Is the solar multiplier doomed?

There is growing speculation in solar industry circles that the solar multiplier will be dropped by the federal government, with Origin Energy adding its weight for calls for it to be wound back or removed. The Small Scale Renewable Energy scheme (SRES) multiplier, which once offered five renewable energy certificates for every one megawatt hour of electricity created, was wound back to three last year and is due to be reduced to two from July 1, and back to one next year.

Origin said in a presentation to a Macquarie Group conference on Wednesday that reductions in the SRES multiplier should be brought forward, noting that it had produced 45 million certificates in 2012, as against original predictions of 8 million in 2011. Origin says this cost $1.8 billion at $40/certificate, although industry sources say certificates have rarely traded at this level and are currently around $24. Only the ACT has prevented the retailers from passing on a cost of $40/certificate to their customers.

Nigel Morris, from Solar Business Services, wrote in his blog this week that pressure is being placed on the government from many quarters to reduce the multiplier, which he said would reduce the up-front discount on a 1.5kW PV systems of around $744. To put come context in the price impact of the SRES, he supplied this graph.

Meanwhile, Origin Energy has also pushed for changes to the Renewable Energy Target, arguing that it should reflect 20 per cent of actual production rather than forecast production.

CEO Grant King told the Macquarie Conference that if the RET were adjusted, and the small-scale generation included in the RET, it would reduce the energy required from renewables by 2020 to 27 terawatt hours from 45 terrawatt hours.

He said this would reduce costs passed on to consumers by “reducing requirements for expensive renewable energy generation” and for reducing requirements for peaking generation needed due to wind energy intermittency.)

Comments

8 responses to “Is the solar multiplier doomed?”

  1. Jonathan Avatar
    Jonathan

    Sure wind is intermittent on a local level, but in our almost national grid, the supply must be fairly constant, and not require peaking plant?

    Peaking plant would be more driven by peaks in demand, rather than reductions in supply.

  2. Warwick Avatar
    Warwick

    I’m curious as to why SRES is understated in the chart of electricity costs. This year’s (2012 as 2013 is yet to be announced) target is 9.15% for RET/LRET and 23.96% for SRES (source: Clean Energy regulator). According to this article, SRES are worth $24/certificate and LRET were approximately $38/certificate yesterday. This means that the cost per MWh for LRET and SRES are about $3.48/MWh and $5.75/MWh, respectively i.e. SRES contribution to a bill is about 65% higher than LRET. Perhaps the columns are incorrectly labelled?

  3. Brian Francis Avatar
    Brian Francis

    The cost per watt of PV was $3.50 three years ago. It is now 70 cents. The legislation should keep up with the market, where the price of the panels has dropped 500% and remove the multiplier.

    The current boom bust cycle that develops from market oversupplies needs to be stopped. Otherwise, more solar installers will go under as a result of certificate price crashes.

  4. Alan Pears Avatar
    Alan Pears

    With regard to the RET, we should keep in mind that the energy retailers insisted on a fixed target in preference to a percentage target when the original MRET was negotiated in 2000. The fixed target has worked in their favour until recently, when rapid electricity demand growth slowed and reversed. Given they’ve been happy with the fixed target when it has suited them, they have little basis to complain now. And lower growth (or decline) in electricity demand suits the government, as it makes meeting climate targets easier, while potentially avoiding some of the projected investment in energy supply infrastructure, which may help to hold down electricity prices.

  5. Nigel Avatar
    Nigel

    Warwick

    Good pick up; the data (table below) is straight out of the AEMC’s report Possible Future Retail Electricity Price Movements: 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2014 from 25 November 2011.

    I didn’t make any changes to their data to reflect subsequent changes in the targets.

    Scheme % contribution 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013* 2013-2014*
    Other state based schemes 1.0% 0.9% 0.7% 0.7%
    Stae EE and DM schemes 2.5% 2.4% 2.3% 2.4%
    FITs 0.1% 0.3% 0.7% 0.8%
    SRES 0.9% 2.1% 1.0% 0.5%
    RET/LRET 1.0% 1.7% 2.3% 2.3%
    Transmission 7.7% 7.8% 7.1% 7.3%
    Distribution 37.3% 38.7% 36.4% 36.3%
    Wholesale 34.6% 30.8% 30.0% 30.3%
    Retail 15.0% 15.3% 13.9% 14.1%
    Carbon Price 0.0% 0.0% 5.7% 5.4%
    100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

  6. Minwoo Kim Avatar
    Minwoo Kim

    Japan’s FiT in July is among the highest in the world. It’s clear that Japan’s FiT will shake the solar market. New solar technology will show in Japan. This is it!
    As you know, earthquake in japan is happening frequently. Floating solar panels installation is one of the best solutions for power crisis in Japan. So you have to reduce the vibration to install Floating solar panels. Because, it makes many kinds of problems! The vibration’s caused by wind, waves and external forces. New Floating Body Stabilizer for Floating solar panels installation has been created in South Korea. The Floating Body Stabilizers generate drag force immediately when Floating solar panels are being rolled and pitched on the water. Recently, this Floating Body Stabilizer’s using to reduce the Vibration of Floating Solar Panels in South Korea. You can see New Floating Body Stabilizer videos in YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moO–q5B92k, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA_xFp5ktbU&feature=youtu.be.

  7. Rob Avatar
    Rob

    The problem with Nigel Morris’s blog post is that STC production is running well ahead of target and this makes the spot price of STCs fall. Right now we are getting $24/STC from Greenbank. But if the multiplier is reduced to 1 then we get half the supply of STCs and the STC price will jump back up closer to the Clearinghouse price of $40. On the average system size of 2.5kW then you are actually better off with the combination of an STC multiplier of 1 and a strong STC price than you are with a multiplier of 2 and a collapsed STC price. Last year STC oversupply pushed the Greenbank STC price to around $17. This was fixed by reducing the multiplier last year and the price bounced strongly. Nigel’s article doesn’t consider the STC price strengthening benefits of the STC multiplier gain at all.

    Nigel also fails to take into account the rising electricity prices which boost the payoff to rooftop PV owners. Right now the SRES benefits displaces services that should naturally be provided by consumer credit. The payoff on unsubsidised rooftop solar is already higher than the interest charged by finance providers which means the industry can stand on its own two feet and its time for finance providers to take over from the SRES in facilitating sales.

    Small rooftop systems benefit from operating at the level of “retail grid parity” which is a much more generous position than “wholesale grid parity”. At retail grid parity the industry operate on its own merits. The poles and wires people have inadvertently done rooftop PV a huge favour by gold plating the network and driving up retail electricity prices right at the time that rooftop PV costs dropped.

    If the multiplier comes down we strengthen the SRES by reducing the political pressure on the SRES. Letting the SRES overrun the STC target massively is foolish short termism that is simply asking for big trouble. Best to be on the front foot.

  8. Nigel Avatar
    Nigel

    Rob

    Good point, and I do agree with you that supply and demand influences STC price.

    However, all the REC experts I talk to tell me that it’s only one of the drivers so a price recovery is not assured; especially give how many STCs are out there this year, plus banked from last year versus their liabilities.

    I also don’t believe there is much hope at all of price getting to $40. Since the day the STC program was launched its never got close to $40 for longer than a few days, and lets face it, the clearing house is a flop. Most of the time price has been in the mid twenties; even with very low demand in late 2012.

    I also think we have to be careful to remember that almost every PV manufacturer in the world is bleeding money; selling prices are close to or below cost in many cases. Combined with our FX rate, we have artificially low prices in Australia at the present time.

    Don’t get me wrong; getting off support is a great thing, and the sooner the better but we aren’t there yet without support and has been pointed out regularly on this site, are competing against huge subsidies in the rest of the energy market. A little support is not a bad thing.

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.