Solar PV industry licks its wounds as last tariff falls

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

As the Baillieu government brought down the curtain on the last major feed in tariff, solar companies reported they were awash in red ink. The industry, which now employs 15,000 people, is craving stability, and fair value for energy that householders produce, and export to the grid. They may not get it.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The timing was appropriately perverse. On the day that most listed Australian solar companies had finalised the release of a massive splash of red ink on their accounts, the result of a series of boom-bust cycles inspired by various state governments, Victoria decided to trigger another mini boom-bust cycle by becoming the latest, and presumably the last, to slash its solar feed in tariffs.

Like other major states, Victoria will from now offer a derisory payment of 8c/kWh for exports from new rooftop solar PV installations. The Victorian announcement had been expected though disappointing news, but given Victorians have until the end of the month to qualify for the transitional tariff of 25c/kWh that currently stands, there is likely to be a rush for installations.

This is not a new experience for the Australian solar industry. It has seen it numerous times in recent years from the hodge-podge of tariffs introduced by state governments, and then suddenly removed. Some were absurdly generous, such as the NSW Labor’s governments gross feed in tariff that paid 60c/kWh for all electricity generated. Some were more measured, such as the net tariffs in Queensland and South Australia that paid 44c and 52c/kWh for electricity exported to the grid. These later systems were more durable and less expensive for all consumers, but their sudden withdrawal had the same impact – a sudden rush and then a slump.

For many in the industry, the end of the tariffs will come as something of a relief. Suppliers such as the listed Solco say they are looking forward to he “post rebate” PV world – one where they expect solar can be evaluated on its own merits.

There is a good reason for them to want some stability. The boom/bust cycles have been nearly impossible to manage. Solco was one of the many to benefit in previous years, but announced late Friday that its results for 2011/12 had slumped dramatically, with revenues falling by 57 per cent to $22.9 million, its bottom line result slumping to a loss of $4.4 million, and posing huge management problems on inventory which it hopes are now addressed.

It was not alone. Few companies in the Australian solar PV business are listed, but those that are have shown the dramatic impact of the slump in revenues in the past 12 months. Origin Energy, the biggest utility and one of the biggest installers, noted that the PV business had dropped in half, but didn’t break down its numbers. CBD Energy’s rooftop division eco-Kinetics saw revenue slump nearly 75 per cent to $33 million from $125 million and post a $10.3 million loss. That business is now being folded into the CBD Solar business. Silex Solar, a subsidiary of the listed Silex Systems, saw revenue slump and the company is now out of the rooftop flat panel solar business.

Some forget exactly how big the solar PV industry has become in just a few years. Just four years ago it was basically a cottage industry inhabited by enthusiasts and those servicing off-grid areas that had no other options, and  a bunch of excellent researchers who saw most of the benefits of their work head overseas, and in some cases took themselves with it.

It now comprises, according to the Solco annual report, some 2,000 companies and employs an estimated 15,000 people, and competitive pressures are being added by a continued influx of new participants, with manufacturers such as Yingli setting up operations as well as EPC contractors. All are attracted by the prospect of Australia becoming the world’s first country to boast of a mass market solar PV market.

Consider this graph below. It shows that around 8 per cent of all suitable homes in Australia – or around 500,000 dwellings – have a rooftop solar PV system (not including solar hot water). In some states, the penetration level is already well above 10 per cent of available buildings. According to Solco that still leaves a potential four million residential systems available.

This penetration is mostly the result of the feed in tariffs, and the massive cost reductions, both in international modules and local balance of systems costs, that have occurred in recent years. Solco speaks for many in the industry when it says that these policy drivers have served their purpose.

Solco  believes that the prospects for the industry are strong, given the pricing of components, with module costs falling 45 per cent in 2011 and by some estimates will fall a similar amount in 2012. Solco says inverter, racking and other balance of systems costs are falling too and making PV more competitive than previously predicted.

But it says the biggest single factor for the uptake of solar PV is rising retail electricity costs, and the major barrier to its uptake, the upfront capital costs, are being steadily removed by innovative finance offerings such as leasing offers which are expected to flourish in the residential and commercial sectors.

“(The FiTs) now provide the industry with nothing but a negative social stigma for non-renewable electricity generators to use as a tool to maintain the status quo,” the company said in its recent annual report.

But therein lies the problem. The industry craves stability, but it still wants fair value for its product. The new tariffs have been set more or less at the behest of the utilities, who are wary of the impact of solar PV because of its ability to eat a massive hole in their revenues – both at the distribution and retailing level. In some states such as NSW, the payments are not even compulsory, because the government has bought the argument that competitive forces will be at work. Utilities, as Solco suggests, have used the cost of the FiTs to demonise solar and amplify the costs to non-solar users, and are now using that as an excuse to change tariffs and make solar less attractive as an investment – another potential barrier.

The solar industry argues that 6c/kWh or 8c/kWh does not reflect anything like the value of solar exported to the grid, and suggests that what is now being implemented is a reverse subsidy. The Clean Energy Council and the Alternative Technology Association suggest the export rate should be double, at least in the range of 12c/kWh to 20c/kWh. Others suggest a 1:1 rate, or just short of the price of electricity imported, while others suggest a rate of 40c/kWh would best reflect the benefits of having some 5GW or more of solar PV in Australia – an amount that Australia is expected to reach within a few years, and then likely double or triple. At that point, the value of solar PV will become a huge and important debating and economic point.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

  1. Tim 7 years ago

    Is it possible for a company or co-operative to “group-buy” solar power from a number of residential properties and sell it into the National Electricity Market to get the best wholesale price?

  2. colin 7 years ago

    Only the appropriate legal actions will resolve this situation. Essentially the price for electricity is being dictated through the monopolised use of poles and wires. It is a bit like being forced to sell your roadside stall potatos to the Coles down the road via the introduction of road rules by the monopoly which owns the road. You should be free to sell your PV produced electricity to anybody who uses the grid at whatever price you can negotiate (just like the potatos). Or just buy a 30 dollar meter and run a lead to your neighbour’s house. Why should some wholesaler/retailer cartel pay you 8C and charge your neightbour 22C for the same KWHR?

  3. Howard Patrick 7 years ago

    Giles; you have been around the traps for a long and I am sure have many good contacts in your network.

    What might be appropriate is for the ACCC to be brought into the equation. Paying a producer of electricity 8 cents for a Kwh and then selling it for 30 plus cents is, for many reasons, a ridiculous situation.

    Hardly competitive.

  4. Mike 7 years ago

    Feed in tariffs have done their job to make solar cost competitive. Now a $2000 system can produce 4 kwh a day ( at 8c a kwh that is around 6% return. At average daily domestic electricity prices of around 20c that is a 15% return. There is no need for a subsidy. Feed in tariffs actually make the next big challenge more difficult.

    I am talking about the success of super salesman Mark Taylor (air conditioning) and the way he has successfully engineered the peak demand problem. Peak demand occurs in the main after solar output falls off so the problem will never be resolved by feed in tariffs. Clearly the way to address peak demand is to subsidise storage system development and for demand metering.

    It is time to move on from feed in tariffs and let the solar industry do its bit for the new challenge.

  5. Max 7 years ago

    What seems to have been largely missed (although not be Renew)in most reports of this tariff cut is the increase in eligible system size to 100kW. I can only conclude this change is designed to encourage commercial customers to invest in solar. We are expecting a similar introduction of a Renewable Energy Buyback Scheme (REBS) for PV systems up to 1MW in WA soonish (keep an eye on the ERA website tomorrow for their findings on AA3). As most of us know PV energy production perfectly matches the demand cycle of most commercial operations, so even though it is sad to see so many in the solar industry suffering, for someone like me who works for a solar company specialising in commercial and utility scale systems these changes are gold. We have broken the technology barrier – quality and efficiency of PV modules and inverters is excellent, we have broken the financial barrier – even without subsidies (eg STC and FiT) we can comfortably achieve sub-5 (or 4 or 3) year break even points not to mention the plethora of financing and leasing packages out there, now the regulatory and policy barriers for commercial solar are being broken (not to pre-empt the ERA), so the only barrier is information – not enough people or businesses understand that solar is far more suited to a commercial rooftop than a house. They don’t look at their bill and see they are paying $0.42/kWh Peak and realise Peak is when the sun is shining – talk about parity at the socket! Who needs a FiT?? It would be great to see more articles about policy and regulatory changes that have been made and are on the horizon that will benefit commercial and utility scale solar. This market is virtually untapped and ready to explode.

  6. Rob hunter 7 years ago

    Don’t worry, as soon as its easy to go off grid, lots of people will be telling the utilities what they can do with their 7 cents and their poles and wires. Personally I can’t wait for the day when I can say, “Go ahead, disconnect me!”
    Whats missing is a storage system thats efficient, economical and suitable for homes and businesses. I’m hoping its just a matter of time. Whoever delivers it will make a squillion.

    • DM 7 years ago

      Not so fast Rob.

      Going off the grid is not as easy or cheap as you might think. To compensate for times when the sun isn’t shining, the off-grid system has to be larger (more panels) than the grid-connected system. Not so much a problem is sunny QLD, but in other places. You also need an expensive battery bank that needs maintenance. On top of that the dwelling has to be very energy efficient for off-grid to be an economic option.

      That doesn’t sound like the average (inefficient) Australian household that cherishes convenience over all to me …

  7. Gary 7 years ago

    I don’t understand – why can’t people just use the electricity generated by their panels instead of selling it to the grid and then buying it back?

    • Dave 7 years ago

      Good question. Up to the amount you are using at any moment, you DO use the electricity generated. BUT, since there is no on-site storage facility in a grid connected system, any amount being generated in excess of current usage goes into the grid thru a bi-directional meter to offset your own later needs (like after the sun has set and your refrigerator still needs to run).

      In the U.S. things are similar, though not identical. The compensation is set, not by the state but by the need of the local utility to meet state-mandated minimum renewable energy sourced production levels. Those utilities having a harder time meeting the goals (usually about 15% of total production), pay more to encourage more installations. Those getting close to goal pay less. My rooftop 8.8KW PV system was leased at a local install rebate level of $.55 per KW of system capacity installed but before it was installed that had dropped to $.50. On the other hand, the offset for excess Kwh produced is 1:1 against my usage — for every Kwh banked in the grid through the meter I offset later use 1:1, no feed in tariff is involved. Only if I feed back MORE than my later use does a compensation similar to feed in tariffs apply to the overage — the utility pays me back at it’s wholesale cost of purchase or production for my net production, rather than at 1:1 vs. retail charges as in the production that is less than or equal to my usage.

      I hope I answered your question.

Comments are closed.

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