The most recent Renewable Energy Country Attractiveness Index put out
by EY highlights the dangers of the UK Government’s current renewable
energy policy. EY published its quarterly Renewable Energy Country Attractiveness Index
(RECAI) this week, which saw a major reshuffling of its top 10 most
attractive countries in terms of their renewable energy potential and
growth.
One of the biggest losers in the RECAI was the United Kingdom,
which dropped out of the top 10 for the first time since the RECAI was
first established in 2003. Specifically, according to EY, “A wave of
policy announcements reducing or removing various forms of support for
renewable energy projects has left investors and consumers baffled.” This, despite concerted efforts on the part of the national renewable
energy industry, experts, and intelligence agencies the world over.
“We concluded in the previous issue
of RECAI that post-election stability provided the new Conservative
government with a unique window of opportunity to reconcile its somewhat
contradictory energy objectives and address the conflict between its
liberalized market rhetoric and policy that is clearly picking winners
and losers, regardless of market signals. Based on developments over the
past quarter, however, it seems the UK Government has decided to pass
on that opportunity.”
Passed on the opportunity is has, as we have seen time and time again over the past few months.
EY highlights the “plethora of policy-related announcements” that it
believes has “sentenced the UK renewables sector to death by a thousand
cuts:”
- support for onshore wind under the Renewables Obligation (RO) scheme is now set to end on 1 April, 2016 — a year earlier than planned.
- a proposal to close the RO for solar projects under 5 MW by 1 April, 2016, a year earlier than scheduled
- a proposal to end the “grandfathering” to the RO for solar projects less than 5 MW
- the proposed removal of pre-accreditation that guarantees a certain Feed-in Tariff level
- Plans to impose an annual spending cap on the country’s Feed-in Tariff scheme
- Energy supplied under renewable source contracts will no longer be exempt from the climate change levy with effect from 1 August, 2015
Road to Grid Parity
Projected overspend of the existing and past government subsidies is
often cited as the reason renewable energy subsidies are being scrapped.
A desire to keep “hard working” Britons from having to pay extra on the
electricity bills and taxes — ignoring for the moment the massive spend
taxpayers are forking out to subsidize the fossil fuel production and
generation industry. As EY notes, “new Energy and Climate Change
Secretary Amber Rudd maintains that the proposals are designed to
minimize consumer energy bills, while simultaneously claiming that
falling costs mean many renewables projects can survive without
subsidies.”
The latter statement, ironically, is not one anyone is
disagreeing with — many within the industry believe that onshore wind
and solar PV are within three to five years of reaching grid parity.
Only this month we’ve seen UK developer PS Renewables claim that they
have reached grid parity on the development of large-scale solar
projects.
However, the sticking point is the impact cutting renewables
subsidies will have on the short-term growth of the industry. EY
believes that “withdrawing support prematurely … arguably risks stalling
or killing projects that would otherwise maintain the momentum to get
the market” to its critical grid-parity moment.
A mixture of already-announced renewable energy subsidy cuts, mixed
messages from those in charge, and rumors surrounding the future of
vital renewable energy subsidy schemes like the Renewables Obligation
and Feed-in Tariff schemes has severely dampened investor confidence in
the UK’s onshore wind and solar industries. In a separate piece of research
conducted by EY for Scottish Renewables and published earlier this
month, the country’s renewable energy trade body, it was discovered that
investors had been put off investing in onshore wind because of
recently-announced and rumored cuts to onshore wind subsidies.
According to Scottish Renewables,
the recent decisions by the UK Government to end financial subsidies to
the UK’s renewable energy industry — including onshore wind development
— is “having a significant impact on investor confidence and their
ability to lend to onshore wind farm developers.”
Is Offshore the Single Silver Lining?
One of the only potential silver linings to come out of EY’s RECAI is
the UK’s continued supremacy at the top of the offshore wind industry.
According to EY, the UK Government “apparently intends to redirect the
money saved by cutting support for onshore wind to less mature
technologies such as offshore wind” — an industry that the UK is already
dominating, ranking 1st in offshore wind in the RECAI for at least the
last two reports. The UK is the world’s largest offshore wind market,
with just over half of all globally installed capacity, and many believe
that the UK can lead the way in reducing offshore wind costs.
But concern remains over the likelihood of investors hanging around
in the UK solely for its offshore wind industry, or whether the existing
uncertainty “will generate sufficient developer and investor
uncertainty to trigger an exodus from the UK market,” having already
prompted Forewind to scrap the 2.3 GW third phase of its huge Dogger Bank offshore wind complex.
EY is right to question the inconsistencies in the current UK system,
and ask whether “the UK renewables sector continue to fight policy
tinkering by a Government with unclear motivations, or is this an
opportunity for it to throw off the shackles of policy dependency and
establish itself at the forefront of unsubsidised renewables in Europe?”
In the end, the UK Government looks to be content in minimizing its
financial involvement in its renewable energy industry, leaving
“throwing off the shackles of policy dependency” as the only legitimate
means of going forward.
http://cleantechnica.com/2015/09/17/uk-government-renewable-energy-policy-leaving-investors-consumers-baffled-ey/
No comments:
Post a Comment