
FiTs are designed to support a specific technology. One rate for wind, another for small hydro etc. We do this because we want to encourage renewables but not over-subsidize them. What happens when one of the renewables becomes competitive? Some have argued we'll still need a FiT. I say no. Technically it's not a FiT if the price setting procedure is based on the market. It's something new and different. Some other acronym perhaps. Maybe, just maybe, no acronym at all. Question is, how are we going to set the price?
The industry doesn't want to bring forward this conversation because they want to milk FiTs for as long as they can. This is a dangerous and unhealthy game they're playing. 1. It's unnecessarily expensive. 2. It sets a bad example for the rest of the world. Take Japan for example. They're having a hard time economically. They want to set up a FiT but they don't want to handicap their economy. But the Japanese are smart and technical. MITI has been known to recognize and copy good German economic policy in the past. From this it follows that the FiTsters in Japan would have more political leverage if they could point to Germany as an example that shows how FiTs lead to sustainable market-based prices.
ZING!!! It just occurred to me that Germany is likely to set up market based prices in the next few weeks as part of their overall FiT overhaul. To me it makes no sense to cap the FiT payments at 90% without offering some sort of guaranteed price for the remaining 10%. I'm sure others must be thinking this too. The German thing to do would be assign a market based rate to the production over 10%. Italy and Japan are watching. Oh yes, they're watching.
No comments:
Post a Comment