Display:
They are separate issues. A feed in tariff in a situation where wind energy doesn't have access to the grid is worse than one a non-subsidy situation where there is open access to the grid.  It was this (plus the fact that most developers had close relationships with existing electric producers) that was important.  

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Mon Feb 1st, 2010 at 04:16:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
BTW, whether feed-in tariffs can be considered a subsidy is subject to heated debates.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Feb 1st, 2010 at 05:34:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Feed-in tariffs usually come with an obligation for distributors to purchase... and that applies to the Spanish version, too.

BTW, Crazy Horse, do you remember the history of the Spanish feed-in law? I seem to recall that there was some weak form in the nineties, which was then reformed with the inspiration (but far from complete copy) of the German feed-in law (also for photovoltaics), but don't remember what that earlier form was.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon Feb 1st, 2010 at 05:36:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In the meantime, I refreshed my memory with this review and comparison of the German and Spanish feed-in laws. The feed-in tariffs were first introduced following the Electric Power Act 54/1997 (which liberalised the electricity generation market in line with the EU line) with Royal Decree 2818/1998. The rates weren't fixed like in the German Stromeinspeisungsgesetz (1991) and the succeeding Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz (2000), instead, producers got a premium above the hourly market price -- a regime that prevents producers from predicting their future income reliably. The reform of the Spanish law I remembered was established with Royal Decrees 1432/2002 and 436/2004, which introduced fixed rates as an alternative option producers are free to choose.

The linked article mentions several differences in detail, one I see as significant (again relevant to predicting future income) is degression of the rates: in Germany, a producer gets to sell at the same rate for 20 years, but the rate for new installations is decreased by a fixed percentage; in Spain however, the rate is set each year anew, and affects both new and old installations.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Feb 2nd, 2010 at 04:47:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
God bless the people who write laws.

Yes, the Spanish law doesn't give a fixed rate.  I've found it virtually impossible to understand.  

There is a more recent law passed in 2007, and it's laid out in terms of maximums and minimums.  But, I still don't understand it entirely. Part of it is regulated tariff and a premium for the first 15 years.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Tue Feb 2nd, 2010 at 11:27:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, the Spanish law doesn't give a fixed rate.

It does (or did -- I haven't looked up the latest version), at least fixed on an annual basis. As one of two possible choices for selling the electricity produced. For the other, the spot market version, the premium has a part that is fixed (again for a year), but there is a correction factor taking grid losses into account.

I've found it virtually impossible to understand.

If that helps, I found that amazingly, there are full English translations up on the net.

There is a more recent law passed in 2007

Apparenlty there were almost annual updates, including the one with the big cut in PV.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Feb 2nd, 2010 at 01:49:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series