July 13, 2010

Ontario Power Authority

120 Adelaide St. W., Suite 1600

Toronto, ON  M5H 1T1

Attention:       Ground-Mounted Solar PV

Reference:      Response to “microFIT Program Update” Issued 2010-06-02 from OPA

Dear Sir(s) and/or Madam(s):

CREW (Community Renewable Energy Waterloo) is a local non-profit organization dedicated to making renewable energy accessible to the citizens of Waterloo Region. Our vision is to be a network of knowledgeable advocates, early adopters and interested citizens who initiate, resource and support all local projects that encourage energy conservation and sustainable use of energy or materials from naturally regenerating sources, such as wind, solar and earth energy. Started over 6 years ago, CREW remains active in keeping its nearly 1,000 members and the general public aware of the accessible options for renewable energy projects and green building techniques.

On behalf of the Board of Directors and our members, I am writing to you to voice our concern regarding the proposed change in the microFIT tariff pricing from $0.802 to $0.588/kWh for ground-mounted PV projects. Although we can respect the OPA’s expressed concern that the industry has responded well to the $0.802 tariff, and that $0.588 is perhaps a more appropriate tariff for the future, the OPA and broader government made a firm and advance commitment to the industry that this rate would not be changed until the bi-annual review, next scheduled for the end of 2011. Our experience gives us no reason to believe that there is any price advantage to installing PV systems on ground-mount systems over roof mount systems, and in fact, our experience has quite clearly shown that ground mount systems are consistently more expensive, with or without tracking hardware. There is therefore no honest reason to have one tariff for microFIT PV on the roof and another for ground mounted systems. Inventing a new category in the microFIT program at this stage seems rather like an excuse to institute the lower tariff early, which violates the OPA’s commitment to not change the price until the next review, at the end of 2011. This is a tremendously destructive instability to introduce so early in the program’s history.

Worse still, the fact that the proposed rate has been implemented retroactively on nearly 70% of the microFIT applications has shown tremendous bad faith to the industry. CREW enjoys having positive relations with three solar PV manufacturers in the Kitchener-Waterloo area: ARISE, Photowatt, and Canadian Solar, and over a dozen local installers. All have expressed grave concern about the instability this retroactive change has caused in the market, and all have seen negative impact to their business, especially the installers. CREW is most excited about the job creation potential of the microFIT program, but unstable policy like this (a broken commitment to wait plus a fully retroactive change) has done significant damage to our local installers, all of which are small businesses under 10 employees, and have been extending themselves in order to grow aggressively because of their former faith in the program. We are sincerely concerned about how this policy change will impact local installation jobs in our region, and the health of these small companies. The job creation efforts intended to be promoted by the Green Energy and Green Economy Act (GEA) will quickly evaporate if the market does not trust the OPA to keep its commitments, and right now our market is very upset.

1kW of PV is the same to the ratepayer whether it comes from the ground or the roof, and the costs for installation are equivalent. Ratepayers will not even see a cost impact until there are several gigawatts of PV systems installed, and although the current response of 16,000 applicants is strong, it is yet a far cry short of having any material impact on ratepayers. We strongly oppose the OPA’s notion that the two categories of systems warrant different tariff rates for microFIT (<10kW) scale systems. To say ground-mounted systems cost less to install is, in our experience, simply untrue. To change the tariff retroactively is dishonest: the OPA committed to not change the tariffs until the end of 2011, and we expect that commitment to be honoured. Introducing a new tariff category is, regardless of the rationale, equivalent to changing the tariff for all those projects affected by their changed status, and the industry and public in the Region of Waterloo does not accept the rationale that this is a new tariff, or is somehow not a change. If indeed ground-mount microFIT were an appropriate new tariff, then what’s to prevent the OPA from introducing further new tariffs and applying them retroactively to cut rates paid for the remaining program applicants? Retroactive changes are dishonest, and directly impact proponents that have been acting in good faith to build the industry. In this case it is further complicated because there was no advance warning or recourse. It feels rather like salt in a wound now that OPA has further advised that all current applicants will be required to accept the new $0.588/kWh rate before the close of the feedback period, whereafter that rate may yet change again. The public has been told that their feedback is important, but that they must sign and accept this retroactive decision anyway. This makes it very difficult to believe that our feedback is in fact important, and instills tremendous bad faith. This reflects very badly on both the OPA and on the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure and the government directing both.

CREW’s rural members seem to fairly consistently prefer ground-mounted vs. roof mounted projects because they are simpler to install: they may be aligned to the south and installed where they are clear from trees or other shading, and the age and health of the roof are avoided obstacles. This gain in solar access and project simplification seems to consistently outweigh the extra cost to install the extra foundations and hardware required by ground-mounted systems. Our urban members typically have no option other than roof mount. In our experience, there is no cost based argument to justify differentiating ground and roof mount tariffs for microFIT PV, and the implementation of a fictitious difference is being received as favouritism for urban projects. Any change in the tariff for ground-mounted systems should wait until the end of 2011 and then be applied both to ground-mount and roof-mount systems fairly, with appropriate notice and public involvement.

On behalf of the members of CREW, we urge you give serious reconsideration to your proposed decision to change the tariff that applies to ground mounted microFIT PV projects, and to recant the proposed new price category. Any further changes must be properly reviewed prior to implementation, and must wait until the promised review date at the end of 2011.

Sincerely,

George Klemetsch

President

Community Renewable Energy Waterloo

george@crewzone.ca

www.crewzone.ca

cc:        Hon. Brad Duguid, Minister of Energy and Infrastructure, bduguid.mpp@liberal.ola.org
Gerry Martiniuk, MPP, Cambridge, gerry.martiniuk@pc.ola.org
Hon. John Milloy, MPP, Kitchener Centre, jmilloy.mpp@liberal.ola.org
Leeanna Pendergast, MPP, Kitchener-Conestoga, lpendergast.mpp@liberal.ola.org
Elizabeth Whitmer, MPP, Kitchener-Waterloo, elizabeth.witmer@pc.ola.org
Catherine Gerhard, Canada’s Technology Triangle