Back to top Jump to featured resources
Article filed under Energy, Energy Self-Reliant States

UK Solar Incentive Cuts May Also Distribute Solar Rewards More Widely

| Written by John Farrell | No Comments | Updated on Mar 25, 2011 The content that follows was originally published on the Institute for Local Self-Reliance website at

A proposed revision to the United Kingdom’s feed-in tariff program may have created an uproar, but it may also help spread the economic benefits of solar more widely. 

The proposed changes, announced last week, would reduce solar payments for large solar projects (50 kilowatts and larger) by 50 percent or more, but leave payments for smaller projects largely intact.  The following tables illustrate:

Old Tariffs Price paid per kilowatt-hour
£0.41 $0.66 < 4kW retrofit
£0.36 $0.58 4 to 10 kW or <4 kW new build
£0.31 $0.51 10 to 100 kW
£0.29 $0.47 100 kW to 5 MW
New Tariffs Price paid per kilowatt-hour
£0.41 $0.66 < 4kW retrofit
£0.36 $0.58 4 to 10 kW or <4 kW new build
£0.31 $0.51 10 to 50 kW?
£0.19 $0.31 50 to 150 kW
£0.15 $0.24 150 to 250 kW
£0.09 $0.14 250 kW to 5 MW

The new tariffs will help redistribute more of the feed-in tariff (FIT) program revenue to smaller projects.  The most likely manner is simply by giving less money per kilowatt-hour (kWh) to the large projects, leaving more for the small projects.  The following charts will illustrate. 

Let’s assume that under the old FIT scheme, each project size tranche provided 25% of the solar PV projects under the program (see pie chart).

However, since a 2 MW project produces many more kWh than a 3 kW project, the revenues will skew heavily toward the larger projects.  For the sake of simplicity, I assumed that the midpoint of each size tranche was a representative project and that they all produced the same kWh per kilowatt of capacity. 

The revenue distribution can be seen in the second pie chart:

Essentially, all the FIT Program revenue was going to the largest projects.  Even if three-quarters of projects were under 4 kW, they would still only represent 3 percent of program revenue, with 93 percent accruing to the projects over 100 kW.

Under the new FIT scheme, the prices paid to larger solar PV projects are sharply reduced. With projects evenly distributed between the now six size tranches, much less of the program revenue goes to large projects.

The projects under 100 kW have roughly tripled their share, from 3 percent to 10 percent of revenues. 

Of course, the lower prices for large solar projects could have another impact: killing large solar projects completely.  Let’s assume that the new prices for projects over 50 kW (that experienced the steepest revenue decline) are simply too low and that all development ceases. 

The first pie chart shows the project allocation in the FIT program without any projects over 50 kW.  As described, we have an even distribution (# of projects) between the smallest three size categories, and no projects 50 kW or above.

The next chart shows the revenue allocation of the FIT program under this assumption.  Now, nearly 30 percent of program revenue accrues to projects 10 kW and smaller. 

If we assume that instead of an even allocation of projects, we have an even allocation of capacity between the size tranches (e.g. 30 MW, 30 MW, 30 MW), then the revenues would be split evenly between the remaining size categories and two-thirds of the solar FIT program would be flowing to solar projects 10 kW and smaller.

While it’s unlikely that the government plans to eliminate the large solar PV market with its price revisions, the overall effect is likely to be a transfer of program revenues to smaller projects.  The advantage in this strategy is that these revenues will be spread over a much larger number of projects and project owners, creating a larger constituency for supporting solar power and solar power policies.

Tags: / / / / / /

About John Farrell

John Farrell directs the Energy Democracy initiative at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance and he develops tools that allow communities to take charge of their energy future, and pursue the maximum economic benefits of the transition to 100% renewable power. More

Contact John   |   View all articles by John Farrell