Archive for the 'European and German energy law' category

Regional Variations in Feed-In Tariffs

Nov 06 2014 Published by under European and German energy law

Craig Morris at Renewables International discusses some interesting numbers on the regional differences in the cost of wind and solar energy in Germany.

The big picture is that wind is cheaper in the north, and solar is cheaper in the south.

For solar, that makes sense. Solar resources are better in the south.

For wind, it makes sense in the big picture. There are more good wind sites in the north, but that doesn’t mean there are no windy places in southern Germany.

Morris also goes ahead and compares these different costs per kWh to the feed-in tariffs for wind and solar. And he finds that the feed-in tariffs are insufficient for some sites, but way too high for others.

To remedy this problem, one might want to change the feed-in tariff so as to reflect these differences.

That would seem to be a good idea. So good actually, that this is already the way things are done right now for wind power.

Article 49 Paragraph 2 of the Law on Deployment of Renewable Energy has a very fine-tuned granular approach, under which the amount of feed-in tariff payments already depend on whether the site in question is above or below average.

With the large differences for solar reported by Morris it would probably make sense to have a similar approach for solar as well. Costs are about 2 cents (Euro) lower per kWh in the most southern part of Germany compared to the most northern parts. It doesn’t make much sense to have the same feed-in tariff for these very different conditions.

That in turn means that if, like the EU Commission wants, Germany moves to a system based on auctions, that most of solar under such a system would be built in the south. Projects in northern parts of the country would be unable to compete. That in turn would mean that whatever costs are saved by concentrating solar where the sun shines more would probably be offset by the need to have more power lines coming from such concentration.

 

 

No responses yet

European Council Climate Decision Powers

Oct 26 2014 Published by under European and German energy law

Green Member of the European Parliament Claude Turmes says last week’s conclusions of the European Council amount to a “coup”, taking over powers from the Parliament.

He is worried about this passage in the first paragraph of the conclusions:

The European Council will keep all the elements of the framework under review and will continue to give strategic orientations as appropriate, notably with respect to consensus on ETS, non-ETS, interconnections and energy efficiency.

He seems to think that this might mean a change in decision powers. Where formerly the European Parliament and the Council could decide on these matters with majority votes, this passage means that now all these powers are transferred to the European Council. In that case, all decisions would need an unanimous vote, which would slow down speed to whatever the dirtiest Member State (*ahem* Poland *ahem*) wants.

For this to be true, there are two conditions.

For one, the passage above would need to mean that the European Council wished to transfer legislation powers. Another possible reading is that it just means that the European Council will keep these items on its agenda. Obviously, the European Council has the power to set its own agenda.

Also, even if the European Council wished to transfer all decisions on climate change and energy away from the Parliament and Council, the only way to actually do that would be to change the Treaties. You can’t just change the distribution of power by unilateral declaration in a European Council conclusion document.

Therefore, I don’t agree with Turmes. I think this is just the European Council stating that these are important matters that will remain on the agenda of the Heads of State. And I agree with that assessment. The European Council should keep all of the elements of the framework under review.

Actually from the position of Turmes, who thinks the decision lacks in ambition, keeping it under review is a good thing, since that means it may be changed to something more in line with his ideas as a result of such review.

No responses yet

40% Percent Reduction Domestically Until 2030

Oct 25 2014 Published by under European and German energy law

The decision to reduce CO2 emissions in the EU by 40% until 2030 comes with a nice qualification:

The European Council endorsed a binding EU target of an at least 40% domestic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990.

“Domestic reduction.”

As EU Climate Change Commissioner Connie Hedegaard pointed out in talking to the dpa news agency, that means that in contrast to the 20% goal of 2020 the EU can’t rely on buying carbon credits from countries outside of the EU to achieve this goal.

That in turn means that 40% is not only the double of the previous goal. It is even more ambitious.

Of course the European Council could have decided on even more ambitious goals. But I for one would be quite happy with adding 20 percent every ten years from now on.

For the next fifty years, counting fr0m 2030.

Which would leave us at 60% for 2040, 80% in 2050, 100% in 2060, 120% in 2070, and 140% in 2080.

That of course means cleaning up 20% of 1990 EU emissions in 2060, while having zero new emissions, and increase that to 40% in 2080.

The cheapest option to do so may be using olivine.

No responses yet

What Excessive Costs?

Oct 05 2014 Published by under European and German energy law

I disagree with Michael Liebreich, who does not like feed-in tariffs. But in his latest piece for a conservative website, he asks a great question:

Germany may have reached over 25% renewable electricity, but at what excessive cost to its household energy users?

I am not aware of any “excessive costs” of the feed-in tariff system, compared to auction systems favored by Liebreich. That’s because an auction system increases the complexity of the regulation (something Liebreich says he doesn’t like). It increases the risks for anybody brave enough to participate, and, as a consequence, the amount of interest they need to pay their banks. There is the completely new risk of failing to succeed with any bid. There is the completely new risk of having to pay high penalties because the project gets delayed for one reason or another.  So I am far from convinced that feed-in tariffs come with “excessive costs”.

But the nice thing is that we will now see how exactly this will play out. The latest reform in Germany wants to phase out feed-in tariffs and phase in auction systems. We will see if that leads to “less regulation”. And we will see if it will lead to less costs.

I would be surprised if it does.

Anyway, at this point, it doesn’t matter much any more. Costs of solar are down so far (as a result of the German feed-in tariff Liebreich disagrees with) that increasing them somewhat with a less efficient auction model won’t change the big picture any more. Solar and wind energy will continue their explosive exponential growth world wide.

Also, a feed-in tariff system like the German one that makes the rates dependent on installation records actually is a very simple auction model, with a minimum of regulation. If the market goes down below the target rate, the feed-in tariff goes down slower or goes even up again. That means the feed-in tariff is reacting to the market, as opposed to being fixed only by the state.

No responses yet

Another Smil Mistake

Oct 01 2014 Published by under European and German energy law

Craig Morris writes another  long debunking article pointing out some mistakes in something Vaclav Smil wrote about the German Energiewende.

Morris points out more than five errors. But there is also is this extraordinary claim by Smil:

The levelized cost of German photovoltaic electricity is easily four times that of coal-based generation.

Let’s do some fact-checking.

Right now, the feed-in tariffs for solar are between 9.16 and 13.05 cents Euro (since today, depending on the size of the project).

Since Smil wrote “easily”, we’ll take the lower figure (9.16) and divide that by four to get 2.29 cents for coal-based generation in Smil’s alternative universe.

In reality, the latest study quoted at the relevant German Wikipedia page gives cost for new coal between 6.3 and 8.0 cents.

This is important. The biggest success of the German feed-in tariff system was to bring prices down. Which will help deploying solar faster everywhere.

The basic premise of Smil’s article is wrong as well. Of course opponents of the transition to renewable energy in Germany like the INSM losers have noticed this and tried to make hay from this particular talking point.

The only way to avoid this problem with a feed-in tariff would be to approve lower surcharges for low income households, as there are already exceptions for industry and railways.

But that would make the system even more complicated, which is really not warranted for the couple of Euro a month the average household actually pays in surcharge costs.

The last time I wrote about Smil here was under the headline “Smil mistake“, pointing out a simple error in one of his books. This is another one.

No responses yet

The Hammelburg Story

Sep 29 2014 Published by under European and German energy law

This story is showing in German right now at the website of Hans-Josef Fell, the former Green member of Parliament who was one of the authors of the German feed-in tariff.

It is about the experience of the small town of Hammelburg. It has a population of around 11,000.

In 1993, the local electricity provider decided to pay 2 German mark per kWh for solar electricity, up to a capacity of 15 kW, and finance that with a surcharge of 0.0015 mark (about 0.o7 cents Euro). A private company was founded and investors came up with 210,000 German mark (around 100,000 Euro). They installed solar panels and got their feed-in tariffs.

At the time, Hans-Josef Fell had high hopes. He thought in 1996 that Germany might be able to reach a whopping 80 MW a year if that principle of a feed-in tariff was extended to the whole country.

The actual success of this model was better by close to two orders of magnitude. It is interesting to look back and see that 80 MW a year was something people would value as a high number.

Now the solar panels at Hammelburg have worked for 20 years. And they are expected to work for at least another 20 years.

That’s another point worth noting. Solar panels are not going away once they are paid for (after twenty years). Those couple of kW in Hammelburg are among the first that celebrate such an anniversary. But they won’t be the last.

I leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out what that means for the price of solar electricity (hint: it is much lower than what you’d get if you assume only 20 years of operation).

No responses yet

“Germans Have Been Buying Price Decline”

Sep 16 2014 Published by under European and German energy law

From this article by Justin Gillis at the New York Times on the transition to renewable energy in Germany.

The whole quote would be “The Germans were not really buying power – they were buying price decline”, attributed to Hal Harvey, CEO of the “Energy Innovation” think tank.

I agree with the sentiment that the price decline was the more important result of installing all that renewable energy in Germany. But clearly Germany has also bought some power in the deal, and some price declines in the long term and in the short term wholesale markets.

My way of saying that is that the ebbing tide lifts all the boats.

The article closes with another quote, this time from Markus Steigenberger of Agora Energiewende. “Indeed, the German people are paying significant money. But in Germany, we can afford this – we are a rich country. It’s a gift to the world.”

Exactly. And it is not only a gift, but also payback for the fact that Germany as one of the early industrialized countries has profited most from the irresponsible use of fossil fuel over the last two centuries. Germans have a moral obligation to help with the solution of this problem.

3 responses so far

Germany Dirtiest Country of the World

That’s not a title to be proud of. I like the World Cup win much better.

Unfortunately, Germany is the largest producer of lignite in the World. I just learned this because I read this blog post by Craig Morris about Germany’s large lignite reserves, and their relation to the transition to renewable energy. Morris points out that Germany might continue producing “cheap” lignite electricity even once it is not needed any more domestically and export it.

Wikipedia explains that Germany has over 14 percent of the World’s lignite reserves and is the World’s largest producer. At least the trend is in the correct direction: Production is down to 169 million tons in 2010, from 388 million in 1980.

I think Germany should greatly reduce production of lignite. The way to do this is easy. All that is needed is to stop granting permits to expropriate citizens’ real estate for these projects, which typically require whole villages to relocate. The only way that can be done under German Constitutional law (Article 14 Paragraph 3) is if the project is necessary for the common welfare (Wohl der Allgemeinheit).

Digging lignite out of the ground and burning it to produce electricity is making global warming worse, since that is the most CO2 intensive way of producing electricity. There is no fuel as dirty as lignite. As such digging it out of the ground is incompatible with the common welfare. Common welfare interests require phasing out the dirtiest energy first. They certainly don’t require expanding lignite mining.

If it is impossible to expropriate real estate owners, companies who want to relocate villages to get at the lignite buried below them will have to pay much higher prices. That in turn will remove the only remaining advantage of this dirty fuel: Price.

Another way to increase the price of lignite would be to reduce production (phaseout profit theory). In contrast to coal, lignite is sold at localized prices, since it doesn’t make sense to transport lignite over long distances. Reduce supply each year by 3 percent (which would result in a reduction around 60 percent over the next 30 years) and watch prices go up. That’s good for the owners of these lignite resources, good for people who else would see their home villages disappear in a big hole, good for future generations (who will have left more of the valuable resource left), and good for the climate.

And all it takes to do that is to stop relocating people and destroying whole villages.

,

 

No responses yet

FIT as Efficient Auctions

Jul 23 2014 Published by under European and German energy law

Craig Morris at Renewables International kindly quotes my recent blog post about the recent German reform of the feed-in tariff. And he makes a very interesting point in closing his post:

No problem – show me a bidding process that is more cost-effective than feed-in tariffs and provides greater competition between market players large and small (not between energy sources; solar and wind complement each other, they do not compete with each other), and we can throw out feed-in tariffs. If the Commission is saying that we have to transition from FITs to bidding processes that are better , then there will be no such transition at all, for no such bidding processes exist.

The case for phasing out feed-in tariffs and replacing them with auction models is based on the idea that this will reduce costs. There is a true core to that idea. If you hand out feed-in tariffs that are higher than what is necessary under market conditions, electricity consumers will end up paying higher surcharges than needed.

But actually the present system (especially after the last reform) already makes sure that the feed-in tariffs are not above what market conditions require.

That’s because they are based on deployment records. If those are high, the feed-in tariffs get slashed. If they are too low, they stay constant, or may even increase.

That clearly is a reaction to market conditions.

And in contrast to auctions, there is no need for a complicated process to auction off individual projects, something that certainly won’t work for small rooftop solar.

We also know that the feed-in tariff has actually a rather good track record in reducing costs, to the point that it won’t matter ever so much that those costs will go up again slightly under the failed auction model Germany just introduced, with the EU Commission illegally requesting that to happen.

While I think it is a great point Morris made here and I agree completely with that, there is one technical detail where I disagree with his post. Morris writes:

Essentially, the ECJ made a distinction in its ruling of 2001 between “illegal state aid” and “legal state aid,” with German feed-in tariffs from the 90s constituting a legal form.

That’s not how I see the PreussenElektra case. In that case, the Court decided that the German system is not “State aid” in the first place. They did not say it is State aid, but should be allowed anyway.

That was the reasoning in PreussenElektra as well as in the recent Ålands Vindkraft case concerning measures of equal effect as quantitative restrictions (Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). The fact that the German system as well as the Swedish one does not allow electricity generated in other Member States is a restriction, but it is justified by an overriding purpose of environmental protection.

3 responses so far

Commission Power Grab Failure

Jul 19 2014 Published by under European and German energy law

The EU Commission may think that their illegal power grab ordering Germany around in the latest round of reform of the Law on Priority of Renewable Energy was a success.

And, on the surface, it was. Congratulations to the Commission, they did manage to have a larger influence on the final legislation than the German Bundesrat. Their idea of giving up the resoundingly successful feed-in tariff in Germany and introduce a system based on auctions has found its way into the final text of the law.

But this victory comes at a price.

For one, it is clear to anyone paying attention that the Commission has blatantly overstepped their competences. If you are interested in the legal details of that I recommend the latest paper from the Stiftung Umweltenergierecht (in German). There is just no reasonable doubt possible about the fact that this is a major Constitutional crisis for German democracy.

When the feed-in tariff was enacted in the first place, that was done by a democratically elected coalition of the Green and the Social Democrat Parties. When it was ended in 2014, it was done on orders from the Commission, who is not democratically elected by anyone, and who has no business whatsoever to give the German legislators any orders in this situation.

In basic Constitutional theory, the Commission is part of the executive force. Giving them the power to legislate instead of Parliament is a serious violation of basic Constitutional values. Having them grab that power when they don’t have it in the first place makes this even worse.

That in turn makes it very hard to accept this introduction of an auction model for me. I was not convinced of its merits in the first place. But the fact of this illegal power grab actually succeeding makes me feel something close to seething hot anger at this failed policy.

Not a good place to start from. But now comes the fun part.

The German legislation until now was only a starting point setting a framework for the introduction of an auction model. To actually pull it off, there remains quite a lot of work to do and details to discuss.

Who is going to be responsible for the auctions? What exactly is the model for such an auction? Are people bidding in such an auction trying to form a contract with the entity who holds it? Are sanctions for someone winning an auction but failing to follow through a penalty for breach of contract (Vertragsstrafe) or an administrative sanction?

This will be one big, complicated mess. Good luck with trying to pull this off in the first place. It will of course be completely impossible to reduce costs with such a stupid basic idea.

Factors raising costs going forward are easily identified. Everyone brave enough to still consider building any solar project in Germany will need to hire a couple of lawyers to wade through the thousands of pages of regulations needed to actually pull an auction system off. It introduces a huge new layer of complexity.

Then they will need to pay their banks double of the interest they needed to pay under an easily understood and reliable feed-in tariff, because the bank will correctly perceive the risk as much higher. There is the completely new risk of failing to succeed with any bid. There is the completely new risk of having to pay high penalties because the project gets delayed for one reason or another.

The German Ministry of Economy is now in the process of trying to figure out how to do auctions for large-scale solar projects in a first experimental phase. And they are asking for comments.

I am not going to comment there, since that might possibly help with improving the auction model, which is the last thing I want. I want them to test their stupid idea and fail spectacularly.

But I note with interest a long paper the Ministry has commissioned, which discusses some of the possible alternatives. That paper states on page 9 that they expect the resulting price for large scale solar projects to be higher than the feed-in tariff in place right now. They note correctly that the transition to an auction model introduces a whole new set of costs, which will make the whole exercise more costly than a feed-in tariff model.

The fun part I was referring to earlier is this: Now an auction model gets its chance at bat. It will fail, of course, like it has failed almost everywhere else it has been tried. But we will see for the first time how utterly and indisputable that failure will be and have an opportunity to compare it to the feed-in tariff system in place until now.

There are basically three ways to measure the failure. One is the amount of cost added by the transition to an auction model. That will remove the idea behind this kind of thinking that auction models help to reduce costs. The costs will increase, as the study states at page 9. The only question is by how much.

The second is the complexity of the system. The study notes as one of their goals to find a system easily understood by citizens, so as to have citizens accept the transition to this model. They also note that this will be quite a challenge, considering the failure of this model in many foreign countries, and that the system needs to be transparent and easily understandable to achieve acceptance (page 10).

Their problem there is that it is completely impossible to build a “transparent and easily understandable” auction system. One of the big advantages of feed-in over auction is that the system is much easier to understand. No amount of tweaking at the details will ever change this fundamental disadvantage of auctioning.

And the third metric to measure the failure will be the volume of projects actually installed under an auction system. I am not sure how that will play out.

Of course, the auction system will by definition be unable to deliver more projects than the volume up for auction. But it may very well fail to deliver even that low volume for one reason or another. It depends on how much the system fails in reducing costs if that happens or not.

An auction system by definition allows bidders to enter high prices, so maybe the additional costs will get so high that some substantial volume will get installed by some brave souls still not terrified by the 1001 pages of legalese and the new sanctions introduced for failing to follow through on time.

And of course, I may be wrong in my assessment. Maybe the experiments with this idea will show that costs really go down, like the Commission and the German coalition parties seem to think.

Then they can build on that success and extend the auction model to rooftop solar systems in 2017. That should be even more fun to watch.

No responses yet

Older posts »