The Policy:

​

The Golden Sun Program (GSP) was a limited initiative enacted by the Chinese government in 2009 to stimulate the renewable energy sector in both urban and rural areas.  It enabled the federal government to “provide investors with upfront subsidies prior to project construction with the special funds for renewable energy, with the aim to accelerate large-scale industrialization of [photovoltaics] power generation in China” (Wang et al. 2017).  The subsidies would cover up to 50% of project costs, including transmission or distribution lines to connect to the grid. Additionally, up to 70% of costs could be covered for projects in rural areas, such as the Western region. The subsidies will be provided specifically for projects of 300 MW capacity and above which are in service for a minimum of 20 years.  Partnering with manufacturers, such as Suntech Power, Yingli Green Energy, JA Solar, and Trina Solar,  the GSP has enabled individuals, business, and public institutions to lower their dependency on fossil fuels in exchange for solar grids.  

 

What are Photovoltaic Systems:  

​

Photovoltaic (PV) systems, or solar cell systems, generate electricity by using energy from the sun.  The semiconducting materials within PV systems free electrons from their atoms to generate energy, thus creating the “photovoltaic effect” which is the “process of converting light (photons) to electricity (voltage).”  These systems are available for private use in a home, or even for industrial applications. All of the electricity is stored in a grid system that can help transport energy from source to application. See figure 1 below:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

How GSP Came to Be:  

​

Due to its immense solar power potential, China started using solar photovoltaics (PV) power generation in the 1970s, which steadily expanded through the 1990s.  However, incremental success in power diversification was not moving fast enough. To increase solar PV availability and ensure access to power in all regions, the Chinese government started the Township Electrification Program in 2002.  This program resulted in a “rapid increase in the annual output of solar cells” and led to further projects aimed at stimulating the solar PV market (Wang et al. 2017).  The next year and under the auspices of China’s Tenth Five-Year Plan, the Program on Development of Solar Energy Resources in the Next Five Years was developed, which included the Brightness Program “to promote application of solar power generation technologies and achieving an installed capacity of 300 MW in nationwide solar power generation systems by 2005” (Wang et al. 2017; Zhao et al. 2012).  The Renewable Energy Law took effect the following year in 2006, which allowed for a legal basis of PV power generation systems and boosted application throughout the country.  Although the PV industry was mainly driven by the international market, particularly in the European Union, China was able to emerge as the world’s biggest producer of solar cells by 2007.  This initial success, however, was marred by the 2008 global financial crisis and caused China’s PV industry to falter as it was based mainly on the international market. The situation necessitated more of a nationalist approach to keep the PV market within China above water, thus enabling the creation of the GSP.

 

Implementation:  

​

Project investors would submit a plan to the federal government for approval.  Upon approval, about 70% of the total subsidy fund was provided in cash to the investors by the federal government before construction began, while the remaining 30% would be paid after the project was completed.  The Chinese Ministry of Finance, the National Energy Agency, and the Ministry of Science and Technology set the stage at the federal level and then handed over to local departments of finance for implementation and oversight.  See figure 2 below:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

(Wang et al. 2017)

 

Strengths:  

​

When the GSP came to its conclusion in 2012, the Chinese PV industry solidified its role as the largest and most effective in the world.  A total of 5,930 MW was installed to increase capacity which not only increased China’s PV power generation but also increased the quality of management and design of PV systems across the country.  Additionally, it assisted in electrifying rural areas and made PV solar power more affordable overall. The project enjoyed public support, especially in rural areas, as the Chinese government promised more affordable private use of this renewable energy (Wang et al. 2017).

 

Weaknesses:  

​

Initially, there were some concerns about low-quality PV projects, the increasing cost of providing subsidies, and the creation of projects in low-demand areas.  In regards to the first concern, a lack of regulation, coordination, and effective policy design played a factor some of the GSP’s overall deficiencies. Supervision of the GSP projects was left to local authorities which required an enormous amount of time and money, especially into the later years of the program when more projects were underway.  This lack of project management led to investors intentionally delaying construction or buying low-quality equipment and technology to reduce costs, resulting in some underdeveloped and unsustainable projects overall. In addition, the GSP was always meant to be a short-term policy to stimulate the PV solar power market, but these intentional delays and the failure to enact any supporting policies hindered the long-term effectiveness of GSP.  The concern about increasing costs also came to fruition towards the end of the GSP as the changing market and costs made it difficult to have a determined subsidy.  However, the Chinese government adapted in 2011 by amending the GSP to include a fixed tariff.  Likewise, the creation of projects in low-demand areas was an issue at first, but grid-connection improved throughout the country towards the end of the GSP which enabled greater electrification (Wang et al. 2017).

 

Adaptability to the US:  

​

Like China, the United States has abundant solar energy potential.  In fact, a recent study by the US Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy reported that “PV panels on just 0.6% of the nation’s total land area could supply enough electricity to power the entire United States.”  However, the majority of US energy production comes from traditional and harmful sources like petroleum, natural gas, and coal. And although PV solar panels have not yet been utilized to cover transportation consumption, a program like GSP could greatly reduce dependency on these traditional sources by connecting both industrial and residential and commercial sectors to the grid.  

See figure 3 below:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

Since 2010, there has been a huge success in the US in lowering hardware costs up to 60 percent, but there are still some significant barriers in the market and issues with grid connection.  Implementing a market stimulation program like GSP may be able to address a few of these challenges as well as increase affordability across the country. Currently, the US is relying mainly on state-led implementation for PV panels, which concentrates the market within a few progressive and financially stable states.  But a federal program such as the GSP could help correct this imbalance by providing a systematic, nationwide approach. Additionally, the US already has a wide range of subsidy programs, including for farming, oil, ethanol, and housing, so the practice is not unheard of.  While adding yet another subsidy program may be expensive, there may be room to cut money from other projects such as those for oil and natural gas production.

 

Bipartisan Support:  

​

The likelihood of a federal subsidy program for PV solar energy would require bipartisan support, for which I believe I have a case for.  On the one hand, Conservatives may agree to such a program as the GSP is a nationalistic policy that it stimulates domestic markets, empowers energy investors, and increases employment.  On the other, it would require a massive amount of federal funds to ensure its effectiveness. For Liberals, this policy offers an increased renewable energy sector, diversification of the economy, and the streamlining PV solar energy policy at a national level.  The trade-offs include stifling international markets by enacting such an isolationist policy, thus opening up the question as to if policies like the GSP would be more suitable during a global financial crisis. To the detriment to possibly both sides of the political spectrum, this would aggravate the oil and petroleum industry as the energy market becomes more competitive.  This means that politicians who take endorsements or financial backing from such an industry could be at risk of losing re-election. For both parties, however, this domestic boost in the PV market and the subsequent increased employment rate that comes with it could make the US the top producer in PV solar energy as well as boost the economy overall.

​

​

​

​

Introduction:

​

German energy policy has changed drastically, especially within the past few years with the introduction of the ‘Erneuerbareenergiengesetz’ (EEG) which translate to their renewable energy policy, commonly referred to as the ‘Energiewende’.  In finding solutions to the rapidly evolving issue of climate change, it may sometimes be necessary and also advantageous to explore ideas and policy innovations outside one’s own borders. In this vein, I aim to analyze the history, development, ideas, and implementation of the EEG in Europe’s largest and most industrious country. By providing a detailed conclusion of such findings, it is then the aim of this project to discuss ways in which the EEG could be altered or added to in order to make such a policy more palatable in an American framework. Germany is perhaps the best example, in this case, to find energy solutions that would be most applicable to the United States, as Germany demographic and economic size more closely resemble the US than any other European example.

 

German Energy History:

​

Under the leadership of Konrad Adenauer, one of the most important priorities of post-war West Germany was the development of its energy sector. During the early 1950s, there was a big support for domestic sources of energy, mainly supported by hard coal. It wasn’t until after West Germany became a quasi-sovereign state in 1955, did they begin to pursue a nuclear energy policy (Hake et. al 2015). The 70s in West Germany experienced the growth of student movements, whose combined ideologies advocated for social justice, opposed the Vietnam War, and, most importantly for the trajectory of German energy policy, denounced the use of nuclear energy, as we begin to see the development of an environmental awareness (Hake et. al 2015).

​

It is at this point that we see the founding of the Green Party (The Greens), who among other things, begins to coalesce into a political figure, supporting the end of nuclear energy. The early 80s in West Germany become the decade when German nuclear energy faces a crisis. With the election of the Greens into the Bundestag and along with the Chernobyl disaster, German public opinion flips to a 86% support to the phasing out of nuclear energy. The SPD becomes the first mainstream party to change its stance on nuclear energy (Hake et. al 2015). Despite the instability in the price of coal and varied access to oil throughout the 70s, much of the energy debate in Germany was not focused around the idea of fossil fuels. Although environmental degradation started to become clear to some Germans, the link between fossil fuels and climate change was not yet established until the late 1980s. Funding allocation started towards the R&D of alternative energy sources during this period and was also characterized by some failures, such as the GROIWAN wind turbine failure.

​

The 1990s and 2000s become the era of climate change integration into energy policy as more and more international organizations and epistemic communities began sounding alarms about the effect of greenhouse gases on the environment. As consensus grew among the German parties on the threat of climate change, positions on the civilian uses of nuclear energy stayed the same. The Greens and SPD remained against, while the CDU/CSU and FDP argued it to be an effective energy source in combating climate change related emissions (Hake et. al 2015).  In 1998, the shift away from nuclear energy and focus on renewables becomes the new norm. With the 1998 election, the SPD and the Greens take power and negotiate a nuclear phase-out deal. This deal, which went into power in 2002, gave existing nuclear power plants 32 years to phase out. The red-green administration also took initiative in revamping the old renewable energies laws that had existed but failed to work (Hake et. al 2015).

 

The Beginning of the Energiewende:

​

There had been no real traction on the integration of renewable energies into the power grid until 1990. The Act on the Supply of Electricity from Renewable Energy Sources into the Grid signed into law in 1990 mandated grid operators to use third-party renewable energy sources, yet still paid those energy producers below cost market value compared to other energy sources. In other words, renewable energy was gaining traction but not yet enough to be competitive and breakthrough into the market. Further reforms began to make way for renewables into the matrix, which broke up the monopolies on the German energy companies (Hake et. al 2015).  This liberalization of the market meant that competition went up and prices went down, and the weak renewable energy market could not stand on its own. To fix this, the Renewable Energy Act was signed into power in 2000, guaranteeing above the market prices and access to grids for renewable energies, as known as feed-in tariffs. And these margins, who were paid for by the consumers, were profitable to investors.

​

2005 saw the emergence of Merkel and her conservative party CDU/CSU, taking back power. Some had trepidations about the future of climate-conscious energy policy under her leadership, but she, in fact, carried the torch farther than under previous leadership. She was known as the “Climate Chancellor” and dedicated Germany and the EU to ambitious energy efficiency and emissions reduction goals.  In order to support her loftier and loftier goals of German energy transition, Merkel and her coalition of nuclear-friendly parties decided that they needed nuclear to ‘bridge’ the gap into a renewable future and amended the previous phase-out plan to extend the life of nuclear power plants and their energy production caps (Hake et. al 2015).

​

And then Fukushima happened. The already-highly sensitive German public, in regards to nuclear energy, had reached their tipping point after the Fukushima power plant meltdown. The policy window had opened and Merkel was forced to not only retract her extension but to close seven nuclear plants immediately. This posed a challenge for her ambitious energy plans, as nuclear was key to the transition. With the falling shares of nuclear in the energy matrix, renewables began to proliferate at an astounding rate supported by the feed-in tariff (FiT). This tariff was in the beginning marketed as costing the average German household only one extra euro a month; however, by 2013 that number had risen by 20 times that amount (Würzburg et. al 2013). Because it offered guaranteed access and an above market rate for the renewable energies, that market blew up as investment rolled at rates higher than any other European country. As it took a larger share of the matrix, it drove up costs of energy, which the German consumer had to bare. So, in essence, the Energiewende’s FiTs worked too well and caused the German government to reel the program in. Where does that leave the project now?

 

Germany’s age of renewables:

​

The shift that Germany sees in the early 21st century, related to its energy matrix, is massive. With the fall of nuclear and the rise of renewables, Germany has seen renewables grow from 3.1% of the matrix in 1990 to 20.8% in 2011 (Bosman 2012). The aforementioned lofty goals that Germany has committed itself to refer to the Energiekonzept published in September of 2010, which were agreed upon as:

​

• Binding goals for 2050:

  • Cut back CO2-emissions by 80-95% as compared to 1990 levels;

  • 60% of primary energy supply should be renewable; and

  • Energy efficiency should improve by 2% each year.

​

It is also notable that Germany has set intermediate targets as well to make sure it remains on track to achieve its goals by 2050. These goals include a 15% increase in renewable energy share every ten years starting in 2020 (Bosman 2012). Germany intends to meet goals, despite its phasing-out of its nuclear program.

Germany’s renewable market has continued since the early 2010s to increase. It now constitutes the biggest part of the energy matrix and accounts for the highest capacity to produce electricity within the mix.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

​
 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

*Graphics are given credit to data providers shown and Appunn et. al 2019.

 

Policy Analysis:

​

When discussing modern German energy policy, terms like EEG, Energiewende and feed-in tariffs (FiTs) are used sometimes interchangeably but are not quite the same thing, so thus its worth discussing them further. The EEG, which is an acronym that translates to “Renewable Energy Law”, is the official legislative document that was signed into power and mandated the existence of FiTs. Energiewende is the German term associated with Germany’s massive expansion of its renewable energy sector, brought on by the EEG. FiTs are the byproduct of the EEG. They are, therefore, the mechanism that allowed the renewable energy sector to experience the growth in the way that it did. In analyzing this policy innovation, what needs to be done is to analyze the effectiveness and environment of the German FiTs to better understand how they can be adapted and improved upon to fit American frameworks. According to Pyrgou et. al (2016), “FiT is defined as a policy mechanism designed to accelerate investment in RET, by offering long-term contracts to RE producers, typically based on the cost of generation of each technology.” I believe the name is a little misleading, as it better to think of FiTs as subsides rather than tariffs. Under such agreements, investors in renewable energies are assured a set, above market rate for their energy. The guaranteed access coupled with long-term contracts makes these investments more and more attractive. This is considered by many to be an effective way to get renewable energy markets off the ground and going in the fossil fuel dominated markets of most countries. Without these training wheels, investors would not find it lucrative to put money into that market, considering the start-up costs and variability.

​

FiT frameworks do not exist solely in Germany. In 2014, 68 countries worldwide had some sort of FiT program set up; however, Germany has been a trailblazer in the renewable energy market since the begin of the boom and has seen some of the world’s best success in this regard. The aforementioned Act on the Supply of Electricity from Renewable Energy Sources into the Grid of 1990 was one of the world’s first laws that required grid operates integrate renewables into their matrix. Since that time, Germany has been leading the charge in renewable energy. Measuring the success of FiTs, and more generally, the EEG in Germany depends on what constitutes success. In this case, let us assume that success correlates to the degree in which renewable energy sources are developed and integrated into the matrix. Especially considering the supranational pressures of the EU, which require all member states have 20% renewable energy production by 2020, Germany has done very well for itself. Germany had reached a 15% share in 2008 and was ahead of the goal. Research and development of renewable energy technologies have also received great funding, leading to advancements in the field, making it both more effective and less expensive. CO2 Emissions, playing a central role in the climate change debate, experienced a decrease of 57 million tons and, furthermore, the job market has seen a creation of 280,000 new jobs, 60% of which are in the wind turbine sector.

Renewable energy proliferation, technological efficiency, emissions reductions, and new jobs are all reasons to celebrate the successes, as we defined them, of the EEG in Germany. The strongest driving force has been public policy. The German public that has been most successful in that regard has been economic policies that market-focused Keynesian approach. That considerable progress has passed the expectations of many, and it has also lead to the market growing faster than many had predicted.

There are some drawbacks to a system like this. To make it viable, FiTs are set up to boost the profits of renewable energy investors by putting the tariff costs onto the consumer. The cost of electricity increase due to the FiTs, not necessarily because it is a renewable energy. In Germany as this sector grew, it began to take up more and more of the energy matrix, meaning that grid operates were begin forced to use this electricity in the grid. Because they were promised a higher price on their electrical outputs, the customers have paid that cost. In the span of seven years, between 2007 and 2014, taxes and levies on electricity (which composed about half of the bill consumers were paying) increased by 42%.  In this model, the consumer bears the cost of renewable energies.

​

Having one of the highest prices for electricity within Europe presented Germany with a problem. The FiT system was working too well and caused the guaranteed profit of renewables to steadily increase energy cost, as they were guaranteed access into the grid. In 2015 German energy consumer paid 20 billion euros in surcharges and taxes related to FiTs (Amelang 2016). German politicians, aware of the trajectory, proposed amendments in 2014 to the EEG, reducing the amount of the FiTs to help curb its growth into something more manageable. When this was not as effective as they had hoped in helping energy costs go down, a new approach was taken. According to German energy minister Sigmar Gabriel, the renewable energy sector growth in the past years no longer allowed it to qualify for ‘fledgling status’. In other words, the German government’s most recent actions have pointed towards a removal of the FiT system and replacing it with an auction system. In some ways, this would be the natural progression of a policy like this. The aim of FiTs is to incubate the renewable energy market until it is strong enough to withstand the market forces without training wheels. The auction system will work on the premise that the government will select the number of renewable projects it will allow for each type of technology in so-called ‘development corridors’. After they decide how much they want to allow, auctions will take place to find those investors, who can most efficiently produce those these renewable energies at the lowest cost. An auction system was implemented for a number of reasons. This will give the government more control over the speed of development, as Germany is on track to meet its renewable energy goals. It also will give some much needed time in helping German increase energy security by expanding and upgrading its grid. A system like this also brings it in line with its EU agreements. This auction system will keep them on track to meet a 40-45% renewable energy target by 2025.

 

This transition to an auction system has some worried. As Greenpeace energy expert Austrup argues, the current rate of Germany’s renewable transition is not fast enough. At this rate, the fossil fuel share of the energy matrix is going to have to increase to compensate. Other energy experts and environmental advocacy groups also argue that slowing down the renewable energy sectors growth in this regard will make it very hard for Germany to reach its obligations under the Paris Agreement. Energy Minister Gabriel argues in the contrary saying that Germany cannot single-handedly prevent global warming, but instead is taking the necessary steps in doing its part to try to, while in the process showing other developed nations how they, too, can make a transition into the future.

Overall support for the Energiewende in Germany is high. This is due in part to the fact that all major parties before the 2017 election in Germany believed in man-made climate change. Thus an energy transformation was politically viable in a system like that. What may even shock some is that while climate change is reform is generally seen, at least in an American context, as a liberal issue, Germany’s mainstream conservative party, the CDU/CSU, was the party to really take this plan and run with it. The head of that party, Merkel, is known to many as the ‘climate chancellor’. Despite high support, there were still issues with the EEG that required changes to it. Due to EU regulations about free market competition, state aid cannot be given to industries in order to make them more competitive. That is why, under the EEG, consumers, and industry had to bear the rising costs of energy. When those costs continued to rise, the EEG became less and less politically and economically viable.

​

There are some common fears about renewable energies that make consumers and industry worrisome. Even in a progressive, science-based society like Germany, these fears exist. There is a misconception that renewable energies are not reliable. In other words, when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining, we don’t have energy. When you look at a country like Germany, which has made great strides in the renewable energy sector, their energy security is one of the best in Europe. Their combined unplanned downtime, without some major exogenic shock to the grid, was 15 minutes between 2008 and 2014. Only Denmark and Luxembourg beat them all within five minutes of each other, both, who have populations considerably smaller than Germany. On the low of the energy security spectrum, there are some states in Europe with downtimes reaching up to 303 minutes. This, however, is not a perfect system. The fluctuations in available energy have caused more stress upon the grid and grid operators to intervene. These instances are expected to decrease as Germany upgrades its grid to accompanies new sources of energy.

 

Analysis of American renewable energy policy:

​

The success Germany has found is irrefutable. It has, from very early on, been a pioneer in renewable energy integration through FiTs. The reason Germany makes a good model for the effective proliferation and integration of renewable energies for the US is because out of all of the European countries, who are among the world leaders this aspect, Germany the best demographic and economic characteristics that allow for easier transfer of these kinds of policies. Renewable energy integration is not a new concept, nor are FiTs to the US. While there are some FiT programs that have been installed on local or states levels in the US, there is no federal FiT scheme on a level equal with that in Germany. This is reflected in the American energy matrix. The chart below depicts that sources from which American energy was made in 2018:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

As can be seen from the chart, renewable energy only takes up 17.1% of the matrix. This means that there is definite room for improvement. In addition, renewable energies only composed 11% of the energy that was consumed. Hydropower takes up a much larger share of energy production the American market and solar much less so. The lack of substantial progress in this regard is visible the CO2 emissions of the US:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

The overall trend is not very encouraging. Within twenty years, the US has only reduced CO2 emissions in its energy sector by those levels comparable to its 1990 levels. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, while the US did decrease its emissions in 2017 by 0.9%, emissions were still above a 2006-2016 downward trend the sector was experiencing. Overall, the changes in emissions from energy that the US has experienced over the past decade has not really seen any meaningful downward trend, as it remains heavily reliant on fossil fuels for energy. The real measure of the impact that renewable energies is its impact on CO2 emissions. That is the real end goal.

When comparing the energy policy history of both countries, there are stark differences. It was not until the 1990s that energy policies between these two countries diverged dramatically. Until this point, there are, in fact, a lot of similarities between the two. However, 1990 saw the introduction of Germany’s Stromeinspeisegesetz, which required utility providers to use renewable energy and, furthermore, in 2000 with the EEG and its feed-in tariff. The Gulf War was a possible turning point for US energy policy and produced the Energy Policy Act of 1992, but it was not as drastic of a piece of legislation as its German counterparts. The 1990s is the decade of Germany advancing ahead of the US in renewable energy policy.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source for graph

 

One main difference would be the way in which both originally approached climate change. Germany’s main contention around energy was never about climate change, it was nuclear power that defined a lot of their history around energy policy. The US, on the other hand, has had a complicated history with climate change. The Kyoto Protocol, signed in 1997,  was a step in the recognition of the problem, but after its historical fail and the start of the Bush Administration, it was never a serious priority. Soon thereafter, without having another plan to combat climate change causing CO2 emission, the Bush Administration withdrew the US from the Kyoto Protocol. Within the American political system, climate change has been politicized and its existence debated. Progress on the issue has been heavily dependent on the administration and which party was currently in control. The flip-flopping on climate policy has made an American response disjointed and ineffective. Nowhere is that contrast more clear than the switch from the Obama to the Trump Administration. One of the most well-known climate change achievements under the Obama Administration was the championing of the landmark Paris Agreement. The US, an outspoken leader of this agreement, was often on the forefront pushing for more action and higher goals within the agreement. Trump, on the other hand, has been an outspoken climate change denier, whose words and tweets come often into conflict with his own agencies. Despite many reports, both national and international, on the threats of climate change, Trump has done very little on the subject. In fact, he has done quite the opposite, mostly by rolling back environmental protection policies in favor of economic growth. And then there is also the historic decision to remove the US from the Paris Agreement.

​

Despite the traction under some administrations to move towards solving climate change, comparatively speaking, there has been very little done on the federal level to solve climate change. The inaction on the federal level has left states and local municipalities to pick up the slack. US states and cities have developed a plethora of different programs and initiatives to promote cooperation on this issue. The lack of federal action has left a void for states to make their own climate action plans to reduce emissions within their own borders.

 

US STATES WITH CLIMATE ACTION PLANS

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

Furthermore, under the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI),  a Cities for Climate Protection campaign that has grown to include over 650 local governments worldwide, including 171 US municipalities.

 

The adaptability of policy:

​

In general, Americans are more tax-averse than Germans. A noticeable shift in energy costs, to that extent experienced in Germany, could be more politically disruptive in American than it had been in Germany. There is a window for opportunity with an American adaptation that is not possible in Germany. Due to EU competition laws, Germany cannot directly subsidize current domestic industries. What could be changed in this policy to make it more feasible in American would be a government share in the cost burden associated with the FiTs. In this model, the US government would shoulder some of the burden of assuring renewable energy providers above the market rates for their energy, which would make any FiT-related energy cost increases more palatable to an American electorate. This would be only short to medium term to help incubate the sector until it is strong enough to compete with regular market forces. I do not argue that passing such legislation in the US would be easy, but it would be a leap in the right direction in helping support the American renewable energy sector, that is lagging far behind many of its Western counterparts.

​

According to Pew Research Center poll data, more Americans now than ever believe in climate change, experience climate change and view climate change as a real threat. It has been assumed for quite some time that issues like terrorism, healthcare and, especially economic performance, have been at the top of the American electorate’s priority list. And that has been, for a long time very true. However, public polling data is showing a noticeable shift in public opinion. There has been a downward decline in public opinion viewing economic issues as a top priority. In 2010, 83% of people view the economy as a top priority. That number has decreased to 71% in 2018. What is instead rising as important issues among the American electorate in the past years has been issues like immigration, transportation, and the environment. This is not to say that issues like the economy and healthcare still do not dominate the American political narrative, but it does show that these issues are so pivotal as they used to be.

​

As was previously mentioned, climate change has become a politized issue in American politics. Data shows that while some issues like opioid addiction and infrastructure enjoy almost equal support from both sides of the political spectrum, issues like climate change and the environment are cast mainly between partisan and demographic lines. Democrats are overwhelmingly in support of climate change action as a top priority with about 81% compared 37% of Republicans. To further understand the politicization of this topic, it’s necessary to see how science plays a role in influencing someone’s opinion on climate change and energy policy. The answer is very little. Polls show that political affiliation is a stronger determinate on one’s view of climate change than science. Science, according to these same polls, as has more of an influence on the democratic voters than Republican voters. Whereas more 93% of science-educated democratic voters believe in climate change, there is almost no correlation to science-educated republicans and their belief in climate change. It is important to note that not all Republicans view climate change as a non-important issue. Age also has a rather strong influence on one’s views on climate change. The 18-29 age group is the group with the highest support for both environmental protection and belief in global climate change. This translates to millennial Republicans as well, where young Republicans were twice as likely to believe in a human link in the role of climate change, and furthermore, there is near 30 point decrease in the support of fossil fuels among millennial Republicans compared to their baby boomer counterparts.

​

With these factors in mind, we can begin to hypothesize the implementability of a FiT policy in the US. It is with a high degree of confidence that under the current administration a nationwide FiT scheme is highly unlikely. The president, along with being a climate denier, is also tax-weary. A FiT scheme that would inevitably raise energy costs on the consumer would be politically damaging to the current administration. Passing it through a democratically controlled Congress could be politically feasible, but would require expending quite a lot of political capital and then would go on to see a new slew of difficulties in the Senate.  However, this policy does see a window of opportunity in the 2020 election. Considering the above information, if a Democratic candidate were to be elected to the presidency, it would be quite reasonably predicted that as the climate-related issues engage many young voters, sweeping climate change legislation could find a policy window.

​

In short, an Americanized version of German FiT system, which would include the US government taking a short- to medium-term share of the financial burden of FiTs, will not become politically possible until 2020 if a democratically elected candidate is put into the White House.

​

​

​

​

Background:

​

India is one of the world’s largest polluters, and has long been an issue in global environmental policy. In recent years, however, India has adopted plans that show optimism in combating  global climate change. India’s agreement to voluntarily reduce its carbon emissions was revised in recent years in the form of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) in the 2015 Paris Agreement. One of the driving motivations of India’s gradual environmental policy changes are the concerns surrounding its energy security.

2008 has been noted as a landmark year in Indian environmental policy due to the declaration of India’s National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC). This action plan has eight missions: National Solar Mission, National Mission for Enhanced Energy Efficiency, National Mission on Sustainable Habitat, National Water Mission, National Mission for Sustaining the Himalayan Ecosystem, National Mission for a Green India, National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture and National Mission on Strategic Knowledge for Climate Change. For the purposes of sustainable energy practices, we will focus on the National Solar Mission and the National Mission for Energy Efficiency, mainly through enhancing the use of solar energy through research and development programmes and the execution of energy efficiency methods.

​

The National Solar Mission focuses on ultimately bolstering solar energy development to make the industry competitive against fossil-based energy options. It involves the establishment of a solar research center, increased international collaboration on technology development, strengthening of domestic manufacturing capacity, and increasing government funding.

​

The National Mission for Enhanced Energy Efficiency suggests specific energy consumption mandates in larger energy-consuming industries. This includes a system for companies to trade energy-saving certificates and public-private partnership funding to reduce energy consumption through demand-side management programs. There is also a reduced tax incentive on energy-efficient appliances.

There are a few other ongoing initiatives in this program that are relevant, as well. For instance, the NAPCC calls for the retirement of inefficient coal-fired power plants, as well as investing in Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC), a process that turns coal into pressurized gas on limits its emissions, and other supercritical technologies. The central and the state electricity regulatory commissions are also required to purchase a certain amount of grid-based power from renewable sources via the 2003 Electricity Act and the 2006 National Tariff Policy. Also, under the Energy Conservation Act of 2001, large energy-consuming industries are required to partake in energy audits and participate in an energy-labeling program for appliances. As far as implementation goes, Ministries with lead responsibility for each mission are required to report evaluations to the Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

​

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

Assessment of its Effectiveness:

​

It has been difficult to track the success of this plan. Aspects of the plan have changed a little over the years, and the multiple compartments and reporting mechanisms make this difficult. India’s climate change woes have gotten worse, so if the policy is helping, it certainly is not enough by itself. India is the 12th most vulnerable country to climate change impacts, according to the Global Climate Risk Index of 2018. Every year, climate-related events cause an average of 3,570 deaths, and the cost of climate change impact is projected to reach trillions of dollars.

​

A main issue with this plan was that it only provided broad objectives and does not address specific strategy. Ineffective monitoring and lack of budgetary support from the government have hindered progress. Perhaps this plan was rolled out more as an effort to garner international clout and not to actually impact climate change in a useful way. There has been highlights, however, such as the establishment of 702 new hydrological observation stations (out of a goal of 800), meant to improve flood forecasting and warning systems.

​

While falling short of its plan for solar energy, the Solar Mission is perhaps the best-performing aspect of the NAPCC. India has established 18,455 MW out of its eventual goal of 100 GW, which would require an additional 81,545 MW in about four years. This will be very hard to achieve, but the mission certainly has put an emphasis on implementing solar energy. For India’s National Mission for Enhanced Energy Efficiency (NMEEE), the most important aspect to watch is the Perform, Achieve, and Trade (PAT) initiative. This is a four cycle mission that aims to create an energy-efficient economy and is key to India’s climate change strategy. According to the Bureau of Energy Efficiency in 2018, about 400 large industries participated in the first cycle and their steps to improve energy efficiency are already having an impact.

 

Likelihood of Adaptation:

​

It would be very difficult to pass legislation like this in the United States, unfortunately. Aspects, such as being required to buy a certain amount of grid power from renewable sources and the increased accountability and oversight of large emitters would be seen as detrimental to large private business in the country. Perhaps, by emphasizing incentives and assessing the detrimental costs of combating global climate change in the near future, a policy such as this could be seen as more favorable. Our government would certainly be able to oversee a policy such as this and probably be able to implement it in a more streamlined and effective manner. With India’s incredibly large population and its structuring of each Mission as having separate goals and oversight makes reporting and monitoring the NAPCC as a whole extremely difficult. Having the entire program together, and having an oversight of the plan as a whole could prove more efficient.

​

Democrats would certainly have an easier time adopting a plan such as this. Left-leaning candidates are more inviting of corporate responsibility and government oversight of the private sector, but for these same reasons, Republican candidates would vehemently oppose these ideas. By hopefully focusing on the incentives of saving costs via energy efficiency, and if the rising costs of climate change mitigation are brought to light, a policy such as this could be seen as necessary and the government oversight could be an eventuality.

​

​

​