CanSIA 2012-Solar Energy within a National Energy Strategy

Panelists:

David Brochu - Vice President Development, North America, Recurrent Energy

F. Michael Cleland - Nexen Executive in Residence, Canada West Fountation

Senator Grant Mitchell - Vice Char, Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, Liberal Senator, Alberta, Senate of Canada

Jon Kieran - Director, Development, EDF, EN Canada Inc.

Christian Vachon - President, Enerconcept Technologies

CanSIA concluded with a panel discussion on the development of a national energy strategy. The panelists consisted of David Brochu of Recurrent Energy, F. Michael Cleland of Nexen, Senator Grant Mitchell, Jon Kieran of EDF EN and Christian Vachon of Enerconcept. All members of the panel had the opportunity to express their opinions on how we need to proceed as a nation towards developing our energy strategy.

Four years ago Canada entered the Kyoto protocol in an effort to curb human-generated green house gas (GHG) emissions. Entering Kyoto was a move in the right direction for Canada, but ultimately we developed an unrealistic plan that we could not uphold. After failing to meet target reductions of GHG’s, Canada withdrew from the Kyoto protocol at the end of 2011. Canada needs to learn from its mistakes and work on developing a national energy strategy that will benefit Canadians.

What would a national energy strategy look like, and how would we get there? We could start by increasing engagement and advocation for development of an energy strategy for Canada. Promotion of open discussion to define what is important to Canadians in a energy strategy needs to occur. Why do we need a national energy strategy?  How much do we focus on making renewables a central part of our energy policy? Should we be putting a price on carbon, and would a carbon tax hurt Canada? How can we focus on the longevity and long term views of an energy strategy for Canada? There are many questions to be answered with no readily apparent solutions.

Where do solar energy and other alternative energy sources fit within Canada’s national energy strategy? Following the success of the feed in tariff (FIT) and micro-FIT programs, Canada has developed FIT 2.0  which will put another 160MW of solar energy online. The arrival of FIT 2.0 was not a surprise, but we will likely be seeing less government subsidy of solar projects. We cannot be reliant on a technology that requires subsidy to be sustainable. Fortunately, we have already seen instances where solar energy can be produced at grid parity. With the dropping prices of solar energy and the ever escalating price of non-renewable energies, it is essential for solar to be a large part of Canada’s energy strategy. With the help of the FIT programs, Canada aims to be recognized as a leader in the installation and manufacturing of solar modules.

Canada needs to sculpt an energy strategy that can drive our economy, promoting growth in an underdeveloped sector. An energy strategy that will advance job growth within Canada, and ultimately will lead to a more sustainable country.

 

-Matthew Schuster

M.ASc

Queens University

Dangerous times ahead for renewable energy in Ontario

The events of the previous month have raised some serious concerns for renewable energy in Ontario and threaten the survival of the province’s flagship clean energy policies: the green energy and economy act and the feed-in tariff (FIT). First, the World Trade Organization (WTO) is set to rule against the domestic content requirements contained in the FIT. Second, the sudden resignation of Premier Dalton McGuinty over the mismanagement of the energy file has sent tremors throughout the province’s energy landscape. Additionally, delays in implementing the new FIT 2.0 framework, continued media assaults on PV and wind, as well as the growing backlash over rising electricity rates are propelling Ontario’s renewable energy strategy into dangerous waters.

On Monday, October 15^th the WTO ruling backing the EU and Japanese challenge against Ontario’s domestic content requirement was leaked [i]. This ruling will have implications for the longevity of the policy framework surrounding PV in Ontario as well as the regional PV industry. If the domestic content rule is struck down (pending a likely appeal), local module and balance-of-system producers will no longer be sheltered from foreign competition originating from low-cost manufacturers in Asia. In essence, this will expose domestic firms to the same market forces that have transformed the global PV industrial landscape over the last year or so. In turn, plant closures, consolidation and job loss are likely on the horizon. With the regional industrial development impetus for policy support removed, how long will the government continue to pay premium FIT rates for foreign-sourced renewable energy developments?

Adding fire to the flame, Premier Dalton McGuinty – a champion of the current green energy strategy – resigned on the same day as the WTO leak in the face of political fallout stemming from the costly cancellation of new natural gas units during the last election[ii]. His resignation reflects the dangers of tampering with the electricity system for political reasons and highlights the lack of a genuine long-term energy plan for the province. McGuinty’s resignation also poses challenges for the future of renewable energy support. With an election likely on the horizon, will the new Premier seek to distance his or herself from increasingly unpopular support for wind and solar? After all, the last election saw rural voters reject Liberal candidates in part due to wind opposition[iii].

Other issues have also plagued renewable energy policy in the province. Delays in implementing changes to the FIT scheme following the scheduled program review have created difficulties for the domestic industry and investors[iv]. A prominent PV firm has even entered into litigation with the province over the revisions[v]. Moreover, the last several months has seen a ratepayer backlash brewing over electricity rate increases and overgenerous incentives for wind and PV[vi]. Despite the fact that nuclear refurbishments and the rollout of natural gas are primarily to blame for rate increases[vii], the media continues to hammer renewables while giving nuclear and natural gas a relatively free ride.

In many ways, this situation was avoidable. An appropriate renewable energy policy framework with reasonable and justifiable incentives for emerging energy technologies would be far more resilient. The market-based policies in California point to the success of reasonable incentive levels. Although more moderate support may lead to fewer near-term job creation opportunities, it creates a more sustainable market, allowing for a greater degree of certainty for industrial actors and investors. Another key lesson that arises from this unfortunate situation is the need for a less politically interventionist approach to energy planning. An approach that is determined through market mechanisms or an expert bureaucracy with proper authority and regulatory oversight would be far more robust. Legitimacy needs to return to renewable energy support and energy planning in the province.

Daniel Rosenbloom

Research Associate in Sustainable Energy Policy

Graduate from the MA program in Public Policy and Administration at Carleton University

---

[i] http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1173543–rising-electricity-prices-have-little-to-do-with-renewable-energy

[ii] http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1271913–premier-dalton-mcguinty-resigns

[iii] http://www.betterfarming.com/online-news/did-wind-turbines-blow-rural-liberal-seats-away-4561

[iv] http://solarindustrymag.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.11382

[v] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/07/14/toronto-solar-power-lawsuit-ontario.html

[vi]http://www.cbj.ca/mobile/business_news/canadian_business_news/ontario_electricity_subsidies_should_be_zapped_study.html

[vii] http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1173543–rising-electricity-prices-have-little-to-do-with-renewable-energy

PV and Bureaucracy: An impossible balancing act?

As discussed in Jonathan Boulanger’s excellent blog post, the Ontario FIT program must learn from Germany’s example set before us and remain vigilant in changing FIT rates. On one hand, FIT rates cannot be too lucrative at the expense of the taxpayer. This was the case for the German market. On the other hand, FIT rates cannot be so stingy as to discourage continual investment in the solar market. This describes the current case in Queensland, Australia as per the recent article in pv magazine: http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/australia–proposed-gross-fits-slammed_100008527/#axzz26pjjGSbz

Like the story of the German solar market, the Australian solar market has seen rapid growth in the last two years. As such, in the interest of the taxpayers, regulators are proposing to reduce FIT rates, as is necessary for sustainable growth. However, the current proposal reduces FIT rates to a point threatening the growth of the solar industry, thus defeating its very own purpose. Under the new proposal, businesses and households with solar arrays would be forced to sell electricity to utility companies at the wholesale price of 0.08 AUD/kWh, while buying electricity from the utilities companies at a retail price as high as 0.35 AUD/kWh. Russell Marsh from the Clean Energy Council creates an analogy which goes like this:

“What the Queensland Competition Authority has proposed is the equivalent of telling people they can’t just use the lemons growing on the lemon tree in their backyard – they have to sell the produce to a wholesaler for next to nothing, and then buy the lemons back at a premium from the supermarket” (Taken from http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/australia–proposed-gross-fits-slammed_100008527/#axzz26pjjGSbz)

This proposal, while avoiding the problem that Germany faced, threatens to kill the growth of the solar industry by significantly reducing the incentive for purchasing solar to near nothing. In this proposal, why have a FIT program at all?

If anything, this case study along with the analysis of the Germany story in the previous blog post  highlights one thing:  the PV industry is at the mercy of bureaucracy. Legislation is perhaps the primary factor determining the sustainable growth of the local PV industry.  Grimly, the margin for error is miniscule. There is huge probability of the local PV landscape swinging from the extremes of either quenching the PV industry growth (current Australia proposal) or realizing enormous PV industry growth at significant expense to the taxpayers (German story). Getting FIT programs right is truly a delicate balancing act.

-Andrew Chia ( PhD in Engineering Physics, Year 4, McMaster University)

How new energy storage and managing solutions will support the expansion of the German PV market

It is bizarre. Germany has an enormous capacity of 27 GW photovoltaic power installed right now. On May 25^th, a record of 22 GW peak output was achieved which equals the production of about 20 nuclear power plants around noon time. 189.24 GWh were produced by PV during the day (which would correspond to the energy produced by seven nuclear power plants (each 1.1 GW) in 24 hours). This is the amount of electrical energy generated from more than a million PV solar systems spread all over the country on that record day. That was almost 14% of Friday’s total electricity consumption in Germany¹.

Fig.1 Solar energy production during the “record day” (Source: Green Technica)

Good news, it seems. High PV production at peak times (noon) leads to a drop of electricity prices at the stock exchange (European Energy Exchange EEX) for traders. However, a lot of fed-in solar energy results in an electricity price increase due to the high Feed-in Tariff (FIT). The difference between the FIT and the low electricity prices (as shown in Fig. 2 for that very day) will be allocated mainly among the private consumers.

Fig. 2 Price development for electricity in relation to the solar production during the “record day” (Source: EPEXSPOT, 25th May, 2012)

With a drastic decrease in FIT the German government wants to regulate the development of renewable energy on an economically and ecologically balanced basis. That includes, e.g., a decrease of FIT from 24.43 to 19.50 ct/kWh for PV-plants producing up to 10 kW. Also, only 80% of the produced energy can be sold for this price to enforce self-comsumption². Since the FIT will be decreased even more, or might be abolished altogether, self-consumption becomes more and more cost-efficient. Therefore, photovoltaics need adequate electricity storage solutions and intelligent energy management to be an attractive investment option for house owners. Among the 1909 exhibitors at the Intersolar Munich (www.intersolar.de), held from 11-15^th June 2012, more than 140 international exhibitors presented the latest products and solutions for energy management and storage³. E.g., Solarwatt presented a system where the production of the solar module and the household consumption is recorded by a monitoring device. The system then activates and deactivates household appliances via a wireless interface according to the production of the power plant⁴. But smart energy managers require also smart batteries. Saft and Schüco presented a combined system: The Schüco Energy Manager determines if energy should be stored, used or sold back to the grid. The newly developed, extremely efficient Li-ion batteries from Saft support the highly dynamic charging and discharging characteristic for PV applications⁵.

Hopefully, we will see more development in this field to achieve a convenient, flexible and affordable supply by renewable energy.

Dr. Sandra Schicho, Post-Doc, 2^nd year at Université de Sherbrooke

¹Source: Clean Technica

²Bundesamt fuer Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit www.bmu.de

³http://www.intersolar.de

⁴http://www.solarwatt.de

⁵press release Saft

FIT 2.0: What do the changes mean?

In attempt to give some perspective to industry stakeholders, CanSIA held a webinar titled “microFIT and FIT 2.0: What it really means for Ontario’s Solar Industry”, featuring several expert panelists. Some of the key points from that webinar are discussed below.

There is now a realization that not everybody who applies can receive a FIT contract. The system of “first come first serve” has changed to one where certain projects are given priority. This was most likely introduced for at least a few reasons.  Firstly, more stringent eligibility requirements will reduce the volume of FIT applications. Secondly, it ensures that priority access is given to those projects that are more likely to succeed, ie. those without community or municipal opposition. Lastly, this amendment will alleviate some of the negative criticism, particularly around community opposition to wind turbines that the FIT program has received.

The suggested annual pricing schedule review is likely to be an improvement. It provides industry with definitive dates and timelines and establishes when changes will occur, which is in contrast to the current situation. Furthermore, it allows the FIT program to more accurately reflect changes in the price of modules or system components.

The Deputy Minister has not yet released how the new pricing schedule was calculated and it is viewed as being somewhat harsh on rooftop PV <10kW. Some attendees of the webinar suggested this may have been a political move considering that the Liberal government received continuous negative criticism from the Progressive Conservatives for the 80.2 cents/kWh tariff. This large reduction may also reflect a shift in the priorities of the provincial government towards larger scale projects where electricity can be produced at a lower cost.

The previous application procedure has been acknowledged as inadequate. The adoption of a more streamlined approach which synchronizes application processing times with project size seems to be a positive step forward.

The running theme of the webinar seemed to be that “the devil is in the details” and currently there is much information that has been left out that will need to be clarified in the updated FIT Rules from the OPA. For example, how does one demonstrate community support of a FIT application? What about the issue of connection capacity, ie. how does 10,700 MW break down? What does that mean by way of area? Stakeholders need clarity of information, for example, tables published regarding where there is connection capacity. People should have access to this information before they go to apply. How was the pricing schedule calculated? How will the new point system work? The list goes on.

Looking to the future, the draft OPA FIT Rules should be released shortly and this should clarify much of the ambiguity of the current recommendations. However, the panelists cautioned not to expect new FIT contracts immediately, suggesting that it may not happen until the Fall or perhaps sooner for microFIT and other small-scale projects.

Through all the ambiguity one thing seems clear: while simple enough in concept, the FIT program is an incredibly complex piece of legislation requiring meticulous planning and foresight for an effective execution. It must balance the needs of all stakeholders and do so in the context of a dynamic electricity system with real physical limitations. The fact that the policy is far from perfect has been acknowledged but what must also be acknowledged is the sheer difficulty of designing it. While the FIT program policy is not yet mature, it is in the process of maturing. Hopefully that fact provides some solace to a strained solar industry.

-Erik Janssen

(Engineering Physics, MASc, Year 2 at McMaster University)

FIT 2.0 – What has changed?

The Ontario provincial government launched the ambitious Green Energy and Economy Act (GEA) in 2009 to encourage the adoption of renewable energy into the province’s electricity mix and to create a new sector of “green-collar” jobs. The largest component of the GEA is the Feed-In Tariff program (FIT). It allows any individual or community stakeholder to produce their own renewable energy and sell it to the local utility at a premium rate that is guaranteed for 20 years.

In terms of uptake, the program has generally been viewed as a success, with 2,000 FIT contracts and 12,000 microFIT contracts having been offered, totalling 4,600 MW of renewable energy. Furthermore, the province claims 20,000 jobs have been created since the program’s inception.

However, despite these successes, there currently seems to be a strong undertone of discontent in Ontario’s solar industry. It seems that the program has been on pause over the past several months, with new FIT contract offers being delayed. Furthermore, there are complaints about a lack of clarity from the provincial government on when this situation will be rectified.

Part of this delay is from the FIT program’s 2-year review that has been conducted over the last several months by the Deputy Energy Minister.  After having solicited feedback from various community stakeholders and private industry, the Ministry of Energy has recently finished a list of recommended FIT program policy adjustments to be adopted by the Ontario Power Authority (OPA). The document is publicly available at: http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/docs/en/FIT-Review-Report.pdf.

The FIT upgrade, unofficially dubbed “FIT 2.0,” has several changes but is stated to be a reaffirmation of Ontario’s commitment to clean energy.  Some of the more important changes are listed below:

• The program target of 10,700 MW of non-hydro renewable electricity procured is set to be hit by 2015 where the previous date was 2018.
• Instead of 2-year reviews, there will be an annual review of the pricing schedule in November of each year and changes will come into effect the following January.
• To streamline the FIT contract approval process, three streams, based on the size and impact of the project, are suggested. This will allow MicroFIT projects and small-scale FIT projects to get through the system quicker.
• Renewable energy producers should be given 18 months from the time a contract is offered to get their installation connected to the grid instead of the current three years.
• FIT projects with community, municipal or aboriginal support will be given priority and this will be evaluated using a new points system instead of the old system which was first come first serve.
• Tariffs should be altered according to a new schedule. Suggested reductions are greatest for solar PV. Hydro and bioenergy didn’t change and wind was slightly reduced. The highest tariff for roof-top solar <10 kW was cut from 80.2 cents/kWh to 54.9 cents/kWh, a reduction of 31.5%.
• More stringent land-use and zoning requirements for ground-mounted solar >10kW.
• Strategies for international expansion and export should be developed to ensure long-term industry survival.

The topic of what these changes may actually mean for the solar industry will be discussed in a subsequent post.

-Erik Janssen

(Engineering Physics, MASc, Year 2 at McMaster University)

Double Standard of Subsidies

It is widely understood that the expansion of solar industries depends heavily on government subsidies to offset manufacturing and installation costs. Germany is the perfect example, with a fairly poor solar resource when compared to other countries, and yet it is the world’s strongest solar power economy due solely to its subsidies.

Skeptics will say that solar energy can’t become cost-competitive without government subsidies, a fact which will be hard to deny until economies of scale and technological innovation brings the price of solar energy down. However, those skeptics don’t mention that no energy sector existing today was developed without subsidies – and compared to what is received by the fossil fuel sectors, the public financial support given to solar is meagre. One of the more prevalent arguments against solar is that taxpayer money is being spent on incorporating solar into the electricity grid and that’s not true capitalism, is it?

A report by the Environmental Law Institute which reviewed U.S. government subsidies between 2002 and 2008 found that $72 billion in support was given to the well-established fossil fuel industry, which has been receiving public support for decades, while $29 billion was given to renewables, almost half of which was towards corn-based ethanol production. If solar received the same kind of subsidies as fossil fuels, solar power would actually be cheaper than conventional power.

So the playing field is an upward slope for solar when comparing to other energy sources, but subsidies are causing problems even within the solar industry. China, to be specific, is finding itself in the midst of an impending tariff case due to its own government’s support. Chinese photovoltaics companies have been alleged of “dumping” their solar panels, meaning that because they received such heavy government subsidies they have been able to sell their panels at below-value prices. The result of this case could be that the U.S. International Trade Commission will place import tariffs (of up to 100%) on solar panels imported from China, which would undoubtedly result in a price increase for end-users.

Many U.S. politicians are using Solyndra as their go-to argument for the problems with subsidizing the solar industry. Solyndra received $500 million from the government in 2009, and then filed for bankruptcy in 2011. This was clearly a blow to the industry, and many republicans have been milking Solyndra’s bankruptcy for all it’s worth, but who said that the oil industry wasn’t viable when Enron went bankrupt in 2001? Who said that wall street wasn’t viable when a multitude of investment banks went bankrupt in 2008? And let’s not pretend that those companies didn’t receive significant government support. The solar industry is undergoing a very similar transition to the auto-industry in the early 20th century. In the U.S., there were initially hundreds of auto manufacturers, but by the late 1920′s it was dominated by the big three: GM, Ford, and Chrysler. The other companies didn’t fail because the industry was doomed to fail; the industry simply needed to weed out the weakest competitors, and the strongest companies remained (with plenty of government support along the way).

What it comes down to is our future energy supply. Doesn’t it make more sense to look at subsidizing renewables as an investment in the future? Continuing on our current path, we will be dependent on both foreign oil AND foreign renewables. In order to achieve energy independence, governments need to invest in renewables such as solar while the industry is still young, and hopefully one day the solar industry will be as large and economically powerful as the oil industry is today.

-Justin Sacks

(Engineering Physics, MASc, Year 2 at McMaster University)

Auditor General’s thoughts on clean energy subsidies

The recent release of the Ontario Auditor General’s critique of the province’s renewable energy policy has rekindled a debate that was brought to the forefront of public attention in the most recent provincial election.

Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak, used strong language to illustrate his interpretation of the report’s findings. He claims that the report was a “scathing indictment” of the Feed-In Tariff (FIT) program and that the “… Auditor General rips [it] apart.” Furthermore, he accosts McGuinty for “…basically giving the finger to the auditor general ,” or put more gently, telling the Auditor general to “take a hike,” when he visited a Samsung-related plant a day after the report was released. (Quotes from Toronto Star article “McGuinty shrugs off auditor’s critique of green energy” available at http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1097966–mcguinty-shrugs-off-auditor-s-critique-of-green-energy)

The report is available online at http://www.auditor.on.ca/en/reports_2011_en.htm and there is a seemingly endless chain of criticism within. While Hudak’s combative and polarizing tone is absent from it, in its place is a recognition that Ontario needs “a balanced and responsible plan with respect to renewable energy that provides Ontarians with a clean, reliable, affordable, and sustainable electricity system,” but this is situated alongside a battery of arguments ultimately concluding that the Ministry of Energy has handled things poorly and needs to do much better.

Detailed criticism can be found within the report itself. However, the general message is that the Ontario government has displayed a lack of comprehensive business-case evaluations motivating their policymaking and the consequence of this is that they are spending considerably more money than necessary on their renewable energy initiatives. As taxpaying citizens we should surely be thankful that the office of the Auditor General is there to keep provincial spending in check and they have identified several cases of potential mismanagement that ought to be brought to public attention.

The report attempted a balanced viewpoint by offering the reader responses from both the Ministry of Energy and the OPA. However, through the all the layers of criticism it is easy to lose sight of the fact that ultimately we are faced with two scenarios: (1) Dramatically change the way we produce energy in response to the looming threat of climate change and resource depletion or (2) Business as usual with heavy dependence on unsustainable carbon-producing energy resources.

Ontario has made the bold decision to pursue the first option. As such, the Auditor General explains to us what has been the cost of acting. However, as thoughtful citizens we also must ask ourselves: what if we chose the second option? What would be the cost of not acting? What if we don’t make an aggressive effort to curb our carbon emissions as the planet continues warms? This is the context that is perhaps missing from the report and it is imperative that we also consider this question alongside the Auditor General’s findings.

-Erik Janssen

(Engineering Physics, MASc, Year 2 at McMaster University)

The Ontario FIT is up for review

Ontario’s Feed-In Tariff (FIT) program has been the driving force behind the province’s expanding renewable energy industry for more than two years.  The program is now up for its scheduled two-year review date. This is an important aspect of the FIT because it allows the policy makers to make necessary adjustments to the program as they learn from the successes and failures of the past two-years.

The biannual review also allows for tariff digression, one of the most important aspects of a successful FIT program. The idea motivating tariff digression is that the province is interested in making renewables a competitive economic investment; no more, no less. If it is not competitive then people won’t invest their money. If it is too lucrative then it wastes taxpayer money and it may also endanger the program.

The province is attempting to make the review process as open and transparent as possible and as such, it is welcoming suggestions from the general public. To have your say you can fill out an online survey at http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/en/fit-and-microfit-program/2-year-fit-review/ or you can send an e-mail to 2yearFITreview@ontario.ca. Ensure your submissions arrive before Dec. 14/2011.

It is a good time to reflect back: what are some of the the notable “successes and failures” of the FIT so far? Perhaps the most notable success has been job creation. Recall that the FIT is a part of the Green Energy and Economy Act and its purpose is not only to foster a sustainable energy supply but also to develop new green-collar manufacturing and engineering jobs as well. The liberals claim 20,000 new jobs have been created but the ambiguity over the word “job” makes this figure less meaningful and thus, open to criticism. What do they mean: full-time, part-time, temporary, long-term?

A third-party consulting agency working for Canadian Solar Industries Association (CanSIA) put the job creation in the burgeoning solar photovoltaic industry, only one form of renewable energy subsidized under the FIT program, at 8,200 PYE by the end of 2011. A PYE is a unit used to measure job creation and is equivalent to one person working full-time for one year. This figure seems commendable seeing that solar is planned to be 1.5% of the long-term energy mix where wind and bio-energy make-up the remaining 11.3% of non-hydro renewables. Looking at job creation from a different angle, the report also states that more than two new dozen solar module and inverter manufacturers have set up shop in Ontario since the FIT program’s inception. (See: http://www.cansia.ca/sites/default/files/economic_impacts_of_solar.pdf)

The road to a sustainable energy mix hasn’t been entirely smooth though. Ontario has come under fire from Japan and the European Union for being protectionist and violating international trade laws with the 60% Ontario content requirement for all FIT contracts. This is something yet to be fully battled out.

Another bump in the road concerned the issue of grid-capacity. A number of solar energy installation owners with signed FIT contracts invested the necessary the capital only to find out later that the grid in their area couldn’t handle the extra electricity. Some creative solutions were offered to this problem but capacity may continue to be an issue.

A simpler, more stream-lined, application process for small-scale contracts seems wanting as well.

However, despite the setbacks, the largest hurdle threatening the survival of the FIT has been surmounted already and that was the previous provincial election. For now the program seems well enough on-track and the present review process will likely improve upon it further.

-Erik Janssen

(Engineering Physics, MASc, Year 2 at McMaster University)