For example, if energy from fossil fuel generation were billed to customers 0.10 cents per kilowatt hour, energy from renewables would likely command 0.20 cents or more for the same kilowatt hour.

The feed-in tariff is already widely used in Germany, and similar programs in Greece, Italy, Turkey and South Korea have boosted renewable energy markets. Closer to home, Ontario, Canada and Gainesville, Florida, have also adopted German-style feed-in tariffs.

In Germany, the policy increased solar manufacturing and installation, thus driving down the cost of solar and making it more competitive with fossil-fuel generation. However, as a whole, the feed-in tariff system doesn’t work well where fossil-fuel generation prices are low (as in the United States), or where a plethora of utilities – sometimes serving the same state – create a welter of policies. Nor does it encourage energy conservation. And it has even been known to have the opposite effect of stimulating renewables, as witness the recent fiasco in the Spanish solar marketplace, where the rollback of 2008 FiTs has left the solar industry dazed.

It won’t work as a standalone solution in California, says Sue Kateley, executive director of the California Solar Energy Industry Association, who advises a combination of different programs, including a retail electricity program aimed at energy conservation, a utility-scale program, and a wholesale-electricity program.

In spite of that, California’s Attorney General, Jerry Brown, filed (on June 25) with the state’s utility commission arguing that feed-in tariffs are not only legal under federal statutes, but should be used to spur the growth of renewables.

It’s a significant policy maneuver, in that feed-in tariff opponents may find themselves outvoted and outwitted by the California Public Utility Commission (PUC), which is currently conducting hearings on the matter in conjunction with the state’s renewable portfolio standard (RPS; 33 percent by 2020).

Of course, since the AG is the legal arm of California government, but the PUC gets to set electricity rates and determines utility standards, it may turn out to be a regional political storm for which California is becoming famous (as witness Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and budget opponents).

But it has inspired hope in feed-in advocates, and supports the conclusions of a March National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) report that suggests FiTs and RPS’ can work well in conjunction.

As report co-author Karlynn Cory notes, RPS policies set the goal and let the market figure out the path, so the choice between RPS and Fits doesn’t have to be an either-or. A third NREL report focusing on FiT best practices will be issued later this year.

Ron Kenedi, vice president at Sharp Solar Energy Solutions Group, makes the either-or argument moot by noting that America doesn’t need feed-in tariffs to drive solar energy. In fact, Kenedi sees the lack of feed-in tariffs as a strength, allowing the U.S. solar industry – which is still taking shape, and likely won’t explode until 2012 – to “grow naturally” into its full solar potential, rather than being forced into a particular shape by legislation.

In the end, it may simply come down to government’s ability to legislate FiTs based on the type of technology, application (rooftop vs. ground installation), and size. However, doing this across the board in the U.S. – for 3,100 public utilities, 2,100 non-utility power producers, five independent system operators, and a transmission system that has only recently begun adapting to renewables – may represent the greatest challenge in setting prices and contract lengths.

In short, FiTs, for all their dynamism, may not fit.

It doesn’t list Pueblo, Colorado, and Pueblo County Public Works Director Greg Severance wants to know why, particularly since the Pueblo Chemical Depot – a chemical weapons storage depot – has hundreds of acres of unused land sitting idle that could be devoted to commercial solar installations.

Actually, the reasons why the Depot was excluded are fairly self-evident. The agency managing the land, the Pueblo Depot Reuse Authority, typically has to go through the Defense Department to make any major land-use changes. This can be a long and arduous process. For example, the Reuse Authority spent seven years trying to include vacant rail spurs in the master plan in order to start sub-leasing track to a Texas firm. The plan was finally approved in 2006.

More recently, Helios Energy attempted to buy land at the facility, but was stalled by the fact that the facility will be in a quagmire of conflicting dominions until the last of the stockpiled weapons is destroyed, sometime between 2017 and 2020.

Helios had previously opted to go the lease route, but found that said lease – for 25 years under a power purchase agreement (PPA) with Xcel Energy – would likely be invalid, since the Reuse Authority might not be a viable agency once the mustard gas was disposed of.

Currently, Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) is attempting to put through legislation that would transfer surplus depot land to the agency that currently sub-leases facilities and other Depot property to private tenants, and one other firm has approached the Depot’s Reuse Authority with an eye to building a commercial solar installation.

The Pueblo question is not, however, uppermost in Severance’s mind. He also wants to know why much of Colorado was largely ignored – a premise supported by Todd Hartman, spokesman for the governor’s energy office, who confirmed that the study left out much of the state because it did not have strong representation, with only one member from the (Colorado) Governor’s Energy Office on a steering committee of 28 members.

Severance, who admits he didn’t even hear about the WREZ report until he attended a governors’ conference meeting in Park City, Utah, suspects the problem may lie with the fact that the Colorado portion of the study was done by a contractor.

Severance had since been in touch with Colorado Governor Bill Ritter’s office, and his letter concerning the oversight points out that the Army acknowledges 21,693 acres of Depot land stand unused. In addition, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory – which has 7 out of 17 of its solar radiance monitoring stations (MIDC) in Colorado – has already listed Pueblo and several other areas as excellent resources for solar generation.

Even more important, according to Severance, is the fact that Pueblo and surrounding areas already have the transmission infrastructure a number of the 54 locations lack. However, his arguments may be moot, since Interior Secretary has already “fast-tracked” 21,000 acres in Colorado for solar development. Just not necessarily the same 21,000 acres.

In terms of size, the largest planned solar farm in the United States (and possibly the world) is Rancho Cielo in Belen, New Mexico. When completed, this thin-film installation by Signet Solar will provide 600 megawatts of electricity on a mere 700 acres. Think what Signet could do with 35 times as much space!