? A case study in strategic advantage? The very model of a national paradigm shift? An example, finally, of real green ambition?

Germany’s leading-edge, fit-driven green economic model arose out of its climate policy, which is among the world’s most ambitious. In 2007, the German government said it was willing to seek a 40 percent decrease in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020 if other EU countries made similar commitments — a reduction in absolute volume (not intensity) below 1990 levels that is fully double the European Union’s current target. The country is already nearly halfway there. As of 2006, it had already shrunk its carbon footprint by 18.5 percent. The lion’s share of this reduction was accomplished by shuttering obsolete East German factories in the wake of reunification, but after a few years of stagnation the feed-in tariff has helped renew the downward trajectory.

The first fit was enacted in California in 1978, with Portugal, Denmark, and Japan adopting similar legislation by the early 1990s. Germany, though, is widely regarded as the contemporary fit’s birthplace and best-practices model. It was the product of the so-called Red-Green Coalition, the partnership between the old-left Social Democrats and the newly ascendant Green Party that governed the country from 1998 to 2005. The coalition passed the Renewable Energy Sources Act in 2000, and, although this was already far and away the most aggressive renewable energy law the world had seen, substantially intensified it in 2004. Solar power was given a particularly big boost, with the going rate for solar energy generated from German household rooftops amped up to seven or eight times the market rate. (It was nudged back slightly after a mandatory reassessment this June.)

These deliriously high rates were designed not just to cover the extra cost of bringing new installations online, but to allow a small profit for producers — much as traditional North American energy markets operated prior to the deregulation wave of the 1980s. The fit thereby guaranteed a market for companies willing to make sizable up-front capital investments, sparking the construction of not just renewable en-ergy installations, but a renewable energy industry. The chief architect of the German law, the veteran Social Democrat parliamentarian Hermann Scheer, summed it up thusly: “It is the most successful new job creation program we ever had, and the most cost-effective job creation program.” Best of all, it does the job without direct taxation: the cost of the fit is embedded in the price of energy and distributed equally to all power consumers. The more you use, the more you pay.

The highest estimates for the German fit have it adding about one eurocent to the cost of a kilowatt hour of power. That equates to about thirty-six euros per year for the average German consumer — fifty bucks a year, give or take, for 250,000 new jobs and a rapidly rising share of renewable energy on the national grid. The amount of green energy consumed in Germany leaped from roughly 6 percent in 2000 to 14.2 percent in 2007, and it is on target to reach at least 25 percent by 2020. What’s more, that fifty-buck average masks the money-saving contributions of some 400,000 German homeowners who have installed rooftop solar panels, becoming power plant operators in their own right and, in some cases, paying a near-zero net cost for their electricity over the course of a year. Those 400,000 have embarked on a fundamental inversion of the industrial age’s energy economy, transforming themselves from rate-paying power con-sumers into profit-making power producers. If that’s not a paradigm shift, nothing is.

Until very recently, some North American experts viewed the German fit as a lurch toward disaster. In 2006, I mentioned the tariff to John Anderson of the Rocky Mountain Institute, one of the world’s most influential energy efficiency think tanks, and he responded with a melodramatic, stage-whispered “Oh, God!” Then he quoted the going rate for German solar power, saying, “I could put monkeys in cages to make power for that and make money. Good Lord!” Then he settled down and told me, “A certain amount of that kind of thing your economy can stand. But it can’t become a very big part of it, or your economy goes down the toilet.” And then, in the next breath, he wondered if he was overlooking something.

“Okay, look,” he said. “If in 1980 you’d come into my office, I’d have said I was pretty happy with telecom: had a box on the desk in the office, had a box on the wall at home. Telecom’s great. Love it. If you’d told me that for thirty bucks I could buy one of these things” — he held up his mobile phone — “and call anywhere in the world from anywhere, I would’ve laughed at you. Then if you’d told me the highest, best economic use of that was for my thirteen-year-old daughter to stand in one end of the mall and talk to her friend at the other end of the mall while they were shopping? I’d have had you committed. That’s clearly insane, right? That’s the kind of paradigm shift electric utilities are facing.”

Let’s repeat that, mantralike: That’s the kind of paradigm shift electric utilities are facing.

Certain North American jurisdictions are finally acknowledging the scope of this shift and the enormous business opportunity it represents. Witness, for example, the headline-making power play by oilman T. Boone Pickens, who has begun building what will eventually be the world’s largest wind farm, 2,700 turbines strong, on a patch of breezy west Texas land. His goal is to have 20 percent of US electricity generated by wind. In California, meanwhile, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s $3.3-billion (US) California Solar Initiative has spurred the rapid expansion of the state’s solar industry. Private homes and big-box rooftops all over California are now being tiled in solar panels in unprecedented numbers, while several Silicon Valley headquarters (most famously Google’s) have parking lots shaded by banks of them, and the state’s old-school energy titans are ushering in an era of utility-scale solar farms. pg&e, for example, recently announced plans to partner with two solar companies to bring installations of 250 and 550 megawatts online — a combined capacity similar to that of a medium-sized nuclear reactor.

PreviousPage 2 of 3Next
14 comment(s)

JohnDecember 05, 2008 10:47 EST

Great article. Ontario could be 100% powered by renewable energy in five years. Listen to Dr. Hermann Scheer, architect of the German Renewable Energy Act, describe exactly how in our video interview at www.thesolarvillage.com .

Kristopher StevensDecember 05, 2008 18:20 EST

Join the campaign for a Green Energy Act in Ontario at www.greenenergyact.ca!

matt maloneDecember 11, 2008 07:56 EST

perhaps if we compared the structure of their respective governments, and not just the effect of their policies, we might come closer to the original question: why such a massive difference? much of the progress achieved in the german example is credited to the strength of the green party in germany, and specifically their participation in a coalition federal government (1998-2005) and the pressure they were able to exert on the mainstream parties. it is since then that the issue has taken its urgency. even the more conservative parties, like the CDU/CSU headed by angela merkel, now address climate change as the most important crisis of our time.

what is astounding is that the popularity of the greens in germany is not totally different from that of those in canada. both parties have roughly the same level of popularity (10%). but whereas in canada, the first past the post system of representation converts this level of support into 0% of seats in the house of commons, germany's mixed member proportional system means that 10% of support roughly attains 10% of representation in their federal parliament.

Mixed Member Proportional (MMP). sounds familiar.

matt maloneDecember 11, 2008 11:03 EST

an addendum: analysis of proportional representation by andrew coyne on its prospects concerning the recent coalition news. such prospects would have certainly altered the focus on climate change.

http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/12/10/different-electoral-system-different-coalition/

Richard Glanville-BrownDecember 17, 2008 17:56 EST

This is the sort of article that makes one wonder what is wrong with our politicians.  All new homes and businesses should be required by law to include solar and geothermal heating, plus wind turbines for all new rural ones.  Put government money into doing this and the retrofitting of older homes and businesses, and the requirement for new power stations would be reduced by 80% or more.  Now is the time to really push for this, what with the political and economic uncertainty abroad in the land, so strike while the iron is hot.

Chris HoltDecember 19, 2008 13:17 EST

Things have changed since you visited Windsor, Chris, but not for the better. More and more people are out of work as the governments are tripping over themselves to bail out a failed social mobility experiment. How much of this money and effort could have been redirected to establishing fertile ground for green developments such as those you experienced in Germany, we will never know because, as you stated, we are still at the lip-service stage. Even our ground-level municipal leaders are clinging to the status-quo mirage of auto-jobs instead of looking for real, sustainable solutions. We have yet to take our future into our own hands in this city.

It is through articles such as this one that we will begin to change the electoral mindset, however. With more and more fingers pointing to what works instead of what failed, maybe some of the voters who have the ability to enact real change will throw their power behind developing Windsor's local economy instead of subsidizing it. Because as we all know, reactive politicians will only respond when their irrate, engaged constituents start demanding this kind of change. Until that happens, we will continue to "spin our wheels".

Cross your fingers.

Ross JarvisDecember 21, 2008 14:06 EST

Canada is still stuck in the early 20th century. Oil and automobiles are still considered the most important ingredients to a healthy economy. Even in this age of the internet, we continue to drive to and from the city to work,instead of having work come to us which would rid our world of so many problems.
If we would empty our tall buildings and have them converted into Verticle Farms, we would be on our way to the earth's salvation. Stop havesting every creature in the sea, and eat organically-grown food from verticle farms everywhere in the world. No more starvation because of lack of land. No more wars to increase land. Why doesn't our government spend our money on something that we need, instead of throwing good money after bad in support of the archaic automobile.

DaleDecember 27, 2008 13:52 EST

Canada has so many opportunities and the vast land mass to make renewable, clean energy a reality, do they have a government that can actually do something?

Well at least some in the Con party have good intentioned ideas, don't know if the rest might be able to see the possibilities.

Try this read...

http://www.freewebs.com/elmwood_transcona/beyondkyoto.htm

Cornelius SuchyJanuary 06, 2009 12:34 EST

The article could have illustrated the difference to another cross-subsidy mechanism, the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). RPS require power producers to have a minimum of x% of their electricity produced by renewables. There are fierce discussions over this. Consumer advocates claim that RPS are lower cost to the consumer as the technologies with the lowest generation costs (rather than a mix of renewables) are chosen by the utility. Denmark apparently moved away from a FIT, as they passed the 15% mark covered by wind. However, a comparison between countries with a FIT to that with a RPS show that FIT-countries have a much higher growth rate – and promote a more decentralized, diversified portfolio of renewables.

In any event, our love affair with renewables – in Canada it has really only been a flirt, as the article points out – is partly due to the idea that we could keep living the live style we do, if only we replace brown power by green power. Energy efficiency, on the contrary is associated with having to do with less.
Compact fluorescent lamps simply don’t have the same appeal and visibility as a solar panel on your roof. A CFL is inside your house and often hidden behind a lamp shade.

The question is what do we want to achieve. If it is promoting our renewable energy industry and manufacturers a FIT is certainly the best solution. If we want to reduce GHG emissions, we should have another sober look at FITs: generation costs for most renewable energy technologies are above that of conventional fuels, even if you add some of the external costs. Most energy efficiency technologies, in contrast, have negative avoided costs, i.e. you make money with it, even without a cross-subsidy or a carbon tax.

So why don’t we replace these old freezers with new ones, if we can save more money than the new freezer costs? There are number of reasons, the most evident being that the markets don’t work. The idea of a homo oeconomicus is far fetched, few of us do a comparative cash-flow analysis when we stand in front of the shelf with incandescent and CFL light bulbs.

The Walrus should be following up with another three-letter acronym: LCP. Sounds like a mind-altering drug, but really is just comparing the costs of generating power with that of saving power (Least-Cost Planning). Several US states require utilities to proof that saving energy is less cost effective than generating new power, before they get the go-ahead for a new plant.

What it would take is a utility to change from an energy delivery company to a service provider. Internet providers do it – they go past the modem right into your computer and install anti-virus and all kinds of other software for you. So far most energy utilities stop at the meter. But they need to go beyond that, into the houses, and replace these old fridges free of charge. Sounds like freakonomics, but they could actually make money with this, lots of money, especially with an export driven utility like BC Hydro. Negawatts instead of Megawatts.

Francesco SinibaldiJanuary 10, 2009 15:18 EST

The voice of a north wind.

An alley
brings me in
the sound
of a waterfall,
with a white
water recalling
the purpose
and the flight
of a swallow.

Francesco Sinibaldi

Ruth-AnneJanuary 26, 2009 10:01 EST

The photos accompanying this article put me in mind of aerial shots of the hectares of industrial/commercial/institutional rooftops we have that could, no should, be covered with solar panels augmenting the grid and our energy use.

Consider this: a program that mandates and supports the installation of such technology in new builds and phases in the supported conversion of the rooftops of schools, hospitals, government buildings, existing factories and malls could have a significant impact on energy production.

YookeoDecember 05, 2009 17:43 EST

In any event, our love affair with renewables – in Canada it has really only been a flirt, as the article points out – is partly due to the idea that we could keep living the live style we do, if only we replace brown power by green power. Energy efficiency, on the contrary is associated with having to do with less.

jobsDecember 09, 2009 20:47 EST

I think California's Gov. Schwarzenneger has the right idea in pushing the solar initiative and it's definitely something that Canada can implement as well. Green power is where it's at!

SEO TipsDecember 13, 2009 22:21 EST

I like a image. It's nice.

Comment on this article
  
I agree to walrusmagazine.com’s comments policy.

Canada & its place in the world. Published by
the non-profit charitable Walrus Foundation
TwitterFacebookRSS
On newsstands now
New Issue on Sale
March 2012
Subscribe online for as little as $2.49 an issue. Visit The Walrus Store
to buy prints of our covers
The Walrus Laughs
Search the web, support the Walrus Foundation
COPA