<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Feed-in Tariffs or Solar Renewable Energy Credits &#8212; Which are Cheaper?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cleantechnica.com/2011/10/27/feed-in-tariffs-or-solar-renewable-energy-credits-which-are-cheaper/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2011/10/27/feed-in-tariffs-or-solar-renewable-energy-credits-which-are-cheaper/</link>
	<description>Clean Tech News &#38; Views: Solar Energy News. Wind Energy News. EV News. &#38; More.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2014 17:59:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clean Tech News Briefs November 1, 2011 &#124; EarthTechling</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2011/10/27/feed-in-tariffs-or-solar-renewable-energy-credits-which-are-cheaper/#comment-106592</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Clean Tech News Briefs November 1, 2011 &#124; EarthTechling]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Nov 2011 15:01:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=31754#comment-106592</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] five potential project sites. They also talk about the progress of geothermal energy in California.Weighing solar options. At CleanTechnica, the costs of feed-in tariffs are weighed against solar renewable energy credits [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] five potential project sites. They also talk about the progress of geothermal energy in California.Weighing solar options. At CleanTechnica, the costs of feed-in tariffs are weighed against solar renewable energy credits [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brad Bowery</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2011/10/27/feed-in-tariffs-or-solar-renewable-energy-credits-which-are-cheaper/#comment-106697</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brad Bowery]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2011 20:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=31754#comment-106697</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The NJ SREC vs Feed-in Tariff (FiT) comparison in the second graph is very misleading. The NJ SREC data used by ISLR trends upward because he uses the weighted average price reported when the SRECs are transfered. This data does not show accurate prices because it does not account for when a contract was signed. 

In 2009, the solar alternative compliance payment (SACP or ceiling price) was increased from $300 to $711 - leading to an immediate jump in market pricing. Over the past few years, the weighted average SREC price used by the author has been skewed downwards by contracts signed when the SACP was $300 (for example, a 5-year contract signed at $100 in 2008 is still transferring SRECs at $100 and being reflected in the data). As those contracts have rolled off, the weighted average price has gradually increased. Therefore, it is an inaccurate representation of what has happened in the market, where prices rose to $680 (spot) and $500 (forward) in 2009 and have since declined to $220 (spot) and $150 (forward). 

Furthermore, NJ SREC prices over the past 3 years have not been set by the market, they have been set by the SACP. This is because in each of those years, New Jersey fell significantly short of the state&#039;s RPS solar carve-out. In 2012 and 2013, there will be an oversupply of SRECs and pricing will be set by the market. We have already seen the beginning of a correction as prices have dropped from $640 to an extreme low of $140 in a short period of time. Since then, prices have risen back up to the low- to mid-$200s. We suspect that it may continue to correct upwards before settling into a true &quot;market&quot; price in the short-term. However, in the long-run, given the declining cost of installing solar, the SREC market will do what it is intended to do and phase out as SREC prices trend to zero. That long-term sustainability is precisely why SREC programs have proliferated while FiTs are going through a re-branding as &quot;Clean Contracts&quot;.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The NJ SREC vs Feed-in Tariff (FiT) comparison in the second graph is very misleading. The NJ SREC data used by ISLR trends upward because he uses the weighted average price reported when the SRECs are transfered. This data does not show accurate prices because it does not account for when a contract was signed. </p>
<p>In 2009, the solar alternative compliance payment (SACP or ceiling price) was increased from $300 to $711 &#8211; leading to an immediate jump in market pricing. Over the past few years, the weighted average SREC price used by the author has been skewed downwards by contracts signed when the SACP was $300 (for example, a 5-year contract signed at $100 in 2008 is still transferring SRECs at $100 and being reflected in the data). As those contracts have rolled off, the weighted average price has gradually increased. Therefore, it is an inaccurate representation of what has happened in the market, where prices rose to $680 (spot) and $500 (forward) in 2009 and have since declined to $220 (spot) and $150 (forward). </p>
<p>Furthermore, NJ SREC prices over the past 3 years have not been set by the market, they have been set by the SACP. This is because in each of those years, New Jersey fell significantly short of the state&#8217;s RPS solar carve-out. In 2012 and 2013, there will be an oversupply of SRECs and pricing will be set by the market. We have already seen the beginning of a correction as prices have dropped from $640 to an extreme low of $140 in a short period of time. Since then, prices have risen back up to the low- to mid-$200s. We suspect that it may continue to correct upwards before settling into a true &#8220;market&#8221; price in the short-term. However, in the long-run, given the declining cost of installing solar, the SREC market will do what it is intended to do and phase out as SREC prices trend to zero. That long-term sustainability is precisely why SREC programs have proliferated while FiTs are going through a re-branding as &#8220;Clean Contracts&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
