DOCSLIB.ORG

Supporting Community Investment in Commercial Renewable Energy Schemes Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supporting Community Investment in Commercial Renewable Energy Schemes Final Report Supporting Community Investment in Commercial Renewable Energy Schemes Final Report Claire Haggett, Mhairi Aitken, David Rudolph, Bregje van Veelen, University of Edinburgh Jelte Harnmeijer, Scene Consulting and James Hutton Institute Marianna Markantoni, Scotland’s Rural College Executive Summary A review of community investment in commercial renewable energy schemes was commissioned by the Scottish Government Onshore Renewables and Community Energy Team. This report presents an analysis of the factors which support and limit the ability of communities to invest in commercial renewable energy schemes, and makes recommendations for action based on domestic and international evidence. It concludes that there is significant potential for increased community investment in commercial energy schemes, given the appropriate support, funding and advice. Current context In Scotland, there are currently 12 operational commercial renewable energy projects that have seen some form of community investment1. Taken together, these projects account for just over 21 MW of current operational Scottish renewables capacity. This limited experience was reflected in survey results, with only a quarter of respondents reporting any substantial experience. There is however a real interest in developing community investment opportunities. Key Findings Community investment in commercial energy projects has the potential for far-reaching and positive impacts. This research has demonstrated that there is much interest in, and enthusiasm for, increasing community investment in commercial energy projects in Scotland. However, it has also highlighted a lack of experience in this area and considerable uncertainty or hesitancy. Indeed, a significant issue that arose throughout this project was the difficulty of accessing the requisite finance, which was often cited as a key reason why community investment does not move forward. Key recommendations for action are made, which include: 1 Energy Archipelago Database, May 2014. The total number is 13 if Housing Associations are counted as communities. ClimateXChange is Scotland’s Centre of Expertise on Climate Change, supporting the Scottish Government’s0 policy development on climate change mitigation, adaptation and the transition to a low carbon economy. The centre delivers objective, independent, integrated and authoritative evidence in response to clearly specified policy questions. www.climatexchange.org.uk • The development of further guidance and support materials to facilitate community investment, tailored for both communities and developers, and reflecting the different needs of these groups • The development of opportunities for sharing experiences and building contacts through networking events or activities which connect a range of stakeholders and enable mutual learning and mentoring schemes. • The appointment of independent project managers (not connected to a developer or community), as well as named contacts within organisations, would facilitate communication and project momentum. • Improved access to start-up finance for communities, as well as clear guidance on how and where it can be accessed. • Clarification over the definition of ‘communities’ in this context, and the implications for both community investment and broader public engagement with the energy sector These recommendations are designed to overcome the key challenges, which are identified as: • The ability to invest, and lack of available finance • Locating and accessing information, knowledge and skills • Targeted advice and support • Lack of trust • Timing and the building of relationships • Community cohesion – knowing with whom to engage and how Balancing Benefits and Costs This research identifies a number of benefits from community investment. For communities, these include anticipated financial revenue, which can help to make other projects more resilient, and provide a guarantee of income that is not dependant on public-sector grants. There is also the potential benefit of capacity building and empowerment. Benefits for developers include potential for a quicker planning process with an increased likelihood of success, and constructive relationships with communities. However, concerns were identified across stakeholder groups, including issues around process complexity and finance. Given that community investment in commercial renewable energy schemes in Scotland is relatively novel, the landscape for accessing support or funding is still developing. Several existing funding models were examined as part of this research, and key issues in selection of the best approach included the nature of the project, the role and response of the developer, and access to funds available. The findings are based on a review of the current position, including existing research and policy, direct engagement with developers, community representatives and other stakeholders regarding their experiences, and analysis of several case studies, both domestic and international. 1 Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 0 Key Findings ............................................................................................................................................ 0 Balancing Benefits and Costs .................................................................................................................. 1 Contents page .................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Terms used in this report ............................................................................................................. 5 Section 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................. 6 Section 2: Methods ...................................................................................................................... 6 Section 3: Structure of the report ................................................................................................. 7 Section 4: Current context ............................................................................................................ 8 4.1 Current projects ................................................................................................................................ 9 4.2 Benefits of shared ownership ........................................................................................................... 9 4.3 Benefits for communities ................................................................................................................ 10 4.4 Benefits for developers ................................................................................................................... 10 4.5 Balancing benefits and costs ........................................................................................................... 11 4.6 Lack of experience .......................................................................................................................... 13 4.7 Sources of Support Currently Available .......................................................................................... 14 Section 5: Models of Community Investment currently used in Scotland ..................................... 17 Characteristic ............................................................................................................................. 17 Types ......................................................................................................................................... 17 Examples ................................................................................................................................... 17 5.1 Community Co-Investment ............................................................................................................. 17 Case study 1: Stewart Energy (South Lanarkshire) ....................................................................... 18 5.2 The ‘Fintry Model’ ........................................................................................................................... 18 Case Study 2: Fintry .................................................................................................................... 19 5.3 The ‘Windcrofting’ Model ............................................................................................................... 20 5.4 Revenue-sharing arrangements ...................................................................................................... 21 Case Study 3: Kilbraur Wind Farm ............................................................................................... 22 5.5 Methods for communities to raise finance for investment ............................................................ 23 5.5.1 Debentures........................................................................................................................... 23 5.5.2 Co-operative Equity ............................................................................................................. 24 5.5.3 Loans and grants .................................................................................................................. 24 2 Section 6: Challenges to shared ownership ................................................................................. 25 6.1 The Ability to Invest .......................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Optimizing the Visual Impact of Onshore Wind Farms Upon the Landscapes – Comparing Recent Planning Approaches in China and Germany
    Ruhr-Universität Bochum Dissertation Submission to the Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Faculty of Geosciences For the degree of Doctor of natural sciences (Dr. rer. nat) Submitted by: Jinjin Guan. MLA Date of the oral examination: 16.07.2020 Examiners Dr. Thomas Held Prof. Dr. Harald Zepp Prof. Dr. Guotai Yan Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Friederich Prof. Dr. Harro Stolpe Keywords Onshore wind farm planning; landscape; landscape visual impact evaluation; energy transition; landscape visual perception; GIS; Germany; China. I Abstract In this thesis, an interdisciplinary Landscape Visual Impact Evaluation (LVIE) model has been established in order to solve the conflicts between onshore wind energy development and landscape protection. It aims to recognize, analyze, and evaluate the visual impact of onshore wind farms upon landscapes and put forward effective mitigation measures in planning procedures. Based on literature research and expert interviews, wind farm planning regimes, legislation, policies, planning procedures, and permission in Germany and China were compared with each other and evaluated concerning their respective advantages and disadvantages. Relevant theories of landscape evaluation have been researched and integrated into the LVIE model, including the landscape connotation, landscape aesthetics, visual perception, landscape functions, and existing evaluation methods. The evaluation principles, criteria, and quantitative indicators are appropriately organized in this model with a hierarchy structure. The potential factors that may influence the visual impact have been collected and categorized into three dimensions: landscape sensitivity, the visual impact of WTs, and viewer exposure. Detailed sub-indicators are also designed under these three topics for delicate evaluation. Required data are collected from official platforms and databases to ensure the reliability and repeatability of the evaluation process.
    [Show full text]
  • Planning for Wind Energy
    Planning for Wind Energy Suzanne Rynne, AICP , Larry Flowers, Eric Lantz, and Erica Heller, AICP , Editors American Planning Association Planning Advisory Service Report Number 566 Planning for Wind Energy is the result of a collaborative part- search intern at APA; Kirstin Kuenzi is a research intern at nership among the American Planning Association (APA), APA; Joe MacDonald, aicp, was program development se- the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the nior associate at APA; Ann F. Dillemuth, aicp, is a research American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), and Clarion associate and co-editor of PAS Memo at APA. Associates. Funding was provided by the U.S. Department The authors thank the many other individuals who con- of Energy under award number DE-EE0000717, as part of tributed to or supported this project, particularly the plan- the 20% Wind by 2030: Overcoming the Challenges funding ners, elected officials, and other stakeholders from case- opportunity. study communities who participated in interviews, shared The report was developed under the auspices of the Green documents and images, and reviewed drafts of the case Communities Research Center, one of APA’s National studies. Special thanks also goes to the project partners Centers for Planning. The Center engages in research, policy, who reviewed the entire report and provided thoughtful outreach, and education that advance green communities edits and comments, as well as the scoping symposium through planning. For more information, visit www.plan- participants who worked with APA and project partners to ning.org/nationalcenters/green/index.htm. APA’s National develop the outline for the report: James Andrews, utilities Centers for Planning conduct policy-relevant research and specialist at the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission; education involving community health, natural and man- Jennifer Banks, offshore wind and siting specialist at AWEA; made hazards, and green communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Factors Affecting the Community Acceptance of Onshore
    sustainability Article Factors Affecting the Community Acceptance of Onshore Wind Farms: A Case Study of the Zhongying Wind Farm in Eastern China Jinjin Guan * and Harald Zepp Institute of Geography, Ruhr University Bochum, 44801 Bochum, Germany; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 5 August 2020; Accepted: 21 August 2020; Published: 25 August 2020 Abstract: The conflict between wind energy expansion and local environmental protection has attracted attention from society and initiated a fierce discussion about the community acceptance of wind farms. There are various empirical studies on factors affecting the public acceptance of wind farms, but little concerning the correlation and significance of factors, especially in a close distance to the wind farms. This paper aims to identify, classify, and analyze the factors affecting community acceptance through literature review, questionnaire, variance analysis, and linear regression analysis. A total of 169 questionnaires was conducted in 17 villages around the Zhongying Wind Farm in Zhejiang Province, China. The factors are categorized into four groups: Location-related factors, demographic factors, environmental impact factors, and public participation factors. Through the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and linear regression analysis, the outcome shows the universal rule of community acceptance under the Chinese social background. Finally, recommendations for improving wind farm planning procedures are put forward. Keywords: onshore wind farm; community acceptance; wind energy planning; environmental impact; public participation; analysis of variance (ANOVA); regression analysis 1. Introduction Wind energy is recognized as a major renewable energy source alternative. It helps reducing CO2 emission and mitigating climate change due to its high performance, wide resource distribution, and competitive prices.
    [Show full text]
  • Wind Powering America Fy08 Activities Summary
    WIND POWERING AMERICA FY08 ACTIVITIES SUMMARY Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Dear Wind Powering America Colleague, We are pleased to present the Wind Powering America FY08 Activities Summary, which reflects the accomplishments of our state Wind Working Groups, our programs at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and our partner organizations. The national WPA team remains a leading force for moving wind energy forward in the United States. At the beginning of 2008, there were more than 16,500 megawatts (MW) of wind power installed across the United States, with an additional 7,000 MW projected by year end, bringing the U.S. installed capacity to more than 23,000 MW by the end of 2008. When our partnership was launched in 2000, there were 2,500 MW of installed wind capacity in the United States. At that time, only four states had more than 100 MW of installed wind capacity. Twenty-two states now have more than 100 MW installed, compared to 17 at the end of 2007. We anticipate that four or five additional states will join the 100-MW club in 2009, and by the end of the decade, more than 30 states will have passed the 100-MW milestone. WPA celebrates the 100-MW milestones because the first 100 megawatts are always the most difficult and lead to significant experience, recognition of the wind energy’s benefits, and expansion of the vision of a more economically and environmentally secure and sustainable future. Of course, the 20% Wind Energy by 2030 report (developed by AWEA, the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and other stakeholders) indicates that 44 states may be in the 100-MW club by 2030, and 33 states will have more than 1,000 MW installed (at the end of 2008, there were six states in that category).
    [Show full text]
  • Maine Wind Energy Development Assessment
    MAINE WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT Report & Recommendations – 2012 Prepared by Governor’s Office of Energy Independence and Security March 2012 Acknowledgements The Office of Energy Independence and Security would like to thank all the contributing state agencies and their staff members who provided us with assistance and information, especially Mark Margerum at the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and Marcia Spencer-Famous and Samantha Horn-Olsen at the Land Use Regulation Commission. Jeff Marks, Deputy Director of the Governor’s Office of Energy Independence and Security (OEIS) served as the primary author and manager of the Maine Wind Energy Development Assessment. Special thanks to Hugh Coxe at the Land Use Regulation Commission for coordination of the Cumulative Visual Impact (CVI) study group and preparation of the CVI report. Coastal Enterprises, Inc. (CEI), Perkins Point Energy Consulting and Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. prepared the economic and energy information and data needed to permit the OEIS to formulate substantive recommendations based on the Maine Wind Assessment 2012, A Report (January 31, 2012). We appreciate the expertise and professional work performed by Stephen Cole (CEI), Stephen Ward (Perkins Point) and Robert Fagan (Synapse.). Michael Barden with the Governor’s Office of Energy Independence and Security assisted with the editing. Jon Doucette, Woodard & Curran designed the cover. We appreciate the candid advice, guidance and information provided by the organizations and individuals consulted by OEIS and those interviewed for the 2012 wind assessment and cited in Attachment 1 of the accompanying Maine Wind Assessment 2012, A Report. Kenneth C. Fletcher Director Governor’s Office of Energy Independence and Security 2 Table of contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • PSC REF#:136311 Public Service Commission of Wisconsin RECEIVED: 08/09/10, 4:11:34 PM
    PSC REF#:136311 Public Service Commission of Wisconsin RECEIVED: 08/09/10, 4:11:34 PM August 9, 2010 Chairperson Eric Callisto Commissioner Mark Meyer Commissioner Lauren Azar Public Service Commission of Wisconsin 610 N. Whitney Way, PO Box 7854 Madison, WI 53707 Re: Final Wind Siting Council Report Proposed Wind Siting Rule (PSC 128) Dear Chairperson Callisto and Commissioners Meyer and Azar: Enclosed for your review is the Final Report of the Wind Siting Council. Over the last four months, the diverse stakeholders on the Council convened together at 20 meetings and held respectful discussion about the myriad of wind energy siting issues in Wisconsin that the rule will ultimately address. This report is a summary of the Council’s work and their subsequent recommendations. On behalf of the Council, I wish to thank you for the opportunity to provide this report as input as you promulgate draft wind siting rules for Wisconsin. As you review this report, I’d especially like to highlight that on a variety of wind siting issues, the Council found areas on which all members did reach consensus. First and foremost, the Council unanimously agreed that wind development in Wisconsin needs to be conducted responsibly. Many recommendations were arrived at only after significant discussions held in the spirit of working toward consensus. The recommendations in this report reflect the input of all Council members. There are areas on which the Council did not reach consensus, but for which Council members shared their diverse experiences and expertise with Commission staff and the Commission for consideration during the final stages of the rulemaking process.
    [Show full text]
  • Co-Ordination Action for Autonomous Desalination Units Based on Renewable Energy Systems October 2005
    Co-ordination Action for Autonomous Desalination Units Based on Renewable Energy Systems (ADU-RES) INCO PROGRAMME MPC-1-50 90 93 Work Package 2 “AUTONOMOUS DESALINATION UNITS USING RES” WP2 Participants CRES, GREECE JRC, EU WIP, GERMANY ITC, SPAIN CREST, U.K. FhG- ISE, GERMANY FM21, MOROCCO INRGREF, TUNISE RSS, JORDAN October 2005 WP2 Participants ORGANIZATION Participant Researchers Centre for Renewable Energy Sources, (CRES) Eftihia TZEN GREECE Joint Research Centre (JRC), EU Neringa NARBUTIENE Robert EDWARDS WIP, Germany Christian EPP Michael PAPAPETROU Instituto Tecnologico de Canarias, (ITC), Spain Baltasar Penate SUAREZ Vicente Subiela ORTIN Gonzalo Piernavieja IZQUIERDO CREST, U.K. Murray THOMSON David INFIELD Fraunhofer ISE, Germany Ulrike SEIBERT Joachim KOSCHIKOWSKI FM21, Morocco Abdelkader MOKHLISSE Mohamed ABOUFIRRAS National Institute for Research on Rural Thameur CHAIBI Engineering, Water and Forestry (INRGREF), Mohamed Nejib REJEB Tunisia Royal Scientific Society (RSS), Jordan Mohammad SAIDAM TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................1 1. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................4 2. DESALINATION RES COUPLING-STATE OF THE ART ...................................7 3. GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR TECHNOLOGIES SELECTION ......................14 4. OVERVIEW
    [Show full text]
  • Photovoltaic-Wind Hybrid Systems for Remote Power Supply. Workshop. [Selected Papers] DISCLAIMER
    Qjo»/f-9nOHm Photovoltaic-wind hybrid systems for remote power supply. Workshop. [Selected Papers] DISCLAIMER Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document. MX,q<?ooooz. THE “VILLAS CARROUSEL” PV- WIND HYBRID PROJECT Jorge M. Huacuz Unidad de Energfas No Convencionales Instituto de Investigaciones Electricas (HE) Mexico ABSTRACT A pilot project was carried out to supply electrical services for an ecological hotel (eco-hotel), using solar and wind energy in Southeast Mexico. Fifteen small photovoltaic-wind hybrid systems were designed and built by researchers of the Electrical Research Institute of Mexico, as part of a cooperation agreement with the mexican company Carrousel Operadora Turistica, aimed at developing a technology package to supply electrical services to similar hotels sited in remote areas. Each hybrid system includes one wind generator of 500W nominal capacity, one PV panel ranging in power from 150W to 320 Watts peak, one lead-acid battery bank of 570 ampere-hour in capacity, and an electronic charge controller.. This paper describes the systems and summarizes the results from the first twelve months of operation. 1. INTRODUCTION In August of 1995, the Electrical Research Institute of Mexico (HE) and the tourism company Carrousel Operadora Turistica signed a cooperation agreement to carry out a pilot project, as proof-of-concept for the application of locally available solar and wind resources to supply electricity to eco-hotels on the mexican coast of the Caribbean Sea. Design and construction work leading to the installation of 12 Photovoltaic-Wind hybrids (PVWH) began one month later.
    [Show full text]
  • The Potential for Community Ownership of Wind Farms in Ireland Table of Contents
    The Potential for Community Ownership of Wind Farms in Ireland Table of Contents Acknowledgements . .1 Foreword . .2 How to Use this Guide . .3 Abbreviations . .3 Potential for Community Ownership of Wind Farms – Key Recommendation . .4 Introduction . .5 PART I – A Profile of Community Investment in Wind Farms . .7 1 Why Ireland Needs more Wind Farms . .9 2 How Communities have already Invested in Wind Energy Projects . .14 3 Potential for Community Ownership of Wind Farms – Findings and Recommendations . .22 PART II – A Guide for Communities Participating in Wind Farm Development . .27 4 Becoming Involved in Wind Farm Development . .29 5 Establishing a Local Group to Develop or Invest in a Wind Farm Project . .31 CONTENTS 6 Assessing Wind Farm Developer’s Projects . .35 F O 7 The Wind Farm Development Process . .40 ABLE T Glossary of Terms . .46 Appendix I Example of possible criteria for prioritising grid access . .49 Appendix II The rate of return required by credit union borrowers . .50 Appendix III Terminology for calculating return on investment . .51 Acknowledgements The Renewable Energy Partnership wish to acknowledge the financial assistance received from Inishowen Rural Development Ltd, South West Mayo Development Company Ltd, Sustainable Energy Ireland and the Western Development Commission. The Renewable Energy Partnership is also grateful for the advice and support received from Mayo Energy Agency Ltd and Donegal Energy Action Team. The research for the ‘Community Ownership of Wind farm Projects’ study was undertaken by CSA Group Ltd and its German partners BBB Umwelttechnik GmbH. The guide and CD Rom were edited by Richard Douthwaite of Mayo Community Wind Energy Group and Fiona Candon of the Western Development Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • Orkney Renewable Energy Case Studies
    Orkney Renewable Energy Case Studies Original Burgar Hill Research Project Richard Gauld Richard Gauld The 3MW and 250kW prototype wind turbines were designed and constructed by the Wind Energy Group during the 1980s. At the same time Howden completed their research and development of their 300kW wind turbine, with all three machines tested on Burgar Hill during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Although each design of machine functioned, and the site produced over 10GWh of electricity, design failings ultimately led to the demolition of these experimental turbines. The 3MW wind turbine demonstrated that Britain could be a world leader in renewable energy, with machines of this scale only now being produced for the commercial market. The Wind Energy Group was a joint venture of British Aerospace, GEC and Taylor Woodrow Construction, and became NEG Micon UK. Local individuals involved in the project included Richard Gauld, now of Orkney Sustainable Energy, Micky Austin of MT Austin Civil Engineers, Ian Heddle, Heddle Construction and Terry O’Hara, Andrew Wilson Electrical. Orkney Sustainable Energy Orkney Renewable Energy Case Studies Burgar Hill Phase II: SRO Projects Richard Gauld Orkney Photographic The establishment of the Scottish Renewable Order allowed the redevelopment of the Burgar Hill site, with the establishment of the NEG Micon 2MW and 1.5MW wind turbines in 2000. During the same year a joint venture between TXU Energy and Orkney Sustainable Energy lead to the erection of a 1.3MW Nordex wind turbine. The Burgar Hill site has an annual mean windspeed in excess of 10 m/s, requiring robust class 1 machines.
    [Show full text]
  • Landowners' Guide to Wind Energy in Alberta
    Landowners’ Guide to Wind Energy in Alberta Tim Weis $ Alex Doukas $ Kristi Anderson (Micro-generation appendix by Gordon Howell) September 2010 ORDER FORM Landowners’ Guide to Landowners’ Wind Energy in Alberta Guide to Wind Energy Format in Alberta :,20= B E * :0<10.> -9?8/ A4>3 ,::08/4.0= :<48> 19<7,> Tim Weis U Alex Doukas U Kristi Anderson Pricing (Appendix by Gordon Howell) -i«ÌiLiÀ 2010 Non-profit organizations and individuals ' '( Corporations :0< .9:C ' '( ,66 19< .9<:9<,>0 /4=.9?8>= 98 -?65 9</0<= %07-48, !8=>4>?>0 # &( Ordering information #,70 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ $<2,84D,>498 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ //<0== ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 4>C +++++++++++++++++++++++ %<[email protected] +++++++++++ %9=>,6 9/0 ++++++++++++++++++++++ %3980 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ,B ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 7,46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Method of Payment 30;?0 7,/0 :,C,-60 >9 >30 %07-48, !8=>4>?>0 )!' ",=>0<,</ ,</ #?7-0< ++++++++++++++++++++++++ B:4<C ,>0 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ #,70 91 ,</396/0< ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ '428,>?<0 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ",46 :3980 1,B 9< 07,46 >9 >30 ,//<0== -069A (30 %07-48, !8=>4>?>0 9B <,C>98 ),660C
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to the Community Wind Farm in Neuenkirchen
    Introduction to the Community Wind Farm in Neuenkirchen Michael Krug Freie Universität Berlin Environmental Policy Research Centre WinWind Transfer Workshop – “Community Owned Wind Farms in Latvia – Possibilities and obstacles” Riga, 10 October 2019 This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement no 764717. The sole responsibility for the content of this presentation lies with its author and in no way reflects the views of the European Union. Mentoring Experts (via Skype) Reimer Schoof • Managing director of the community wind farm in Neuenkirchen Horst Leithoff • Chairman of the regional branch of the German Wind Energy Association in Schleswig-Holstein • Managing director of 4 community wind farms in the region of Northern Friesland Definition of „Community energy“ The economic and operational participation and/or ownership by citizens or members of a defined community in a renewable energy project (IRENA 2018) Source: Clean Energy Wire, Data: trend:research, AEE 2017 Key drivers of community wind farms • Supportive legal and policy framework • Before 2017: Renewable Energy Sources Act provides guaranteed minimum remuneration via feed-in tariffs and feed in premiums Low market risks and high investment security Farmers, landowners, individuals, communities and cooperatives can relatively easily access financing Operators of the community wind farm in Neuenkirchen benefit from attractive feed in premiums 2017 transition to auctioning system (→ tendency
    [Show full text]