LO LOW AN AND MIDDL DDLE INCOME OME ROOF OFTOP TOP SOLA - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
LO LOW AN AND MIDDL DDLE INCOME OME ROOF OFTOP TOP SOLA LAR PV AP APPROA ROACHES CHES IN SOUTH TH AF AFRICA CA Sli lide de de deck su summary mary and recommenda ommendations tions 29 9 January nuary 2018
29 9 January nuary 2018
2
: Identify and pilot promising policy and technology approaches to make rooftop PV accessible to more
the South African population
suitable approaches for deployment
solar PV initiatives targeting low- and middle-income households
with stakeholders
potential strategic partners
an implementation plan
3
4
1.
ider
pport rtunitie nities for green eenfie field ld an and brownfield field pr proje jects ts 2.
aw
local al an and intern ernati tional al exper erience ience 3.
arget et low- an and middle le-in income come HHs Hs with existing isting connecti ction to the he gri rid
▪ Focus
initiatives that provide economic benefits to HHs, rather than a mere improved access to electricity
4.
ider mar arket ket-dri riven ven ap approac aches hes:
▪ Promote
▪ Systems needs to be paid
by HHs
way
another
a giveaway ▪ Maintenance costs to be paid by HHs
5.
ake cognisan isance ce
af affordab ability ility level els
t tar argeted eted HHs
5
6
7
8
Low income market will not scale
develop under the same incentives structures designed for the middle to high-income market Targeted, intentional incentives required Innovative approaches need to be designed Accessibility and affordability
energy cost savings
support
Community engagement
communities at the center
with local
Consumer protection
from predatory lending/exploitation for financial gain
Sustainability and flexibility
long-term market development
flexible to accommodate changes in conditions an circumstances
time
Compatibility and integration
not undermine existing RE and EE programmes
and be integrated with existing programmes targeting low-income HH
KEY SUCCESS CCESS FACTORS CTORS
9
Tunisia’s
Bill Financing ncing Programme mme China’s Solar Energy for Poverty rty Alleviati tion
Programme mme (SEP EPAP AP) India’s Rent- a-Roof
Programm mme Mexico’s Subsidised Solar ar Rooft ftop
PV Syst stem em RISE initi tiati tive ve SASH/MAS /MASH programme mme
10
Tunisia’s
Bill Financing ncing Programme mme China’s Solar Energy for Povert rty Alleviati tion
Programme mme (SEP EPAP AP) India’s Rent-a-Roof Roof Programme mme Mexico’s Subsidised Solar ar Rooft ftop
PV Syst stem em
Purpose/ se/
ective ive
the initiati tive ve
access to more affordable electricity
subsidy burden born by the national distributor
improve energy security in Tunisia (demand > supply)
Impleme menti ting ng agent nt
Tunisian government via The National Agency for Energy Management (ANME)
Target group up
Low income, underserved, residential households eligible for 1kWp – 2kWp solar PV systems
Approach ach
installations were funded through credit from a bank and subsidies from the government:
subsidy
the system
loan at low interest rate
seven years
were designed for self-sufficiency; excess electricity was “banked”, i.e. NET METERING
company paid for bi-directional metering installation
installers were responsible for applications
behalf
willing consumers
repayments were guaranteed through payments by distribution company’s billing infrastructure
repayments – lower than electricity bills
Replicab cabili ility ty in SA SA
dependent
subsidy
energy mix to Tunisia and relative cost
electricity – motivation and financial model very different
rollout model (and similar challenges) as with SA SWH subsidy program, though ‘on bill’ important mechanism
MASH programme mme
11
Purpose/ e/
ctive ive
the initiati tive ve
goal
its capital, Gandhinagar a 100% solar powered city
point
solar rooftop public-private partnership project
Impleme menti ting ng agent nt
Target et group up
Approach ach
Public Private Partnership through 25 year-concession
by two project developers
and Azure Power
model (BOO)
500 private residences receive rental income form hosting the panels
systems – 1 kW in size
electricity is sold to the distribution company at Feed-In-Tariff
Replicab cabili ility ty in SA SA
for a low-income households is a concern:
size (India’s system required 240
sq m
rooftop space)
‘s structural integrity
and vandalism
process
Tunisia’s
Bill Financing ncing Programme mme China’s Solar Energy for Povert rty Alleviati tion
Programme mme (SEP EPAP AP) India’s Rent-a-Roof Roof Programme mme Mexico’s Subsidised Solar ar Rooft ftop
PV Syst stem em MASH programme mme
12
Purpose/ se/
ctive ive
the initiati tive ve
alleviate energy poverty in remote areas
China
provide a market for solar PV manufacturers during a slump in demand
Implemen ementi ting ng agent nt
National Energy Administration (NEA) and State Council Leading Group Office
Poverty Alleviation and Development (CPAD)
Target group up
Poor rural communities especially in the less developed region
Western China e.g. the Tibetan Plateau (2 million HHs in 3 5000 villages)
Approach ach
subsidised programme (US$4 billion)
was made available through CSR
companies and two development banks
investigation
local needs
consultation with beneficiaries
planning and no provision for maintenance
to HHs were a fraction to what was planned
Replicab cabili ility ty in SA SA
capital intensive – SA can not afford such programmes
a sustainable solution
benefits to the targeted groups
Tunisia’s
Bill Financing ncing Programme mme China’s Solar Energy for Povert rty Alleviati tion
Programme mme (SEP EPAP AP) India’s Rent-a-Roof Roof Programme mme Mexico’s Subsidised Solar ar Rooft ftop
PV Syst stem em MASH programme mme
13
Purpose/ se/
ective ive
the initiati tive ve
domestic electricity subsidy amongst OECD countries
the subsidies without affecting the living standards
GW
distributed generation through the installation
rooftop solar panels
Impleme menti ting ng agent nt
The Mexican Energy Secretariat (FFE), SENER, supported by the Mexican Climate Initiative (ICM)
Target group up
Approach ach
through loans from DFIs
panels are bought in bulk
auctions to install and maintain systems
for HHs:
PV systems are subsidised
initially (declined to 30% by 2030)
low-interest long-term loan to buy the system
than current electricity bill
electricity back to the grid
longer eligible for government electricity subsidy
– nine years
not paid through subsidies are used to invest in more systems
Replicab cabili ility ty in SA SA
be replicated among low- and middle-income HHs
current subsidisation
low-income HHs
consumption levels among low-income HHs
and regulatory hurdles
risk
Tunisia’s
Bill Financing ncing Programme mme China’s Solar Energy for Povert rty Alleviati tion
Programme mme (SEP EPAP AP) India’s Rent-a-Roof Roof Programme mme Mexico’s Subsidised Solar ar Rooft ftop
PV Syst stem em MASH programme mme
14
Purpose/ se/
ctive ive
the initiati tive ve
provide qualifying single-family homeowners with access to solar technology and reduce their electricity bills
green jobs training, employment, and community engagement
Implemen menti ting ng agent nt
Grid Alternatives (NPO)
Target group up
Approach ach
by the Investor-Owned Utilities
by a passed law, which forces private utilities to allocate certain funds to social programmes (10%)
– US$54 million
the start
2017, 6 402 systems were installed
subsidised 1kW PV systems to “very low-income households” HHI <50% Area Medium Income
(a maximum
20%
the total budget)
subsidized systems (up to 5kW) to low-income households (HHI 50-80 %
AMI)
gaps bridged through personal finance, sponsorships,
donations
Replicab cabili ility ty in SA SA
system will need to be largely fully subsidised considering the affordability levels
the low income HHs
concerns:
and vandalism
process
Tunisia’s
Bill Financing ncing Programme mme China’s Solar Energy for Povert rty Alleviati tion
Programme mme (SEP EPAP AP) India’s Rent-a-Roof Roof Programme mme Mexico’s Subsidised Solar ar Rooft ftop
PV Syst stem em SASH program amme me
15
SunExch nExchang ange initia tiative tive City ty Powe wer PV Mi Mini-grid rid Supp pply ly Augmen entation tion for Grid Constr nstrai aine ned Informal rmal Areas as iShac ack project ject NMB MBM off-grid grid pilot
project ject
16
Purpose/ e/
ctive ive
the initiati tive ve
unlock the scaling potential
crowd-sourcing to fund mid-sized (15-100kWp) grid-tied
Solar PV installations
Impleme menti ting ng agent nt
Private start-up business, led by Abraham Cambridge
Target group up
Schools, villages, businesses,
conservation and tourism initiatives
Approach ach
linking private investors (from R100 and up) with
that need fixed-price long-term electricity supply
purchase solar panels (15-100Wp) and lease them to the end-user
a 20-year period:
rate
return to the lessor and
prices
electricity to end-user (10% savings)
SunExch nExchang ange NMBM off-grid grid pilot
project ject iShac ack project ject City ty Powe wer PV Mini- grid Supp pply ly Augme ment ntati tion
for Grid Const nstrained ained Informal rmal Areas as
17
Purpose/ se/
ective ive
the initiati tive ve
and demonstrate a model for underserviced communities
‘green’ skills and create jobs
Impleme menti ting ng agent nt
The Sustainability Institute Innovation Lab (Pty) Ltd (SIIL)
Target group up
Low-income HHs in large urban and peri-urban informal settlements who are entitled to 50-100kWh
free electricity/month
Approach ach
Solar Home System
settlement in Stellenbosch
– 50-70Wp system
:
for a system voluntary
pay a joining fee and a deposit
covers
costs through FBE (equivalent to 100kWh)
pilot is underway (transitional stage)
Replicab cabili ility ty
SunExch nExchang ange NMBM off-grid grid pilot
project ject iShac ack project ject City ty Powe wer PV Mini- grid Supp pply ly Augme ment ntati tion
for Grid Const nstrained ained Informal rmal Areas as
18
Purpose/ se/
ctive ive
the initiati tive ve
the energy needs
informal settlements with no grid connection
Impleme menti ting ng agent nt
NMBM Electricity Department
Target group up
2 700 unelectrified HHs in informal settlements far from the grid
Approach ach
– 100Wp PV panel, battery, charge controller, lights & socket (all DC system)
~R9500 per household
initially from DoE grant funding.
for more funds, and the DoE has directed
the Stand-Alone PV concession holders to install in NMBMM urban areas
support during usage – for maintenance and replacement
parts
SunExch nExchang ange NMBM off-grid grid pilot
project ject iShac ack project ject City ty Powe wer PV Mini- grid Supp pply ly Augme ment ntati tion
for Grid Const nstrained ained Informal rmal Areas as
19
SunExch nExchang ange NMBM off-grid grid pilot
project ject iShac ack project ject City ty Powe wer PV Mini- Grid Supp pply ly Augme ment ntati tion
for Grid Const nstrained ained Informal rmal Areas as
Purpose/ se/
ective ive
the initiati tive ve
supply grid constrained informal communities with additional power from a PV mini-grid with storage
Impleme menti ting ng agent nt
City Power (Utility of City of Johannesburg)
Target group up
Highly grid constrained informal communities supplied by 1MVA distribution transformer
(7306 dwellings) and Lawley Station (2100 dwellings) informal settlements
Approach ach
funded by the City Power
119 clusters have been installed
cluster – 6 houses (recipients
FBE)
kWp PV mini-grid with battery storage
municipality
and maintain the systems
challenges:
and willingness to pay
with LPG (not yet implemented
cooking)
“limited power” by community
circuits
burden
1.
ject ct Sunshine shine (Diep ieplsot lsot) 2.
Energy gy
rid pilot in Jab abula la, , Phill llip ippi pi, Cap ape Town 3.
Thekwini kwini solar ar rooftop PV initia tiative tive
▪ In partnership with the CISR ▪ Aim – capacitate the municipality to prepare for higher uptake
PV under controlled environment
4.
eenCape nCape
▪ Initial pilot
unelectrified HHs ▪ System: ~180Wp solar PV and few kgs of LPG ▪ Financial mechanisms:
– Property Assessed Clean Energy – Pay as You Save
▪ Role – project management
20
1. 1. Initi tiati tives ves/case /case studi udies differ er significa ficant ntly: ly:
▪ Targeted groups (individuals, home groups, public buildings) ▪ Approaches
2. 2. Two commonaliti mmonalities: es:
▪ Poor/low income households ▪ Partially
fully subsidised initiatives (with
exception)
3. 3. The comp mpos
ition an and
jective ives ar are d driven en by:
▪ Domestic/local policy (i.e. RE uptake) ▪ Domestic economic situation (electricity shortage, rising costs
electricity, sluggish demand for PV panels)
4. 4. Key funding ding source ces: s:
▪ Repurposed electricity subsidies
– To finance discounts
solar PV systems to make them more affordable/increase ROI
▪ Green bank ▪ On-bill/recovery financing
21
1. 1. Dominant minant focus us
low-income income unelectri ectrifi fied ed househo seholds ds
▪ Expensive to connect to the grid – offers cheaper alternative ▪ In line with government
▪ Easier to
funding
2. 2. Two maj ajor
fundi nding ng sources: ces:
▪ Partially
fully subsidised initiatives ▪ Crowd funding
3. 3. The comp mpos
ition an and
jective ives ar are n not
inte tegrate ted into an any broad ader initia tiative tive tar argeti eting ng low-inc ncome
househol useholds ds 4. 4. Implemen ementing ting ag agents ts comp mprise se
▪ NGO’s and philanthropic
▪ Municipalities and local government agencies
22
23
24
awing ing
e exist xisting ing feasib asibilit ility as assessments essments (limited mited)
ar are the conditio tions ns under which ch the here is a finan ancial cial cas ase? e?
households
are the financing
municipalities
the here a s social ial an and economic
cas ase? e?
ere ar are the ar areas as
rtunit ity? y?
25
26
…so what savings/subsidy (if any) could the municipality direct to PV system cost sts? s?
Reduced sales (loss) PV export compensation (loss) Reduced bulk (Megaflex) purchase (gain) Resale of PV export (gain)
27
Reduced purchases (gain) PV export compensation (gain)
…so what savings could be used for PV system loan repayment?
28
…where is the cost
megaf aflex ex higher er than the cost st
stor
age? e?
29
Averag age load ad profi files les (above) don’t reflect the PV export
situa uati tion
ad adequately tely
tter to use ‘typical’ profile for a househo sehold
30
CURRENT SUBSIDIES FOR LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
Graph Source: Briefing Paper 3 - Implications of electricity demand and supply dynamics for South Africa’s cities (Eberhard et al 2015)
31 Net profits (provide cross subsidies to low consumers) Net losses (cross subsidised from higher consumers) Costs (los
ses) s) made up
tly grid
tion & maint, billing & admin in ~R500/mth th (doesn’t chang ange with PV insta talla lation tion)
cost sts (loss sses at winter ter peak times largely) ely)
ts (~R50/mth th)
32
33 84c R2.59 58c 78c 37c 43c
34
Tshwane hwane Municipa icipal Tar ariffs: ffs: YEAR 2017/2018 (excl. VAT) Range Threshold Unit cost kWh kWh cents 1-100 100 132.7 101-400 400 155.3 401-650 650 169.2 >650 182.4 Tshwane hwane Municipa icipal Feed-in in-Tarif iffs fs Fixed Rate 150 R/month Expor
Tar ariff Flat
10 cents/unit
Time Of Use n/a Inclined Block Tariff n/a
low
Dem eman and Profile les
35
550kWh/
mont nth
350kWh
/mon
th
Because
low self consumption levels, viability very dependant
export tariff
36
VARIABLES/ASSUMPTIONS
ADJUSTABLE
PV installation size (Wp):
2,000
Installed cost of PV (R/Wp)
R20
Average monthly HH use (kWh)
350
Time-controlled Water Heating?
n
With Centralised Storage?
n
Cost of Storage (cents/kWh) 2017
154
Municipal Savings per kVA avoided during peak
R20
Eskom & Munic Annual Tarrif Escalation (above CPI)
4.0%
Cost of Capital (above CPI)
3.0%
Capital Repayment Term (yrs)
15
Annual PV Degradation Rate
0.7%
PV Hardware Maintenance Insurance/month
R55
Installation Size: 2.0kWp
Household Consumption Pool Pump? (timed for mid-day) with/without timed mid-day water heating Eskom & Munic annual escalations (above CPI) Capital recovery period (years) Cost of Capital (above CPI) FIT/unit (flat rate) SSEG Fixed charge Cost of Municipal Storage/kWh
RESULTS
Self consumption (% of monthly consumption) Surplus (% of monthly consumption)
Rands % Rands % Rands % Rands % Rands % Rands %
CAPITAL REQUIRED
R40,000 R40,000 R40,000 R40,000 R40,000 R40,000
Maximum HOUSEHOLD contribution (NPV of savings)
R31,914 80% R11,086 28% R18,625 47% R49,917 125% R46,436 116% R31,914 80%
Maximum MUNICIPALITY contribution (NPV of gains)
R1,297 3% R22,125 55% R12,954 32%
R7,201 18% Shortfall
R5,925 15%
NO
VARIABLES
20% 20% 20% 20%
3% 3% 3% 3% Mid-Income 550kWh/month 4% 15 3% 69 without R229
No storage
69c without 4% 15 69 R150
R1.54
NO without R150
No storage
NO without 4% 20
20% 20%
NO 4% 15 69 R150
No storage
NO without 4% 15 10c R150
No storage
NO without 4% 15 3% 120c R150
No storage 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33%
37 Subsidies needed
(yellow cells show key variables changed)
Installation Size: 2.0kWp
Household Consumption Pool Pump? (timed for mid-day) with/without timed mid-day water heating Eskom & Munic annual escalations (above CPI) Capital recovery period (years) Cost of Capital (above CPI) FIT/unit (flat rate) SSEG Fixed charge Cost of Municipal Storage/kWh
RESULTS
Self consumption (% of monthly consumption) Surplus (% of monthly consumption)
Rands % Rands % Rands % Rands % Rands % Rands %
CAPITAL REQUIRED
R40,000 R40,000 R40,000 R40,000 R40,000 R40,000
Maximum HOUSEHOLD contribution (NPV of savings)
R31,914 80% R11,086 28% R18,625 47% R49,917 125% R46,436 116% R31,914 80%
Maximum MUNICIPALITY contribution (NPV of gains)
R1,297 3% R22,125 55% R12,954 32%
R7,201 18% Shortfall
R5,925 15%
NO
VARIABLES
20% 20% 20% 20%
3% 3% 3% 3% Mid-Income 550kWh/month 4% 15 3% 69 without R229
No storage
69c without 4% 15 69 R150
R1.54
NO without R150
No storage
NO without 4% 20
20% 20%
NO 4% 15 69 R150
No storage
NO without 4% 15 10c R150
No storage
NO without 4% 15 3% 120c R150
No storage 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33%
(yellow cells show key variables changed)
38 Subsidies needed
Installation Size: 2.0kWp
Household Consumption Pool Pump? (timed for mid-day) with/without timed mid-day water heating Eskom & Munic annual escalations (above CPI) Capital recovery period (years) Cost of Capital (above CPI) FIT/unit (flat rate) SSEG Fixed charge Cost of Municipal Storage/kWh
RESULTS
Self consumption (% of monthly consumption) Surplus (% of monthly consumption)
Rands % Rands % Rands % Rands % Rands % Rands %
CAPITAL REQUIRED
R40,000 R40,000 R40,000 R40,000 R40,000 R40,000
Maximum HOUSEHOLD contribution (NPV of savings)
R31,914 80% R11,086 28% R18,625 47% R49,917 125% R46,436 116% R31,914 80%
Maximum MUNICIPALITY contribution (NPV of gains)
R1,297 3% R22,125 55% R12,954 32%
R7,201 18% Shortfall
R5,925 15%
NO
VARIABLES
20% 20% 20% 20%
3% 3% 3% 3% Mid-Income 550kWh/month 4% 15 3% 69 without R229
No storage
69c without 4% 15 69 R150
R1.54
NO without R150
No storage
NO without 4% 20
20% 20%
NO 4% 15 69 R150
No storage
NO without 4% 15 10c R150
No storage
NO without 4% 15 3% 120c R150
No storage 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33%
39 Attractive tariff to incentivise households (munic loss)
Installation Size: 2.0kWp
Household Consumption Pool Pump? (timed for mid-day) with/without timed mid-day water heating Eskom & Munic annual escalations (above CPI) Capital recovery period (years) Cost of Capital (above CPI) FIT/unit (flat rate) SSEG Fixed charge Cost of Municipal Storage/kWh
RESULTS
Self consumption (% of monthly consumption) Surplus (% of monthly consumption)
Rands % Rands % Rands % Rands % Rands % Rands %
CAPITAL REQUIRED
R40,000 R40,000 R40,000 R40,000 R40,000 R40,000
Maximum HOUSEHOLD contribution (NPV of savings)
R31,914 80% R11,086 28% R18,625 47% R49,917 125% R46,436 116% R31,914 80%
Maximum MUNICIPALITY contribution (NPV of gains)
R1,297 3% R22,125 55% R12,954 32%
R7,201 18% Shortfall
R5,925 15%
NO
VARIABLES
20% 20% 20% 20%
3% 3% 3% 3% Mid-Income 550kWh/month 4% 15 3% 69 without R229
No storage
69c without 4% 15 69 R150
R1.54
NO without R150
No storage
NO without 4% 20
20% 20%
NO 4% 15 69 R150
No storage
NO without 4% 15 10c R150
No storage
NO without 4% 15 3% 120c R150
No storage 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33%
40 Longer loan period benefits household Storage improves the case for the municipality
Installation Size: 2.0kWp
Household Consumption Pool Pump? (timed for mid-day) with/without timed mid-day water heating Eskom & Munic annual escalations (above CPI) Capital recovery period (years) Cost of Capital (above CPI) FIT/unit (flat rate) SSEG Fixed charge Cost of Municipal Storage/kWh
RESULTS
Self consumption (% of monthly consumption) Surplus (% of monthly consumption)
Rands % Rands % Rands % Rands %
CAPITAL REQUIRED
R40,000 R40,000 R40,000 R70,000 R70,000
Maximum HOUSEHOLD contribution (NPV of savings)
R30,023 75% R22,906 57% R48,138 125% R54,339 78% R79,571 114%
Maximum MUNICIPALITY contribution (NPV of gains)
R2,843 7% R15,407 39%
R6,777 10%
Shortfall
23% 61%
3% 15 NO without 4% 15 3%
VARIABLES
33% 23% 26%
R150
R1.54
69 R150
No storage 26%
69 3% 3% NO without 4% without 4% 15 3% NO with 4% 15 69 R150
No storage
3.5kWp
Low-Mid Income 350kWh/month NO without 4% 15 NO 69c
No storage
69
No storage 51% 61% 121% 121%
41
Subsidies needed
Installation Size: 2.0kWp
Household Consumption Pool Pump? (timed for mid-day) with/without timed mid-day water heating Eskom & Munic annual escalations (above CPI) Capital recovery period (years) Cost of Capital (above CPI) FIT/unit (flat rate) SSEG Fixed charge Cost of Municipal Storage/kWh
RESULTS
Self consumption (% of monthly consumption) Surplus (% of monthly consumption)
Rands % Rands % Rands % Rands %
CAPITAL REQUIRED
R40,000 R40,000 R40,000 R70,000 R70,000
Maximum HOUSEHOLD contribution (NPV of savings)
R30,023 75% R22,906 57% R48,138 125% R54,339 78% R79,571 114%
Maximum MUNICIPALITY contribution (NPV of gains)
R2,843 7% R15,407 39%
R6,777 10%
Shortfall
23% 61%
3% 15 NO without 4% 15 3%
VARIABLES
33% 23% 26%
R150
R1.54
69 R150
No storage 26%
69 3% 3% NO without 4% without 4% 15 3% NO with 4% 15 69 R150
No storage
3.5kWp
Low-Mid Income 350kWh/month NO without 4% 15 NO 69c
No storage
69
No storage 51% 61% 121% 121%
42
Storage improves the case for the municipality
Installation Size: 2.0kWp
Household Consumption Pool Pump? (timed for mid-day) with/without timed mid-day water heating Eskom & Munic annual escalations (above CPI) Capital recovery period (years) Cost of Capital (above CPI) FIT/unit (flat rate) SSEG Fixed charge Cost of Municipal Storage/kWh
RESULTS
Self consumption (% of monthly consumption) Surplus (% of monthly consumption)
Rands % Rands % Rands % Rands %
CAPITAL REQUIRED
R40,000 R40,000 R40,000 R70,000 R70,000
Maximum HOUSEHOLD contribution (NPV of savings)
R30,023 75% R22,906 57% R48,138 125% R54,339 78% R79,571 114%
Maximum MUNICIPALITY contribution (NPV of gains)
R2,843 7% R15,407 39%
R6,777 10%
Shortfall
23% 61%
3% 15 NO without 4% 15 3%
VARIABLES
33% 23% 26%
R150
R1.54
69 R150
No storage 26%
69 3% 3% NO without 4% without 4% 15 3% NO with 4% 15 69 R150
No storage
3.5kWp
Low-Mid Income 350kWh/month NO without 4% 15 NO 69c
No storage
69
No storage 51% 61% 121% 121%
43
No significant benefit for
PV system
▪ Break-even can be achieved if:
– Solar
is high – Favourable long-term financing
are available – Above CPI grid-electricity tariff escalation expected – Ideal roof
▪ HHs would need to benefit financially from the start:
– Savings
HHs’ utility bills should be from Month 1 to get the necessary uptake – Downside: longer repayment period and more expensive financing
44
rd par
1. 1. Setting ing SSEG tariffs ffs can assis sist mun unicipa ipalities ities to a avoid id revenu enue losses ses
▪ Care should be take to determine the tariff – it should not be punitive for low and middle-income HHs
2. 2. Sub ubsidies idies are requi uired ed to m make the price
f feed-in in un units paid by mun unicipa ipalities ities financial ancially attractive ctive for HHs
▪ Municipalities can not pay for feed-in units above the Eskom’s tariffs during
peak hours ▪ Third party subsidies need to be sought, including consideration
climate change and/or industry development indirect benefits to be achieved
3. 3. Target eting ing individua ividual HHs may not be the most cost-ef effectiv fective and equi uitabl able approach
4. 4. Using ng storag age to r reduc uce pur urchases ases from Esko kom dur uring winter ter peak- demand is potential tially attractiv active
▪ Will need to serve a greater community ▪ Will need to address more than avoidance
peak Eskom tariffs
45
46
47
O1: Embedded solar ar PV ‘farms’ and storage installa allation ions in local distrib ributi ution
areas as O2: Solar PV
apart rtment ment blocks ks
–owned PV system installed at local secured electricity depot, with storage
and
by the LM with local community’s shareholding scheme
community
potential Grid constraints reduced; upgrades deferred
installations
customers
Pros Cons
48
O1: Embedded solar ar PV ‘farms’ and storage installa allation ions in local distrib ributi ution
areas as O2: Solar PV
apart rtment ment blocks ks
solar PV SSEG on low- and middle-income apartment blocks in cities
– Social
affordable housing projects – Privately-owned dwellings
national grid prices increase)
for existing buildings)
Pros Cons
49 Opportu rtunity ty Prerequ equisi isite/ te/Condition
/Enabler ler 1 Direct market-driven SSEG implementation in low- to middle-income areas
PV price decrease
SSEG fixed charge 2 Larger solar PV SSEG systems
rooftops
low to middle-income household dwellings
designed tariffs
considerations
and innovative financing schemes 3 Systems with storage in grid-constrained areas
storage costs 4 Solar Pv as a first-phase electrification scheme under national housing policy for “phased in-situ informal settlement upgrading”
installations (400-800Wp)
subsidies for FBE
accompanied with battery storage and a “grid- ready” inverter 5 Greenfield development without access to the grid at the time
development
from developers and potential
50
South African Local Government Association (SALGA), the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA), the Department of Economic Development and Tourism (DEDT), the Department
the National Energy Regulator (NERSA), South African Photovoltaic Industry Association (SAPVIA), Centre for Renewable and Sustainable Energy Studies (CRSES) at Stellenbosch University, the City of Tshwane, Department of Energy (DOE), SA-LED, Africa Business Concept, the Western Cape Government, ABSA, South South North (SSN), and the City of Cape Town
51
52
Christopher Gross
+27 (0) 12 423 7953 christopher.gross@giz.de
Elena Broughton
+27 (0) 12 342 8686 elena@urban-econ.com
Mark Borchers
+27 (0) 21 702 3622 mark@sustainable.org.za
Damian Conway
damian@ishackproject.org .za